Collarspace Discussion Forums


Home  Login  Search 

RE: The ignorance of liberals


View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
 
All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion >> RE: The ignorance of liberals Page: <<   < prev  20 21 [22] 23 24   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: The ignorance of liberals - 7/15/2014 11:15:31 AM   
thompsonx


Posts: 23322
Joined: 10/1/2006
Status: offline
ORIGINAL: quizzicalkitten

Well Tommy boy,

Only your mother is allowed to call me that. I will thank you to keep a civil tongue in your mouth.


I was speaking about configuring a server in a raid configuration....

No! you were speaking about how a 10 year old is smarter than you.





The truth is Ive had more intelligent political conversations with 10 year olds than with you and special ed hunting kenny.

Then I would sugest that you go back to talking to 10 year olds because that seems to be the educational level you choose to operate at.



(in reply to quizzicalkitten)
Profile   Post #: 421
RE: The ignorance of liberals - 7/15/2014 11:19:53 AM   
quizzicalkitten


Posts: 312
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: thompsonx

ORIGINAL: quizzicalkitten

Well Tommy boy,

Only your mother is allowed to call me that. I will thank you to keep a civil tongue in your mouth.


I was speaking about configuring a server in a raid configuration....

No! you were speaking about how a 10 year old is smarter than you.





The truth is Ive had more intelligent political conversations with 10 year olds than with you and special ed hunting kenny.

Then I would sugest that you go back to talking to 10 year olds because that seems to be the educational level you choose to operate at.





Oh Tommy, If youve been fucking my mother, I regret to inform you you now have HIV... Sorry about that... I hear the health care plan now covers the drugs so you can live a nice long life...

I was talking about how a 10 year old can do a raid configuration.... Ive been able to do it since 14.... But then I wasnt born in 2004...

You twisted it into.... 10 year olds should be voting...

IF you are an example of the voting populous...

I agree a 10 year old should be able to vote instead of you....

But Enjoy the cocktail I hear it tastes like sherbert...

(in reply to thompsonx)
Profile   Post #: 422
RE: The ignorance of liberals - 7/15/2014 11:58:13 AM   
mnottertail


Posts: 60698
Joined: 11/3/2004
Status: offline
You said the AR was built to kill and nothing else.
A round that isn't big enough to hunt deer isn't much of a killer.

The size of bullets used to take game with is cotrolled by legislative action not the balistics of a given cartridge.

%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

Many deer in Minnesota are taken with a .223 I would say about 75% of the states allow .223 for deer hunting including AL.

If it can kill a man, it can kill a deer.

_____________________________

Have they not divided the prey; to every man a damsel or two? Judges 5:30


(in reply to thishereboi)
Profile   Post #: 423
RE: The ignorance of liberals - 7/15/2014 12:05:10 PM   
BamaD


Posts: 20687
Joined: 2/27/2005
Status: offline
2/3rds of the country believed the Clinton impeachment was political and that he should not have been impeached. Which ultimately is what will drive any successful future impeachment. Whatever crime the President does has got to convince the overwhelming majority of Americans that he has got to go. It is insufficient that the right wing echo chamber believes it. You have to convince the ret of us and that simply didn't happen then and isn't happening now..

Typical liberal thinking, the polls count more than the law.

_____________________________

Government ranges from a necessary evil to an intolerable one. Thomas Paine

People don't believe they can defend themselves because they have guns, they have guns because they believe they can defend themselves.

(in reply to DomKen)
Profile   Post #: 424
RE: The ignorance of liberals - 7/15/2014 12:06:31 PM   
mnottertail


Posts: 60698
Joined: 11/3/2004
Status: offline
Ja, if that be true, perhaps you could cite some real world examples? I didn't think so.

_____________________________

Have they not divided the prey; to every man a damsel or two? Judges 5:30


(in reply to BamaD)
Profile   Post #: 425
RE: The ignorance of liberals - 7/15/2014 12:08:23 PM   
BamaD


Posts: 20687
Joined: 2/27/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: njlauren


quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD


quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD


quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: subrosaDom
Absolutely correct. I should have been clearer here, to wit, there's no point in impeachment because conviction in the Senate is impossible.


If there is a strong case for impeachment, outside of petty political bickering, they should impeach asap. There is zero reason to not impeach. If there is strong evidence that proves the articles of impeachment to be correct, We the People will see it, and the Democrats in the Senate will end up with egg on their face if they don't find the President guilty.

I think the House is "suing" just for grandstanding and the GOP leadership don't believe they have a strong case to bring forth Articles of Impeachment.


If conviction is impossible articles of impeachment would only be used to "prove" that the Reps are extremists no matter how strong the case. See the Clinton impeachment when Dem senators like Byrd said the charges were impeachable and that he was clearly guilty but voted to acquit because there was less than 2 years left in his term. And as you see it is an article of faith that it was a purely political impeachment.
"If you strike at the King you must kill him" (don't impeach unless you can win)

Byrd's statement was that the impeachment was too blatantly partisan and that 2/3rds of the American people did not want Clinton removed from office so he would not vote to convict.
http://edition.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/stories/1999/02/12/senate.statements/byrd.html

But you nuts go ahead and try, try again. You're never going to be satisfied till you actually do get a Democrat. So keep trying.

He said that perjury is an impeachable offense and that he had no doubt that Clinton was guilty. The rest was window dressing. If it was guilty that is all that matters.
As for the rest of your BS, you will never hear me saying that Nixon should have been acquitted even though there was massive political motivation in his prosecution.
You should also note that it was Sen Baker (R TN) who asked the definitive question in the hearings "what did the President know and when did he know it?" Also Nixon resigned because Goldwater and two other Rep Sen told him to.
If Clinton had been a Republican I would have favored impeachment and it would have been successful because some Republican Senators would have voted guilty.

Politics in the Nixon prosecution? You've lost it. There was no prosecution to start with. There was an investigation. An investigation that so disgusted the Senate Republicans that they told him he was going to get convicted so he resigned rather than face the inevitable.

Honestly I think a lot of what is wrong today traces back to Nixon. Not actually RMN but the true believers who had it stick in their craw that their guy, their precious anti communist guy, was a paranoid who broke the law with impunity and was simply not worthy of the office. So they set out to prove that it was the Democrats fault somehow someway and that hatred has taken hold 2 generations later in ways I don't think you guys even understand.

You either did not watch the hearings or as always remember it different than it happened.
This is quite possible since you already forgot that I said I didn't defend Nixon.
Republicans had the character to go against a sitting Republican President, in the Clinton affair no Democrat did. Both times the Dems voted a straight party line.

Nixon was guilty. You understand that, right.

Clinton's impeachment was much like Johnson's. it was strictly a matter of politics. Civil suits against sitting Presidents shouldn't be allowed to proceed while they are in office. The conflicts are enormous and of course the President's political enemies will try and get involved which will sully what is supposed to be an impartial hearing. We will never know whether Paula Jones was actually harassed since she let herself get tied up with the fringe nuts who think the Clinton are serial killers amongst many other wild accusations.

2/3rds of the country believed the Clinton impeachment was political and that he should not have been impeached. Which ultimately is what will drive any successful future impeachment. Whatever crime the President does has got to convince the overwhelming majority of Americans that he has got to go. It is insufficient that the right wing echo chamber believes it. You have to convince the ret of us and that simply didn't happen then and isn't happening now..


Impeachment is supposed to be about high crimes and misdemeanors which is about malfeasance in performing his duties. Clinton getting a blowjob from that pathetic woman was repugnant, but impeachable? A high crime is generally defined as treason, and a high misdemeanor would be something like accepting bribes, or bribing people, or otherwise subverting the government. Nixon's crimes were many, the whole watergate break in was just one part of things, he used the power of the government to harass political enemies, the secret bombing of Cambodia, which congress had forbidden, was another one; his administration, with his knowledge, also paid off people to keep them quiet, and in several cases suborned perjury, basically paid people off to lie, and all of them are major offenses. His actions were truly criminal, whereas Clinton's was primarily an embarassment.

The IRS caper is nowhere near that level, among other things, there is zero proof that anyone told the IRS to do what they did, and in some ways it appears that the IRS personnel who took the action did so because they felt that tea party groups and such were more likely to misuse the filing, which was wrong but didn't seem to fall into criminal intent, it was more like doing the wrong thing, even if there reasons were not malicious.

Since you didn't pay attention at the time, Clinton was guilty of perjury.
Getting a BJ can be a reason to vote against him but NOBODY said it was impeachable.
Lying under oath and coaching witnesses on the other hand.


_____________________________

Government ranges from a necessary evil to an intolerable one. Thomas Paine

People don't believe they can defend themselves because they have guns, they have guns because they believe they can defend themselves.

(in reply to njlauren)
Profile   Post #: 426
RE: The ignorance of liberals - 7/15/2014 12:10:30 PM   
BamaD


Posts: 20687
Joined: 2/27/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mouth4Mistress

I'm going to say this very slowly, so the liberals in the audience can understand.

Bill Clinton D-I-D N-O-T get impeached for getting a blowjob.

He was impeached for L-Y-I-N-G to Congress, under oath.

*waves hand* OK, continue.

In court, under oath.


_____________________________

Government ranges from a necessary evil to an intolerable one. Thomas Paine

People don't believe they can defend themselves because they have guns, they have guns because they believe they can defend themselves.

(in reply to Mouth4Mistress)
Profile   Post #: 427
RE: The ignorance of liberals - 7/15/2014 12:11:49 PM   
BamaD


Posts: 20687
Joined: 2/27/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mouth4Mistress


quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail

And I will say this slowly for the nutsackers. He wasn't impeached, the house presented a bill of impeachment to the senate, which laughed at that dogshit, and Clinton wiped his ass with it. Same thing as the repeal of Obamacare number 58 or whatever, didnt happen in reality.


And I will say this even slower, for the dancing morons.

He WAS impeached, he just wasn't convicted on that impeachment. Look up the difference.

And the Senate had the trial.

_____________________________

Government ranges from a necessary evil to an intolerable one. Thomas Paine

People don't believe they can defend themselves because they have guns, they have guns because they believe they can defend themselves.

(in reply to Mouth4Mistress)
Profile   Post #: 428
RE: The ignorance of liberals - 7/15/2014 12:14:47 PM   
mnottertail


Posts: 60698
Joined: 11/3/2004
Status: offline
and acquited. February 1999. Therefore not impeached, and he wiped his ass with it. Senators threw that dogshit out.

_____________________________

Have they not divided the prey; to every man a damsel or two? Judges 5:30


(in reply to BamaD)
Profile   Post #: 429
RE: The ignorance of liberals - 7/15/2014 12:17:49 PM   
Sanity


Posts: 22039
Joined: 6/14/2006
From: Nampa, Idaho USA
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery

Oh ye of little brain. Read your own link:

"a 25 percent cut that would mean fewer audits of taxpayers and make it more likely that people who cheat on their taxes will get away with it."

Wish I could just cut everything 25% and have no consequences. Oh, wait . . . they can't either.




If you can ever figure out how to use Google look up "sarcasm" some time (not that you could ever understand what sarcasm is though)

ETA, theyve been abusing their audit powers, and very few Americans will shed any tears if this least-popular-president-ever's scandal-plagued IRS attack dogs lose some of their teeth

< Message edited by Sanity -- 7/15/2014 12:22:16 PM >


_____________________________

Inside Every Liberal Is A Totalitarian Screaming To Get Out

(in reply to Musicmystery)
Profile   Post #: 430
RE: The ignorance of liberals - 7/15/2014 12:20:49 PM   
crazyml


Posts: 5568
Joined: 7/3/2007
Status: offline

Wait a sec...

So, are you saying that Clinton wasn't actually impeached?

Might you be saying that there was an impeachment hearing that resulted in him not being impeached?

That cannot possibly be true, as many of the Conservatives I follow on this board quite often talk about when Clinton was impeached.

Unless....

[EDITED to add...]

On googling, it seems he was Impeached, but then acquitted, I think the impeachment is still there as an impeachment.

Although, it does rather seem as if it wasn't quite the victory for the cons that some dress it up as

< Message edited by crazyml -- 7/15/2014 12:29:28 PM >


_____________________________

Remember.... There's always somewhere on the planet where it's jackass o'clock.

(in reply to mnottertail)
Profile   Post #: 431
RE: The ignorance of liberals - 7/15/2014 12:30:04 PM   
BamaD


Posts: 20687
Joined: 2/27/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: crazyml

Wait a sec...

So, are you saying that Clinton wasn't actually impeached?

Might you be saying that there was an impeachment hearing that resulted in him not being impeached?

That cannot possibly be true, as many of the Conservatives I follow on this board quite often talk about when Clinton was impeached.

Unless....

Being impeached equals being charged. Clinton was charged by the House, however the trial was held in the Senate which did not convict. So Clinton was impeached but not convicted.
Johnson (Andrew not Lyndon) was impeached but not convicted.
Nixon was impeached but resigned before the trial in the Senate began.
Many people are confused by this due in large part to the poor teaching of American History and government. It is only natural that someone who lives in a place where these things are (with good reason) not a priority would have problems with that conversation.

_____________________________

Government ranges from a necessary evil to an intolerable one. Thomas Paine

People don't believe they can defend themselves because they have guns, they have guns because they believe they can defend themselves.

(in reply to crazyml)
Profile   Post #: 432
RE: The ignorance of liberals - 7/15/2014 1:16:12 PM   
thompsonx


Posts: 23322
Joined: 10/1/2006
Status: offline

ORIGINAL: BamaD


quote:

ORIGINAL: Mouth4Mistress

I'm going to say this very slowly, so the liberals in the audience can understand.

Bill Clinton D-I-D N-O-T get impeached for getting a blowjob.

He was impeached for L-Y-I-N-G to Congress, under oath.

*waves hand* OK, continue.

In court, under oath.

For lying about a blow job.



(in reply to BamaD)
Profile   Post #: 433
RE: The ignorance of liberals - 7/15/2014 1:17:40 PM   
Mouth4Mistress


Posts: 91
Joined: 8/8/2011
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: thompsonx
ORIGINAL: BamaD
quote:

ORIGINAL: Mouth4Mistress

I'm going to say this very slowly, so the liberals in the audience can understand.

Bill Clinton D-I-D N-O-T get impeached for getting a blowjob.

He was impeached for L-Y-I-N-G to Congress, under oath.

*waves hand* OK, continue.

In court, under oath.

For lying about a blow job.



So lying is now conditional? It's OK to lie under oath about some topics?

Lovely variable morals you've got there.

(in reply to thompsonx)
Profile   Post #: 434
RE: The ignorance of liberals - 7/15/2014 1:18:41 PM   
Mouth4Mistress


Posts: 91
Joined: 8/8/2011
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail
and acquited. February 1999. Therefore not impeached, and he wiped his ass with it. Senators threw that dogshit out.


You're severely confused about the definitions of "impeached" and "convicted".

(in reply to mnottertail)
Profile   Post #: 435
RE: The ignorance of liberals - 7/15/2014 1:19:41 PM   
mnottertail


Posts: 60698
Joined: 11/3/2004
Status: offline
Nutsackers lie all the time, they take an oath to lie.

_____________________________

Have they not divided the prey; to every man a damsel or two? Judges 5:30


(in reply to Mouth4Mistress)
Profile   Post #: 436
RE: The ignorance of liberals - 7/15/2014 1:30:37 PM   
mnottertail


Posts: 60698
Joined: 11/3/2004
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Mouth4Mistress

quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail
and acquited. February 1999. Therefore not impeached, and he wiped his ass with it. Senators threw that dogshit out.


You're severely confused about the definitions of "impeached" and "convicted".


Not at all. A bill of impeachment (which is a resolution, an opinion, is nothing) it is tried in the Senate to determine cause and fact.

Here is a house resolution:


The House on Thursday passed, 411-2, a resolution condemning the abduction of Nigerian female students by the terrorist group Boko Haram.

Boko Haram abducted 276 schoolgirls in April and threa.........yadda fuckin yadda..........yadda.........


The effect of which is?


< Message edited by mnottertail -- 7/15/2014 1:36:42 PM >


_____________________________

Have they not divided the prey; to every man a damsel or two? Judges 5:30


(in reply to Mouth4Mistress)
Profile   Post #: 437
RE: The ignorance of liberals - 7/15/2014 1:40:30 PM   
DesideriScuri


Posts: 12225
Joined: 1/18/2012
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Lucylastic
WHich is exactly why he wont be impeached and why Boehner is using the "sue" ploy, which has little chance of making it anywhere beyond the cartoons when all is said and done.


And I said as much in Post#326.




_____________________________

What I support:

  • A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
  • Personal Responsibility
  • Help for the truly needy
  • Limited Government
  • Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)

(in reply to Lucylastic)
Profile   Post #: 438
RE: The ignorance of liberals - 7/15/2014 1:41:31 PM   
DesideriScuri


Posts: 12225
Joined: 1/18/2012
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen
If GM and Chrysler had been allowed to collapse that would have wiped out both the 2 million+ jobs the companied employed directly plus the millions more in the businesses that supplied parts to them. In the middle of the worst recession since the Great Depression. That would have essentially shut down our economy.
Is that what you really wanted?


What would have come up in their places, Ken?


_____________________________

What I support:

  • A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
  • Personal Responsibility
  • Help for the truly needy
  • Limited Government
  • Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)

(in reply to DomKen)
Profile   Post #: 439
RE: The ignorance of liberals - 7/15/2014 1:45:14 PM   
BamaD


Posts: 20687
Joined: 2/27/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen
If GM and Chrysler had been allowed to collapse that would have wiped out both the 2 million+ jobs the companied employed directly plus the millions more in the businesses that supplied parts to them. In the middle of the worst recession since the Great Depression. That would have essentially shut down our economy.
Is that what you really wanted?


What would have come up in their places, Ken?


And why did Ford, which turned down the bailout, recover faster than GM and Chrysler?

_____________________________

Government ranges from a necessary evil to an intolerable one. Thomas Paine

People don't believe they can defend themselves because they have guns, they have guns because they believe they can defend themselves.

(in reply to DesideriScuri)
Profile   Post #: 440
Page:   <<   < prev  20 21 [22] 23 24   next >   >>
All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion >> RE: The ignorance of liberals Page: <<   < prev  20 21 [22] 23 24   next >   >>
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy

0.094