Jeffrey Cohen is a wonderful attorney, and I would want him on my team. I apologize to him for any perceived misunderstandings, or implications in this blog that he is anything less than an upright, ethical, sober and responsible attorney.
I did not post Jeffrey Cohen's name on this blog in connection with any statements. I certainly do not remember doing so and can't imagine ever having done such a thing. Attorneys names are never mentioned here, and if they are posted accidentally, they are deleted it immediately — as I cannot find it now anywhere on the web, in my files or on blogger itself. In fact, I contacted the webmaster who publishes my items and posted my own statement back in August reprimanding the National Enquirer for defaming my character, and he has no record of Jeffrey Cohen's name anywhere in all my web postings. No one remembers seeing his name posted here.
That said, if his name was mistakenly printed, it was immediately retracted, and there exists no record of it anywhere on the internet. At the time, I was being viciously attacked and slandered on my own blog by a certain "Anonymous"* poster (see below). The blog referred to was deleted within minutes of being posted, so no one could have seen it except the attackers themselves.
Jeffrey Cohen is not the most "corrupt of all crooks" attorney that may have been anonymously referred to in that long-deleted posting, and if that was the impression taken, I deeply apologize. Nothing was said with malice; every impression gathered of the attorneys involved in the case was based on heresay.
If I ever gave the impression that I believed Jeffrey Cohen was disbarred, reprimanded or had drug problems, I also apologize. It has been brought to my attention that Mr. Cohen has never been reprimanded for unethical tactics nor has he been disbarred for corruption and drug abuse. At the time I may have believed these things based on heresay, which I now realize is false, and was not meant to implicate Mr. Cohen or cause him any problems. A blog is a personal opinion journal that often contains mistakes. Again, the immediate deletion of said blog, is evidence that the entire article was already retracted back in August.
Again, Jeffrey Cohen is a wonderful attorney, and I would want him on my team. I hope this clears up any mistakes or misunderstanding.
For the past few months I've received malicious taunts and cruel comments on my blog by a person posing as "Anonymous." This person has defamed my character and slandered me. I would appreciate anyone with knowledge of who 'Anonymous' might be, to please come forward.
This blog is a journal of personal opinion. While it allows visitors from all over the world to comment, the blog owner is not liable for content or for any comments left here.
Thank you and God Bless you,
Happy New Year
LYDIA CORNELL: AFI Best Actress Nominee, People's Choice Award winner; Actor, Writer, Director, Producer; woman and children advocate; teen mentor, comedienne, talk show host, inspirational pubic speaker best known for her starring role on ABC's "Too Close for Comfort" as TV legend Ted Knight's daughter 'Sara'; HBO's Curb Your Enthusiasm, and over 250 shows, episodes and movies worldwide. Turns tragedy into comedy, life-saving issues for women and equal pay for equal work...
Lydia, I dont remember you ever mentioning that name on ANY of the threads, and I have a very good memory when it comes to that stuff.
ReplyDeleteTiny the Blog Idiot said;
ReplyDeleteClif, do you think Bush is prosecuting the war in Iraq for political gain????
Clif said "Yes son, gain for the neo-cons, for them to control the profits of the 10 trillion dollars which will be made on developing the Iraqi oil, gain because it made BUSH a war president, where he attacked the Bogyman Saddam who had NOTHING to do with 9-11, but Bush and Cheney spun it that way.
Gain because his "mission accomplished" banner and speech where he declared he was a successful "war president" so he was setting himself up for his re-election.
Too bad for Bush that the war has turned out MUCH harder to prosecute than he wanted to put forth the effort, and it has required planning Bush, Cheney or Rumsfeld never DID. Iraq required a knowledge of the history of that country region and various tribes and sects of both Shiite and Sunni peoples who populate the area, WHICH they also never did.
So yes he began it for political gain, and has refused to change course, admit the truth of the fiasco because he percieves a very bad political LOSS, which the people of this country already gave him this November.
He is just too stubborn or stupid to realize he has very little political capital left and very few people actually believe him any more at all.
Almost everything Bush has done since he was chosen by the Supreme Court in 2000 has been for political gain of HIM or the suck up frauds who support him."
Clif said "BTW Tiny the Blog Idiot, why are you so dense, that you have to ask stupid questions at this late time in this war?
ReplyDeleteDo you actually think we are "winning it" or just not losing yet like the Idiot in Chief?
And how can you still back that MORON after his flip flop from "we're winning" before the election, to we're not winning....er....bbbb.... BBbuuuttt we're not LOSING[yet].
And Donald Rumsfeld is going to be MY secretary of Defense....at the SAME time he was vetting Robert Gates.
Or your doing a heck of a job Brownie?
Or wanted Dead or Alive six months before ...I don't think about him much.
Or any of these flip flops;
Bush flip-flopped on whether former Baathists could participate in the new Iraq government.
Bush opposed the creation of an independent Sept. 11 commission, then supported it.
Bush has waffled on whether to adopt the recommendations of the 9/11 Commission.
Bush has flip-flopped on whether the War on Terrorism is winnable.
Bush has flip-flopped on Yucca Mountain.
Bush has attempted to have it both ways on assault weapons.
In 2000, Bush argued against new military entanglements and nation building. He's done both in Iraq.
Bush opposed the creation of a Homeland Security Department, then embraced it.
Bush first refused to speak to the members of the 911 Commission, then agreed only if Vice President Dick Cheney came with him and provided that their testimony was secret and not under oath.
Bush argued for free trade, then imposed three-year tariffs on steel imports in 2002, only to withdraw them after 21 months.
Bush and Cheney have been hypocritical flip-floppers on the question of whether we should prosecute the war on terrorism and assert our national power in a way that is "sensitive."
Bush has flip-flopped on whether his legacy will be as a war president or a peace president.
Bush keeps revising his Iraq war rationale.
Bush has changed his positions on new Clean Air Act restrictions.
Bush has changed his positions on protecting the Social Security surplus.
Bush has flip-flopped on tobacco buyouts.
Bush has changed his positions on the level of assistance to help combat AIDS in Africa.
Bush has changed his positions on campaign finance reform.
Bush has changed his positions on whether to negotiate with North Korean officials. While he has been dithering, North Korea has been moving forward with their nuclear program.
Most recently, Bush did an about-face on whether the proposed new director of national intelligence should have full budget-making powers as the bipartisan Sept. 11 commission recommended.
Bush has taken multiple positions on how this nation should deal with Iran.
Bush has taken multiple positions on whether budget deficits matter.
Bush has flip-flopped at least three times on whether patients should have the Right to Sue their HMOs.
Bush has flip-flopped on abortion.
Bush has flip-flopped on OPEC.
Bush has flip flipped on Iraq Funding.
Bush first said that we didn't need more troops in Iraq, then he reversed himself.
Bush flip-flopped on Condoleeza Rice Testimony.
Bush flip-flopped on Science.
Bush flip-flopped on Ahmed Chalabi.
Bush has flip-flopped on whether Weapons of Mass Destruction have been discovered in Iraq.
Bush has flip-flopped on the Environment.
Bush has flip-flopped on a WMD Commission.
Bush flip-flopped on whether to grant a Time Extension for the 9/11 Commission.
Bush flip-flopped on whether to impose a one Hour Limit for 9/11 Commission Testimony.
Bush has flip-flopped on Gay Marriage.
Bush has flip-flopped on whether there was a Saddam/al Qaeda Link.
Bush has flip-flopped on whether a U.N. Resolution was necessary and desirable before the Iraq war
Bush has flip-flopped on whether the U.S. should be involved in trying to resolve the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict.
Bush has flip-flopped on whether restrictions on 527s are necessary and appropriate.
Bush has flip-flopped on whether Medical Records should remain private.
Bush has flip-flopped on whether timelines for dictators are appropriate.
Bush has flip-flopped on the Great Lakes:
Bush flip-flopped about who created the "Mission Accomplished" banner and what its significance was.
FLIP: May 2, 2003: Bush is flown to the U.S.S. Lincoln aircraft carrier, dressed in a flight suit, and then proceeds to prance around the deck. Above him, the tower was adorned with a big sign that read, "Mission Accomplished." Declares a premature victory in Iraq, in the process revealing how little planning he has done for the Iraq occupation and how unrealistic his assumptions are about that occupation.
FLOP: October 28, 2003: Six months after he spoke on an aircraft carrier deck with the death toll rising in Iraq and reality on the ground looking increasing chaotic, Bush (at a press conference) claimed that the administration had nothing to do with the banner being hung up on the aircraft carrier and said that the Navy called for it, and that it was hung up to mark the accomplishment of the ship's mission, not the U.S. mission in Iraq. At a news conference, Bush claimed that the "Mission Accomplished" sign "was put up by the members of the USS Abraham Lincoln, saying that their mission was accomplished."
Bush spokesman Scott McClellan said at the time: "The mission for the sailors and crew on board the ship was accomplished. There are some continuing objectives we have on the security front, on the reconstruction front, on the political front."
FLIP: October 29, 2003: the administration acknowledged that it was the White House who created the banner. Senate Minority Leader Tom Daschle of South Dakota, asked by reporters about the incident, called it "one of the most significant embarrassments of the entire Iraq experience so far. As he noted, "we've lost more lives since (Bush) declared victory than we lost prior to the time we declared victory. And this latest fabrication is yet another illustration of their (the Republican administration's) unwillingness to except reality. The administration "said that the Navy called for it, and that was a fabrication because they then later acknowledged that it was the White House who created the banner."
Bush Flip-Flopped on arsenic standards.
Bush Flip-flopped about manufacturing job loss and his "manufacturing czar."
Bush said we must not appease terrorists, then lifted trade sanctions on Pakistan, which pardoned its official who sold nuclear secrets to Iran, Libya and North Korea.
Bush Flip-flopped and Broke His 2000 Promises to Reform and Strengthen Social Security and Medicare, and to Not Raid the Social Security Trust Fund.
Bush flip-flopped and broke his 2000 campaign pledge on the uninsured.
Bush flip-flopped on his 2000 Promises to the Military and Veterans.
Bush flip-flopped on whether they would arrest Al Sadr
Bush flip-flopped on whether the U.S. would reach out to the international community for help with Iraq.
Bush has flip-flopped on how to handle Fallujah.
Bush and Cheney have flip-flopped on Defense System and Intelligence Funding Cuts.
Bush and Cheney flip-flopped on the $87 Billion.
Bush Flip Flopped on the question of whether a National Sales Tax is a good idea.
From "Kenny Boy" Lay (CEO of Enron) to "Ken who?"
Verification of all flip flops, HERE
So Tiny the Blog Idiot how do you still defend the flip flopper in Chief, are you that stupid?"
...that he is anything less than an upright, ethical, sober and responsible attorney...
ReplyDeleteI just knew there hadta be one somewhere.
/Hmm...sounds like a parry to some saber-rattling to me
look at the loser ranting because he doesnt want to face reality and cant answer the question near the top of the blog.............spin away little troll troll!
ReplyDeletelook at the trolls using multiple alias to make it "APPEAR" there are more brainwashed blindly loyal partisan repug fools than there really are, truly pathetic!
ReplyDeletethe question is the number 2 and 3 posts fool, i could post it again if you would like?
ReplyDeleteNothing like the threat of a friendly lawsuit to focus one's attention, eh?
ReplyDeleteQ: What do you call 1000 lib lawyers on the floor of the ocean?
A: A modest start.
The devil visited a lib lawyer's office and made him an offer. "I can arrange some things for you, " the devil said. "I'll increase your income five-fold. Your partners will love you; your clients will respect you; you'll have four months of vacation each year and live to be a hundred. All I require in return is that your wife's soul, your children's souls, and their children's souls rot in hell for eternity."
ReplyDeleteThe lib lawyer thought for a moment. "What's the catch?" he asked.
A lib lawyer was driving his big BMW down the highway, singing to himself, "I love my BMW, I love my BMW." Focusing on his car, not his driving, he smashed into a tree. He miraculously survived, but his car was totaled. "My BMW! My BMW!" he sobbed.
ReplyDeleteA good Samaritan drove by and cried out, "Sir, sir, you're bleeding! And my god, your left arm is gone!"
The lib lawyer, horrified, screamed "My Rolex! My Rolex!"
I don't see any reason for a retraction, let alone an apology.
ReplyDelete-clippy
Me either. Might I suggest the response of the inimitable Anthony Hopkins in Legends of the Fall: "Screw 'em".
A reporter outside of a courtroom asked a defendant clad only in a barrel: “Oh, I see your lib attorney lost the case!” The defendant answered, “No, actually we won.”
ReplyDeleteA doctor and a lib lawyer were attending a cocktail party when the doctor was approached by a man who asked advice on how to handle his ulcer.
ReplyDeleteThe doctor mumbled some medical advice, then turned to the lawyer and asked, "How do you handle the situation when you are asked for advice during a social function?"
"Just send a bill for such advice" replied the lawyer.
On the next morning the doctor arrived at his surgery and issued the ulcer-stricken man a $50 bill. That afternoon he received a $100 bill from the lawyer.
Prof jackass said "I've never seen Jeffery Cohen's name here but theres a reason Lydia threw herslf on her sword."
ReplyDeleteyeah i'm sure there is, probably something like Coulter and her troll minions tried to set Lydia up and get someone else to fight their battles........that is how you cowards like to fight isnt it......from the sidelines far away from the real fighting, so you wont get hurt.
pathetic cowards to the bitter end, and the end is soon approaching for your idiot in chief.
If it weren't for rich shyster lib lawyers, members of the Film Actors Guild, and union goons, the liberals might acually be able to sell their whiney shtick about eevil "rich Republicans".
ReplyDelete...yeah i'm sure there is, probably something like Coulter and her troll minions tried to set Lydia up...
ReplyDelete-mikey
I dunno mikey, this has Karl Rove's fingerprints all over it.
Ann is much too busy for this sort of thing. She's working on her sixth book and all. I pretty sure that's almost as many as carl, the novelist, has written.
Maybe Ms. Cornell will explain all this interpersonal intrigue in her soon-to-be-published book, which I am anxious to review.
ReplyDeleteYeah you babbling incoherently like an idiot is cleaning my clock, your a joke, wake up and stop swilling the koolaid little troll.
ReplyDeleteyou losers think you control the blog, its about time someone shut YOU up little troll.
ReplyDeletehey stupid its gallant not gallent.
ReplyDeleteLOL whats a gallent?...........is that kinda like the think Bush will be swinging from when hes convicted of treaso and war crimes?
ReplyDeleteThe repugs have professors and so called scientists and experts who need a speak and spell to form a coherent thought, how sad, you fools wouldnt even know the truth if it bit you on the ass.
ReplyDeleteTroll Tex and Fascist fool need the trained monkeys to come in and rescue them LOL Tall Tex you are the dumbest SOB on this earth and FF you are a close second old man!
ReplyDeleteProf jackass said "Without worf,clif and carl to protect you you're reduced to the idiot you are."
ReplyDeleteno whats interesting is that since copying is the most sincere form of flattery, and I said that to Troll Tex the other day thanks for the compliment.
Just checking in before I hit the hay after having a few days off to celebrate Jesus' Fake Birthday.
ReplyDelete-dkb
What a delightful beauty. Luv the nose hair, but please bring back the picture of the 20-years-younger next door neighbor.
typical repug tough guy issuing threats while hiding behind a keyboard, you wanna try to kill me clippy then crawl out from under your rock and give it a shot...........be a man for ONCE in your pathetic life loser!
ReplyDeleteI must agree, mikey's clock is immaculate.
ReplyDeleteAt least no one can accuse mikey of having a dirty mind, since simply having a mind is sine qua non.
ReplyDeleteFF said "I must agree, mikey's clock is immaculate."
ReplyDeleteI think you had a spelling error there pops you added an extra letter to the word clock, we all know the word you and your twinkle toed symbol really meant....................BTW, thanks for polishing it up for me old man and try to file down those teeth more next time.
typical repug tough guy issuing threats while hiding behind a keyboard, you wanna try to kill me clippy then crawl out from under your rock and give it a shot...........be a man for ONCE in your pathetic life loser!
ReplyDelete-mikey
Calm down, my paranoid little friend. All us neo-cons are not really out to get you. Eh ... what is your address? Bwahahahahahaa.
Mikey's emotional age is -5.
ReplyDeleteMike reminds me of Ralph in A Christmas Story but he wants a girlfriend not the BB gun.
ReplyDelete-prof chaos
Actually I believe mikey has given up trying to pitch woo to women, and has switched sides. He found the magic, of moonlight trysts with PP in men's urine-soaked restrooms, simply irresistable.
Mikey is not sure what to say without his lib buddies here with their hands up his puppet keister.
ReplyDeleteTHE FOOLE said "Mikey is not sure what to say without his lib buddies here with their hands up his puppet keister."
ReplyDeleteugh no fool you guys arent debating ANYTHING right now, see unlike when you or the blog idiot Troll Tex get destroyed in debate all your doing is calling names like vulgar 4th graders when you grow up and have anything worthwhile or legitimate to discuss give me a holler old man, but on your case that better be quick because you dont have much time before senility sets in along with the delusions.
if this is your idea of victory fool you have really sunk low and are even more pathetic than i imagined!
it wasnt that vulgar Clippy but regardless I apologize for stooping to your level and calling names you arent worth the time, maybe someday you'll see the light and the error of your ignorant ways.But right now I pity you.
ReplyDeleteI wish Carl would come back; he's much more fun to insult than mikey.
ReplyDeleteMikey is about as much challenge as dynamiting fish in a barrel.
Mikey is about as much challenge as anyone entering a personality contest with dkb. Last time she lost to algore.
Mikey is about as much challenge as entering a joke-telling contest with cliffy.
Mikey is about as much challenge as playing basketball with Stephen Hawking.
Mikey is about as much challenge as playing marbles with Helen Keller.
Mikey is about as much challenge as wondering whether Hillary will raise taxes.
ReplyDeleteMikey is about as much challenge as playing rochambeau with a snake.
Mikey is about as much challenge as playing chess with a chimp.
For the past few months I've received malicious taunts and cruel comments on my blog by a person posing as "Anonymous." This person has defamed my character and slandered me. I would appreciate anyone with knowledge of who 'Anonymous' might be, to please come forward.
ReplyDeleteIs there a reward? Okay I'm pretty sure it was Mr. Cohen wearing a mustache.
Come on Foole, it aint over till its over.............I aint heard no bell foole!
ReplyDeleteI reserve the right to delete posts that use the f-word or any personal insults and foul language.
ReplyDeleteLet's go mikey. (Please don't hurt me.)
ReplyDeleteNo insults? What fun is that?
ReplyDeleteFF I had a long conversation today with a brilliant scholar. We agreed that you are a true Republican, but not a sociopathic neocon.
ReplyDeleteThe sociopaths are obvious.
Well Ok Lyd, that sounds good to me, but most of this thread oughta be deleted if thats the criteria.
ReplyDeleteFor footnotes I consulted an eminent psychiatrist to help understand the neo-con mentality.
ReplyDeleteIt's very interesting. I'll post my findings soon.
In the meantime, there are definitely some "people of the lie" on this blog. The "Anonymous" person, the people who taunt and threaten me under psuedonyms and the ones who planted that National Enquirer article are all this type.
They thrive on destroying others. Did anyone read M. Scott Peck's book about human evil?
Yeah he's not a sociopath, but he is a true repug through and through.
ReplyDeleteJohn Dean's book goes into depth analyzing the neo-con brand of thought. Rove, Cheney, Bush all have no conscience.
ReplyDeleteDid you know Cheney had 2 DUIs and dropped out of Yale (or was it Harvard?) and got 5 draft deferments through his family's wealthy friends (even though he dropped out of college.)
How did this man wind up being Vice President of the United States?
And how on earth did he shoot someone in the face while drunk, yet never suffer any consequences?
And how did the victim end up apologizing for being shot -- just to assuage Cheney's embarrassment-suffering!
A true narcissist & sociopath only concerns himself with
self-preservation. He is unable to think of others as anything but a stepping stone or an obstacle.
FF I had a long conversation today with a brilliant scholar. We agreed that you are a true Republican, but not a sociopathic neocon.
ReplyDelete-Lydia Cornell
Thank you, Ms. Cornell. That scholar was brilliant indeed.
I wonder if THIS is the guy? If it is he's plenty crooked. The lying scum is trying to STEAL another guys website!
ReplyDelete-Voltron
LOL Volt. But that's kinda what I imagined mikey would look like. No wonder he wouldn't divulge his occupation. Who could blame him.
FF I had a long conversation today with a brilliant scholar. We agreed that you are a true Republican, but not a sociopathic neocon.
ReplyDelete-Lydia Cornell
Thank you, Ms. Cornell. That scholar was brilliant indeed.
FF
Ahh thanks guys, now your making me blush!
I posted pictures of Mike earlier in June, when he came to Vegas to see us perform comedy.
ReplyDeleteMike is very good looking.
Everyone stop being so jealous of Mike.
Lydia said "John Dean's book goes into depth analyzing the neo-con brand of thought. Rove, Cheney, Bush all have no conscience."
ReplyDeleteLydia, its sad that there are people in this world that are so deluded twsisted and evil that they have no reedeeming qualities at all.
Hi FF, I'm not joining in, I just dropped by to help a little I hope.
ReplyDeleteBefore I go though you forgot one good lawyer joke:
You know why sharks won't eat lawyers?
Professional courtesy...
Night all.
Volt, thank you for your post, but this is not the same person.
ReplyDeleteThis is not his picture.
But thanks anyway.
Hey volt, we miss you.
ReplyDeleteBTW Volt for someone who swore never to return you sure popped in pretty quick with that info,.............did you post under the wrong handle or are you back for keeps.
ReplyDeleteregardless I hope you had a merry Christmas, you were always my favorite wingnut to talk to, I found you "interesting" even though I found your genocidal hard line policies disturbing.
I've only had one handle Mike.
ReplyDeleteBut this is probably not the right place for me. Sociopath neo-cons are a little too far to the left for my tastes...LOL
hey volt post a link to your blog.
ReplyDeletehttp://voltronsplace.blogspot.com/
ReplyDeleteIt's interesting the FOOLE never wins any extended rants, never actually has a come back to Carl's bitch slapping the foole gets daily, (and Foole YOUR the bitch, not Carl son) and he still thinks he's winning, no wonder Bush thinks he was winning in Iraq, idiots like Bush and the Foole thinks alike, with severely addled minds.
ReplyDeleteSucks to be shown for what you are son, a gutless draft dodger who pretends to win debates just like you pretend to be intelligent.
But he does have the troll scout troop on overtime today;
ReplyDeleteClippy is working on the hypocritical unchristian badge,
Prof Keyass is working to the dumber than the blog idiot badge.
Dolty boy is working on the lying hypocrite I really didn't mean it badge.
OF course Dolty boy wants to be here but can't seem to think of a way of flip-flopping like bush does all the time with out looking dumber than he already does, with all his "buds" hanging out here instead of his anorexic blog.
He must have learned how to run a Blog from Tiny the blog Idiot, who has a blog as anemic as dolty boy's blog has become.
Stupid is as stupid does and dolty boy and Tiny the blog idiot are like peas in a pod when it comes to stupid it seems.
clippy said...
ReplyDeleteif I ever see you on the streets of Boston you better run...PUNKASS
3:56 PM
You know how I know this moron is no more than a 19 year old snot nosed idiot?
Besides his inability to articulate a single sentence on at least a sixth grade level, but only a kid would be so stupid, as to write a physical threat to someone and post it online.
You're gonna wanna save this one Mike.
Actually Worfeus we should get "clippy" to say what street he peddles his ass on in Boston.
ReplyDeleteWell Worf Lydia deleted a bunch of vulgar and threatening posts and Clippy might have deleted a few as well. he wished me dead and threatened several times to hang me, like he would ever have the balls to crawl out from behind his keyboard.
ReplyDeletethere were probasbly close to 20 vulgar troll posts that got deleted.
Freedom Fan said...
ReplyDeleteQ: What do you call 1000 lib lawyers on the floor of the ocean?
A: A modest start.
Q: What's brown, black, and looks good on a conservative lawyer?
A: A doberman.
Mike, only a very stupid person would make threats like that on the internet. If indeed he did make a death threat, and you or Lydia have it saved, then he has opened himself up to arrest and prosecution.
ReplyDeleteI think you will find that in most states, it is illegal to make death threats. And when you do it on the internet, I think the FBI are the ones who investigate them.
literally 100 troll posts of nothing but insults, threats and vulgar baby talk then out of the blue volt pops in with a link to someone he thought could be that lawyer.
ReplyDeleteinteresting how volt just happened to be in the neighborhood at the coinclusion of the troll fest.
Death threats are never to be taken lightly.
ReplyDeleteBut even threats to assault someone is a crime.
One things for sure, only someone very young, and very dumb would be stupid enough to post them on the Internet.
I dont know about only young Worf, TT once asked me if I would like to be strung up and hanged with piano wire several months ago, and clippy has wished me dead and threatened to hang me at least 5 times in the last several months and about 3 times in the last week or so.
ReplyDeleteI've heard a lot of insults in here, but I've never heard too many threats, except lately.
ReplyDeleteTT made a suggestion that could be construed to be threatening, albeit subtly, but out and out death threats need to be documented and reported.
If these are stored in the archives then he's screwed.
its not that i;m scared, i'm just sick of the empty BS talk either shut up or put your money wherte your mouth is and try to back up your empty talk.
ReplyDeleteWe read about the dangers online every day, from sicko's and lunatics and all sorts of nutcases.
ReplyDeleteClearly clippy has demonstrated he is unbalanced in here, so if he's threatening people I'd take it seriously.
No one thinks you're scared Mike.
ReplyDeleteBut you should be alarmed.
The Secret Service advises people to take EVERY internet threat seriously, and when someone is almost stalker like in his manner, and shows signs of being unbalanced, then you need to take it seriously.
People think they can hide on the internet, but experience has proven otherwise.
"Mike said...
ReplyDeleteI dont know about only young Worf, TT once asked me if I would like to be strung up and hanged with piano wire several months ago, and clippy has wished me dead and threatened to hang me at least 5 times in the last several months and about 3 times in the last week or so.
6:48 PM"
Mike, if I recall correctly, there was some discussion about dissenting in Nazi Germany, and I suggested that if one did dissent back then, one would risk being hung by piano wire, which was one of Hitler's favorite ways to torture and/or kill people.
Context is crucial. It wasn't a threat in any sense of the word. It was a discussion about dissenting in Nazi Germany.
TT said;
ReplyDeleteMike, if I recall correctly, there was some discussion about dissenting in Nazi Germany, and I suggested that if one did dissent back then, one would risk being hung by piano wire, which was one of Hitler's favorite ways to torture and/or kill people.
Thats right. I do remember it that way as well.
But what you said the other day to one of them, either Clif or Mike, I can't remember. That did seem a little threatening. I don't think you meant it, but if I were you, I'd avoid even the appearance of it.
well look what the cat just dragged in, and to correct you TT I was talking about Nazi's and you replied by asking me "if I would like to be strung up and hung by piano wire"
ReplyDeletedont worry TT, while I never accused you of bering too smart, I acknowledge that you are at least wise enough to only issue veiled threats......see thats how you repugs operate its all semantics and focus on the letter of the law rather than the spirit, its all syle over substance with you.
in your deluded mind Nixon being a coward and resigning before he was without a doubt clearly impeached is somehow different and better than actually being impeached, to any normal person there is not much of a difference but to a repug who focuses on semantics and deception there is a huge difference.
He made a veiled threat against Carl who was bitch slapping Tiny real bad at the time, Tiny hates that, as each time it happens he raises something totally irrelevant or tries to slander the person. He tried to threaten Carl, even if he has deleted the comment by now.
ReplyDeleteThats right Clif. It was Carl. It was just the other day to.
ReplyDeleteBut even if he did delete it, I believe I copied it and posted it in a response, which means its still there, at least a copy of it.
Usually when a little brute is intellectually outclassed, his frustration is expressed with threats of physical violence.
ReplyDeleteTiny the Blog Idiot, is slimy like that, he posts lies and slander when he gets bitch slapped bad, which he usually does.
ReplyDeletesee Worf and TT, not that i'm dwelling on this or even giving it a second thought, but i take a veiled threat far more seriously than a heat of the moment threat blurted out in asnger by an unstable individual;, because there was forethought and and consideration that went into formulating that veiled threat.
ReplyDeleteMike, it was not a threat in any sense of the word. It was a discussion about Nazi Germany.
ReplyDeleteOh and BTW Tiny in the spirit of FULL disclosure, you RANT that Clinton was Impeached, But you leave out NOT convicted , which means the impeachment attempt FAILED.
ReplyDeleteNixon however resigned right before the house began impeachment proceedings, and THEN Gerald Ford had to PARDON Nixon, which means he had something to be pardoned about, Ford believed it, so HE pardoned Nixon.
Seems Clinton was not guilty enough for conviction, BUT only Nixon needed a pardon to protect Him and the repugs who aided and abetted him.
Try spinning Nixon's need for a pardon and the fact Clinton did NOT
"clif said...
ReplyDeleteOh and BTW Tiny in the spirit of FULL disclosure, you RANT that Clinton was Impeached, But you leave out NOT convicted , which means the impeachment attempt FAILED."
Wrong, Clif. The impeachment attempt succeeded because he WAS impeached. You and Mike can't get that through your think heads.
That's like saying someone was not indicted because they were aquitted at trial. They were still indicted.
Tiny GFY son, Clinton was NOT removed from office no matter how bad the hypocritical repugs and assclowns like you want to pretend different, and UNLIKE Nixon, Clinton STOOD his ground, Agnew and NIXON cut and ran, with Ford pardoning Nixon to cover his ass for the crimes he committed.
ReplyDeleteNixon was guilty, his resignation shows that, the senate said Clinton was NOT.
See TT is a master of semantics he tries to spin it that Nixon being a coward and resigning BEFORE he would have been surely impeached is better than Clinton being impeached but not removed from office.
ReplyDeleteWhat Clinton did was minor compared to Nixon or GWB, but Clinton was a man and stood his ground unlike the cowardly Nixon, who pretended to be untouchable till justice came his way...............funny thing is Bush makes even Nixon seem good in comparison.
Mike, it's not semantics. If we are going to discuss history, let's be accurate.
ReplyDeleteIf your history teacher gave you a multiple choice question that went as follows, which would be correct?:
Nixon was:
a) impeached
b) removed
b) found guilty
c) all of the above
d) none of the above
The correct answer would be d) none of the above.
Try telling your history teacher it's all semantics if you answered incorrectly.
well technically removed is correct as well, TT, since he removed himself, but your preaching to the choir I acknowledged immediately back then that he was not impeached however where we differ is I dont think that is better or even different than actually being impeached, we all KNOW he would surely have been impeached and removed.
ReplyDeleteThe repugs told Bush to tell Nixon to resign or he would be impeached.
Nixon resigned to avoid impeachment.
Tiny the BLOG IDIOT said;
ReplyDeleteNixon was:
a) impeached
articles of impeachment WERE voted out of committee;
The House Judiciary Committee voted 27 to 11 on July 27, 1974 to recommend the first article of impeachment against the President: obstruction of justice. The second (abuse of power) and third (contempt of Congress) articles were passed on July 29 and July 30, respectively.
Wiki;
b) removed
By his OWN hand Richard Milhouse Nixon removed himself from the office of the Presidency, BEFORE the full house voted impeachment and:
Nixon's support in the Senate was weak as well. After being told by key Republican Senators that enough votes existed to convict him, Nixon decided to resign. In a nationally televised address on the evening of August 8, 1974, he announced he would resign effective noon on August 9. Though Nixon's resignation obviated the pending impeachment, criminal prosecution was still a possibility. He was immediately succeeded by Gerald Ford, who on September 8, 1974, issued a pardon for Nixon, immunizing him from prosecution for any crimes he may have committed as President. Nixon proclaimed his innocence until his death, although his acceptance of the pardon was construed by many as an admission of guilt. He did state in his official response to the pardon that he "was wrong in not acting more decisively and more forthrightly in dealing with Watergate, particularly when it reached the stage of judicial proceedings and grew from a political scandal into a national tragedy.
Wiki
b) found guilty
Only the pardon by Gerald Ford blocked this, thus he WAS guilty by extension, since both the House voted for articles of impeachment and had the votes to impeach, and the Senate had the votes to convict son.
c) all of the above
Only an assclown idiot like the gutless tiny the blog idiot would try to spin this the way HE does.
Clif, you need more than a committee vote to impeach. "Removal" is a constitutional term of art. "Removed," constitutionally, is NOT the same as "resignation."
ReplyDeleteOnce again, you would get an "F" from your teacher for that answer.
BTW Tiny the Blog Idiot,
ReplyDeleteIn 1976, Nixon was disbarred by the State of New York, and soon resigned his other law licenses.
So he was also permanently disbarred, Clinton WAS NOT Permanently disbarred son.
I posted pictures of Mike earlier in June, when he came to Vegas to see us perform comedy. Mike is very good looking. Everyone stop being so jealous of Mike.
ReplyDelete-Lydia Cornell
Yes, mikey is quite a hunk, albeit barely conscious or perhaps snookered. PP and cliffy, please refrain from looking as it will proly make you lib boys feel all funny in the pants.
'Course those two bald guys next to mikey ain't bad either.
ReplyDeleteNo tiny the blog idiot, removal FROM the office is the United States of America is what Nixon did son. He resigned and was disbarred for life for committing Felonies against this country, Clinton NOT SO MUCH Gutless.
ReplyDeleteTiny only ONE President ever lost his office because of HIS actions son, that is NIXON, son NOT Clinton son.
ReplyDeleteHate to tell you son, your wrong but trying to make Clinton worse than Nixon or Bush, but that dog don't hunt son, hell it ain't even alive any more remember the loss in November son, that dog is DEAD.
Lookie, the Foole in his GAY get up is talking about looking at men and feeling funny in the pants again, Foole please try to refrain your self, or run off to Mexico with the Viagra again son, Emanuael is waiting for you son, and you OWE him for last time , you cheated him again son.
ReplyDeleteCliffy, you're a naughty rascal. xxoo
ReplyDeleteOr Foole maybe you can visit Boston and pick "clippy" up on the street corner he said he worked son, after the good rev haggard stopped calling "clippy" is kinda short on funds for his "meth".
ReplyDeleteSorry son but your the one who prances around in the get up like a gay man, and posted this;
ReplyDeleteplease refrain from looking as it will proly make you lib boys feel all funny in the pants
from personal; experience's son, or just numerous trips to Mexico with the Viagra son.
Lookie, the Foole in his GAY get up is talking about looking at men...
ReplyDeleteC'mon I wasn't looking at men; I was looking at mikey.
Because your the one who NOTICES things like that,
ReplyDeleteBTW Mike be careful around the FOOLE remember Foley and Haggard pretended and denied reverently until they got caught also.
me thinks the foole and those two closeted clowns have MUCH in common.
... but mostly the two short bald guys next to mikey...
ReplyDeleteYou know what Clif? I guess one could say technically TT is correct, but who cares? He is arguing semantics, when clearly the issue is not whether an actual impeachment process ensued, and was ratified. Nixon was busted being culpable of criminal actions.
ReplyDeleteAnd not just any criminal acts, but those of deception and moral turpitude. He acknowledged his guilt by quitting, and fled to evade prosecution. We know this. It's a matter of history. Not perception. Just cleary documented history, with ample empirical evidence.
He was guilty, and everyone knew it. I was just a teenager, and I knew it.
You ever fill out a job application, and see the question, Have you ever resigned a position of employment because you knew you were about to be terminated?.
You see it on most job apps these days. Why? Because employers don't differentiate between those who get caught, and those who quit to avoid being held accountable.
And neither do most people.
Nixon was guilty of serious crimes, and was caught red handed. I hate to quote Judge Judy because I know I'll get crap for it, but she's a damn smart lady (a lot smarter than the right wingers I've seen in here) but she has what she calls, "Good Evidence".
She says "Good Evidence" trumps all else.
When you have a suspect, with a motive, opportunity, the physical evidence in his possession, and eyewitnesses, you don't need too much extrapolation. The crimes been spelled out. We know they're guilty, because we see with our own eyes, and hear with our own ears. I am not talking about circumstantial evidence here now mind you, I am talking about physical evidence, like they had in the Nixon hearings.
People went to jail because of Nixons crimes. The fact that he escaped punishment is moot. President Ford pardoned him. I happen to disagree with you on the good thing it was for the country. While you're right, it did help to bring the country together somewhat, and healed us "for the moment", it left a festering cancer growing underneath, which pussed to the surface and put men like Bush 2 in power. We gave them the impression they can get away with it. And that was the wrong impression to give. We may have healed in the short term, but I think the underlying infection spread throughout the national body, and told men like Nixon, that they too could "get away with it".
And then we got Bush.
Sorry Foole but Mike is 38 which is a MANB son, I know you used to trolling college repug parties for future closeted repugs to "party" with, but there are men out there who do not look like Ken Melhman, Karl Rove, Mark Foley or Ted Haggard.
ReplyDeleteme thinks the foole and those two closeted clowns have MUCH in common...
ReplyDeleteI must insist that you stop dissin' mikey like that.
Seems your the only one who is critical of a mans body FOOLE seems your a connoisseur of mens bodies it seems, thus the gay costume and all the talk about feeling funny IN your pants.
ReplyDeleteThe FOOLE said;
ReplyDeleteme thinks the foole and those two closeted clowns have MUCH in common...
I must insist that you stop dissin' mikey like that.
the FOOLE has the little gay picture next to his fake name son, NOT mike but you FOOLE, fawnbot.
I luv this silly icon; I have never heard libs howl so much about absolutely nuthin. So I'm gonna keep it 'cause I must be doin somethin rite.
ReplyDeleteSeems that Tiny gave up the ghost of the lie he spews, so the foole is here to protect his place as the BLOG FOOLE gaydolf get up and all.
ReplyDeleteAnyway, Clinton was busted over a private sexual affair that with regards to our national security or anything for that matter that had to do with us on a national level, was irrelevant.
ReplyDeleteWe made it relevant, or at least the "moral majority" did. But it really didn't matter to us, and we should have kept ours, and that prick ken starr's noses out of it.
Clinton technically was impeached in the house, but it was never ratified by the senate. Saying he was aquitted is an accurate statement.
But what TT can't get through his thick head, is that it is the crime and the severity of the crime that matters. Not the technical proceedings that follow. Guilty people get off scott free all the time, just ask O.J. And innocent men end up on deaths row. Just ask 60 Minutes.
TT knows Nixon was as dirty as a sow in a mudswamp, and commited crimes for which any one of us would have went to jail for.
Ford pardoned him, and saved his ass. But he should have went to jail.
Bet you get a lot of email asking " you do make them HORNEY" right son?
ReplyDeleteJust like your gonna keep the false generalizations and lies you spew here right gaydolf?
Gaydolf the FOOLE
ReplyDeleteSeems your the only one who is critical of a mans body...
ReplyDeleteGolly cliffy you sound hurt. Hey, I'm pretty sure you're quite the stud too (and I mean that in the sweetest possible way).
Worfeus I remember the time of Nixon's impeachment and subsequent resignation.
ReplyDeleteMy father was beside himself that they would actually impeach Nixon, but when he resigned, for some reason MY dad accepted that. I do not think a trial would have done much good after NIXON had to resign in disgrace.
And If Bush was to be impeached it would NOT solve much unless he was convicted as well.
ReplyDeleteClinton's impeachment did NOT help the country, but did help assclowns like TINY to lie for bush and hide his flaws like the DUI until it was too late.
The Impeachment will be seen by history as the political hack job it was.
In fact I hear more and more if all you can get Bush impeached for is a blowjob, they wish Condi would get on with it.
ReplyDeleteAfter all she is as close to Bush's Monica as we are ever gonna get.
ReplyDeleteWorfeus said "You ever fill out a job application, and see the question, Have you ever resigned a position of employment because you knew you were about to be terminated?.
ReplyDeleteYou see it on most job apps these days. Why? Because employers don't differentiate between those who get caught, and those who quit to avoid being held accountable.
And neither do most people."
and thats exactly what I said months ago when this issue was initially discussed, TT's argument is all semantics there is not much difference between someone who resigns to avoid impeachment or someone who is actually impeached and yes job applications do ask that because the world sees little difference between the two.
Funny on CNN Jim Wallis said the gospel is against the limited affluence of a few where the rest of humanity lived in poverty, and both conservative religious leaders they had to debate him AGREED.
ReplyDeleteI guess it was MORE about helping the poor then reichwingnut election strategies all along, now that the repugs have LOST.
Must suck for them to have to admit that, Jesus cared MORE about helping the poor than policing the bedroom.
Clif said...
ReplyDeleteI do not think a trial would have done much good after NIXON had to resign in disgrace.
You may be right but I think while a trial would be painful at the moment, when the country was still reeling from the watergate revelations, it would have in the long run, been beneficial to the country.
Sure resigning smarts, for about 30 minutes until that chopper lands at Martha's Vineyard and you sit back to right your book and count your money as the speech offers and chair of the board seat offers come rolling in. Life is cushy for an ex president. He doesn't worry about what he's going to eat that night, or the next night, or any night. He doesn't worry about the mortgage, the car, the operation, whatever. He'll be taken care of, and he knows it. And while public shame smarts, theres always plenty of hobnobbers hanging around to console you and cajole you into thinking you're still a great man.
I think that impeaching Nixon would have been like removing a tumor while the wound is open as opposed to draining the puss out of the tumor and stitching the patient back up.
And the cancer that grew, was the cancer of the brain that tells men like Bush, that the worst that will happen to him if he starts wars, lies to start them, and then changes the constitution "on the fly" to suit his every whim, is that he will have to resign and go write a book (in his case have someone write it for him), and drink expensive imported beer. Or budweiser if you're Bush.
ReplyDeleteAfter all she is as close to Bush's Monica as ...
ReplyDeleteClinton was to Monica's bush.
Or maybe he drinks Busch.
ReplyDeletelol
Worfeus ONCE Nixon resigned, Impeachment was impossible as he was NO longer the President, Ford was.
ReplyDeleteAnd the trial was not really gonna get the US much, because Nixon would have drug it and the appeals out for YEARS even decades.
Ford and the government was facing the beginnings of stagflation, Remember the WIN buttons? Ford had that problem BEFORE Carter did.
Of course, on the other hand, that probably wouldn't have stopped our boy anyway. But at least we'd have set a precedent for prosecuting him. And in Federal law, and in particular Constitutional law, precedent is normally trump.
ReplyDeleteJust ask our new Cheif Justice Roberts.
ReplyDeleteWorfeus i am not sure conviction of Nixon would have resulted in much, as the Congress moved from the Watergate hearings into the CIA and FBI lawbreaking investigations which resulted in FISA and limits on their illegal activities until Cheney and Bush decided to ignore the law again like Nixon did.
ReplyDeleteHell I actually thing Iran Contra has MORE to do with the fact that Bush and Cheney decided to ignore the law, as Reagan ET Al got away with it, unlike Nixon.
ReplyDeleteclif said...
ReplyDeleteWorfeus ONCE Nixon resigned, Impeachment was impossible as he was NO longer the President, Ford was.
I know that Clif. I was not talking about impeachment. Ford didn't pardon him to avoid impeachment, he pardoned him to avoid federal prosecution, for which he would have faced had Ford not pardoned him.
As for the trial dragging on for years I can't say, but like I did say earlier, what they had on Nixon was not junk. It was "Good Evidence".
Good Evidence is trump and he could have argued to the cows came home, but they had the payoff list and they had him on tape admitting to it.
They had him cold. Maybe he'd have pulled some crap, but I don't think so. I think a Federal Grand Jury would have indicted him and I think he would have been sent straight to jail.
But that last part of course is just my opinion. Now because Ford did pardon him, we'll never know.
Worfeus a good set of lawyers could have tied to courts up for YEARS with motions and counter motions, which would have sent the trial into the late 1970's, with out the subsequent appeals, which could have dragged on for a while.
ReplyDeleteHell look at what happened with Enron, five years from crime to trial, and Enron did not have the access Nixon would have in 1974.
Volt, I did not say Jeffrey Cohen was the malicious "anonymous." I made an apology to Cohen for thinking the worst of him.
ReplyDeleteHe's a good lawyer.
Worf said "And the cancer that grew, was the cancer of the brain that tells men like Bush, that the worst that will happen to him if he starts wars, lies to start them, and then changes the constitution "on the fly" to suit his every whim, is that he will have to resign and go write a book (in his case have someone write it for him), and drink expensive imported beer. Or budweiser if you're Bush."
ReplyDeleteClif i'm with Worf here, I think we ned to send a strong message to future presidents that if you abuse your power or commit acts of treason YOU WILL be held accountable.
I realize i'm probably in the minority here, but thats how I feel, my uncle talks similarly to you Clif, and i'd be willing to bet Lydia feels that way also as she always seems to favor forgiveness, but on thios issue I tend to take a hard line as I feel , we need to put future dictators and megalomaniacs on notice that you abbuse your power and/or commit acts of treason you better be ready to pay the price and be held accountable.
Being presidfent is a sacred responsibility not a blank check to do as you please and to operate above the law of the land and to defy the Constitution.
I do understand your point though about healing the country, but I think its sends a weak message, that we'll make you quit your job but we won't prosecute you.
ReplyDeleteI know most companies will prosecute employess who steal or commit other crimes against the company or the customers, in addition to terminating them.
Yes, I agree. Bush has committed treason with a capital T. He has committed war crimes. He has lied to the American people. He has broken the Constitution.
ReplyDeleteWe must follow principle and do what is right, which is impeach him - and then try him for war crimes.
We must show future generations that a public servant can't get away with criminal behavior based on politics.
clif said...
ReplyDelete.
Hell look at what happened with Enron, five years from crime to trial, and Enron did not have the access Nixon would have in 1974.
Yea. And it didn't stop the Federal Government from prosecuting the case to its fullest.
Would the country be any better if Ken Lay had not been prosecuted? I don't know. But I know that it sent a strong message to these mega giant corporations that the people count more than their bottom line, and that they'll pay if they forget that.
I think if the trial took 5 years than it should have taken 5 years.
It should have taken as long as was necessary, to show the next guy running for President, that he is not ABOVE the law, a message Bush seems to be in dire need of learning.
Lydia said "Yes, I agree. Bush has committed treason with a capital T. He has committed war crimes. He has lied to the American people. He has broken the Constitution.
ReplyDeleteWe must follow principle and do what is right, which is impeach him - and then try him for war crimes.
We must show future generations that a public servant can't get away with criminal behavior based on politics."
Well good, maybe i'm not in the minority as much as I thought, I think its crucial to send a message to future wanna be dictators and megalomaniacs that Bush be held accountable and pay the price for his actions.
Think about it. Which one of US would get off scott free for similar offeneses?
ReplyDeleteSo what if it takes more time and money to prosecute ex Presidents.
Hell it takes more time and money for them to eat lunch than it does one of us normal folk. We don't normally get the room "swept" before entering.
Unless its with a broom.
But this is good. We should disagree on some stuff Clif.
ReplyDeleteThats how WE know we're not mindless automotons.
:D
Mike it is LESS about forgiveness than the fact the country was already torn apart quite bad, and the Trail Of Nixon after he resigned would have prolonged that division and deepened it so that the neo-cons NOW would have just used that trial the way they use the investigations of both Watergate and Iran Contra.
ReplyDeleteBy the time Nixon had resigned, the Cheney Rumsfeld resentment against the limits of power had been formed.
People like them and TINY here ignore the crimes to look at the semantics to spin.
No trial would ever stop them...except for their own trial.
Expecting that the current crop of neo-cons and their minions to be curtailed because of what ever happened to Nixon is not really the right analogy, because they deny Nixon's crimes and Poo Poo his resignation, power is all they ever see, and think they have enough to hide their crimes, thus ONLY their OWN crimes and trials will stop them, they are really like criminals, no matter how many bank robbers you arrest and imprison, somebody else tries it.
I think its MORE IMPORTANT for presidents to be held accountable, because being president is a sacred trust and responsibility and allowing him to break that trust with little or no consequences enboldens the next thug to do it with impunity like Bush has!
ReplyDeleteClif said...
ReplyDeletePeople like them and TINY here ignore the crimes to look at the semantics to spin.
We certainly agree on that!
Clif I see what your saying but I disagree if Bush and Cheney thought they could be impeached and tried for treasons and war crimes for lying and misleading the nation into war, I think they might have thought twice if they realized they could be hanged or imprisoned for life for it instead of merely discredited but free to live the posh lives of multi millionaires bordering on billionaires.
ReplyDeleteEven if it didn't act as a deterrent, it could have acted as a failsafe, by having the precedent already set to handle such situations.
ReplyDeleteClif I think Bush and the Neo Cons have allready polarized and divided the country as much as possible, I think they arte banking on democrats being "nice" and showing no teeth, there are times you need to be the bigger person and move on and show forgiveness and there are times you need to take a stand and do the hard things to insure a better future, I just think this is one of those times as long as an impeachment and trial for treason and war crimes can be successful we need to make it happen.
ReplyDeleteNpot to mention it would be a step toward restoring our interrnational credibility.
ReplyDeleteBut Clifs point is nonetheless valid, and I can certainly see that side of it.
ReplyDeleteIt also happens to be the popular sentiment on it, and it was also promoted right after Ford pardoned him. There was some outcry, but the news for the most part lauded it for healing the country. I personally was offended by it, and felt it sent a strong message that if you're poor, you go to prison, and if you're rich and powerful, you go scott free.
Thats a bad message to send, in any society.
No Mike they WOULD not because they THINK they are entitled to do as they are doing, it is NOT a matter of law to then, but the fact they see the presidency as the most powerful constitutional branch, and ignore anything that stands in their way. Nixon spoke the words what ever the president is NOT against the law, but he did NOT believe that fully. Bush and especially Cheney does, They do NOT think they are breaking the law, because they see themselves as the law in this time of war.
ReplyDeleteit is something completely different for them.
Most of Nixon's crimes against were political crimes AGAINST HIS POLITICAL opponents.
Bush's and Cheney's crimes are directly aimed at the constitution and the separation of powers. Nixon never really tried to usurp the constitution like Bush or Cheney has.
Only Bush-Cheney have attacked the constitutional separation of powers, and ignored Congressional oversight.
Mike.
ReplyDeleteClif is not debating impeaching Bush. I think he's probably all for that. He is just debating the wisdom in pardoning Richard Nixon.
At least I think thats, right.
What Bush and Cheney are doing is NOT the extension of Nixons crimes but actually a new level of Presidential criminal behavior.
ReplyDeleteNixon was also guilty of crimes in the District of Columbia, including Burgulary, which is a felony in DC.
ReplyDeletewhat I am arguing is that trying Nixon was not a national imperative at that time, however Bush and Cheney NEED a trial for their attack on the constitution.
ReplyDeleteIt is two different crimes and levels of constitutional crisis.
I aclknowledge that Clifs point is valid as well but I agree that it sends a message that the rich and powerful can do as they please asnd there are two sets of justice one for the rich and one for the rest of us.
ReplyDeleteI was in court this morning and I saw lines going out the door into the parking lot at roughly $100-$350 a pop like a herd of cattle and I thought to myself a poor family has to choose between paying a speeding ticket to keep their license or feeding their kids while a rich person like GWB or TT can speed and defy the law with impunity because a few hundred dollar fine will mean nothing to them is that justice?
He probably of course would have gotten off on simple B and E, but hey, it's a start, lol.
ReplyDeleteIt is not that Bush's crimes do not rise to the level; of Nixon's crimes, but actually the opposite, Nixon's crimes never reached the level of what bush and Cheney have done.
ReplyDeleteIt was OK to pardon Nixon, BUT NOT OK to pardon Bush or Chenbey.
Lol.
ReplyDeleteWhat were you doing in Court Mike?
Get caught speeding on that crotch rocket, lol?
Clif said...
ReplyDeleteIt was OK to pardon Nixon, BUT NOT OK to pardon Bush or Chenbey.
See?
Everyone wants to impeach Bush, LOL!
He's very impeachable.
ReplyDeleteHe's the most impeachable President I've ever seen.
Clif your absolutely right, THATS why I think they need to [pay the price so it sets a prescedent that the Constitution is the supreme law of the land and is more powerful than ANY president.
ReplyDeleteLOL. actually it was in the car.
ReplyDeleteHe's so impeachy.
ReplyDeleteI wonder if he still likes Peaches?
ReplyDeleteNixon used the Government to commit political crimes against political opponents, Bush has used the government to commit constitutional crimes against the American People.
ReplyDeleteNixon did not come close to what Bush has done.
Nixon had NO Gitmo, rendition police, attacks against the free speech with free speech zones.
he did not fix intell to start a war, and lie for years about that war,he did not attack a country illegally for the profit of his campaign contributors and benefactors who moneyed his rise to power.
Impeach that Chimp now.
ReplyDeleteNo Worfeus he didn't have HIS pilots license when he "landed" on the highway.
ReplyDeleteClif said "It is not that Bush's crimes do not rise to the level; of Nixon's crimes, but actually the opposite, Nixon's crimes never reached the level of what bush and Cheney have done."
ReplyDeleteClif this I agree with, however I think the pardon sent a message to people like Bush and Cheney that they can just sneak oiut the back door with a pardon if things get ugly.
I realize your saying GWB thinks he has the right to do what he is doing, but I think a little good old fashioned fear of accountability and possible consequences would have possibly been a check on Bush and Cheney.
They think no one can touch him and from what I hear and remember vaguely so did nixon.
clif said...
ReplyDeleteNo Worfeus he didn't have HIS pilots license when he "landed" on the highway.
LMFAO.
Hey Mike? Is Clif trying to tell me something about your driving?
Mikey go fast?
Clif I think what you are saying is Nixon merely committed crimes while Bush committed treason and war crimes and attempted to destroy the Constitution and I agree with you, but I feel we need to send a message to future dictator that if you defy the constitution or are guilty of treason there is no wriggling out of it you have to face the conseqences.
ReplyDeletegoing back to my example of court today the punishment should act as a deterant to future crimes and there should not be two standards of justice one for the rich and one for the rich and powerful.
and with court a couple hundred dollar fine is not a deterant to the wealthy and is an unfair form of punishment to the poor who often must choose between keeping their license and feeding their children.
Well lets just luckily for me he only got me for 90 instead of the 120 I was doing a few minutes earlier.
ReplyDeleteMike Bush and the neo-cons actually believe they have the right to do as they are, because they do not believe Congress had the right to place the limits on the Presidency it did in the 1970's after watergate. No trial of Nixon would have changed that.
ReplyDeleteIn fact it is the fact Bush has never been held accountable for his actions that emboldens him much more than anything that ever happened to Nixon.
Bush does not see Nixon's crimes as much as he sees what he calls disloyalty by those who choose the law over loyalty to Nixon.
To Bush it was the "disloyalty" to Nixon not Nixon's crimes that brought him down.
Thus he would just see a trial as further proof of "disloyalty" not criminal behavior.
No amount of historical perspective would affect Bush as he thinks he has the constitutional authority for his actions, and is stacking the Supreme Court to make sure.
you knolw whats amazing, Nixon fell about 2 years before his term was up, Bush is fast approaching that same time period.
ReplyDeleteI agree that Bush probably wouldn't have heeded the signs, but I do think it would establish precedent and make it easier to prosecute presidents as I think laws would have been passed to put into place a vehicle for handling these matters swiftly and timely, particularly if like you said, Nixons Federal trial took 5 years to prosecute.
ReplyDeleteBut your argument is strong. I do see its merits, even more as you make it. But I still feel that ultimately, it would have made it easier to deal with Presidents who are guilty of crimes, most likely requiring an Ammendment to the Constitution, or some other Federal Statute for grand jury investigations following any impeachment for "high crimes".
ReplyDeleteClif I agree with what you just posted but my point is if GWB thought the opposition had teeth and follow through there might be a little healthy fear there.
ReplyDeleteI can think someone is disloyal all I want but if I think that person will put up a good fight or be a complete push over that may affect my actions, for example if I think there is chance I might lose I might act more reasonable or make concessions because I fear what the price might be if I do lose.
I think the Constitution NEEDS to be amended to close the pardon window, the way things are now the president can essentially run a crimminal enterprise and then just pardon all his minions so they dont turn on him its like a free pass to break the law.
ReplyDeleteWorfues the precedent is the constitution. What happens after they are OUT of office is up to the person who replaces them.
ReplyDeleteWe have had two presidents impeached for political reasons but NOT convicted.
One threatened with impeachment who KNEW he would be not only impeached but convicted, thus HE RESIGNED. But no where does the constitution say what to do after impeachment, thus each president who assumes the office of an impeached or resigned President will have to make that decision themselves. After they do they will have to pay the political price of their actions like Ford did.
This story is very interesting;
ReplyDeleteSaddam Hussein's Baath party threatens to retaliate if their leader is executed
especially THIS part;
Later in the day, the lawyer of the former Iraqi Deputy Prime Minister Tareq Aziz condemned the verdict saying it was a flagrant violation of the regulations of the court. He believes that court regulations require that an execution occur after 30 days — not within this period, as the court announced.
Badee Izzat Aref told the AP in a telephone call from Dubai that he met Saddam and Aziz last week in Baghdad and understood from them that Aziz will testify in court for the benefit of Saddam in his ongoing trial. Saddam is currently on trial for the military campaign, codenamed Operation Anfal, that took place during the 1980-88 Iraq-Iran war. An estimated 180,000 Kurds died during the campaign.
"He has very important issues to reveal during the trial," Aref said. "He will uncover the involvement of many important foreign and local personalities."
"The Iraqi government wants to accelerate the execution process to avoid the testimony of Tariq Aziz," Aref said.
I guess Georgie is making sure that Aziz does not spill the beans on daddy or Dumsfeld.
clif said...
ReplyDeleteWorfues the precedent is the constitution. What happens after they are OUT of office is up to the person who replaces them.
Good point.
I got nuthin.
ReplyDeleteClif as i've stated before, I feel we need to amend the Constituition and put a conflict of interest clause in to limit the scope of the pardons so the president cant pardon his own administration to prop up and support a crimminal empire so the house of cards doesnt crumble.
ReplyDeletejust as lawyers and judges must recuse themselves due to conflicts of interests, the presidfent should not be able to pardon those in his administration or his party that are close to him as a way to avoid prosecution to crimes he was party to himself.
he should essentially be barred from buying his minions loyalty and thus preventing them from testifying against him by doling out pardons to make the charges moot.
Except this.
ReplyDelete(I'm fallin asleep)
It would have made it easier to try Bushy after the impeachment, or maybe even to try him concurrent to impeachment, thus a sitting president clearly guilty of breaking the law openly and in criminal manner, could effectively have his power frozen, so as to avoid him passing laws to legalize crimes he's already committed.
But one things for sure, precedent for trying a sitting president would have allready been set, and the pitfalls thereof would have been clearly identified.
See, I am not talking about impeachment when I talk about the constitution. I am talking about making it easier to control a President run amuk.
Because as good as our founding fathers were at drafting the constitution to prohibit that from occuring, they obviously weren't good enough.
Not for Bushy anyway.
I am clearly out of my league here though, and I am beginning to inspect the inside of my eyelids, so with that, I bid you adieu'.
ReplyDelete"clif said...
ReplyDeleteWorfues the precedent is the constitution."
Technically, the Constitution is regarded as legal authority, and cases and interpretations arising from constitutional construction would be regarded as precedents.
Admittedly, that may be semantics, but it's worth noting.
Tiny blow it out your rectum boy.
ReplyDelete"clif said...
ReplyDeleteTiny blow it out your rectum boy.
10:44 PM"
And you have a nice evening as well.
Right.
ReplyDeleteBut precedent of existing law, particularly federal bench law, is what leads to ammendments to the Constitution.
Clearly if Nixon hadn't resigned and impeachment had occured, we'd have real precedent and not interpreted, but even though he didn't doesn't mean that federal case law in a trial of a removed sitting president (being forced to resign is still being removed), would not carry weight in motivating a case before the Supreme Court to amend the Constitution to put into place more safeguards to reign in an amuk executive.
In fact, you both said so yourself. The Constitution IS the precedent, meaning the idea is already set in stone, that is to control an amuk executive, and the precedent of safeguards to accomplish this is already well established. A ammendment or two to control an amuk executive in the event of overwhelming evidence of criminal misconduct would be a standard matter I would think.
I always DO son, I always do.
ReplyDeleteAnd a logical one, once all of the gory details of the watergate scandal, and BEYOND came out.
ReplyDeleteAlright I'm toast too.
ReplyDeleteNite folks
BTW, I've never said that Nixon was innocent on this blog. He probably would have been impeached, removed, tried, convicted and imprisoned.
ReplyDeleteMy point has always been that Nixon opened up relations with China, signed SALT I with the Soviets, ended the Vietnam War (or layed the groundwork for ending it), ended the race riots, etc.
He was a good president ... until Watergate.
Worfeus to change the constitution is with in the question, but exactly to what?
ReplyDeleteWhat do you propose, when the house can not impeach, or Senate convict?
What about when a President resign do we deny the right to pardon to his successor?
And what do we do IF the party in power in congress wants to pull a repugnant 1998 attack on the Presidency again, should we make that easier to do?
If we make it easer to reign in an errant president do we make it easier for a politically motivated attack if the opposition party so decides?
Nixon spied on US citizens with out a warrant son. He illegally invaded Cambodia, and had the CIA aid in the Pinochet coup in Chile.
ReplyDeleteHe was and still is one of the worst Presidents ever and THE only one forced out of office for crimes he committed.
His ending the Vietnam war was almost criminal, and cost the US more causalities than before he was president.
He did not really do near as much as he could have if he was NOT so repugnant about really allowing true freedom here in the US.
He should have spent a hell of a lot less time worrying about John Lennon or Daniel Elsburg, and more about what he was doing to the fabric of this country.
He was and will always be a CROOK.
Hey TallTexan,
ReplyDeleteAint' it interesting how Kennedy started the Vietnam war and Johnson escalated it; then Nixon ended it, yet gets all the blame for it?
Lib historical revisionism is fascinating. Kinda like the spin in which Democrats were the ones behind the civil rights movement, notwithstanding that a far greater majority of Republicans voted in favor of the landmark civil rights legislation.
I know son, a hell of a lot more class than an assclown who spews lies and disinformation for the lying drug addicted gasbag, and gutless lying pipe cleaner with hair.
ReplyDeleteOh right your that assclown son.
Well it seems I have MORE class than you do boy, I do not attack a blog daily with lies and deceit.
You're right, FF. The GOP has been, unfairly IMHO, tagged as as the party of war mongers when more Americans have died under the watch of Democrat presidents than GOP presidents in the past 100 years.
ReplyDeleteHey, What's Volt's blog address again? I thought I visit it again.
You gaydolf, Eisenhower started it gutless draft dodger son. Kennedy continued what Eisenhower started son, Johnson escalated it, and Nixon lies for 4 years about ending it, too bad he was Eisenhower's VP when the US sent the CIA into Indochina to stand up Diem in south Vietnam when Ho Chi Mhin had been the leader of the resistance against the Japanese, and French.
ReplyDeletebut assclowns who HID from the draft and service see no need to be HONEST now right gaydolf?
Yes WW2 was a democratic war started by assclowns like Prescott Bush and Henry Ford supporting Hitler's rise to power, and an attack on Pearl Harbor son.
ReplyDeleteLooks like gutless repugs who are too chicken hawkish to serve in combat or on active duty have a problem with the truth.
South Vietnam's main anti-communist allies were the United States, South Korea, Australia, Thailand, the Philippines, and New Zealand. These countries viewed the Vietnam War was a "proxy war," one of several that erupted during the Cold War period that followed the conclusion of the Second World War and decolonization. The U.S. military,in particular, deployed large numbers of military personnel to South Vietnam, after first becoming involved in 1950, when they began to assist French colonial forces. In 1956, these advisors assumed full responsibility for training the Army of the Republic of Vietnam or ARVN.
ReplyDeleteWiki,
See gaydolf, your just being dishonest as usual son.
TT:
ReplyDeleteThe Vanishing Point
Looks like Ms. Cornell has made a guest appearance. What a classy gal. How can I bash liberals when she's around? Is she around? Oh well then...
Thanks, FF.
ReplyDeleteAs dictated by the Geneva Accords of 1954, the partition of Vietnam was meant to be only temporary, pending free elections for a national leadership. The agreement stipulated that the two military zones, which were separated by a temporary demarcation line (which eventually became the Demilitarized Zone, or DMZ), "should not in any way be interpreted as constituting a political or territorial boundary," and specifically stated that elections would be held in July 1956. However, the Diem government refused to enter into negotiations to hold the stipulated elections, encouraged by U.S. unwillingness to allow a certain communist victory in an all-Vietnam election. Questions were also raised about the legitimacy of any election held in the communist-run North. The U.S.-supported government of South Vietnam justified its refusal to comply with the Geneva Accords by virtue of the fact it had not signed them.
ReplyDeleteWiki
So the US broke a treaty because it did not like what democracy would result in?
Looks like Eisenhower and the CIA started the WAR long before Kennedy won son.