After the Downing Street Memo: Case for Impeachment Builds

In rec.aviation.military Charlie Wolf wrote:
On Tue, 7 Jun 2005 23:20:35 +0000 (UTC), Merlin Dorfman
wrote:

In rec.aviation.military W. D. Allen Sr. wrote:
Oh, bring "impeachment" on! We can't wait to see Hillary to paint herself
into a corner by touting the impeachment of a president when she and her
felon husband are not yet out from under the clouds of criminality hanging
over them! Impeachment is not a subject she is wise to bring up since it
will certainly motivate so many people to dredge up all her and Willie's
connivances! Just think they will re-plow Whitewater, Lewinsky, Aspirin
factory attacks, etc., again! We will look forward to the fight,
especially
just before the 2008 presidential election!!!!

It continually amazes me that lying about a blowjob is put in
the same category as causing the needless deaths of over 1500
Americans an countless Iraqis.

1. They aren't needless if you have a brain in your ****ing head.
But by characterizing them as "needless deaths", I guess we know
positively that you support the terrorists that are killing Americans.

I categorically oppose the terrorists that killed Americans,
which is why I opposed the invasion of Iraq. It took attention and
resources away from the war on terror.
(I've seen figures that 70% of Americans believe Saddam was
personally involved in 9/11. And that that that belief apparently
has a strong correlation with watching Fox News.)
But your comment that opposing a policy decision is equated to
supporting terrorism is noted, and filed where it belongs.

2. It's called perjury Merlin, or don't you have a Crystal Ball that
explains things like that to you...

It was not perjury, and in any case it's like saying that
somebody who has jaywalked or double parked has no business
accusing anybody of murder because "he's a criminal himself."

3. It continulally amazes me how ****ing stupid left-wing liberal
Democrats are.

"****ing Stupid" = "disagrees with me."
Come to think of it, "Left wing liberal Democrat" also =
"disagrees with me."

Regards,

Regards to you too.

In article ,
Merlin Dorfman wrote:

In rec.aviation.military Charlie Wolf wrote:
On Tue, 7 Jun 2005 23:20:35 +0000 (UTC), Merlin Dorfman
wrote:

In rec.aviation.military W. D. Allen Sr. wrote:
Oh, bring "impeachment" on! We can't wait to see Hillary to paint herself
into a corner by touting the impeachment of a president when she and her
felon husband are not yet out from under the clouds of criminality hanging
over them! Impeachment is not a subject she is wise to bring up since it
will certainly motivate so many people to dredge up all her and Willie's
connivances! Just think they will re-plow Whitewater, Lewinsky, Aspirin
factory attacks, etc., again! We will look forward to the fight,
especially
just before the 2008 presidential election!!!!

It continually amazes me that lying about a blowjob is put in
the same category as causing the needless deaths of over 1500
Americans an countless Iraqis.

1. They aren't needless if you have a brain in your ****ing head.
But by characterizing them as "needless deaths", I guess we know
positively that you support the terrorists that are killing Americans.

I categorically oppose the terrorists that killed Americans,
which is why I opposed the invasion of Iraq. It took attention and
resources away from the war on terror.

You see, most people understand that there is a lot more to the WoT than
just Al Qaeda.

(I've seen figures that 70% of Americans believe Saddam was
personally involved in 9/11. And that that that belief apparently
has a strong correlation with watching Fox News.)

And the Flat Earth Society issues figures that it believes, too.

Doesn't make either statement correct.

In rec.aviation.military ZombyWoof wrote:


Does William Jefferson still hold his bar license? If no, why not?

I don't know. What was the period of time for which it was
lifted?

If yes, what are you ****ing nuts?

Syntax-challenged; but I'll answer what I think you were trying
to ask.
Clinton was very properly punished for the violations he
actually committed--contempt of court, and violations of legal ethics,
for giving false and misleading testimony. He did not commit
perjury. One could make the case that he could have successfully
challenged those charges (before a District of Columbia jury) but
I think the decision to plead guilty to them was the correct one.

"W. D. Allen Sr." wrote in message
...
"...A dumbass antisemite...."

The above is a juvenile "intellectual's" idea of a compelling argument on
the merits?

No, though it is unnecessary to include the adjective "dumbass" when
proclaiming someone an antisemite.
Antisemites are automatically dumbasses...

"...A dumbass antisemite...."

Antisemites are automatically dumbasses...

Unfortunately, that is not true. Some of the leadeers of the Nazi
party were brilliant, highly educated men.

Henry Ford was not a dumbass, but he was an antisemite.

Sad to say, there is no correlation between intelligence and human
decency.

vince norris

vincent p. norris wrote:

"...A dumbass antisemite...."

Antisemites are automatically dumbasses...

Unfortunately, that is not true. Some of the leadeers of the Nazi
party were brilliant, highly educated men.

Henry Ford was not a dumbass, but he was an antisemite.

Sad to say, there is no correlation between intelligence and human
decency.

vince norris

What a completely stupid thing to say!

Grantland