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

On Tue, 13 Jan 2009 22:49:42 -0800, "CalifBill"
wrote:


"jps" wrote in message
.. .
On Tue, 13 Jan 2009 04:00:54 -0500, "Eisboch"
wrote:


"jps" wrote in message
...

The place was a disaster area and Bush didn't even land his ****ing
plane.


I accept his reason for this one.

People like Olbermann would have had a field day ripping him apart for
causing local police and resources to be distracted from more immediate
and
important jobs. (not that the local, corrupt police were doing their
jobs
... my comment, not Bush's)

Eisboch

It's a lame excuse. The President of the United States should make a
showing when one of our cities is nearly wiped off the map.

Convenient excuse that's inexusable.

Actually he should stay home and monitor the situation. Bringing in the
President and all the security required, just messes up things. About like
the traffic when the President comes to town. Freeways shutdown for short
times, streets blocked.

Eisboch made your point earlier. It's a lame excuse that allowed him
to remain at arm's length from a national crisis. One of our cities
was nearly wiped off the map. I'm not suggesting he go there for the
cameras but that he go there and survey the situation and talk to
people himself so that he could measure a proper response. Presidents
and Governors do this all the time. It wasn't worth his time.

Whatever wake he, his security and entourage would create would be
less than a pin drop in the hell that was New Orleans.

He later remarked about how he felt sad that the location of youthful
follies had succumbed to mother nature.

That was his point of reference.

You still claiming to be a Democrat or have you finally come out?

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

"jps" wrote in message
...

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.



Your arguments would be much more credible if you had your facts straight.
That is not what happened. The governor was pleaded with to make the
official
request for federal assistance as required by law. Bush personally insisted
that the request
be made and even authorized the initial logistical preparations in
anticipation of the request before the governor finally conceded. If he had
acted unilaterally, many would be all over his case for ignoring the law
with regard to the use of federal resources and troops, being politically
motivated and illegally interfering with local (state) authority, and
properly so.

I don't understand the reluctance or delay on the governor's part, other
than pure politics, ego and stupidity. Many mistakes were made, FEMA and
it's director screwed up for sure, but the allegation that Bush was "slow"
in authorizing federal assistance just isn't the case.

The next argument becomes, "Well, it's been known for years that NO would be
wiped out in a major hurricane. Bush should have known that and have
initiated plans years before.

Give me a break. Is the POTUS also supposed to anticipate every major
natural catastrophe, be it a hurricane, tornado, earthquake, snowstorm or
flood? I really don't think that's his job. If you feel Bush is to blame
for the effects of Katrina, then you also have to share that blame on every
president going back to the Louisiana Purchase.

I am not suggesting that Bush and Co. have done a great job, but it irks me
when stories are fabricated, twisted and blown out of proportion. Another
good example is the famous "Mission Accomplished" banner which to many has
come to symbolize Bush's screw-ups and dishonesty.

With knowledge that Bush was going to come aboard for a photo op visit, a
request was made to him by the task force commander to fly the banner on the
carrier before arriving home signifying the completion of the carrier's (and
task force's) scheduled deployment of about 6 months. It's a naval
tradition, much like strapping a broom upside down on the mast signifies a
"clean sweep" of a ships mission or deployment purpose. It's symbolism is
unique to the ship's specific and current mission, not a war.

Bush's mistake was thinking of the crews of the ships of the task force and
not anticipating the mistaken interpretation of the banner by the media and
uninformed public.

Although it has been explained many times, the image has stuck that the
banner represented the end of the overall mission in Iraq, not simply the
end of the deployment or mission of the USS Lincoln and her task force.
Many who absolutely detest Bush just won't hear it any other way and much of
the media won't let it go or correct the misinterpretation. This form of
dishonesty is just as bad as the "lies" and fact twisting reported to
originate with Bush and his administration, so who is clean?

BTW .... if you are interested, there's also another side of the story
regarding the modified RV's and trailers bought and delivered by FEMA as
temporary shelters, but I won't get into that now.

Again, I am not a big admirer of Bush and his administration. In many ways
he was a disaster as POTUS. But some of the allegations made of him and
that continue to be perpetuated simply are not true.

Eisboch

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

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

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

"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

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

"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".

Eisboch

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

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

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

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

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".

Eisboch



Awwwwwwww.

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

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.... "

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

"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

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

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.

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

"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

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?

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.

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

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.

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

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.

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

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.

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

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.

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

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.

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


*If* they are guilty.

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

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

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.

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.

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

Don White wrote:
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.




It'll certainly improve the smell in here.

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

hk wrote:
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.

It isn't a mystique. It is a tradition service and sacrifice.

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

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
...

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?

He is a former Marine, like many others here.

http://www.montney.com/marine/once.htm

Once a Marine - Always a Marine

Being a Marine is a state of mind. It is an experience some have likened
more to a calling than a profession. Being a Marine is not a job – not a
paycheck; it is not an occupational specialty. It is not male or female,
majority or minority; nor is it a rank insignia. Stars, bars, or
chevrons are only indicators of the responsibility or authority we hold
at a given time. Rather, being a Marine comes from the eagle, globe, and
anchor that is tattooed on the soul of every one of us who wears the
Marine Corps uniform. It is a searing mark in our innermost being which
comes after the rite of passage through boot camp or Officer Candidates
School when a young man or woman is allowed for the first time to say,
“I’m a United States Marine.” And unlike physical or psychological
scars, which, over time, tend to heal and fade in intensity, the eagle,
globe, and anchor only grow more defined – more intense – the longer you
are a Marine. "Once a Marine, always a Marine."

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

On Wed, 14 Jan 2009 11:01:17 -0500, John H
wrote:

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.

You're a sampling of one. What about all the poor kids who've lost
limbs, eyes, hearing who suffer from poisoning and PTSD who cannot get
the therapy and compensation they need.

How about when the military deducted pay for meals while healing from
war wounds. Was that a shining moment for the military?

How about stop losses where guys are put out there for 3 or 4 tours
and then told they can't leave?

Not since the civil war have our troops been so poorly treated and
used.

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

On Jan 14, 9:29*pm, jps wrote:
On Wed, 14 Jan 2009 11:01:17 -0500, John H
wrote:





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.

You're a sampling of one. *What about all the poor kids who've lost
limbs, eyes, hearing who suffer from poisoning and PTSD who cannot get
the therapy and compensation they need.

How about when the military deducted pay for meals while healing from
war wounds. *Was that a shining moment for the military?

How about stop losses where guys are put out there for 3 or 4 tours
and then told they can't leave?

Not since the civil war have our troops been so poorly treated and
used.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

I go out of my way to stop and talk to vets I meet. I have not met one
who is not proud to have served, I have some Iraq vets in my family
too. I think you need to get out and meet some instead of listening to
the likes of Obermann and Jon Stewart.. They are not honest
representatives, you really should inform yourselves before you go
spewing the party line of bull****.. So far in the last few weeks you
have been back you have proven you are really not interested in
facts.. Harry loves you, that should tell you something...pffffttt....
BTW, Tom may have felt sorry for what he said, but he never said he
was wrong...

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

On Wed, 14 Jan 2009 18:46:43 -0800 (PST),
wrote:



I go out of my way to stop and talk to vets I meet. I have not met one
who is not proud to have served, I have some Iraq vets in my family
too.

I don't know why they wouldn't be proud to serve their country, as
anyone would. However, they don't necessarily think they're doing
what's right for our country. While soldiering, they don't question
the orders but they do question why the hell they're there in the
first place.

My nephew is an army airborne medic. He's about to be deployed for
the 3rd time, this time to Afghanistan. I hear it from the inside.

Our support of the troops is abysmal apart from rah rah and stickers
on our cars. They've been used and abused and deserve better.

Ripping families apart and stop lossing people who've given more than
their measure isn't something to be proud of.

Deducting money for meals while in the hospital is an insult. Army
hospitals in disrepair with mold and **** growing in the same
facilities where our countrymen are healing is an embarassment.

It's not until the cameras and reporters get there that anything
happens.

This administration is nothing but lip service for Americans and hand
outs to business.

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

On Wed, 14 Jan 2009 18:46:43 -0800 (PST),
wrote:

BTW, Tom may have felt sorry for what he said, but he never said he
was wrong...

It shows how dense you are that you'd devalue an apology from someone
you admire. Tom didn't condition his apology and you have no right
to speak on his behalf.

Are you a man of honor or a small-minded picklehead?

You owe Tom an apology.

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

On Jan 14, 10:30*pm, jps wrote:
On Wed, 14 Jan 2009 18:46:43 -0800 (PST),

wrote:
BTW, Tom may have felt sorry for what he said, but he never said he
was wrong...

It shows how dense you are that you'd devalue an apology from someone
you admire. * Tom didn't condition his apology and you have no right
to speak on his behalf.

Are you a man of honor or a small-minded picklehead?

You owe Tom an apology.

Nope, just reading for content.

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

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

On Jan 14, 10:25*pm, jps wrote:
On Wed, 14 Jan 2009 18:46:43 -0800 (PST),

wrote:
I go out of my way to stop and talk to vets I meet. I have not met one
who is not proud to have served, I have some Iraq vets in my family
too.

I don't know why they wouldn't be proud to serve their country, as
anyone would. *However, they don't necessarily think they're doing
what's right for our country. *While soldiering, they don't question
the orders but they do question why the hell they're there in the
first place.

My nephew is an army airborne medic. *He's about to be deployed for
the 3rd time, this time to Afghanistan. *I hear it from the inside.

Our support of the troops is abysmal apart from rah rah and stickers
on our cars. *They've been used and abused and deserve better.

Ripping families apart and stop lossing people who've given more than
their measure isn't something to be proud of.

Deducting money for meals while in the hospital is an insult. *Army
hospitals in disrepair with mold and **** growing in the same
facilities where our countrymen are healing is an embarassment.

It's not until the cameras and reporters get there that anything
happens.

This administration is nothing but lip service for Americans and hand
outs to business.

Both my Brother and Sister in law have been deployed, I hear it from
the inside too.. But don't worry, Obama is going to address all of the
important issues, he wants to abolish the "don't ask, don't tell" in
the first week of his administration and isn't taking the troops out
after all. We will see if he does anything of any signifigance in
relation to the facilities.. BTW, the facilities did not fall apart in
one administration... Either way, I think I have wasted enough time
with you, like the others here already figured out.. you are not an
honest man, asking about my honor, pfffffttt...