Who do you support for U.S. Senate in California in 2010?

[Mike DiRucci]

Big D wrote:

<quoted text>
I have been clear from the beginning Liar Mike
Yes he was impeached
After being Impeached by the house the impeachment was a total failure, in that it did not achieve a single objective that was listed in the impeachment
You keep trying to change the subject, that isn’t going to work, I am saying the same thing I said in the beginning.
He was impeached
And that impeachment was a total and absolute failure, it failed the votes in the Senate and not a single objective written in the Impeachment was fulfilled, absolute and total failure.
Go ahead Liar Mike, find a post where I said he was not impeached, or conversely go to your history books and show that the impeachment was successful in removing Clinton from office as was stated in the impeachment as its intent.
It either succeeded in removing him from office as was stated in the Impeachment, or it was a failure… which is it Liar Mike?

What you mean is Clinton was acquitted. This in no way means the Senate failed the House's impeachment. They cannot do that.

The impeachment did not fail. You are wrong. Clinton was impeached.

[Big D]

Mike DiRucci wrote:

<quoted text>
What you mean is Clinton was acquitted. This in no way means the Senate failed the House's impeachment. They cannot do that.
The impeachment did not fail. You are wrong. Clinton was impeached.

I have been clear from the beginning Liar Mike

Yes he was impeached

After being Impeached by the house the impeachment was a total failure, in that it did not achieve a single objective that was listed in the impeachment

You keep trying to change the subject, that isn’t going to work, I am saying the same thing I said in the beginning.

He was impeached

And that impeachment was a total and absolute failure, it failed the votes in the Senate and not a single objective written in the Impeachment was fulfilled, absolute and total failure.

Go ahead Liar Mike, find a post where I said he was not impeached, or conversely go to your history books and show that the impeachment was successful in removing Clinton from office as was stated in the impeachment as its intent.

It either succeeded in removing him from office as was stated in the Impeachment, or it was a failure… which is it Liar Mike?

[Mike DiRucci]

Big D wrote:

<quoted text>
I have been clear from the beginning Liar Mike
Yes he was impeached
After being Impeached by the house the impeachment was a total failure, in that it did not achieve a single objective that was listed in the impeachment
You keep trying to change the subject, that isn’t going to work, I am saying the same thing I said in the beginning.
He was impeached
And that impeachment was a total and absolute failure, it failed the votes in the Senate and not a single objective written in the Impeachment was fulfilled, absolute and total failure.
Go ahead Liar Mike, find a post where I said he was not impeached, or conversely go to your history books and show that the impeachment was successful in removing Clinton from office as was stated in the impeachment as its intent.
It either succeeded in removing him from office as was stated in the Impeachment, or it was a failure… which is it Liar Mike?

You are the one changing the subject, not I.

You have changed your original assertion "Clinton's impeachment failed" to "...the intent and objectives failed". Two very different things. And then you call me a liar.

The impeachment did not "fail the votes in the Senate" you blithering jackass! The Senate does not vote on the House's impeachment, only to convict or acquit.

One more time.

Was Clinton impeached or did it fail? Calling me a liar is not an answer. Stop changing the subject and answer the simple question.

[jondee]

JonnDeeses wrote:

Never kinow when you'll need a john deer.

...if you are speaking of me sir,......iam no stupid, like you obama voters!

[RiccardoFire]

Mr Anderson wrote:

<quoted text>
im sorry??
did I say anything remotely related to what you just threw back at me??
reel it in old man.

No you reel it in dumb shit. Are you too stoned to respond to anything? Like I said, I doubt you know my age, and humans can get old. So why do you insult human nature? I respect older people.

[RiccardoFire]

Mr Anderson wrote:

<quoted text>
why would I be racist if Id like to see more diversity at the federal level.??....after all, latinos and women are under-represented
but that little fact doesnt ring a bell with you, does it??
in congress?? you guys went to pick your committee heads??...and 19 out of 19 were white males!! great job with that diversity thing!
we elected the first african american president.....now your jeolous of the democrats arnt ya??

You are racist because you don't see the best candidate you see color and gender. Maybe you are just dumb.

[RiccardoFire]

Mr Anderson wrote:

<quoted text>

in congress??

How can anyone answer that question? Are you retarded? Or just plain dumb. What kind of question is "in congress??" WTF is wrong with you?

[KeyStone]

Look around, your still preachng to the wind, or haven't you stopped long enough to look for yourself.

I wouldn't worry things have away of working out for the best.

[Mike DiRucci]

RiccardoFire wrote:

<quoted text>How can anyone answer that question? Are you retarded? Or just plain dumb. What kind of question is "in congress??" WTF is wrong with you?

Andy's a dope! It's kind of like a hybrid of a dummy and a retard.

And he lies like a rug too.

Otherwise he's just a run of the mill jackass.

[MyansBoehner]

Leading U.S. anti-tax activist (antiAmerican pro muslim) Grover Norquist gave his blessing on December 19, 2012 Wednesday to House Speaker John Boehner's plan to avert the "fiscal cliff," concluding that despite complaints to the contrary, it would adhere to Republican lawmakers' pledges not to raise taxes.

[RiccardoFire]

Mike DiRucci wrote:

<quoted text>
Andy's a dope! It's kind of like a hybrid of a dummy and a retard.
And he lies like a rug too.
Otherwise he's just a run of the mill jackass.

1st he gets all wet because a person is selected based on their gender or race, then he makes insults at a person because of their age. He's a hater. Then he laughs at my post of Obama sending emails to his people to hear his great speech at Sandy Hook and on the same page asking for donations, not to sandy hook, but donations to himself. He is really doped up on something tonight.

[Big D]

Mike DiRucci wrote:

<quoted text>
Was Clinton impeached or did it fail? Please be clear. Your obfuscation grows extremely tiresome.
Stop calling me a liar. I said that you said his impeachment failed. That is not a lie. You did say that.

I have been clear from the beginning Liar Mike
Yes he was impeached
After being Impeached by the house the impeachment was a total failure, in that it did not achieve a single objective that was listed in the impeachment
You keep trying to change the subject, that isn’t going to work, I am saying the same thing I said in the beginning.
He was impeached
And that impeachment was a total and absolute failure, it failed the votes in the Senate and not a single objective written in the Impeachment was fulfilled, absolute and total failure.
Go ahead Liar Mike, find a post where I said he was not impeached, or conversely go to your history books and show that the impeachment was successful in removing Clinton from office as was stated in the impeachment as its intent.
It either succeeded in removing him from office as was stated in the Impeachment, or it was a failure… which is it Liar Mike?
I am going to stop writing new replies as it now seems I can just copy and paste my last reply to everything you say as you have no new information to add, and cannot contradict what I am and have been saying

[Mike DiRucci]

Big D wrote:

<quoted text>
I have been clear from the beginning Liar Mike
Yes he was impeached
After being Impeached by the house the impeachment was a total failure, in that it did not achieve a single objective that was listed in the impeachment
You keep trying to change the subject, that isn’t going to work, I am saying the same thing I said in the beginning.
He was impeached
And that impeachment was a total and absolute failure, it failed the votes in the Senate and not a single objective written in the Impeachment was fulfilled, absolute and total failure.
Go ahead Liar Mike, find a post where I said he was not impeached, or conversely go to your history books and show that the impeachment was successful in removing Clinton from office as was stated in the impeachment as its intent.
It either succeeded in removing him from office as was stated in the Impeachment, or it was a failure… which is it Liar Mike?
I am going to stop writing new replies as it now seems I can just copy and paste my last reply to everything you say as you have no new information to add, and cannot contradict what I am and have been saying

The impeachment did not "fail the votes in the Senate" you big dummy, the Senate doesn't have that power. That is the sole power of the House. When will you understand this simple fact?

Clinton was impeached. It did not fail. You are wrong. It's history. Look it up.

[Big D]

Mike DiRucci wrote:

<quoted text>
The impeachment did not "fail the votes in the Senate" you big dummy, the Senate doesn't have that power. That is the sole power of the House. When will you understand this simple fact?
Clinton was impeached. It did not fail. You are wrong. It's history. Look it up.

I have been clear from the beginning Liar Mike
Yes he was impeached
After being Impeached by the house the impeachment was a total failure, in that it did not achieve a single objective that was listed in the impeachment
You keep trying to change the subject, that isn’t going to work, I am saying the same thing I said in the beginning.
He was impeached
And that impeachment was a total and absolute failure, it failed the votes in the Senate and not a single objective written in the Impeachment was fulfilled, absolute and total failure.
Go ahead Liar Mike, find a post where I said he was not impeached, or conversely go to your history books and show that the impeachment was successful in removing Clinton from office as was stated in the impeachment as its intent.
It either succeeded in removing him from office as was stated in the Impeachment, or it was a failure… which is it Liar Mike?
I am going to stop writing new replies as it now seems I can just copy and paste my last reply to everything you say as you have no new information to add, and cannot contradict what I am and have been saying

[Mike DiRucci]

Big D wrote:

<quoted text>
I have been clear from the beginning Liar Mike
Yes he was impeached
After being Impeached by the house the impeachment was a total failure, in that it did not achieve a single objective that was listed in the impeachment
You keep trying to change the subject, that isn’t going to work, I am saying the same thing I said in the beginning.
He was impeached
And that impeachment was a total and absolute failure, it failed the votes in the Senate and not a single objective written in the Impeachment was fulfilled, absolute and total failure.
Go ahead Liar Mike, find a post where I said he was not impeached, or conversely go to your history books and show that the impeachment was successful in removing Clinton from office as was stated in the impeachment as its intent.
It either succeeded in removing him from office as was stated in the Impeachment, or it was a failure… which is it Liar Mike?
I am going to stop writing new replies as it now seems I can just copy and paste my last reply to everything you say as you have no new information to add, and cannot contradict what I am and have been saying

Article 1 section 2 U.S. Constitution:

The House of Representatives shall choose their speaker and other officers, and shall have the sole power of impeachment.

What don't you understand about that simple sentence?

The impeachment cannot "fail the votes" in the Senate. That is the House's sole power.

You are wrong.

[Big D]

Mike DiRucci wrote:

<quoted text>
Article 1 section 2 U.S. Constitution:
The House of Representatives shall choose their speaker and other officers, and shall have the sole power of impeachment.
What don't you understand about that simple sentence?
The impeachment cannot "fail the votes" in the Senate. That is the House's sole power.
You are wrong.

I have been clear from the beginning Liar Mike
Yes he was impeached
After being Impeached by the house the impeachment was a total failure, in that it did not achieve a single objective that was listed in the impeachment
You keep trying to change the subject, that isn’t going to work, I am saying the same thing I said in the beginning.
He was impeached
And that impeachment was a total and absolute failure, it failed the votes in the Senate and not a single objective written in the Impeachment was fulfilled, absolute and total failure.
Go ahead Liar Mike, find a post where I said he was not impeached, or conversely go to your history books and show that the impeachment was successful in removing Clinton from office as was stated in the impeachment as its intent.
It either succeeded in removing him from office as was stated in the Impeachment, or it was a failure… which is it Liar Mike?
I am going to stop writing new replies as it now seems I can just copy and paste my last reply to everything you say as you have no new information to add, and cannot contradict what I am and have been saying

[Big3ers]

The Battle over the 'Big 3" appears to be underway, but we can always add another.

Getting closer.

[Mike DiRucci]

Big D wrote:

<quoted text>
I have been clear from the beginning Liar Mike
Yes he was impeached
After being Impeached by the house the impeachment was a total failure, in that it did not achieve a single objective that was listed in the impeachment
You keep trying to change the subject, that isn’t going to work, I am saying the same thing I said in the beginning.
He was impeached
And that impeachment was a total and absolute failure, it failed the votes in the Senate and not a single objective written in the Impeachment was fulfilled, absolute and total failure.
Go ahead Liar Mike, find a post where I said he was not impeached, or conversely go to your history books and show that the impeachment was successful in removing Clinton from office as was stated in the impeachment as its intent.
It either succeeded in removing him from office as was stated in the Impeachment, or it was a failure… which is it Liar Mike?
I am going to stop writing new replies as it now seems I can just copy and paste my last reply to everything you say as you have no new information to add, and cannot contradict what I am and have been saying

The impeachment cannot "fail the votes" in the Senate. That is the House's sole power.(Art. 1 sec. 2, U.S. Constitution)

You are wrong.

Clinton was impeached. It's history.

[Big D]

I have been clear from the beginning Liar Mike
Yes he was impeached
After being Impeached by the house the impeachment was a total failure, in that it did not achieve a single objective that was listed in the impeachment
You keep trying to change the subject, that isn’t going to work, I am saying the same thing I said in the beginning.
He was impeached
And that impeachment was a total and absolute failure, it failed the votes in the Senate and not a single objective written in the Impeachment was fulfilled, absolute and total failure.
Go ahead Liar Mike, find a post where I said he was not impeached, or conversely go to your history books and show that the impeachment was successful in removing Clinton from office as was stated in the impeachment as its intent.
It either succeeded in removing him from office as was stated in the Impeachment, or it was a failure… which is it Liar Mike?
I am going to stop writing new replies as it now seems I can just copy and paste my last reply to everything you say as you have no new information to add, and cannot contradict what I am and have been saying

[Mr Anderson]

RiccardoFire wrote:

<quoted text>1st he gets all wet because a person is selected based on their gender or race, then he makes insults at a person because of their age. He's a hater. Then he laughs at my post of Obama sending emails to his people to hear his great speech at Sandy Hook and on the same page asking for donations, not to sandy hook, but donations to himself. He is really doped up on something tonight.

donations for myself??

where did I say that??

oh yeah. you think im on welfare or something...

that is basically what I think of you old man..

youre the hater who has stated that hed like to nuke whole populations......I dont think ive ever said anything that reich wing??

mabey YOU should watch WHAT you say....