- This topic has 530 replies, 28 voices, and was last updated 14 years ago by
briansd1.
-
AuthorPosts
-
May 21, 2010 at 3:02 PM #553732May 21, 2010 at 3:09 PM #552767
Allan from Fallbrook
Participant[quote=briansd1]I remember that the reign of Newt Gingrich on the Hill was when the Christian Coalition’s influence was at its strongest. Pat Robertson and Ralph Reed were powerful figures in Washington.
[/quote]
Brian: Hmmm. So, let me get this straight. Newt was in power in Washington at the same time that influential evangelicals like Pat Robertson and Ralph Reed were around, so Newt must be an evangelical Christian? Huh. That’s a real well-reasoned argument there, Bry.
Interesting that you juxtapose Newt getting his gear greased at the same time Clinton was, in that it illustrates a commonly held misconception that Leftists like you try to push, namely that Clinton was nearly impeached for getting a hummer from Lewinsky. Not so. Clinton was nearly impeached (and was disbarred) for suborning perjury. Big, big difference.
Again, as both Cardiff and I have now pointed out, you bring this sort of bullshit to the table and act as though its proof of anything. You are thoroughly indoctrinated and propagandized and anything that doesn’t fit within your narrowly held world-view is either ignored or papered over with some nonsensical response.
May 21, 2010 at 3:09 PM #552872Participant[quote=briansd1]I remember that the reign of Newt Gingrich on the Hill was when the Christian Coalition’s influence was at its strongest. Pat Robertson and Ralph Reed were powerful figures in Washington.
[/quote]
Brian: Hmmm. So, let me get this straight. Newt was in power in Washington at the same time that influential evangelicals like Pat Robertson and Ralph Reed were around, so Newt must be an evangelical Christian? Huh. That’s a real well-reasoned argument there, Bry.
Interesting that you juxtapose Newt getting his gear greased at the same time Clinton was, in that it illustrates a commonly held misconception that Leftists like you try to push, namely that Clinton was nearly impeached for getting a hummer from Lewinsky. Not so. Clinton was nearly impeached (and was disbarred) for suborning perjury. Big, big difference.
Again, as both Cardiff and I have now pointed out, you bring this sort of bullshit to the table and act as though its proof of anything. You are thoroughly indoctrinated and propagandized and anything that doesn’t fit within your narrowly held world-view is either ignored or papered over with some nonsensical response.
May 21, 2010 at 3:09 PM #553361Participant[quote=briansd1]I remember that the reign of Newt Gingrich on the Hill was when the Christian Coalition’s influence was at its strongest. Pat Robertson and Ralph Reed were powerful figures in Washington.
[/quote]
Brian: Hmmm. So, let me get this straight. Newt was in power in Washington at the same time that influential evangelicals like Pat Robertson and Ralph Reed were around, so Newt must be an evangelical Christian? Huh. That’s a real well-reasoned argument there, Bry.
Interesting that you juxtapose Newt getting his gear greased at the same time Clinton was, in that it illustrates a commonly held misconception that Leftists like you try to push, namely that Clinton was nearly impeached for getting a hummer from Lewinsky. Not so. Clinton was nearly impeached (and was disbarred) for suborning perjury. Big, big difference.
Again, as both Cardiff and I have now pointed out, you bring this sort of bullshit to the table and act as though its proof of anything. You are thoroughly indoctrinated and propagandized and anything that doesn’t fit within your narrowly held world-view is either ignored or papered over with some nonsensical response.
May 21, 2010 at 3:09 PM #553458Participant[quote=briansd1]I remember that the reign of Newt Gingrich on the Hill was when the Christian Coalition’s influence was at its strongest. Pat Robertson and Ralph Reed were powerful figures in Washington.
[/quote]
Brian: Hmmm. So, let me get this straight. Newt was in power in Washington at the same time that influential evangelicals like Pat Robertson and Ralph Reed were around, so Newt must be an evangelical Christian? Huh. That’s a real well-reasoned argument there, Bry.
Interesting that you juxtapose Newt getting his gear greased at the same time Clinton was, in that it illustrates a commonly held misconception that Leftists like you try to push, namely that Clinton was nearly impeached for getting a hummer from Lewinsky. Not so. Clinton was nearly impeached (and was disbarred) for suborning perjury. Big, big difference.
Again, as both Cardiff and I have now pointed out, you bring this sort of bullshit to the table and act as though its proof of anything. You are thoroughly indoctrinated and propagandized and anything that doesn’t fit within your narrowly held world-view is either ignored or papered over with some nonsensical response.
May 21, 2010 at 3:09 PM #553737Participant[quote=briansd1]I remember that the reign of Newt Gingrich on the Hill was when the Christian Coalition’s influence was at its strongest. Pat Robertson and Ralph Reed were powerful figures in Washington.
[/quote]
Brian: Hmmm. So, let me get this straight. Newt was in power in Washington at the same time that influential evangelicals like Pat Robertson and Ralph Reed were around, so Newt must be an evangelical Christian? Huh. That’s a real well-reasoned argument there, Bry.
Interesting that you juxtapose Newt getting his gear greased at the same time Clinton was, in that it illustrates a commonly held misconception that Leftists like you try to push, namely that Clinton was nearly impeached for getting a hummer from Lewinsky. Not so. Clinton was nearly impeached (and was disbarred) for suborning perjury. Big, big difference.
Again, as both Cardiff and I have now pointed out, you bring this sort of bullshit to the table and act as though its proof of anything. You are thoroughly indoctrinated and propagandized and anything that doesn’t fit within your narrowly held world-view is either ignored or papered over with some nonsensical response.
May 21, 2010 at 5:09 PM #552789SK in CV
Participant[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]
Interesting that you juxtapose Newt getting his gear greased at the same time Clinton was, in that it illustrates a commonly held misconception that Leftists like you try to push, namely that Clinton was nearly impeached for getting a hummer from Lewinsky. Not so. Clinton was nearly impeached (and was disbarred) for suborning perjury. Big, big difference.
[/quote]Not exactly. Clinton was accused of actual perjury, not merely suborning, or procuring another to commit perjury. Had he actually committed perjury, undoubtedly there would have been charges filed. But he didn’t. What he did, was lie under oath. Which does not, by itself qualify as perjury. (And no, it has nothing to do with what “is” is. Perjury requires that the false testimony must be material to the case in which the testimony is given. It was not material. Ruled such, as a matter of law, by the judge in the case.)
May 21, 2010 at 5:09 PM #552895Participant[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]
Interesting that you juxtapose Newt getting his gear greased at the same time Clinton was, in that it illustrates a commonly held misconception that Leftists like you try to push, namely that Clinton was nearly impeached for getting a hummer from Lewinsky. Not so. Clinton was nearly impeached (and was disbarred) for suborning perjury. Big, big difference.
[/quote]Not exactly. Clinton was accused of actual perjury, not merely suborning, or procuring another to commit perjury. Had he actually committed perjury, undoubtedly there would have been charges filed. But he didn’t. What he did, was lie under oath. Which does not, by itself qualify as perjury. (And no, it has nothing to do with what “is” is. Perjury requires that the false testimony must be material to the case in which the testimony is given. It was not material. Ruled such, as a matter of law, by the judge in the case.)
May 21, 2010 at 5:09 PM #553383Participant[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]
Interesting that you juxtapose Newt getting his gear greased at the same time Clinton was, in that it illustrates a commonly held misconception that Leftists like you try to push, namely that Clinton was nearly impeached for getting a hummer from Lewinsky. Not so. Clinton was nearly impeached (and was disbarred) for suborning perjury. Big, big difference.
[/quote]Not exactly. Clinton was accused of actual perjury, not merely suborning, or procuring another to commit perjury. Had he actually committed perjury, undoubtedly there would have been charges filed. But he didn’t. What he did, was lie under oath. Which does not, by itself qualify as perjury. (And no, it has nothing to do with what “is” is. Perjury requires that the false testimony must be material to the case in which the testimony is given. It was not material. Ruled such, as a matter of law, by the judge in the case.)
May 21, 2010 at 5:09 PM #553480Participant[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]
Interesting that you juxtapose Newt getting his gear greased at the same time Clinton was, in that it illustrates a commonly held misconception that Leftists like you try to push, namely that Clinton was nearly impeached for getting a hummer from Lewinsky. Not so. Clinton was nearly impeached (and was disbarred) for suborning perjury. Big, big difference.
[/quote]Not exactly. Clinton was accused of actual perjury, not merely suborning, or procuring another to commit perjury. Had he actually committed perjury, undoubtedly there would have been charges filed. But he didn’t. What he did, was lie under oath. Which does not, by itself qualify as perjury. (And no, it has nothing to do with what “is” is. Perjury requires that the false testimony must be material to the case in which the testimony is given. It was not material. Ruled such, as a matter of law, by the judge in the case.)
May 21, 2010 at 5:09 PM #553760Participant[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]
Interesting that you juxtapose Newt getting his gear greased at the same time Clinton was, in that it illustrates a commonly held misconception that Leftists like you try to push, namely that Clinton was nearly impeached for getting a hummer from Lewinsky. Not so. Clinton was nearly impeached (and was disbarred) for suborning perjury. Big, big difference.
[/quote]Not exactly. Clinton was accused of actual perjury, not merely suborning, or procuring another to commit perjury. Had he actually committed perjury, undoubtedly there would have been charges filed. But he didn’t. What he did, was lie under oath. Which does not, by itself qualify as perjury. (And no, it has nothing to do with what “is” is. Perjury requires that the false testimony must be material to the case in which the testimony is given. It was not material. Ruled such, as a matter of law, by the judge in the case.)
May 21, 2010 at 9:23 PM #552804gandalf
ParticipantHa,ha! Good one, Aecetia…
Or maybe we round all the assholes up, put them on TV for entertainment…
Oh right, that’s Fox News.
Change of topic, did # of SFR listings / for sale inventory go up past couple of weeks?
May 21, 2010 at 9:23 PM #552910ParticipantHa,ha! Good one, Aecetia…
Or maybe we round all the assholes up, put them on TV for entertainment…
Oh right, that’s Fox News.
Change of topic, did # of SFR listings / for sale inventory go up past couple of weeks?
May 21, 2010 at 9:23 PM #553397ParticipantHa,ha! Good one, Aecetia…
Or maybe we round all the assholes up, put them on TV for entertainment…
Oh right, that’s Fox News.
Change of topic, did # of SFR listings / for sale inventory go up past couple of weeks?
May 21, 2010 at 9:23 PM #553496ParticipantHa,ha! Good one, Aecetia…
Or maybe we round all the assholes up, put them on TV for entertainment…
Oh right, that’s Fox News.
Change of topic, did # of SFR listings / for sale inventory go up past couple of weeks?
-
AuthorPosts
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.