I'll give him four years -he won't get reelected...
 

On Wed, 14 Jan 2009 11:05:56 GMT, 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.

What, you're now saying that because I called him and ex-marine that
he didn't serve as a Marine?

WTF is the difference between "former" and "ex" asshole.

Are you joining the ranks of idiots that abound in rec.boats?

I'll give him four years -he won't get reelected...
 

On Wed, 14 Jan 2009 11:48:53 GMT, Wizard of Woodstock
wrote:

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


"hk" wrote in message
news:cLmdnYhp6Lfu1PDUnZ2dnUVZ_hAAAAAA@earthlink. com...


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.

Not likely, seems like your life now revolves around rec.boats.

I'll give him four years -he won't get reelected...
 

On Wed, 14 Jan 2009 06:21:42 -0800 (PST), wrote:

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.

Whoohooo! Vulgar little punks? Do you frequent malls or school
yards?

I'll give him four years -he won't get reelected...
 

On Wed, 14 Jan 2009 11:52:09 GMT, Wizard of Woodstock
wrote:

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.

Jesus, you've turned into a babbling mumbler.

I'll give him four years -he won't get reelected...
 

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

And you're citing who, that paragon of virtue Gerald Ford? He didn't
just not prosecute Nixon, he pardoned him.

What would you think of Obama if he pardoned Bush?

Wouldn't that put him in the clear, legally?

That's the path the R's would take. Nice 'n clean, legally.

Let's see whether Bush grants Libby a full pardon before leaving
office. It wouldn't surprise me if he pardoned clueless Cheney too.

Cheney's latest statements would have you believe that Gitmo should
stay open for torture because it's such a nice, clean facility.

Anyone here who comes from a military background should be aghast and
sorely disappointed at how this administration has treated veterans
and servicemen and women. Lip service and then a thorough screwing is
what they got from Bush and the republicans in congress.

I'll give him four years -he won't get reelected...
 

On Wed, 14 Jan 2009 07:41:48 -0500, John H
wrote:

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.

I certainly hope so. I expect he has more sense than the whole lot of
you RW pinheads who frequent here. What are there, 25 of you?

I'll give him four years -he won't get reelected...
 

On Wed, 14 Jan 2009 09:51:18 -0500, wrote:

On Wed, 14 Jan 2009 06:34:42 -0800, jps wrote:

On Wed, 14 Jan 2009 11:05:56 GMT, Wizard of Woodstock
wrote:

On Wed, 14 Jan 2009 05:11:48 -0500, "Eisboch"
wrote:


"jps" wrote in message
m...


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.

What, you're now saying that because I called him and ex-marine that
he didn't serve as a Marine?

WTF is the difference between "former" and "ex" asshole.


Shortpants is neither a "former", or "ex" asshole.

Good point. I omitted a strategic comma.

I'll give him four years -he won't get reelected...
 

I'll give him four years -he won't get reelected...
 

wrote in message
...

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.

************************************************** *************

Since you are by far one of the worse offenders, this may actually help the
newsgroup.
Don't let the door hit that lard arse on the way out.

I'll give him four years -he won't get reelected...
 

On Wed, 14 Jan 2009 06:50:23 -0800, jps wrote:

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

And you're citing who, that paragon of virtue Gerald Ford? He didn't
just not prosecute Nixon, he pardoned him.

What would you think of Obama if he pardoned Bush?

Wouldn't that put him in the clear, legally?

That's the path the R's would take. Nice 'n clean, legally.

Let's see whether Bush grants Libby a full pardon before leaving
office. It wouldn't surprise me if he pardoned clueless Cheney too.

Cheney's latest statements would have you believe that Gitmo should
stay open for torture because it's such a nice, clean facility.

Anyone here who comes from a military background should be aghast and
sorely disappointed at how this administration has treated veterans
and servicemen and women. Lip service and then a thorough screwing is
what they got from Bush and the republicans in congress.

As a veteran, with a disability, who does use the VA hospital, I can say
without reservation that the liberal party line, which you seem unable to
get away from, is full of ****.

But, that's your style.