Canuck57 wrote:
"HK" wrote in message
...

Palin has been dogged in recent months by ethics inquiries. Her office
last month announced the 15th dismissal of an ethics complaint against her
or one of her staff.

Funny how liberal-dims spend so much time on Palin and ignore the obvious
corruption of debt-bailouts from DC.

Guess Palin didn't buy off the the right people.




The Democrats aren't chasing her out of office. She simply didn't have
what it takes to take the heat in the kitchen.

"HK" wrote in message
...

The Democrats aren't chasing her out of office. She simply didn't have
what it takes to take the heat in the kitchen.


Let's give it some time and see what her reasons are.

It would almost ...... I repeat for the record, *ALMOST* be worth watching
her take on BO in 2012 and win. It sure would put a bunch of people here
into a major hissy fit.

I said "almost".

Eisboch

Eisboch wrote:

"HK" wrote in message
...

The Democrats aren't chasing her out of office. She simply didn't have
what it takes to take the heat in the kitchen.


Let's give it some time and see what her reasons are.

It would almost ...... I repeat for the record, *ALMOST* be worth
watching her take on BO in 2012 and win. It sure would put a bunch of
people here into a major hissy fit.

I said "almost".

Eisboch


No one with a working brain would vote for her for president. She
couldn't even handle a governor's job in a state with about the same
population as some congressional districts. She's four cans short of a
six pack.

On Jul 3, 5:18*pm, "Eisboch" wrote:
"HK" wrote in message

...



The Democrats aren't chasing her out of office. She simply didn't have
what it takes to take the heat in the kitchen.

Let's give it some time and see what her reasons are.

It would almost ...... I repeat for the record, **ALMOST* *be worth watching
her take on BO in 2012 and win. * *It sure would put a bunch of people here
into a major hissy fit.

I said "almost".

Eisboch

No matter who takes on BO in 2012, it's almost a done deal that the
incumbent will take a dive.

Everyone is now seeing that the emperor has no clothes.

Jack wrote:
On Jul 3, 5:18 pm, "Eisboch" wrote:
"HK" wrote in message

...



The Democrats aren't chasing her out of office. She simply didn't have
what it takes to take the heat in the kitchen.
Let's give it some time and see what her reasons are.

It would almost ...... I repeat for the record, *ALMOST* be worth watching
her take on BO in 2012 and win. It sure would put a bunch of people here
into a major hissy fit.

I said "almost".

Eisboch

No matter who takes on BO in 2012, it's almost a done deal that the
incumbent will take a dive.

Everyone is now seeing that the emperor has no clothes.


Hehehe...your fondest hope...but unlikely.

On Jul 3, 5:32*pm, HK wrote:
Jack wrote:
On Jul 3, 5:18 pm, "Eisboch" wrote:
"HK" wrote in message

...

The Democrats aren't chasing her out of office. She simply didn't have
what it takes to take the heat in the kitchen.
Let's give it some time and see what her reasons are.

It would almost ...... I repeat for the record, **ALMOST* *be worth watching
her take on BO in 2012 and win. * *It sure would put a bunch of people here
into a major hissy fit.

I said "almost".

Eisboch

No matter who takes on BO in 2012, it's almost a done deal that the
incumbent will take a dive.

Everyone is now seeing that the emperor has no clothes.

Hehehe...your fondest hope...but unlikely.

Really? Even Helen Thomas is going after him on his media control
tactics. They are slowly growing some. Seen this plant in BHO's
"commercials"? Was a present sent to him from his own organization.
A plant... a lie.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cGp6u...eature=related

Six months in and the wheels are already falling off. heh.

"Jack" wrote in message
...
On Jul 3, 5:32 pm, HK wrote:
Jack wrote:
On Jul 3, 5:18 pm, "Eisboch" wrote:
"HK" wrote in message

...

The Democrats aren't chasing her out of office. She simply didn't have
what it takes to take the heat in the kitchen.
Let's give it some time and see what her reasons are.

It would almost ...... I repeat for the record, *ALMOST* be worth
watching
her take on BO in 2012 and win. It sure would put a bunch of people
here
into a major hissy fit.

I said "almost".

Eisboch

No matter who takes on BO in 2012, it's almost a done deal that the
incumbent will take a dive.

Everyone is now seeing that the emperor has no clothes.

Hehehe...your fondest hope...but unlikely.

Really? Even Helen Thomas is going after him on his media control
tactics. They are slowly growing some. Seen this plant in BHO's
"commercials"? Was a present sent to him from his own organization.
A plant... a lie.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cGp6u...eature=related

Six months in and the wheels are already falling off. heh.

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

When he called her "over here" and stuck out his hand, I thought he was
going to shove her on the forehead and yell, "You are Healed".

Well, maybe not. If her situation is for real, I feel badly for her. I
did hear a report however that she was very active in his campaign as some
kind of organizer or something. Don't know if I believe the stories of her
being a plant.

Eisboch

On Fri, 03 Jul 2009 17:32:24 -0400, HK wrote:

Jack wrote:
On Jul 3, 5:18 pm, "Eisboch" wrote:
"HK" wrote in message

...



The Democrats aren't chasing her out of office. She simply didn't have
what it takes to take the heat in the kitchen.
Let's give it some time and see what her reasons are.

It would almost ...... I repeat for the record, *ALMOST* be worth watching
her take on BO in 2012 and win. It sure would put a bunch of people here
into a major hissy fit.

I said "almost".

Eisboch

No matter who takes on BO in 2012, it's almost a done deal that the
incumbent will take a dive.

Everyone is now seeing that the emperor has no clothes.


Hehehe...your fondest hope...but unlikely.

The emporor didn't have clothes in 2003 and that didn't stop Americans
from hiring the ****in' idiot again.

You think Obama can screw it up as badly as Bush did?

Not a bloody chance.

"jps" wrote in message
news

You think Obama can screw it up as badly as Bush did?

Not a bloody chance.


Reminds me of something.

Did you happen to read the summary of the FBI report that was just made
public.
This is very recent. Obama's FBI. Didn't make major headlines, of
course.

It reports the results of a major post mortem of the Iraq issue, from
beginning to end.
It focuses on Saddam's activities, his state of understanding, his
realization that Baghdad was lost and his hiding until captured.

It also recounts the pre-war mindset of Saddam and the various intelligence
agencies (ours and other nations) information and beliefs at the time.
Simplified, the story was this:

Saddam promoted the perception that he indeed was in possession of weapons
of mass destruction.
He was not concerned about the UN or the USA. He didn't believe Bush would
pull the trigger and invade.

His concern was Iran. He wanted to keep them at bay by perpetuating the
rumors and stories of his WMD stockpiles.

So, Saddam said he had WMDs.
The CIA believed he had WMDs.
The FBI believed he had WMDs.
Intelligence agencies of other countries believed he had WMDs.
Clinton believed he had WMDs.
Kerry believed he had WMDs.
In fact, most of Congress believed he had WMDs and are on record as saying
so.
Why not? Saddam said he had WMDs.

But when Bush said Saddam had WMDs, he lied.

Eisboch

On Fri, 3 Jul 2009 18:33:27 -0400, "Eisboch"
wrote:


"jps" wrote in message
news

You think Obama can screw it up as badly as Bush did?

Not a bloody chance.


Reminds me of something.

Did you happen to read the summary of the FBI report that was just made
public.
This is very recent. Obama's FBI. Didn't make major headlines, of
course.

It reports the results of a major post mortem of the Iraq issue, from
beginning to end.
It focuses on Saddam's activities, his state of understanding, his
realization that Baghdad was lost and his hiding until captured.

It also recounts the pre-war mindset of Saddam and the various intelligence
agencies (ours and other nations) information and beliefs at the time.
Simplified, the story was this:

Saddam promoted the perception that he indeed was in possession of weapons
of mass destruction.
He was not concerned about the UN or the USA. He didn't believe Bush would
pull the trigger and invade.

His concern was Iran. He wanted to keep them at bay by perpetuating the
rumors and stories of his WMD stockpiles.

So, Saddam said he had WMDs.
The CIA believed he had WMDs.
The FBI believed he had WMDs.
Intelligence agencies of other countries believed he had WMDs.
Clinton believed he had WMDs.
Kerry believed he had WMDs.
In fact, most of Congress believed he had WMDs and are on record as saying
so.
Why not? Saddam said he had WMDs.

But when Bush said Saddam had WMDs, he lied.

Eisboch

Congratulations Richard. Most on the left had this figured out six
years ago.

Everyone believed Saddam had weapons but there were a ton of folks who
were arguing to let the inspectors do their job and had a pretty good
idea Saddam was bluffing.

This **** really started to stink when Bush went into full-rush mode.

You probably didn't notice with all that flag waving and rah rah you
were doing.

To what end? We're ****ed for 3 trillion, everyone hates us and we've
done nothing to rebuild education, infrastructure or ensure job
retention in our country.

Osama bin Laden just had to tip the first domino and our leadership
took over from there.

Good thing it only took you six years to discover the truth.

Congratulations again.