| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Bob
Guest
|
 Posted: Fri Nov 14, 2008 6:28 pm Post subject: Re: Barack is not my President |
 |
|
On Wed, 12 Nov 2008 18:34:11 -0800 (PST), MACK DADDY
<pepsivanilla@msn.com> wrote:
| Quote: | On Nov 12, 9:20 am, "Eddie Haskell" <nnd...@aspp.com> wrote:
bvall...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:e9e95062-6658-4723-acff-c4de83c1a5f9@1g2000prd.googlegroups.com...
.
Obama may be the President of the 62 million Americans who voted for
him, but he is not my President.
.
Don't go there. You don't have to respect the man, but you have to
respect the office.
Tell that to Clinton and the democrats.
-Eddie Haskell
Tell it to George Dumbya Fascist Douche!
|
Macky, ol' boy - you know you're in trouble when the message you reply
to without typing anything is more intellectually stimulating than
when you do... |
|
| |
|
 Back to top |
Gary DeWaay
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Nov 14, 2008 10:23 pm Post subject: Re: Barack is not my President |
|
|
In article <9e0f41f9-c4ea-4669-a152-c2d702db96f0@
35g2000pry.googlegroups.com>, pepsivanilla@msn.com MACK
DADDY says...
| Quote: | You are as back-ass-wards as the Wasilla Hoe, Sarah Palin. The trial
doesn't result from impeachment. Impeachment COULD result from a
trial, but in Clintons case IT DIDN'T.
|
This really isn't that difficult... He was impeached but
not convicted.
HTH. |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
SMITH29
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Nov 14, 2008 11:11 pm Post subject: Re: Barack is not my President |
|
|
MACK DADDY wrote:
| Quote: | On Nov 13, 4:15 pm, yod-yog+ais <"d?g
+s=1ne3.ree,zero.null=0="@=gh_mhaei|l.com> wrote:
On 11/12/2008 6:29 PM MACK DADDY ignored two million years of human
evolution to write:
Sorry fool, but when people like Jim keep lying about things, ie.
Clinton being impeached, I like to use all caps to correct the mistake
eh!
The fool here is you, you brainless mouth-breathing buffon. You
apparently are entirely clueless on the difference between impeachment
and the trial that results from impeachment, so instead you cling to
your brain-dead stupidity as tightly as you possibly can.
You are as back-ass-wards as the Wasilla Hoe, Sarah Palin. The trial
doesn't result from impeachment. Impeachment COULD result from a
trial, but in Clintons case IT DIDN'T.
You talk stupid just like when Sarah said she doesn't attribute mans
activities to global warming. The first time she said it she said she
doesn't contribute mans activities to global warming.
Bush is retarded too. He was talkin' about the bailout, and he said
"it's gonna be a hard, to swallow." That's the problem with this
country, we got elected officials in D.C. that waste all their time
swallowing hards!
|
xxxx
Heh!!
You have the CLAM breathing hard!!
Nice going...
29 |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
chas
Guest
|
| Posted: Sat Nov 15, 2008 9:21 am Post subject: Re: Barack is not my President |
|
|
MACK DADDY wrote:
| Quote: | On Nov 11, 2:09 pm, Crecentius Vespasianus <jazzyb...@hotmail.com
wrote:
I was wondering which NeoCon jerk here would post a comment like this
first. I remember back when Clinton was elected, you jerks would say
that he was not YOUR president. Well you need to get over it and get
a life. We are all Americans and the president is the president to all
Americans, regardless of who you voted for. When W was elected, there
was plenty of criticism of his policies and of him persoanlly by some.
But there was virtually no comments from the left saying W was not
"our" president. And I have heard severl conservative pundits accept
their defeat and admit that Obama will be THEIR president too. Why
can't you jerks online admit it also?
--------
I don't remember any criticism of George Bush in the past 8 years, but I
did remember some calls for Bill's impeachment, that was followed up by
his actual impeachment. So the criticism of Bill had some basis in
reality (the blow jobs really happened). But even Bill didn't campaign
on a platform of treason and betrayal as Barack did. Just because a
majority of the voters support his policies of treason, doesn't makes it
right. As you noticed in my original comment, I not only renounce
Barack as my President, but I also renounce the American voters who
elected him.
BILL CLINTON ACTUALLY WAS NOT IMPEACHED, YOU FASCIST BAFOON.
THERE HAS BEEN PLENTY OF COMPLAINTS ABOUT GEORGE DUMBYA BUSH. ILLEGAL
WAR STARTED ON LIES. TREASON. ILLEGAL SPYING. I WISH THE DEMOCRATS
HAD THE BALLS TO IMPEACH HIM, BECAUSE THERE CERTAINLY ARE STRONG
EVIDENCE TO IMPEACH HIM.
Bill Clinton was in fact impeached. He just was not convicted. Just |
like Andrew Johnson. |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
chas
Guest
|
| Posted: Sat Nov 15, 2008 9:21 am Post subject: Re: Barack is not my President |
|
|
MACK DADDY wrote:
| Quote: | On Nov 12, 3:55 am, David Hartung <da...@lemagroup.us> wrote:
MACK DADDY wrote:
On Nov 11, 8:13 pm, capri <prh...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Nov 11, 9:45 pm, MACK DADDY <pepsivani...@msn.com> wrote:
On Nov 11, 2:09 pm, Crecentius Vespasianus <jazzyb...@hotmail.com
wrote:
I was wondering which NeoCon jerk here would post a comment like this
first. I remember back when Clinton was elected, you jerks would say
that he was not YOUR president. Well you need to get over it and get
a life. We are all Americans and the president is the president to all
Americans, regardless of who you voted for. When W was elected, there
was plenty of criticism of his policies and of him persoanlly by some.
But there was virtually no comments from the left saying W was not
"our" president. And I have heard severl conservative pundits accept
their defeat and admit that Obama will be THEIR president too. Why
can't you jerks online admit it also?
--------
I don't remember any criticism of George Bush in the past 8 years, but I
did remember some calls for Bill's impeachment, that was followed up by
his actual impeachment. So the criticism of Bill had some basis in
reality (the blow jobs really happened). But even Bill didn't campaign
on a platform of treason and betrayal as Barack did. Just because a
majority of the voters support his policies of treason, doesn't makes it
right. As you noticed in my original comment, I not only renounce
Barack as my President, but I also renounce the American voters who
elected him.
BILL CLINTON ACTUALLY WAS NOT IMPEACHED, YOU FASCIST BAFOON.
He was Impeached but not convicted.
Sorry mack, I know that you would like to rewrite history to make
slick willy look like a saint
BUT IN FACT HE WAS IMPEACHED
But then you probably don't even know what impeachment means
read this, then google Impeachment and find out what it means
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Floor proceedings of the U.S. Senate during the impeachment trial of
President William Jefferson 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.
Former President of the United States Bill Clinton 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. The trial proceedings were largely party-
line, with no Democratic Senators voting for conviction and only five
Democratic Representatives voting to impeach. In all, 50 senators
voted "not guilty," and 50 voted "guilty" on the obstruction charge.
The Senate also acquitted on the charge of perjury with 55 votes cast
as "not guilty," and 45 votes as "guilty." It was only the second
impeachment of a President in American history, following the
impeachment of Andrew Johnson in 1868.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
Since when did FOX become a history channel? I said it before and
I'll say it again. CLINTON WAS NOT IMPEACHED. THE HOUSE WANTED TO
IMPEACH HIM BUT THE SENATE VOTED AGAINST IMPEACHMENT! AGAINST! THAT
MEANS NOT IMPEACHED, YOU STUPID REPUBLITARDS!
The why did the Senate try him?- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
Because they were bored and they didn't wanna do anything productive
for the country!
This far into the discussion maybe you should have already looked up the |
definition of impeachment. As opposed to the common, but technically
incorrect, usage. |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
chas
Guest
|
| Posted: Sat Nov 15, 2008 9:21 am Post subject: Re: Barack is not my President |
|
|
Crescentius Vespasianus wrote:
| Quote: | David Hartung wrote:
Crecentius Vespasianus wrote:
I was wondering which NeoCon jerk here would post a comment like this
first. I remember back when Clinton was elected, you jerks would say
that he was not YOUR president. Well you need to get over it and get
a life. We are all Americans and the president is the president to all
Americans, regardless of who you voted for. When W was elected, there
was plenty of criticism of his policies and of him persoanlly by some.
But there was virtually no comments from the left saying W was not
"our" president. And I have heard severl conservative pundits accept
their defeat and admit that Obama will be THEIR president too. Why
can't you jerks online admit it also?
--------
I don't remember any criticism of George Bush in the past 8 years,
but I did remember some calls for Bill's impeachment, that was
followed up by his actual impeachment. So the criticism of Bill had
some basis in reality (the blow jobs really happened). But even Bill
didn't campaign on a platform of treason and betrayal as Barack did.
Just because a majority of the voters support his policies of
treason, doesn't makes it right. As you noticed in my original
comment, I not only renounce Barack as my President, but I also
renounce the American voters who elected him.
Do you renounce your citizenship?
---------
I do not renounce my loyalty to the Constitution, but I have no plans to
swear a loyalty oath to a cult figure like Barack Obama. If you wish to
do it yourself, do it the proper way and wear a brownshirt when you do.
Hypothetical, if someone like Jim Jones of Jonestown fame, was elected
President, would you also pledge your loyalty to the office of the
President then also? Being a Patriot, is loyalty to the country, not to
sorry sack unwed mothers who vote for a handout and watch Oprah, or to
the fool they think will give them handouts like Barack Obama. These
are just personalities and the sheeple of the day, and are merely
obstacles to overcome to keep the Constitution and the country intact.
|
If you do not "I do not renounce my loyalty to the Constitution," Then
Barrack is your president. Maybe you should read the thing. |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
MACK DADDY
Guest
|
| Posted: Sat Nov 15, 2008 10:31 am Post subject: Re: Barack is not my President |
|
|
On Nov 14, 8:23 am, Gary DeWaay <dewaay2spike...@sio.midco.net> wrote:
| Quote: | In article <9e0f41f9-c4ea-4669-a152-c2d702db96f0@
35g2000pry.googlegroups.com>, pepsivani...@msn.com MACK
DADDY says...
You are as back-ass-wards as the Wasilla Hoe, Sarah Palin. The trial
doesn't result from impeachment. Impeachment COULD result from a
trial, but in Clintons case IT DIDN'T.
This really isn't that difficult... He was impeached but
not convicted.
HTH.
|
He was not impeached either. It's not considered impeachment unless
both houses do it eh! You're just another jealous loser Republitard! |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
MACK DADDY
Guest
|
| Posted: Sat Nov 15, 2008 10:40 am Post subject: Re: Barack is not my President |
|
|
On Nov 14, 7:48 pm, chas <n...@emailreply.please> wrote:
| Quote: | MACK DADDY wrote:
On Nov 12, 3:55 am, David Hartung <da...@lemagroup.us> wrote:
MACK DADDY wrote:
On Nov 11, 8:13 pm, capri <prh...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Nov 11, 9:45 pm, MACK DADDY <pepsivani...@msn.com> wrote:
On Nov 11, 2:09 pm, Crecentius Vespasianus <jazzyb...@hotmail.com
wrote:
I was wondering which NeoCon jerk here would post a comment like this
first. I remember back when Clinton was elected, you jerks would say
that he was not YOUR president. Well you need to get over it and get
a life. We are all Americans and the president is the president to all
Americans, regardless of who you voted for. When W was elected, there
was plenty of criticism of his policies and of him persoanlly by some.
But there was virtually no comments from the left saying W was not
"our" president. And I have heard severl conservative pundits accept
their defeat and admit that Obama will be THEIR president too. Why
can't you jerks online admit it also?
--------
I don't remember any criticism of George Bush in the past 8 years, but I
did remember some calls for Bill's impeachment, that was followed up by
his actual impeachment. So the criticism of Bill had some basis in
reality (the blow jobs really happened). But even Bill didn't campaign
on a platform of treason and betrayal as Barack did. Just because a
majority of the voters support his policies of treason, doesn't makes it
right. As you noticed in my original comment, I not only renounce
Barack as my President, but I also renounce the American voters who
elected him.
BILL CLINTON ACTUALLY WAS NOT IMPEACHED, YOU FASCIST BAFOON.
He was Impeached but not convicted.
Sorry mack, I know that you would like to rewrite history to make
slick willy look like a saint
BUT IN FACT HE WAS IMPEACHED
But then you probably don't even know what impeachment means
read this, then google Impeachment and find out what it means
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Floor proceedings of the U.S. Senate during the impeachment trial of
President William Jefferson 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.
Former President of the United States Bill Clinton 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. The trial proceedings were largely party-
line, with no Democratic Senators voting for conviction and only five
Democratic Representatives voting to impeach. In all, 50 senators
voted "not guilty," and 50 voted "guilty" on the obstruction charge.
The Senate also acquitted on the charge of perjury with 55 votes cast
as "not guilty," and 45 votes as "guilty." It was only the second
impeachment of a President in American history, following the
impeachment of Andrew Johnson in 1868.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
Since when did FOX become a history channel? I said it before and
I'll say it again. CLINTON WAS NOT IMPEACHED. THE HOUSE WANTED TO
IMPEACH HIM BUT THE SENATE VOTED AGAINST IMPEACHMENT! AGAINST! THAT
MEANS NOT IMPEACHED, YOU STUPID REPUBLITARDS!
The why did the Senate try him?- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
Because they were bored and they didn't wanna do anything productive
for the country!
This far into the discussion maybe you should have already looked up the
definition of impeachment. As opposed to the common, but technically
incorrect, usage.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
|
George Dumbya Bush was TECHNICALLY not elected. |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
MACK DADDY
Guest
|
| Posted: Sat Nov 15, 2008 6:05 pm Post subject: Re: Barack is not my President |
|
|
On Nov 15, 4:33 am, David Hartung <da...@lemagroup.us> wrote:
| Quote: | MACK DADDY wrote:
On Nov 14, 7:48 pm, chas <n...@emailreply.please> wrote:
MACK DADDY wrote:
On Nov 12, 3:55 am, David Hartung <da...@lemagroup.us> wrote:
MACK DADDY wrote:
On Nov 11, 8:13 pm, capri <prh...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Nov 11, 9:45 pm, MACK DADDY <pepsivani...@msn.com> wrote:
On Nov 11, 2:09 pm, Crecentius Vespasianus <jazzyb...@hotmail.com
wrote:
I was wondering which NeoCon jerk here would post a comment like this
first. I remember back when Clinton was elected, you jerks would say
that he was not YOUR president. Well you need to get over it and get
a life. We are all Americans and the president is the president to all
Americans, regardless of who you voted for. When W was elected, there
was plenty of criticism of his policies and of him persoanlly by some.
But there was virtually no comments from the left saying W was not
"our" president. And I have heard severl conservative pundits accept
their defeat and admit that Obama will be THEIR president too. Why
can't you jerks online admit it also?
--------
I don't remember any criticism of George Bush in the past 8 years, but I
did remember some calls for Bill's impeachment, that was followed up by
his actual impeachment. So the criticism of Bill had some basis in
reality (the blow jobs really happened). But even Bill didn't campaign
on a platform of treason and betrayal as Barack did. Just because a
majority of the voters support his policies of treason, doesn't makes it
right. As you noticed in my original comment, I not only renounce
Barack as my President, but I also renounce the American voters who
elected him.
BILL CLINTON ACTUALLY WAS NOT IMPEACHED, YOU FASCIST BAFOON.
He was Impeached but not convicted.
Sorry mack, I know that you would like to rewrite history to make
slick willy look like a saint
BUT IN FACT HE WAS IMPEACHED
But then you probably don't even know what impeachment means
read this, then google Impeachment and find out what it means
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Floor proceedings of the U.S. Senate during the impeachment trial of
President William Jefferson 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.
Former President of the United States Bill Clinton 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. The trial proceedings were largely party-
line, with no Democratic Senators voting for conviction and only five
Democratic Representatives voting to impeach. In all, 50 senators
voted "not guilty," and 50 voted "guilty" on the obstruction charge.
The Senate also acquitted on the charge of perjury with 55 votes cast
as "not guilty," and 45 votes as "guilty." It was only the second
impeachment of a President in American history, following the
impeachment of Andrew Johnson in 1868.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
Since when did FOX become a history channel? I said it before and
I'll say it again. CLINTON WAS NOT IMPEACHED. THE HOUSE WANTED TO
IMPEACH HIM BUT THE SENATE VOTED AGAINST IMPEACHMENT! AGAINST! THAT
MEANS NOT IMPEACHED, YOU STUPID REPUBLITARDS!
The why did the Senate try him?- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
Because they were bored and they didn't wanna do anything productive
for the country!
This far into the discussion maybe you should have already looked up the
definition of impeachment. As opposed to the common, but technically
incorrect, usage.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
George Dumbya Bush was TECHNICALLY not elected.
George Bush *was* elected, twice.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
|
He is NOT considered "elected" because the only reason he is in office
is because in 2000 his brother Jeb had the Floriduh courts decide that
Bush won Floriduh which gave him the electoral votes to "win". He is
the first "appointed" president in USA history. Then in 2004 the
Republitard party, led by appointed President Bush hired Diebold to
"win" them a re-election, or rather a re-appointion! |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
MACK DADDY
Guest
|
| Posted: Sat Nov 15, 2008 6:07 pm Post subject: Re: Barack is the President-elect.. |
|
|
On Nov 15, 7:43 am, David Hartung <da...@lemagroup.us> wrote:
| Quote: | Kurt Lochner wrote:
David Hartung wrote:
MACK DADDY wrote:
Gary DeWaay wrote:
MACK DADDY says...
You are as back-ass-wards as the Wasilla Hoe, Sarah Palin. The trial
doesn't result from impeachment. Impeachment COULD result from a
trial, but in Clintons case IT DIDN'T.
This really isn't that difficult... He was impeached but
not convicted.
He was not impeached either. It's not considered impeachment unless
both houses do it eh! You're just another jealous loser Republitard!
I'm sorry, but you are badly mistaken.
You're mistaken again, David..
--He was impeached, and acquitted, end of story..
I believe that is the message I was trying to impart to brother Mack Daddy.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
|
NO IT ISN'T! YOU WERE TRYING TO IMPART THAT HE WAS IMPEACHED, END OF
STORY. THE END OF STORY IS THAT HE WAS NOT IMPEACHED! |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
David Hartung
Guest
|
| Posted: Sat Nov 15, 2008 6:33 pm Post subject: Re: Barack is not my President |
|
|
MACK DADDY wrote:
| Quote: | On Nov 14, 8:23 am, Gary DeWaay <dewaay2spike...@sio.midco.net> wrote:
In article <9e0f41f9-c4ea-4669-a152-c2d702db96f0@
35g2000pry.googlegroups.com>, pepsivani...@msn.com MACK
DADDY says...
You are as back-ass-wards as the Wasilla Hoe, Sarah Palin. The trial
doesn't result from impeachment. Impeachment COULD result from a
trial, but in Clintons case IT DIDN'T.
This really isn't that difficult... He was impeached but
not convicted.
HTH.
He was not impeached either. It's not considered impeachment unless
both houses do it eh! You're just another jealous loser Republitard!
|
I'm sorry, but you are badly mistaken. |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
David Hartung
Guest
|
| Posted: Sat Nov 15, 2008 6:33 pm Post subject: Re: Barack is not my President |
|
|
MACK DADDY wrote:
| Quote: | On Nov 14, 7:48 pm, chas <n...@emailreply.please> wrote:
MACK DADDY wrote:
On Nov 12, 3:55 am, David Hartung <da...@lemagroup.us> wrote:
MACK DADDY wrote:
On Nov 11, 8:13 pm, capri <prh...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Nov 11, 9:45 pm, MACK DADDY <pepsivani...@msn.com> wrote:
On Nov 11, 2:09 pm, Crecentius Vespasianus <jazzyb...@hotmail.com
wrote:
I was wondering which NeoCon jerk here would post a comment like this
first. I remember back when Clinton was elected, you jerks would say
that he was not YOUR president. Well you need to get over it and get
a life. We are all Americans and the president is the president to all
Americans, regardless of who you voted for. When W was elected, there
was plenty of criticism of his policies and of him persoanlly by some.
But there was virtually no comments from the left saying W was not
"our" president. And I have heard severl conservative pundits accept
their defeat and admit that Obama will be THEIR president too. Why
can't you jerks online admit it also?
--------
I don't remember any criticism of George Bush in the past 8 years, but I
did remember some calls for Bill's impeachment, that was followed up by
his actual impeachment. So the criticism of Bill had some basis in
reality (the blow jobs really happened). But even Bill didn't campaign
on a platform of treason and betrayal as Barack did. Just because a
majority of the voters support his policies of treason, doesn't makes it
right. As you noticed in my original comment, I not only renounce
Barack as my President, but I also renounce the American voters who
elected him.
BILL CLINTON ACTUALLY WAS NOT IMPEACHED, YOU FASCIST BAFOON.
He was Impeached but not convicted.
Sorry mack, I know that you would like to rewrite history to make
slick willy look like a saint
BUT IN FACT HE WAS IMPEACHED
But then you probably don't even know what impeachment means
read this, then google Impeachment and find out what it means
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Floor proceedings of the U.S. Senate during the impeachment trial of
President William Jefferson 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.
Former President of the United States Bill Clinton 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. The trial proceedings were largely party-
line, with no Democratic Senators voting for conviction and only five
Democratic Representatives voting to impeach. In all, 50 senators
voted "not guilty," and 50 voted "guilty" on the obstruction charge.
The Senate also acquitted on the charge of perjury with 55 votes cast
as "not guilty," and 45 votes as "guilty." It was only the second
impeachment of a President in American history, following the
impeachment of Andrew Johnson in 1868.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
Since when did FOX become a history channel? I said it before and
I'll say it again. CLINTON WAS NOT IMPEACHED. THE HOUSE WANTED TO
IMPEACH HIM BUT THE SENATE VOTED AGAINST IMPEACHMENT! AGAINST! THAT
MEANS NOT IMPEACHED, YOU STUPID REPUBLITARDS!
The why did the Senate try him?- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
Because they were bored and they didn't wanna do anything productive
for the country!
This far into the discussion maybe you should have already looked up the
definition of impeachment. As opposed to the common, but technically
incorrect, usage.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
George Dumbya Bush was TECHNICALLY not elected.
|
George Bush *was* elected, twice. |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Kurt Lochner
Guest
|
| Posted: Sat Nov 15, 2008 9:00 pm Post subject: Re: Barack is the President-elect.. |
|
|
David Hartung wrote:
| Quote: |
MACK DADDY wrote:
Gary DeWaay wrote:
MACK DADDY says...
You are as back-ass-wards as the Wasilla Hoe, Sarah Palin. The trial
doesn't result from impeachment. Impeachment COULD result from a
trial, but in Clintons case IT DIDN'T.
This really isn't that difficult... He was impeached but
not convicted.
He was not impeached either. It's not considered impeachment unless
both houses do it eh! You're just another jealous loser Republitard!
I'm sorry, but you are badly mistaken.
|
You're mistaken again, David..
--He was impeached, and acquitted, end of story.. |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
David Hartung
Guest
|
| Posted: Sat Nov 15, 2008 9:43 pm Post subject: Re: Barack is the President-elect.. |
|
|
Kurt Lochner wrote:
| Quote: | David Hartung wrote:
MACK DADDY wrote:
Gary DeWaay wrote:
MACK DADDY says...
You are as back-ass-wards as the Wasilla Hoe, Sarah Palin. The trial
doesn't result from impeachment. Impeachment COULD result from a
trial, but in Clintons case IT DIDN'T.
This really isn't that difficult... He was impeached but
not convicted.
He was not impeached either. It's not considered impeachment unless
both houses do it eh! You're just another jealous loser Republitard!
I'm sorry, but you are badly mistaken.
You're mistaken again, David..
--He was impeached, and acquitted, end of story..
|
I believe that is the message I was trying to impart to brother Mack Daddy. |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Kurt Lochner
Guest
|
| Posted: Sat Nov 15, 2008 9:56 pm Post subject: Re: Barack is the President-elect.. |
|
|
David Hartung wrote:
| Quote: |
Kurt Lochner restored his original formatting:
David Hartung wrote:
MACK DADDY wrote:
Gary DeWaay wrote:
MACK DADDY says...
You are as back-ass-wards as the Wasilla Hoe, Sarah Palin. The trial
doesn't result from impeachment. Impeachment COULD result from a
trial, but in Clintons case IT DIDN'T.
This really isn't that difficult... He was impeached but
not convicted.
He was not impeached either. It's not considered impeachment unless
both houses do it eh! You're just another jealous loser Republitard!
I'm sorry, but you are badly mistaken.
You're mistaken again, David..
--He was impeached, and acquitted, end of story..
I believe that is the message I was trying to impart
|
What you 'believe' has a certain lack of objective sense..
--Otherwise, you would have stated the obvious before I did.. |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
|
