47 reasons to distance yourself from the Clintons

[Ralph]

John <dahlgren.john@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Feb 19, 9:19 pm, nos...@noway.net (Ralph) wrote:
> > John <dahlgren.j...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > On Feb 18, 10:12 pm, nos...@noway.net (Ralph) wrote:
> > > > John <dahlgren.j...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > On Feb 17, 9:44 pm, nos...@noway.net (Ralph) wrote:
> > > > > > robw <noddy...@comcast.net> wrote:
> > > > > > > The Vince Foster event was investigated by Ken Starr.
> >
> > > > > > > What were the findings???
> >
> > > > > > They found that the Clintons had so much political backing that
> > > > > > they can get away with murder.
> >
> > > > > But can't get away with a blow job... What's this world coming to?
> >
> > > > Clinton threw the dog a bone by incriminating himself over that in order
> > > > get heat off of Whitewater and the Vince Foster murder. He knew that
> > > > going after him over something so trivial would be political poison. And
> > > > people's fuzzy logic would have them thinking that's the worst he did.
> >
> > > Whitewater was investigated until the cows came home and the Clinton's
> > > were not found guilty of any wrong-doing.
> >
> > The Clintons had their entire party and the press defending them tooth
> > and nail. Nixon was never so blessed.
>
> You didn't listen to the same news I listened to.

Were you even alive during the Nixon years?

> > > That investigation cost the taxpayers millions.
> >
> > The clitnons probably recieved more in foreign campaign donations than
> > was spent investigating them.
>
> All politicians receive foreign donations, not just the Clintons.

ummmmm.... WRONG

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinagate

> > > I know that politicians are not as they appear on the surface.
> > > However to grasp at infinitesimally tenuous straws of doubt just
> > > because you don't like someone is a sign of illness. You should get
> > > checked by a doctor. They ahve pills that can help you.
> >
> > Why do left wingers always results to insults when they are losing an
> > argument?-
>
> Usually it's me using that line. I very seldom resort to insults (and
> those were mild) unless they've been used on me first. However, in
> your case, I've made an exception. You've made claims that are so far
> beyond pale that you deserve those insults. You can't even begin to
> prove ANY of your claims (and you refuse to even try). You're right
> up there with the 9-11 was an inside job, there was a shooter on the
> grassy knoll, and the Elvis is still alive folks. I mean, wow, it's
> been really entertaining listening to you. And that's it.
> Entertaining. Kind of like watching Mystery Science Theater 3000.

For someone who rarely makes insults, you sure are good at it.

> You're a bad movie that deserves to be made fun of. Call me a left-
> winger, call me a right-winger, call me whatever you want. I don't
> fit into your specially designed categories.
>
>
> >
> > - Show quoted text -

 

[Ralph]

John <dahlgren.john@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Feb 19, 9:19 pm, nos...@noway.net (Ralph) wrote:
> > Nixon appears worse because the press was against him, whereas the
> > mainstream media over here edits out all the nasty bits on Clinton.
>
> Mainstream media over where? Are you an American? Nixon was the
> worst until GW showed up. And the press I read had Clinton convicted
> and jailed. You must have missed those reports.

ABC, NBC and CBS have spun almost every Clinton scandal into a partisan
attack.

> > > There is
> > > absolutely not one shred of evidence in your accusations. You've gone
> > > beyond belief in conspiracy theories and have entered KOOK territory.
> >
> > When you know you're losing the argument, result to insults. That really
> > proves your point.
>
> And yet you still haven't provided one shred of evidence. Not a
> single one. Not even one credible cite from anywhere proving your
> point while someone debunked the whole thing by using Snopes.
>
>
> >
> > > >Clinton pardons 16 FALN terrorists responsible for 100
> > > > bombings in New York and barely an eyebrow gets raised in the mainstream
> > > > media. Had Bush done that they'd be endlessly picking each pardon appart
> > > > with tweaser. A pardon is meant to undo an injustice, not sold for
> > > > campaign contributions.
> >
> > > Clinton was raked over the coals for his pardon of Marc Rich. I guess
> > > that was smoke screen too, huh?
> >
> > Why wasn't Clinton raked over the coals over his pardoning of all those
> > 16 FALN terrorists responsible for 100 bombings in New York??
>
> Maybe this was why. From Wikipedia:
>
> On August 11, 1999, Clinton commuted the sentences of 16 members of
> FALN, a violent Puerto Rican nationalist group that set off 120 bombs
> in the United States mostly in New York City and Chicago, convicted
> for conspiracies to commit robbery, bomb-making, and sedition, as well
> as for firearms and explosives violations.[3] None of the 16 were
> convicted of bombings or any crime which injured another person,

This is total nonsense.

> though they were sentenced with terms ranging from 35 to 105 years in
> prison for the conviction of conspiracy and sedition. Congress,
> however, recognizes that the FALN is responsible for "6 deaths and the
> permanent maiming of dozens of others, including law enforcement

I think this is what really happened. Kinda hard to become a convicted
terrorist without terror.

> officials." All of the 16 had served 19 years or longer in prison,
> which was a longer sentence than such crimes typically received,
> according to the White House.[4] Clinton offered clemency, on
> condition that the prisoners renounce violence, at the appeal of 10
> Nobel Peace Prize laureates, President Jimmy Carter, the cardinal of
> New York, and the archbishop of Puerto Rico. The commutation was
> opposed by U.S. Attorney's Office, the FBI, and the Federal Bureau of
> Prisons and criticized by many including former victims of FALN
> terrorist activities, the Fraternal Order of Police,[5] members of
> Congress. Hillary Clinton, then campaigning for her first term in the
> Senate, initially supported the commutation,[6] but later withdrew her
> support when the prisoners had refused to renounce violence more than
> three weeks after clemency was offered.[7] Congress condemned the
> action, with a vote of 95-2 in the Senate and 311-41 in the House.[8]
> [9] The U.S. House Committee on Government Reform held an
> investigation on the matter, but the Justice Department prevented FBI
> officials from testifying.[10] President Clinton cited executive
> privilege for his refusal to turn over some documents to Congress
> related to his decision to offer clemency to members of the FALN
> terrorist group.
>
> I don't know why he did it and I don't care. Have any of the 16 been
> picked up for terrorism since then? Are they in Gitmo? I may not
> agree with the pardon but so what. He doesn't answer to me
> personally.

Your logic is incredible.

> >
> >
> >
> > > > > Please adjust the tinfoil on your head. It's a little tight.
> >
> > > > You are so gullible.
> >
> > > And you are one scary KOOK.
> >
> > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
> >
> > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
> >
> > - Show quoted text -

 

[John]

On Feb 20, 12:28

 

[John]

On Feb 20, 12:28

 

[Bugman]

"Ralph" <nospam@noway.net> wrote in message
news:1icktoa.or6oys1j6pmppN%nospam@noway.net...
> John <dahlgren.john@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Feb 19, 9:19 pm, nos...@noway.net (Ralph) wrote:
>> > Nixon appears worse because the press was against him, whereas the
>> > mainstream media over here edits out all the nasty bits on Clinton.
>>
>> Mainstream media over where? Are you an American? Nixon was the
>> worst until GW showed up. And the press I read had Clinton convicted
>> and jailed. You must have missed those reports.
>
> ABC, NBC and CBS have spun almost every Clinton scandal into a partisan
> attack.

Good thing you have Fox News and Newsmax to tell you the truth.

>
>> > > There is
>> > > absolutely not one shred of evidence in your accusations. You've
>> > > gone
>> > > beyond belief in conspiracy theories and have entered KOOK territory.
>> >
>> > When you know you're losing the argument, result to insults. That
>> > really
>> > proves your point.
>>
>> And yet you still haven't provided one shred of evidence. Not a
>> single one. Not even one credible cite from anywhere proving your
>> point while someone debunked the whole thing by using Snopes.
>>
>>
>> >
>> > > >Clinton pardons 16 FALN terrorists responsible for 100
>> > > > bombings in New York and barely an eyebrow gets raised in the
>> > > > mainstream
>> > > > media. Had Bush done that they'd be endlessly picking each pardon
>> > > > appart
>> > > > with tweaser. A pardon is meant to undo an injustice, not sold for
>> > > > campaign contributions.
>> >
>> > > Clinton was raked over the coals for his pardon of Marc Rich. I
>> > > guess
>> > > that was smoke screen too, huh?
>> >
>> > Why wasn't Clinton raked over the coals over his pardoning of all those
>> > 16 FALN terrorists responsible for 100 bombings in New York??
>>
>> Maybe this was why. From Wikipedia:
>>
>> On August 11, 1999, Clinton commuted the sentences of 16 members of
>> FALN, a violent Puerto Rican nationalist group that set off 120 bombs
>> in the United States mostly in New York City and Chicago, convicted
>> for conspiracies to commit robbery, bomb-making, and sedition, as well
>> as for firearms and explosives violations.[3] None of the 16 were
>> convicted of bombings or any crime which injured another person,
>
> This is total nonsense.
>
>> though they were sentenced with terms ranging from 35 to 105 years in
>> prison for the conviction of conspiracy and sedition. Congress,
>> however, recognizes that the FALN is responsible for "6 deaths and the
>> permanent maiming of dozens of others, including law enforcement
>
> I think this is what really happened. Kinda hard to become a convicted
> terrorist without terror.
>
>> officials." All of the 16 had served 19 years or longer in prison,
>> which was a longer sentence than such crimes typically received,
>> according to the White House.[4] Clinton offered clemency, on
>> condition that the prisoners renounce violence, at the appeal of 10
>> Nobel Peace Prize laureates, President Jimmy Carter, the cardinal of
>> New York, and the archbishop of Puerto Rico. The commutation was
>> opposed by U.S. Attorney's Office, the FBI, and the Federal Bureau of
>> Prisons and criticized by many including former victims of FALN
>> terrorist activities, the Fraternal Order of Police,[5] members of
>> Congress. Hillary Clinton, then campaigning for her first term in the
>> Senate, initially supported the commutation,[6] but later withdrew her
>> support when the prisoners had refused to renounce violence more than
>> three weeks after clemency was offered.[7] Congress condemned the
>> action, with a vote of 95-2 in the Senate and 311-41 in the House.[8]
>> [9] The U.S. House Committee on Government Reform held an
>> investigation on the matter, but the Justice Department prevented FBI
>> officials from testifying.[10] President Clinton cited executive
>> privilege for his refusal to turn over some documents to Congress
>> related to his decision to offer clemency to members of the FALN
>> terrorist group.
>>
>> I don't know why he did it and I don't care. Have any of the 16 been
>> picked up for terrorism since then? Are they in Gitmo? I may not
>> agree with the pardon but so what. He doesn't answer to me
>> personally.
>
> Your logic is incredible.
>
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > > > > Please adjust the tinfoil on your head. It's a little tight.
>> >
>> > > > You are so gullible.
>> >
>> > > And you are one scary KOOK.
>> >
>> > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>> >
>> > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>> >
>> > - Show quoted text -
>