 | | Re: Geez, its hard to stomach all of this —Tim Courtney
|
| | | (...) At least the house didn't allow censure. Its not their constitutional right to vote on it. The Senate can, but its strictly forbidden to the house. (...) They are definitely impeachable offenses. Perjurs who aren't the president get put behind (...) (26 years ago, 20-Dec-98, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | |
| | | | | Re: Geez, its hard to stomach all of this —Mike Stanley
|
| | | | (...) I almost rolled out of my chair today when I saw a replay of some democrat talking about sexual McCarthyism (sp). It's amazing how many people want to focus in on the sex involved in this to the extent that they want to ignore the rest or say (...) (26 years ago, 20-Dec-98, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Geez, its hard to stomach all of this —Lee Jorgensen
|
| | | | (...) The biggest problem with the whole impeachment investigation, and the eventual impeachment of the President, is that it was related to sex. IF it was JUST about sex, he'd still be in office ... possibly with another intern :P Though as the (...) (26 years ago, 20-Dec-98, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Geez, its hard to stomach all of this —Mike Stanley
|
| | | | | (...) I'd put big money on him getting off. BIG money. Sad, but it will happen. (...) Didn't say he tried to resign. I said he tried to make himself a martyr, which he did. I have no more respect for him than I do Clinton, because, for me, the core (...) (26 years ago, 20-Dec-98, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | | | Re: Geez, its hard to stomach all of this —Larry Pieniazek
|
| | | | | | (...) Amen(1). Is there anyone here at this point who wonders why I advocate the Libertarians? Power corrupts. Less power == Less corruption. When Libertarians say they want less government, they're talking orders of magnitude, not a small trimming (...) (26 years ago, 20-Dec-98, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: Geez, its hard to stomach all of this —Jim Baker
|
| | | | | | | Also sprach Larry Pieniazek: : 1 - IT'S JUST AN EXPRESSION. I haven't converted or anything. :-) Trollin', trollin', trollin', keep them flame wars rollin' ... / _ _ / _ _ In a New York restaurant: ()(-(//((-/ "Customers who consider our waitresses (...) (26 years ago, 20-Dec-98, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | Re: Geez, its hard to stomach all of this —Tim Courtney
|
| | | | | | | | (...) Went over my head. It doesn't bother me if a non-Christian uses 'amen.' Oh well, its late, and I'm dead tired. Why am I still up? -Tim <>< (URL) - Coming Soon! (URL) (26 years ago, 21-Dec-98, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: Geez, its hard to stomach all of this —Terry Keller
|
| | | | | | (...) Just a question, Larry. You say you haven't converted, but how can that be? To say that implies you have something to convert _from_. Does that make any sense? Just struck me oddly. -- Terry K -- (26 years ago, 21-Dec-98, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: Geez, its hard to stomach all of this —Larry Pieniazek
|
| | | | | | (...) Caught me being insufficiently precise. :-)... I should have said "I haven't decided to reject reason yet, and I haven't decided to take things that don't make sense or follow the rules of causality on faith yet, and I don't intend to." (...) (26 years ago, 21-Dec-98, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: Geez, its hard to stomach all of this —Terry Keller
|
| | | | | | (...) Yes, that's clearer. But not as pithy. Could you distill it down into something more succinct? :-) -- Terry K -- (26 years ago, 22-Dec-98, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: Geez, its hard to stomach all of this —Larry Pieniazek
|
| | | | | | (...) Um... "I haven't converted?" :-) (26 years ago, 22-Dec-98, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Geez, its hard to stomach all of this —Barry McFarland
|
| | | | (...) Republicans, (...) It is said that Larry Flint did not specify party affilation when making the offers, he got what he got (14 republicans, 1 democrat). It may mean that those that would accuse the democrates have nothing to gain because no (...) (26 years ago, 21-Dec-98, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | |
