@Foxfyre,
Quote:
What? No 'the Holocaust never happened?' theory?
One I forgot! Thanks, FF...
@JTT,
Quote:
Sigh.
He was charged and convicted where? He was a felon, how?
I know, chant along, Iran-Contra.
See, here's the thing for you wingnuts: (and I promised myself I wasn't going to get sucked in by this typical A2K nonsense).
Just because you 'progressives' really, really really wish something was true, it's not.
While Clinton, for example, actually was barred from practicing law in Arkansas for lying under oath, Reagan only suffered from his image being blemished. That recovered, however, by the time he left office in 1989, where he had the highest approval rating of any president since FDR.
Link:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/reagan/peopleevents/pande08.html
(The link is to PBS. You libs still like PBS, right?)
I will say I liked the way the American media investigated the whole affair. It makes me realize how lax and asleep at the wheel they have been for Obama, and I weep for American journalism in the future.
So short response: This is why I don't respond to the standard "Reagan is a felon" nonsense.
Just as I don't address the US government bombing the Twin Towers, we never went to the moon, or Barry Bonds is clean, man!
So truth, JT, save your fingers. I waste enough time here without responding to the truly wacky stuff...
Quote:
JTT: I've never heard truer words from you. Everything you write is a monumental waste of time.
Well, don't we all waste a lot a time here, after all?
But every once in a while, after taking some lightweight 'progressive' to task, after bitchslapping them about a bit, they will post a pathetic response such as this :
Quote:
I've never heard truer words from you. Everything you write is a monumental waste of time.
And that makes it all worth it, doesn't it?
@JTT,
JTT- I have a rather large library. I have never read that Reagan was a felon and a war criminal. This is a serious charge. Do you have a link? or evidence? or documentation. I only have your word on it. You know, of course, that Obama is a transvestite. Yes, he is. I'll bet you didn't know that. Of course, I can make silly statements too. If you challenge me to provide real evidence, I cannot. You also will not be able to provide evidence. Warning: No crap from sites like Move On will be accepted.
ALone Voice wrote:
While Clinton, for example, actually was barred from practicing law in Arkansas for lying under oath, Reagan only suffered from his image being blemished. That recovered, however, by the time he left office in 1989, where he had the highest approval rating of any president since FDR.
end of Lone Voice Quote
Yes, Lone Voice--exactly--note evidence-
CLINTON'S LAW PRIVILEGES ERODED MORE SUPREME COURT SUSPENDS HIS LICENSE TO ARGUE BEFORE JUSTICES.(News)
Article from:Seattle Post-Intelligencer Article date:October 2, 2001 Author: Helm, Mark More results for: Clinton barred from practicing law | Copyright informationCOPYRIGHT 2001 Seattle Post-Intelligencer. All rights reserved. Reproduced with the permission of the Dialog Corporation by Gale Group. This material is published under license from the publisher through the Gale Group, Farmington Hills, Michigan. All inquiries regarding rights should be directed to the Gale Group. (Hide copyright information)
Byline: MARK HELM P-I Washington Bureau
WASHINGTON -- In one more slap at former President Clinton, the Supreme Court yesterday suspended him from practicing law before the justices, giving him 40 days to explain why he should not be permanently disbarred.
The high court's action marked the first time it has suspended a president's law license.
It gave no reasons for the order, but its action followed the suspension of Clinton's Arkansas law license earlier this year.
On Jan. 19, the last full day of his presidency, Clinton reached an agreement with Independent Counsel Robert Ray in which his Arkansas law license was suspended for five years and he was ...
end of quote
and
Impeachment of Bill Clinton
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Floor proceedings of the U.S. Senate during the impeachment trial of President Bill Clinton in 1999, Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist presiding. The House managers are seated beside the quarter-circular tables on the left and the president's personal counsel on the right.Bill Clinton, President of the United States was impeached by the House of Representatives on December 19, 1998, and acquitted by the Senate on February 12, 1999. The charges, perjury, obstruction of justice, and abuse of power arose from the Monica Lewinsky scandal and the Paula Jones law suit.
and
Log In Register Now
TimesPeople
Home Page Today's Paper Video Most Popular Times Topics
Search All NYTimes.com
Wednesday, February 25, 2009
U.S.
World U.S. N.Y. / Region Business Technology Science Health Sports Opinion Arts Style Travel Jobs Real Estate Autos CLINTON IS FOUND TO BE IN CONTEMPT ON JONES LAWSUIT
E-MAIL
Print
Single-Page
Reprints
ShareClose
LinkedinDiggFacebookMixxMy SpaceYahoo! BuzzPermalinkBy JOHN M. BRODER WITH NEIL A. LEWIS
Published: April 13, 1999
A Federal judge held President Clinton in contempt of court today, saying he had willfully provided false testimony under oath about his relationship with Monica S. Lewinsky in the sexual misconduct lawsuit filed by Paula Corbin Jones.
In a scathing 32-page ruling, Judge Susan Webber Wright said Mr. Clinton testified falsely in a Jan. 17, 1998, deposition that he had not had sexual relations with Ms. Lewinsky. Judge Wright, of Federal District Court in Little Rock, Ark., said the President's actions had subverted the rule of law and violated Ms. Jones's right to information relevant to her case. [
Now, the preceding are FACTS--not some left wing columnist's opinion. They are recorded facts and in each case, the facts led to an action showing Clinton's guilt---the suspension of law license---the impeachment by the House of Representatives---the finding of contempt of court by Judge Wright.
NO SUCH EVIDENCE IS AVAILABLE ON PRESIDENT REAGAN--Unless you include the fantasy in JTT's mind. If JTT's charges were even partially true, Reagan would not have been named as the 10th best president of the USA by a group containing 50 Presidential Historians who included the entire range of the political spectrum--left, center, right.
JTT has been drinking too much left wing Koolaid
@Foxfyre,
Nice try foxfryre, but I put the quotes in the context in which she said them and I am not ignorant of the past assumptions some conservatives make about liberals; it does not change what she said one iota. First someone (think it was george) here defending her said, bring some evidence of something she said, well I did that. Then you said, put it in context, I did. Now you claim some mambo jumbo only you would try about background and then say you would have to be up to date to know the background in which she speaks from. forget it.
Quote:And here you do the typical "liberal" thing of taking something completely out of context and distorting it into a strawman. She didn't say that all Muslims hate America or that Muslims perse don't have indoor plumbing. She specifically made it clear that she was talking about Muslim terrorists. And it is in such little errors--Freudian slip or intentional--that gives her a worse rap than she usually deserves.
Actually she didn't say anything at all like that nor did I think she did. What she said was Liberals hate Americans more than terrorist do, they don't have the energy if they did they would have indoor plumbing. It is the terrorist who apparently don't have the energy to hate us, if they did, they would have indoor plumbing. I just find it ironic she could say that even in jest in an attempt to blast democrats or liberals given they (the terrorist) just attacked on September 11, 2001 and killed over 3000 people, I think they found the energy regardless of their plumbing situations. It was a s tasteless joke all the way but I know you will never admit it.
But this grows tiresome like all post with you eventually do.
@Foxfyre,
Foxfyre wrote:
For me 'in context' means that I am familiar with the history/context of the metaphors and imagery she uses no matter how off the wall or exaggerated that might be; otherwise the reader is likely to read something quite different and unintended into her remarks. A lot of people don't understand or appreciate exaggeration for effect. I do.
While I don't think her stuff is anything like the Bible, I again look to the Bible for comparison. So much of Biblical text is incomprehensible or makes no sense at all UNLESS you know something of the history/customs/background from whence it comes. Making a judgment without such information is risky at best and we will often draw an erroneous cnclusion. She writes much in the same way as if she expects you to already know the rest of the story.
Coulter goes rapid fire from subject to subject and grants her readers credit for being well read and intelligent enough to put her barbs into their proper framework or setting. I suppose she knows her critics won't get it right regardless so she doesn't bother to explain it to them as say Thomas Sowell or Walter Williams or most other syndicated columnists do.
And here you do the typical "liberal" thing of taking something completely out of context and distorting it into a strawman. She didn't say that all Muslims hate America or that Muslims perse don't have indoor plumbing. She specifically made it clear that she was talking about Muslim terrorists. And it is in such little errors--Freudian slip or intentional--that gives her a worse rap than she usually deserves.
No A2Ker---except Foxfyre, who places herself on a high pedestal for being the most well-read, intelligent A2Ker to ever exist---can possibly be familiar with the history/context/imagery of the word "terrorist." All images of the twin towers have been erased from our shallow heads. According to the book of Foxfyre, liberal A2Kers barely have enough energy or intelligence to count their toes on one foot by the end of the day. That's why most of us, unlike Foxfyre, are unable to appreciate the genius of rapid-fire Coulter.
Not to worry. While I don't have a pedestal nor have claimed to be more informed or well read than anybody else, those members who become delusional at some times of the month are usually okay the restof the month if they take their meds.
@Foxfyre,
Foxfyre wrote:
Not to worry. While I don't have a pedestal nor have claimed to be more informed or well read than anybody else, those members who become delusional at some times of the month are usually okay the restof the month if they take their meds.
Now there's a great example of a mature, well-reasoned reply.
@revel,
revel wrote:
But this grows tiresome like all post with you eventually do.
Then by all means, you have my complete and full permission and blessing to just ignore my tiresome posts. Please PLEASE do. I thought I was being invited to have a discussion with you and thought it might be polite to accept. My mistake.
@DrewDad,
DrewDad wrote:
Foxfyre wrote:
Not to worry. While I don't have a pedestal nor have claimed to be more informed or well read than anybody else, those members who become delusional at some times of the month are usually okay the restof the month if they take their meds.
Now there's a great example of a mature, well-reasoned reply.
Thank you. I was rather pleased with it myself.
@Foxfyre,
this thread got crazy, i cant even finish reading it.
@genoves,
i don't know if reagan was a felon or war criminal, but for ushering in the rise of the christian right and rush limbaugh, reagan should be dug up, every scientist on the planet should be put to work on some method of resurrection, and when he's been brought back to life, he should be charged with those two crimes and summarily executed
@djjd62,
add inflicting gwb on the world, to those charges, i think his presidency is a direct result of his pops being vp and one term p
@Foxfyre,
Foxfyre wrote:Thank you. I was rather pleased with it myself.
I'm certain that you're generally well-pleased with yourself.
@DrewDad,
Yeah I am when I can muster the self-discipline to not sink to the level of those who seem to be unable to debate in any other way than by insult, ad hominem, straw men, and self-righteous judgment--I really REALLY prefer to keep things civil and at least not unkind. I don't always manage that self-discipline, however, so for the alternative I try to do the best that I can.
@Foxfyre,
That's nice Fox. You do realize the Coulter always sinks to insult, don't you?
@parados,
In her syndicated column and in books, yes she does. It is her stock in trade and nobody is immune from being targeted. Again, some of her harshest criticism has been directly aimed at President Bush and the GOP. She generally is not disrespectful or unkind to those she is having a discussion with however.
@Foxfyre,
Have you ever seen her debate?
@parados,
I've seen her engage in spirited panel discussions. I guess that is a form of debate. She is almost invariably smarter and quicker on her feet than her opposition in those, but is no more insulting. And I don't recall her ever personally insulting the person she is 'debating' either.
