OK liberals and other Democrat fans....you get Congress back. Now what?

Clinton was never found guilty of anything. He voluntarily surrendered his Arkansas law license and his credentials to the Supreme Court bar as part of the deal he cut. In fact, IIRC, it was for a 5-year period and he could apply today to reinstate his shingle if he wanted to.

 

What the fuck are you talking about?

What are you basing your moonbat accusations against me on? We've been talking about the 1960 election, nothing else. I've taken a stand -- that the results, while some were questionable, were legally upheld, and the Republicans did indeed mount several challenges to them. And I've provided evidence to back up that claim.

A synopsis of your side of the discussion: The fix was in, history was written by the winners, Nixon and the GOP were gracious, that's the end of it. If these are the "facts" you've been hitting me upside the head with, trust me, I don't have a single hair out of place.

How a discussion of 1960 translates into me "defending the indefensible" about today's political climate or sounding like a 9/11 conspiracy theorist is something you'll have to explain. On second thought, don't. Please don't re-open the window to your intellectual wankery that has so polluted this thread.

Oh, and one last thing: I don't have any new e-mails or PMs. So, the cyberspace conversation you claim to have had with me has taken place exclusively in your brain-addled head.

No fucking surprise there.

 

Well, that seems conclusive.

 

As much as Scribe protests that he's an "independent", his use of the phrase "Democrat official" exposes the real truth: a footsoldier in Limbaugh's army.

 

That is always the giveaway.

 

Being a standard issue Democratic official is at least a couple of rungs above drug addiction by choice, or
pedophelia, in most corners . . .

 

Is pedophilia easier in the corners.
(Joke About Junior Hockey Coaches Here.)

 

As JW says, you've gotta work your corners.

 

Gee, Joe, it seems your english comprehension skills are as back-assward as your politcs. The person I was refering to e-mailing was the idiot with the claims that Bush blew up the WTC buildings on 9/11. Not you. Next time, try reading the entire text instead of pulling something out of context to validate your point of view.
Might make you look like less of an ass. Doubt it, but it might.

As for being a Limbaugh Dittohead. Please, I have more important things to do than listen to talk radio or the so-called mainstream media ranting on and on without actually saying anything.

There is one point I am curious about though.

If the very essence of Liberalism is to listen to all points of view and respect eceryone's feelings and beliefs so that all can be treated equally, why is it that when someone expresses a thought or a belief counter to liberalism, liberals resort to name-calling (this very site is full of liberals calling those with opposing points of views "trolls"), outright lies and personal attacks instead of open and honest debate?

I have stated I dislike both liberals and conservatives, Republicans and Dems equally. Yet, when my comments against Dems/Liberals are aired out come the "he's a troll", a "dittohead", a "racist", a "mean-spirited bastard", etc, etc. posts.

There is no one on this site that knows who I am nor anything about me at all. So upon what factual information do you base these baseless allegations and slanders? Why do you all respond with hate, you who are suppose to espouse the belief of openess to all points of view?

There was a word I learned in school, back in the day when children where taught how to read, to write and to think instead of being subjected to indoctrination, that aptly applies to you people.

Hypocrisy.

I suggest you all look it up in your dictionaries.

Just don't be too surprised if you find your picture next to the definition when you do.

 

That's great bloviating, scribe, but in the midst of that industrial-sized serving of righteous indignation -- and they say liberals are elitist -- you didn't answer my question: How is my opinion on the 1960 election equivilant to suggesting that the Bush administration planned 9/11?

And my reading comprehension is evidently as good as your writing clarity.

And your prattling about "baseless allegations" and name-calling is simply fabulous. You know as little about me as I do about you. Yet, you seem to have no problem accusing me of being some sort of a whackjob who is stuck on one worldview because my opinion differs from yours. (Even though, as pointed out previously, I've offered evidence to back up my opinion.)

And I'll remind you that in the course of our discussion, you made it personal first. So, your inference is clear: I'll make judgments on your character, but how dare you do it to me.

That wouldn't make you . . . a hypocrite, would it?

Just a second, let me check my dictionary.

Yep.

 

"I've been e-mailing that guy and everytime he gets hit upside the head with a fact, he says. No it isn't because I said so and I'll make up stuff and that makes it true because I said so."

Good Lord, you bang out a sentence like this, you don't get to criticize anyone for their interpretations of it.

Damn, that's barely English.

Rossi should get credit for even attempting to decipher whatever the hell it was you were trying to say.

And stop whining like a little bitch about the name calling. You've admitted on another thread that you're only posting here in an attempt to piss people off. That makes you a troll. It's not an insult if it's true.

 

Um, exactly where I have said I post here simply to piss people off?

Please cease taking me out of context to try to make a point. I said it is more fun to post against liberals only because of the over-the-top reactions I get out of liberals when I point out their hypocrisy, such as you just demonstrated.

I am also pointing out that libs seem to respond with name-calling when it becomes apparent they are on the wrong side of a discussion.

Go back outside and play in the sandbox with the other kiddies and leave the debating to the adults Doggie.