RE: BJ ban?

RE: BJ ban? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

Lucylastic -> RE: BJ ban? (9/3/2013 7:00:37 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DaddySatyr quote: ORIGINAL: TheHeretic I need to get moving this morning, and don't have time to go Googling. Would that have been around the time John Edwards was having his corruption trial? After all, a state AG is far more important in defining a political party than a vice-Presidential nominee... Gotta run. Ya'll have a lovely day! Bingo, Rich! quote: ORIGINAL On June 3, 2011, Edwards was indicted by a North Carolina grand jury on six felony charges of violating multiple federal campaign contribution laws to cover up an extramarital affair to which he admitted following his 2008 campaign. Edwards's trial began on April 23, 2012, and had he been convicted, he would have faced up to 30 years in prison and a $1.5 million fine.[2] On May 31, 2012, Edwards was found not guilty on one count, and the judge declared a mistrial on the remaining five charges, as the jury was unable to come to an agreement.[3] On June 13, 2012, the Justice Department announced that it dropped the charges and will not attempt to retry Edwards.[4] ahem...that was 2012, not this year....which is the date in question

DomKen -> RE: BJ ban? (9/3/2013 7:02:36 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DaddySatyr quote: ORIGINAL: TheHeretic I need to get moving this morning, and don't have time to go Googling. Would that have been around the time John Edwards was having his corruption trial? After all, a state AG is far more important in defining a political party than a vice-Presidential nominee... Gotta run. Ya'll have a lovely day! Bingo, Rich! quote: ORIGINAL On June 3, 2011, Edwards was indicted by a North Carolina grand jury on six felony charges of violating multiple federal campaign contribution laws to cover up an extramarital affair to which he admitted following his 2008 campaign. Edwards's trial began on April 23, 2012, and had he been convicted, he would have faced up to 30 years in prison and a $1.5 million fine.[2] On May 31, 2012, Edwards was found not guilty on one count, and the judge declared a mistrial on the remaining five charges, as the jury was unable to come to an agreement.[3] On June 13, 2012, the Justice Department announced that it dropped the charges and will not attempt to retry Edwards.[4] May 31 2012 is not late June or late July which is when the ladies linked above posted on the subject. Someone is simply making shit up to try and deflect attention from a guy who is considered an up and comer in the Republican party but is also a prude and wannabe sex cop.

Hillwilliam -> RE: BJ ban? (9/3/2013 7:02:42 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: TheHeretic quote: ORIGINAL: Lucylastic quote: ORIGINAL: TheHeretic And another meaningless fundy is going to be made famous. These stories about nobody Republicans often seem to "break" right around the time a somebody Democrat gets convicted or goes off to prison on corruption charges. Will Jesse Jackson Jr. be arriving at his new home this week? Tazzy posted about it back in june http://www.collarchat.com/fb.asp?m=4479929 I posted this back in july http://www.collarchat.com/fb.asp?m=4505672 I need to get moving this morning, and don't have time to go Googling. Would that have been around the time John Edwards was having his corruption trial? Only about a year off.

thishereboi -> RE: BJ ban? (9/3/2013 7:40:57 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: TheHeretic And another meaningless fundy is going to be made famous. These stories about nobody Republicans often seem to "break" right around the time a somebody Democrat gets convicted or goes off to prison on corruption charges. Will Jesse Jackson Jr. be arriving at his new home this week? This isn't the first time this guy has been brought up. Do you honestly think that once someone on the left has heard of a republican doing something stupid they are only going to comment on it once? They will continue to start threads on it to prove how superior they are to the right. Kinda childish but it seems to be all they have.

Lucylastic -> RE: BJ ban? (9/3/2013 7:53:01 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: thishereboi This isn't the first time this guy has been brought up. Do you honestly think that once someone on the left has heard of a republican doing something stupid they are only going to comment on it once? They will continue to start threads on it to prove how superior they are to the right. Kinda childish but it seems to be all they have. Seeing as he has put forward some very ridiculous ideas, regarding womens healthcare, personhood, zero abortion even under rape and incest, that we arent going to mention it? yea dream on, for whatever reason you think we post his dumbassery I take responsibility ONLY for MY posts and you are damn sure while this jerk is doin what he is doing, I would post about it. dem or repub. If it was one issue, hes a twat, with all his issues, hes made for mentioning more than once.

tazzygirl -> RE: BJ ban? (9/3/2013 7:55:39 AM)
quote: This isn't the first time this guy has been brought up. Do you honestly think that once someone on the left has heard of a republican doing something stupid they are only going to comment on it once? They will continue to start threads on it to prove how superior they are to the right. Kinda childish but it seems to be all they have. Care to wager on how often BOTH sides do that? Or are you simply talking out of the republican side of your mouth today?

thishereboi -> RE: BJ ban? (9/3/2013 7:59:12 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tazzygirl quote: This isn't the first time this guy has been brought up. Do you honestly think that once someone on the left has heard of a republican doing something stupid they are only going to comment on it once? They will continue to start threads on it to prove how superior they are to the right. Kinda childish but it seems to be all they have. Care to wager on how often BOTH sides do that? Or are you simply talking out of the republican side of your mouth today? Of course both sides do it. Duh but this thread isn't about the other side today, it's about this guy.

tazzygirl -> RE: BJ ban? (9/3/2013 8:08:37 AM)
And your post was not about just this guy. The swipes are becoming more childish than the topics themselves.

thishereboi -> RE: BJ ban? (9/3/2013 6:05:45 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tazzygirl And your post was not about just this guy. The swipes are becoming more childish than the topics themselves. Not the first time you have called me childish, but if it really bothers you please feel free to use the hide button.

TheHeretic -> RE: BJ ban? (9/3/2013 6:53:49 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Hillwilliam Only about a year off. From the indictment, yes, but the trial was in 2012. Verdict came back end of May, and DOJ announced they wouldn't retry on the 5 mistrail counts in mid-June. That was right there in the same snip Michael provided, but libs only read far enough to find the first rock to throw it seems. If I ever wind up kicking it for a while on disability, it would be a fun little research project to draw some timelines of nobody Republican "scandals" that suck up a lot of air, right alongside little tidbits like a Democrat in the US House of Representatives being allowed to quietly resign over the rape of a teenage girl (Oh. Sorry. My bad. A misunderstood sexual encounter, and nineteen isn't actually a teen). Really, the top of the chart currently goes to a state assembly Republican getting national coverage after being cited and released for pot and speeding, when yet another Democrat from the US House of Representatives, already resigned in disgrace, was convicted of using his campaign funds as personal piggybank.

Lucylastic -> RE: BJ ban? (9/3/2013 7:19:49 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: TheHeretic quote: ORIGINAL: Hillwilliam Only about a year off. From the indictment, yes, but the trial was in 2012. Verdict came back end of May, and DOJ announced they wouldn't retry on the 5 mistrail counts in mid-June. That was right there in the same snip Michael provided, but libs only read far enough to find the first rock to throw it seems. If I ever wind up kicking it for a while on disability, it would be a fun little research project to draw some timelines of nobody Republican "scandals" that suck up a lot of air, right alongside little tidbits like a Democrat in the US House of Representatives being allowed to quietly resign over the rape of a teenage girl (Oh. Sorry. My bad. A misunderstood sexual encounter, and nineteen isn't actually a teen). Really, the top of the chart currently goes to a state assembly Republican getting national coverage after being cited and released for pot and speeding, when yet another Democrat from the US House of Representatives, already resigned in disgrace, was convicted of using his campaign funds as personal piggybank. On June 13, 2012, the Justice Department announced that it dropped the charges and will not attempt to retry Edwards.[4] Not 2013, and cucch was this year..not last. Last year was the mcdonnel with the rapey ultrasound bills, ... And if you had found any more on Wu you would have been screaming at the top of your lungs.... and still ignoring all the womens health /sexuality/adultery/etc issues.

TheHeretic -> RE: BJ ban? (9/3/2013 7:35:19 PM)
Seriously, Lucy, did you just minimize a rape of a teenager as insufficient to care about, and in the very next sentence accuse me of ignoring women's issues? quote: ORIGINAL: Lucylastic And if you had found any more on Wu you would have been screaming at the top of your lungs.... and still ignoring all the womens health /sexuality/adultery/etc issues. Yes. Yes you did. Some people shouldn't get too passionate about their partisan cheerleading. It fucks up their souls. Maybe I'm not the only one who badly needs a vacation.

DomKen -> RE: BJ ban? (9/3/2013 8:26:31 PM)
And that is Rich trying to change the subject after getting caught repeatedly just making shit up.

Lucylastic -> RE: BJ ban? (9/3/2013 8:31:07 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: TheHeretic Seriously, Lucy, did you just minimize a rape of a teenager as insufficient to care about, and in the very next sentence accuse me of ignoring women's issues? quote: ORIGINAL: Lucylastic And if you had found any more on Wu you would have been screaming at the top of your lungs.... and still ignoring all the womens health /sexuality/adultery/etc issues. Yes. Yes you did. Some people shouldn't get too passionate about their partisan cheerleading. It fucks up their souls. Maybe I'm not the only one who badly needs a vacation. [8\|][sm=yeahright.gif]

graceadieu -> RE: BJ ban? (9/3/2013 9:28:35 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: TheHeretic And another meaningless fundy is going to be made famous. These stories about nobody Republicans often seem to "break" right around the time a somebody Democrat gets convicted or goes off to prison on corruption charges. Will Jesse Jackson Jr. be arriving at his new home this week? I don't think that the Republican candidate for governor of Virginia, a swing state that leans red, is a "meaningless fundy" or a "nobody Republican". He probably would've won, if he hadn't opened his mouth and let all his dumbass opinions out. I do wonder, though, if it's all some crazy ploy to distract the public from Bob McDonnell's (current VA Republican governor) ongoing bribery scandal.

leonine -> RE: BJ ban? (9/4/2013 7:35:33 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DaddySatyr Sodomy should be banned at all costs. It leads to drug use and promiscuity and all sorts of evils foisted upon us by the devil. God was right, at Sodom & Gomorrah. Regards, Paul The Apostle The awful sin for which the Cities of the Plain deserved to be hit by a volcano was that they didn't shelter strangers the way good desert nomads like the Hebrews did. Lot was spared because (even after living in the city for a while) he held to that code even if it meant sacrificing his daughters. (Though a couple of mere daughters weren't much of a sacrifice, if he'd been prepared to sacrifice a son or two that would have been impressive.) The fact that the city mob wanted to rape the strangers was a minor side issue for the original authors and hearers of the story. It was only when the Hebrews had become city folks themselves, and forgotten nomad morality, that the point of the story was lost and it was misread as God-hates-fags.

DaddySatyr -> RE: BJ ban? (9/4/2013 2:04:14 PM)
It's called "sarcasm"

DaddySatyr -> RE: BJ ban? (9/4/2013 2:05:53 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: TheHeretic Really, the top of the chart currently goes to a state assembly Republican getting national coverage after being cited and released for pot and speeding, when yet another Democrat from the US House of Representatives, already resigned in disgrace, was convicted of using his campaign funds as personal piggybank. I'm going to start a new thread, I think, about "Silence From The Left" (As a primer, I'll start with Tom Menino)

MasterCaneman -> RE: BJ ban? (9/4/2013 2:30:52 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: leonine quote: ORIGINAL: DaddySatyr Sodomy should be banned at all costs. It leads to drug use and promiscuity and all sorts of evils foisted upon us by the devil. God was right, at Sodom & Gomorrah. Regards, Paul The Apostle The awful sin for which the Cities of the Plain deserved to be hit by a volcano was that they didn't shelter strangers the way good desert nomads like the Hebrews did. Lot was spared because (even after living in the city for a while) he held to that code even if it meant sacrificing his daughters. (Though a couple of mere daughters weren't much of a sacrifice, if he'd been prepared to sacrifice a son or two that would have been impressive.) The fact that the city mob wanted to rape the strangers was a minor side issue for the original authors and hearers of the story. It was only when the Hebrews had become city folks themselves, and forgotten nomad morality, that the point of the story was lost and it was misread as God-hates-fags. I always thought Sodom and Gomorrah were wiped out by the aliens using either a nuclear weapon or waste fuel from their engines. See what I get for listening to von Däniken...

DaddySatyr -> RE: BJ ban? (9/4/2013 2:46:08 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: MasterCaneman I always thought Sodom and Gomorrah were wiped out by the aliens using either a nuclear weapon or waste fuel from their engines. That's only if you watch "Ancient Aliens" on History Channel. Talk about a religious belief system! I forced myself to sit through two episodes and every "fact" they put forth starts with: "If you believe that aliens have visited this planet then, it's not outrageous to believe ..." Regards, Isaac Asimov

Page: << < prev 1 [2] 3 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.296875