How can Republicans justify this?? Where's the outrage?!1!1?

dlowan wrote:

DrewDad wrote:

Thank you, Joe McCarthy.

He ain't got McCarthy's class.



I note he's spamming the place with this ****.

Really, why is this FACT spam? Are you that brainwashed or stupid to look objectively at one experiences to form an opinion? I tend to think you fall in line with the rest of the apologists who are "just stuck on being stupid".

I await your cleaver response.

woiyo wrote:

dlowan wrote:

DrewDad wrote:

Thank you, Joe McCarthy.

He ain't got McCarthy's class.



I note he's spamming the place with this ****.

Really, why is this FACT spam? Are you that brainwashed or stupid to look objectively at one experiences to form an opinion? I tend to think you fall in line with the rest of the apologists who are "just stuck on being stupid".

dlowan wrote:

woiyo wrote:

dlowan wrote:

DrewDad wrote:

Thank you, Joe McCarthy.

He ain't got McCarthy's class.



I note he's spamming the place with this ****.

Really, why is this FACT spam? Are you that brainwashed or stupid to look objectively at one experiences to form an opinion? I tend to think you fall in line with the rest of the apologists who are "just stuck on being stupid".

Repetition doesn't make your crap less smelly.

woiyo wrote:

dlowan wrote:

woiyo wrote:

dlowan wrote:

DrewDad wrote:

Thank you, Joe McCarthy.

He ain't got McCarthy's class.



I note he's spamming the place with this ****.

Really, why is this FACT spam? Are you that brainwashed or stupid to look objectively at one experiences to form an opinion? I tend to think you fall in line with the rest of the apologists who are "just stuck on being stupid".

Repetition doesn't make your crap less smelly.

Then why not be adult and either answer the question, explain why the subject is not worthy of your debate, or just shut the "F" up?

dlowan wrote:

woiyo wrote:

dlowan wrote:

woiyo wrote:

dlowan wrote:

DrewDad wrote:

Thank you, Joe McCarthy.

He ain't got McCarthy's class.



I note he's spamming the place with this ****.

Really, why is this FACT spam? Are you that brainwashed or stupid to look objectively at one experiences to form an opinion? I tend to think you fall in line with the rest of the apologists who are "just stuck on being stupid".

Repetition doesn't make your crap less smelly.

Then why not be adult and either answer the question, explain why the subject is not worthy of your debate, or just shut the "F" up?

Here's a hint for the brain dead:



Wade through the ****, and you find that, as a lawyer, Hillary defended people.

What, a LAWYER DEFEND people?


Outrageous!!!!! Disgusting!!!! Never happened before!!!! You can't run a criminal justice system like that!!! Next thing, there'll be LAWS about having to PROVE someone committed an offence!!!



You don't like some of the people she allegedly defended.


I assume this means you will condemn any right wing lawyer who defended, for instance, anyone accused of a crime?

Hell, they DEFENDED CRIMINALS, therefore they must be CRIMINALS.


BTW.....I think she's great for assisting conscientious objectors etc. to an evil war.


GO HILLARY.

In Spring of 2004, Doris Brin Walker submitted on behalf of the National Lawyers Guild Bay Area Chapter to the Conference of Delegates of California Bar Association asking the California Congressional Delegation to investigate representations by the Bush Administration used to justify the war in Iraq for possible impeachment.[11] [12] The resolution follows:

Resolved, that the Conference of Delegates of California Bar Associations urges California Congressional Delegation to commence a Congressional investigation of representations by George Bush, Dick Cheney, and the Bush Administration, used to justify war on Iraq and Afghanistan to Congress, the United Nations and to the people of the U.S. and the world, without a formal request for Congress to declare war.

woiyo wrote:

dlowan wrote:

woiyo wrote:

dlowan wrote:

woiyo wrote:

dlowan wrote:

DrewDad wrote:

Thank you, Joe McCarthy.

He ain't got McCarthy's class.



I note he's spamming the place with this ****.

Really, why is this FACT spam? Are you that brainwashed or stupid to look objectively at one experiences to form an opinion? I tend to think you fall in line with the rest of the apologists who are "just stuck on being stupid".

Repetition doesn't make your crap less smelly.

Then why not be adult and either answer the question, explain why the subject is not worthy of your debate, or just shut the "F" up?

Here's a hint for the brain dead:



Wade through the ****, and you find that, as a lawyer, Hillary defended people.

What, a LAWYER DEFEND people?


Outrageous!!!!! Disgusting!!!! Never happened before!!!! You can't run a criminal justice system like that!!! Next thing, there'll be LAWS about having to PROVE someone committed an offence!!!



You don't like some of the people she allegedly defended.


I assume this means you will condemn any right wing lawyer who defended, for instance, anyone accused of a crime?

Hell, they DEFENDED CRIMINALS, therefore they must be CRIMINALS.


BTW.....I think she's great for assisting conscientious objectors etc. to an evil war.


GO HILLARY.

I do not know what question your are answering but it sure was not the original question.

So it appears that you think it is OK for the media to go after Obama and his past associations, but when it comes to Mrs. Bill Clinton, her past associations are off limits.

Got it.

dlowan wrote:

woiyo wrote:

dlowan wrote:

woiyo wrote:

dlowan wrote:

woiyo wrote:

dlowan wrote:

DrewDad wrote:

Thank you, Joe McCarthy.

He ain't got McCarthy's class.



I note he's spamming the place with this ****.

Really, why is this FACT spam? Are you that brainwashed or stupid to look objectively at one experiences to form an opinion? I tend to think you fall in line with the rest of the apologists who are "just stuck on being stupid".

Repetition doesn't make your crap less smelly.

Then why not be adult and either answer the question, explain why the subject is not worthy of your debate, or just shut the "F" up?

Here's a hint for the brain dead:



Wade through the ****, and you find that, as a lawyer, Hillary defended people.

What, a LAWYER DEFEND people?


Outrageous!!!!! Disgusting!!!! Never happened before!!!! You can't run a criminal justice system like that!!! Next thing, there'll be LAWS about having to PROVE someone committed an offence!!!



You don't like some of the people she allegedly defended.


I assume this means you will condemn any right wing lawyer who defended, for instance, anyone accused of a crime?

Hell, they DEFENDED CRIMINALS, therefore they must be CRIMINALS.


BTW.....I think she's great for assisting conscientious objectors etc. to an evil war.


GO HILLARY.

I do not know what question your are answering but it sure was not the original question.

So it appears that you think it is OK for the media to go after Obama and his past associations, but when it comes to Mrs. Bill Clinton, her past associations are off limits.

Got it.

What question?


You made some pathetic dumb attempt to smear Hillary for doing her job.



I have no idea what crap you are now on about re Obama. I am not following the slings and arrows of your endless presidential campaigning, and neither know about, nor have expressed an opinion on, who is slagging whom.


Try again and this time try to make some sense and attempt some small soupcon of veracity.

just shut the "F" up

You know EXACTLY what the question was.

Want to try again?

Is it fair to to look into Mrs. Bill Clintons past associations in the same way the media is looking into Obama's past associations?

Very simple question.

You know EXACTLY what the question was.

Want to try again?

Is it fair to to look into Mrs. Bill Clintons past associations in the same way the media is looking into Obama's past associations?

Very simple question.

woiyo wrote:

You know EXACTLY what the question was.

Want to try again?

Is it fair to to look into Mrs. Bill Clintons past associations in the same way the media is looking into Obama's past associations?

Very simple question.

Simple is correct. Answer: Equally fair... and equally idiotic. I may have once shared an elevator with Jeffrey Dahmer, but no, I'm not into cannibalism (in case you were going to ask). Guilt by association is a nonsensical idea, regardless of the target of the slime.

woiyo wrote:

You know EXACTLY what the question was.

Want to try again?

Is it fair to to look into Mrs. Bill Clintons past associations in the same way the media is looking into Obama's past associations?

Very simple question.

Simple is correct. Answer: Equally fair... and equally idiotic. I may have once shared an elevator with Jeffrey Dahmer, but no, I'm not into cannibalism (in case you were going to ask). Guilt by association is a nonsensical idea, regardless of the target of the slime.