On Wed, 14 Jan 2009 05:15:09 -0500, "Eisboch"
wrote:


"hk" wrote in message
om...


SW Tom seems to be in a strange little mood these days...I
suspect...hormonal imbalance.

Doubtful.

I've been afflicted myself lately. There's a strange, uncomfortable and
sickening odor in the air.

I think it's called "Acute Liberalism".

Yes - the constant drum beat of we're better than you are because
we're more...well whatever is the notion of the day.

I'm out of here until Spring - I've got better things to do than smack
a few whiney wimpy liberals around and abuse electrons in the process.

See ya'll later.

--

Time flies when you are sick and psychotic.

"hk" wrote in message
m...
Wizard of Woodstock wrote:
On Wed, 14 Jan 2009 05:11:48 -0500, "Eisboch"
wrote:

"jps" wrote in message
...

My father is an ex-marine. He'd never question another man's
virility.
Careful. There's no such thing as an "ex-Marine"

Damn straight. Which he would know if his father really was a former
Marine.

--

When I want your opinion, I'll beat it out of you




"Every man wants to be a macho macho man
to have the kind of body, always in demand
Jogging in the mornings, go man go
works out in the health spa, muscles glow
You can best believe that, he's a macho man
ready to get down with, anyone he can

"Hey! Hey! Hey, hey, hey!
Macho, macho man (macho man)
I've got to be, a macho man
Macho, macho man
I've got to be a macho! Ow.... "


Wow. Now it's all making sense. JiminFl owes you an apology about the
draft.
Back in the 60's gays were not allowed in the military.

Eisboch

On Wed, 14 Jan 2009 05:09:41 -0500, "Eisboch"
wrote:


wrote in message
...

Your responses are not based on true facts.. you are even worse.
Funny, with over 200 seperate investigations into the Bush
Administration in the last two years (when they should have been
investigating William Jefferson, and taking care of business) there
was no impeachment of Bush... hummmmm, wonder if any other president
was impeached recently?

--------------------------------------------

There's an interesting dilemma facing Obama when he takes office.
Here's his problem:

"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office
of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability,
preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States."

If Bush and/or Cheney are guilty (as many have alleged including some in
this NG) of actions that are in violation of the Constitution, then Obama,
by virtue of his oath, is obligated to seek indictments against Bush, Cheney
or both. To not do so means Obama himself is in violation of the oath he
is about to take.

This is not my legal opinion. I am not qualified. It's the legal opinion
of several qualified legal scholars.

He's been pressured for an answer as to his intentions in this regard and
has been evasive in his answers. He speaks of "looking forward" not
backward or passes the buck off to his future attorney general in an obtuse,
cloudy statement. Right.

Anyone care to make a wager as to whether he will actually try to go after
Bush/Cheney?

If he doesn't, isn't he guilty himself?

Careful - you might have to make them think a little.

They might get an answer they don't like.

And as usual, they won't blame anybody but Bush.

--

Honesty is the best policy, but insanity
is a better defense.

Eisboch wrote:

wrote in message
...

Your responses are not based on true facts.. you are even worse.
Funny, with over 200 seperate investigations into the Bush
Administration in the last two years (when they should have been
investigating William Jefferson, and taking care of business) there
was no impeachment of Bush... hummmmm, wonder if any other president
was impeached recently?

--------------------------------------------

There's an interesting dilemma facing Obama when he takes office.
Here's his problem:

"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the
office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my
ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United
States."

If Bush and/or Cheney are guilty (as many have alleged including some in
this NG) of actions that are in violation of the Constitution, then
Obama, by virtue of his oath, is obligated to seek indictments against
Bush, Cheney or both. To not do so means Obama himself is in violation
of the oath he is about to take.

This is not my legal opinion. I am not qualified. It's the legal
opinion of several qualified legal scholars.

He's been pressured for an answer as to his intentions in this regard
and has been evasive in his answers. He speaks of "looking forward" not
backward or passes the buck off to his future attorney general in an
obtuse, cloudy statement. Right.

Anyone care to make a wager as to whether he will actually try to go
after Bush/Cheney?

If he doesn't, isn't he guilty himself?

It opens the door to each incoming President investigating and charging
the previous President for high crimes and misdemeanors while in office.
There is already a Constitutional process for handling that situation.
It is not the job of the incoming President to sit in judgment of his
predecessor, for he has already been given the rudder of the nation by
the people and is expected to steer the nation on its new course.

If the Congress determines that high crimes and misdemeanors have been
committed by the sitting president then the House has the duty to
impeach the president and the Senate will determine if the president
shall be removed from office.

Once Obama takes the oath of office he and his administration need to
concentrate on taking the nation forward and not be a individual or
collective vindictive prick.

Eisboch wrote:

"jps" wrote in message
...


My father is an ex-marine. He'd never question another man's
virility.

Careful. There's no such thing as an "ex-Marine"

No need to correct him, he wouldn't understand or believe you.

On Tue, 13 Jan 2009 19:30:17 -0800, jps wrote:

On Tue, 13 Jan 2009 21:30:39 -0500, John H
wrote:

On Tue, 13 Jan 2009 17:52:48 -0800, jps wrote:

On Tue, 13 Jan 2009 08:13:07 -0500, John H
wrote:

On Mon, 12 Jan 2009 20:14:35 -0800, jps wrote:



Neither the Army Corps of Engineers nor FEMA are state organizations.
The place was a disaster area and Bush didn't even land his ****ing
plane. Incloosion Illoosion. Not all Americans are worth saving,
just the white ones.

That comment got you classified right up there with Krause.

WAFM!

You know god damned well if those were blonde bimbos and guys with
hair plugs, pinkie rings and golf attire on, the whole of the Bush
Administration would've been in New Orleans helping.

Wake the **** up.

Like I say, right up there with Krause.

Make up ****. It suits you, krause, donny and salty. Hell, throw slammer in
there too. Read their posts. You fit the mold.

WAFM!

The mold that produces people with a conscience.

You ****heads use convenient excuses for turning your backs on
reality. Love them babies right up until they're born, then they'd
better pull themselves up by the bootstraps get go get their own.

And you think the response to Katrina was appropriate? Want to blame
the mayor and the governor for "not askin" for help? What a crock of
****. Poor people and colored ain't **** to Bush or Cheney or half of
the Republican party. They don't care and you know it.

How did you enjoy the Republican convention this year? The ratio was
about 100:1 white. They were so busy heardin' the lunatics around the
notion of Obama being a closet terrorist that they forgot to invite
the colored folk.

Ceptin' Michael Steele.

I don't have to make **** up, it's right in front of all of us. Some
of us just choose to see it.

Go jerk it with your crew of blindered buffoons.

Yup, you fit mold. You use the same language, with the same bull****
'arguments', and the same name-calling.

http://kingzombie.com/images/300_000...0000138704.jpg

Krause should be proud.

Eisboch wrote:

"hk" wrote in message
m...
Eisboch wrote:

"jps" wrote in message
...


My father is an ex-marine. He'd never question another man's
virility.

Careful. There's no such thing as an "ex-Marine"

Eisboch


snerk


I would never expect you to understand.

Eisboch


Understand what, exactly? The old marine mystique? I'm as grateful as
any American for the service of marines and other uniformed personnel in
the last great war.

Wizard of Woodstock wrote:
On Wed, 14 Jan 2009 05:15:09 -0500, "Eisboch"
wrote:

"hk" wrote in message
m...

SW Tom seems to be in a strange little mood these days...I
suspect...hormonal imbalance.
Doubtful.

I've been afflicted myself lately. There's a strange, uncomfortable and
sickening odor in the air.

I think it's called "Acute Liberalism".

Yes - the constant drum beat of we're better than you are because
we're more...well whatever is the notion of the day.

I'm out of here until Spring - I've got better things to do than smack
a few whiney wimpy liberals around and abuse electrons in the process.

See ya'll later.

--

Time flies when you are sick and psychotic.


You would be the one who is whining and wimping your way out of
here...again. Anytime anyone questions your position on Mount Olympus,
off you go. You are nothing if not entirely predictable.

On Wed, 14 Jan 2009 05:09:41 -0500, "Eisboch" wrote:


wrote in message
...

Your responses are not based on true facts.. you are even worse.
Funny, with over 200 seperate investigations into the Bush
Administration in the last two years (when they should have been
investigating William Jefferson, and taking care of business) there
was no impeachment of Bush... hummmmm, wonder if any other president
was impeached recently?

--------------------------------------------

There's an interesting dilemma facing Obama when he takes office.
Here's his problem:

"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office
of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability,
preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States."

If Bush and/or Cheney are guilty (as many have alleged including some in
this NG) of actions that are in violation of the Constitution, then Obama,
by virtue of his oath, is obligated to seek indictments against Bush, Cheney
or both. To not do so means Obama himself is in violation of the oath he
is about to take.

This is not my legal opinion. I am not qualified. It's the legal opinion
of several qualified legal scholars.

He's been pressured for an answer as to his intentions in this regard and
has been evasive in his answers. He speaks of "looking forward" not
backward or passes the buck off to his future attorney general in an obtuse,
cloudy statement. Right.

Anyone care to make a wager as to whether he will actually try to go after
Bush/Cheney?

If he doesn't, isn't he guilty himself?

Eisboch


*If* they are guilty.

It could well be that BO has more sense than jps and Harry, separately or
combined.

On Jan 14, 6:48*am, Wizard of Woodstock wrote:
On Wed, 14 Jan 2009 05:15:09 -0500, "Eisboch"
wrote:



"hk" wrote in message
om...

SW Tom seems to be in a strange little mood these days...I
suspect...hormonal imbalance.

Doubtful.

I've been afflicted myself lately. *There's a strange, uncomfortable and
sickening odor in the air.

I think it's called "Acute Liberalism".

Yes - the constant drum beat of we're better than you are because
we're more...well whatever is the notion of the day.

I'm out of here until Spring - I've got better things to do than smack
a few whiney wimpy liberals around and abuse electrons in the process.

See ya'll later.

--

Time flies when you are sick and psychotic.

Think I'll join you. This place has become nothing more than a
friggin' romper room with slammer, Harry, and Don acting like vulgar
little punks.