This thread has been locked, it will not receive new replies.
|
Locked on 07/31/2002 9:13:43 PM PDT by Admin Moderator, reason:
Flame war
|
Skip to comments.
FEDERAL COURT IN LOS ANGELES GIVES GREEN LIGHT TO CIVIL RIGHTS LAWSUIT
Judicial Watch ^
| July 30, 2002
Posted on 07/30/2002 11:17:09 AM PDT by FreedominJesusChrist
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80 ... 301-310 next last
To: diotima
Pardon me while I address something that's been on my mind for a while.
Here they come, the scapering hoves of the goats of our discontent. Larry is this. Larry is that. Larry is the other thing.
By reading Judicial Watch's depositions you find that, what this, you mean Larry got that on the record? Soon you find that there's a ton of issues on the record that doesn't matter to the non-existant Justice Department of the United States.
It has been nearly ten years since we had a Justice Department in this nation. No other Justice Department in our nation's history would ignore some of the testimony provided in those depositions.
Actions would have been filed. People would have gone to prison. Klayman would be vindicated.
Let's get this on the record my little hoved friends. If even one member of the Klinton administration had gone to prison, as they should have, not to mention the bast--d president himself, Klayman would have been vindicated and each of you would have to slither back into your crevices.
Once and for all, Larry Klayman cannot bring charges against those with home he has no standing. Most of the depositions he developed were developed as a side issue with regard to other actions. He couldn't bring indictments. Only the AG could.
If you don't like the fact that Larry's depositions recieved no attention, then get up off that callaced hind side of yours and call the Attorney General's office and demand those issues be resolved. Until you do so, don't come slandering and slobering to this thread. You're a bunch of bozos.
Thanks for the ping Dio. At least one person on this forum has avoided the brown stuff behind the ears.
To: DoughtyOne
Not gonna happen. Klayman and Klintons are buddies, Figure it out.
To: DoughtyOne
p.s.....I am impressed. It wasn't FiTB who started on the personal attacks against other forum members on a JW thread. It was someone else this time. Sweet.
To: RedBloodedAmerican
Oh figure it out for yourself. He brought one action against Bush that I detest and he was immediately persona non gratis. You fair weather friends are a dime a dozen. I'll stack you right up there with the Rush is a commie loons. All this talk about money, what did you guys expect Klayman to do, get a paper route and still maintain his efforts full time. Cripe, give it a rest.
To: DoughtyOne
A paper route would be more successful and honorable.
But I am sure the people at Judicial Watch are very nice.
To: Clara Lou
Ok .. it wasn't thrown out of court
Now the question is .. will he win it??
26
posted on
07/30/2002 12:44:43 PM PDT
by
Mo1
To: DoughtyOne
People were chuckling over Larry long before he went after anything Bush-Cheney.
To: DoughtyOne
As a matter of fact, Larry became a certifiable clown when he tried to inject himself into the Florida recount proceedings. He asked to speak, and the judge (Sanders Saul?) told him he had no standing. He looked like a total fool.
To: Clara Lou
Was he there to dump on Bush?
To: RedBloodedAmerican
Read the depositions and tell me you find nothing there of value. Larry opened up a number of issues. You may not wish to acknowledge it, but those deps are there for anyone to read. Yes even Janet and John could have if they actually gave a damn.
To: DoughtyOne
I generally stay off the record with Klayman and JW, but I'll give it a whirl.
I am not a fan of Klayman...I find him a bit...unsavory. However, I do support his mission. I just don't think he is the man for the mission.
If he wants to go after corruption in government then good, every politician should be held to the same standard.
31
posted on
07/30/2002 1:12:10 PM PDT
by
diotima
To: diotima
And if that's the argument, I might be more inclined to join the festivities. The problem I have is the hurling of accusations when there's plenty of meat on the table, but the diners won't eat. I'm not a backer of everything Larry does. I've got my own set of beefs with him. But the ferocity of these attacks is over the top in my opinion. Who is the person everyone thinks is going to step up to bat if Klayman folds Judicial Watch. Will our Justice Department fill the void? LOL Who's going to make that supposition?
To: Clara Lou
Thanks for the ping! Cheerleading pay much these days, you think?
33
posted on
07/30/2002 1:28:19 PM PDT
by
justshe
To: DoughtyOne
Was he there to dump on Bush?
That's the mystery! No one knows why Larry was there because Larry himself should have known that he had no standing in the matter. (It took the judge approximately 2 seconds to refuse Larry permission to speak.) Personally, I believe that Larry was continuing his undying quest for face time which Larry hopes will result in more donations.
To: justshe
Cheerleading pay much these days, you think?
It must pay something... I'm just not sure what.
To: DoughtyOne; RedBloodedAmerican; Clara Lou; Mo1; deport
**** scapering hoves --goats --little hoved friends --slither back into your crevices --callaced hind side of yours --slandering and slobering --bunch of bozos --the brown stuff behind the ears ****
In all of the discussions I have seen on the threads re: Judicial Watch and Larry Klayman, I have only seen the critics question corporate legal success or lack thereof, corporate officer motivations, corporate finances, actual press releases, IRS audit issues, and advisability of certain lawsuits.
What, may I ask, do the invectives listed on your post (see above) add to the general discussion?
The worst I have seen from the critics, re: individual posters supportive of Larry, is a questioning of the seemingly blind obedience they have to Larry and JW, which, at times, precludes honest dialogue.
Your use of derisive comments is something I except to see from someone who cannot engage in honest dialogue and thus must fall back on schoolyard name calling. You dishonor yourself, imo.
36
posted on
07/30/2002 1:59:50 PM PDT
by
justshe
To: RedBloodedAmerican
JW considers not having it tossed out of court "a victory"!!! ROFLMBO!!!!!!
Well, for them, it is.
37
posted on
07/30/2002 2:09:23 PM PDT
by
Iwo Jima
To: diotima
" I do support his mission. I just don't think he is the man for the mission."
That is exactly right. My sentiments exactly.
38
posted on
07/30/2002 2:14:10 PM PDT
by
Iwo Jima
To: Clara Lou
Ah.........the memories. I remember watching that hearing (to be honest I was glued to my TV night and day for the entire time) and you are correct, Larry was told to sit down by one the heroes(Judge Sauls)of the Florida re-re-re-count.
39
posted on
07/30/2002 2:22:25 PM PDT
by
justshe
To: Iwo Jima
" I do support his mission. I just don't think he is the man for the mission."
That's well said. Larry had many, many more supporters here early on, until it became apparent that he was chasing up business wherever he thought it would bring donations. (And, as I said, that began long before he decided to go after Bush-Cheney.)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80 ... 301-310 next last
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson