In article ,
says...

JustWait wrote:
In article ,
says...
wrote:
On Wed, 05 Aug 2009 11:04:57 -0400, NotNow wrote:

wrote:
On Tue, 04 Aug 2009 16:06:58 -0400, NotNow wrote:

That no good dirty, nasty liberal ******* went to North Korea, and used
that damned namby-pamby liberal bull**** called diplomacy and got those
journalists released.
It was simply a way of giving Lil Kim the photo op with an important
American kissing his ass that he demanded without actually sending a
government official. I guess Jimmy Carter was busy.
Sarah Palin probably would have worked too ... by golly

Yeah. We should have just let Kim do anything he wanted with our
innocent Americans.
We are not really sure what was in the bag, we just know who the bag
man was. I imagine we gave them a fat foreign aid package.
The lesson reaffirmed was, take hostages or threaten us and the US
will pay up.
That has been true at least since the Kennedy administration when JFK
gave Kruschev everything he wanted to get the missiles out of Cuba, in
spite of a lot of gothic theater and saber rattling.
And what do you think would have happened if there was a (R) in office?
Kim asked specifically for Clinton. Clinton had the fortitude and
compassion to help DESPITE what he knew the naysayers would say about
him. What has come out here in rec.boats is foolish even on a Harry
scale of political one-sidedness.

Funny, I haven't seen any "naysayers" here, all supportive. Just want to
point out that Obama is God, not Clinton (anymore) so it is reasonable
to suspect this meeting was a cold call with nothing predecided... Show
me what anybody said that should be considered negative about Clinton in
this situation??


Again, just like the reverse of Harry, some find it plausible to dis
Clinton but hide it behind a very thin veil of bull****. I'm about sick
of it. From both sides.

I just don't know what you think we are saying that is negative, what
was it? All we are saying it "it isn't a cold call, issues were pre-
arranged". As it should be, these are countries involved, not
individuals. It shouldn't be left to any one person, democrat or
republican... He did exactly as he should of with his role in this
rescue. I give him nothing but credit. I always kinda' liked Bill, even
if I don't agree with his politics...

--
Wafa free since 2009

On Thu, 06 Aug 2009 10:25:36 -0400, NotNow wrote:

Another John wrote:
On Thu, 06 Aug 2009 09:04:55 -0400, NotNow wrote:

it's me, Jim wrote:
NotNow wrote:
Little John wrote:
On Wed, 05 Aug 2009 16:33:34 -0400, NotNow wrote:

Little John wrote:
On Wed, 05 Aug 2009 14:46:49 -0400, NotNow wrote:

Little John wrote:
On Wed, 05 Aug 2009 10:51:54 -0400, NotNow wrote:

Little John wrote:
On Tue, 04 Aug 2009 16:56:58 -0400, NotNow
wrote:

Little John wrote:
On Tue, 04 Aug 2009 16:06:58 -0400, NotNow
wrote:

That no good dirty, nasty liberal ******* went to North
Korea, and used that damned namby-pamby liberal bull****
called diplomacy and got those journalists released.
Of course, we don't know (yet) what we gave them. Forgiveness
for
developing nukes? Missile development details? Promises for
reduced
penalties?

Or do you think it was just 'personality'? Remember,
diplomacy is a
two-way street.
--

John H
The White House is saying Clinton went on his own. I didn't
know he had the authority to do any of the above. But, I do
notice that without one shred of evidence or even hearsay,
you've swept it under the carpet as a bad thing.
I said no such thing. My, you are good at attempting to put
words in
the mouths of others.

Do you believe that diplomacy is a one way street? Do you really
believe Kim did thissimply as a reflection of North Korea's
"humanitarian and peaceloving policy"?
--

John H
Okay, so I was wrong. You like the fact that Clinton is a
humanitarian on a humanitarian mission and you like the fact
that he was, indeed great enough to get the reporters released.
Yes, you were wrong.

Are you changing your line from 'diplomacy' to 'humanitarian
mission'?

Do you honestly believe Kim, Jong Il will get nothing out of this
but
'charitable feelings'?
--

John H
I don't know John, perhaps we should have left those asshole sissy
journalists to die at the hands of Kim? Or would you suggest 10's
of billions in war debt?
I don't know either. But why make all the negative comments because
the questions are asked.

Why would you suggest the journalists be left to die?
Because Clinton did what he could do to get them released. And in
narrow mindedness, some here just can't except that because Oh, my
God he's a liberal........
I have never, ever heard you utter one statement here about any
liberal that wasn't negative. It's the reverse of Harry.
OK, maybe you're right.

Here goes...

"Obama can spend money faster than anyone I've ever heard of.?

How's that?
--

John H
I rest my case, antiHarry.
John is anti bull****. It doesn't matter who serves it up.
I don't think John or anyone else cares weather or not Harry lives or
dies. When Harry ceases his ranting, some other bozo will take his
place. The bull**** will continue.
Not true at all. I have never heard him make an anti-conservative
statement about anything.

I think Bush stepped on his dong with TARP and the HSA, along with a
few other expenditures that were nothing short of stupid.

That doesn't give Obama the right to be *more* profligate!
--
John H

All decisions, even those made by liberals, are the result of binary thinking.

Did you know that Bush signed more laws and executive orders amending
the Constitution than any president in U.S. history?

No.
--
John H

All decisions, even those made by liberals, are the result of binary thinking.

On Thu, 06 Aug 2009 11:29:11 -0400, NotNow wrote:

JustWait wrote:
In article ,
says...
wrote:
On Wed, 05 Aug 2009 11:04:57 -0400, NotNow wrote:

wrote:
On Tue, 04 Aug 2009 16:06:58 -0400, NotNow wrote:

That no good dirty, nasty liberal ******* went to North Korea, and used
that damned namby-pamby liberal bull**** called diplomacy and got those
journalists released.
It was simply a way of giving Lil Kim the photo op with an important
American kissing his ass that he demanded without actually sending a
government official. I guess Jimmy Carter was busy.
Sarah Palin probably would have worked too ... by golly

Yeah. We should have just let Kim do anything he wanted with our
innocent Americans.
We are not really sure what was in the bag, we just know who the bag
man was. I imagine we gave them a fat foreign aid package.
The lesson reaffirmed was, take hostages or threaten us and the US
will pay up.
That has been true at least since the Kennedy administration when JFK
gave Kruschev everything he wanted to get the missiles out of Cuba, in
spite of a lot of gothic theater and saber rattling.
And what do you think would have happened if there was a (R) in office?
Kim asked specifically for Clinton. Clinton had the fortitude and
compassion to help DESPITE what he knew the naysayers would say about
him. What has come out here in rec.boats is foolish even on a Harry
scale of political one-sidedness.

Funny, I haven't seen any "naysayers" here, all supportive. Just want to
point out that Obama is God, not Clinton (anymore) so it is reasonable
to suspect this meeting was a cold call with nothing predecided... Show
me what anybody said that should be considered negative about Clinton in
this situation??


Again, just like the reverse of Harry, some find it plausible to dis
Clinton but hide it behind a very thin veil of bull****. I'm about sick
of it. From both sides.

Show where Clinton was 'dissed'.
--
John H

All decisions, even those made by liberals, are the result of binary thinking.

On Thu, 06 Aug 2009 11:34:55 -0400, H the K
wrote:

jps wrote:
On Thu, 06 Aug 2009 07:21:47 -0400, Little John
wrote:

I would guess that in your eyes, Obama must be a raging hypocrite, an
irrationale 'believer', or just a good liar.

I'm an admirer of Christians who walk the path. AK47 ownership for
some reason doesn't seem to fit with the life Jesus would model.

I'm also an admirer of Republicans who walk the path. It's about
individual responsibility. There are simply too few of them to make
the vision work.

Christians who walk the path? You mean, follow the teachings of Jesus?

There are none in this newsgroup.

But they're convinced that by staying with the church and aceepting
Jesus as their lord and savior, that they'll get to heaven.

Yikes.

On Thu, 06 Aug 2009 08:13:36 -0700, jps wrote:

On Thu, 06 Aug 2009 07:21:47 -0400, Little John
wrote:

I would guess that in your eyes, Obama must be a raging hypocrite, an
irrationale 'believer', or just a good liar.

I'm an admirer of Christians who walk the path. AK47 ownership for
some reason doesn't seem to fit with the life Jesus would model.

I'm also an admirer of Republicans who walk the path. It's about
individual responsibility. There are simply too few of them to make
the vision work.

You side-stepped that one.

What does the ownership of a weapon have to do with the life Jesus
would model? He didn't drive a BMW or buy German screwdrivers either.
Hell, his house probably wasn't even air-conditioned.

Which of the above is Obama? You've commented frequently enough on the
irrationality of religious beliefs. Go for it.
--
John H

All decisions, even those made by liberals, are the result of binary thinking.

On Thu, 06 Aug 2009 08:59:38 -0700, jps wrote:

On Thu, 06 Aug 2009 11:34:55 -0400, H the K
wrote:

jps wrote:
On Thu, 06 Aug 2009 07:21:47 -0400, Little John
wrote:

I would guess that in your eyes, Obama must be a raging hypocrite, an
irrationale 'believer', or just a good liar.

I'm an admirer of Christians who walk the path. AK47 ownership for
some reason doesn't seem to fit with the life Jesus would model.

I'm also an admirer of Republicans who walk the path. It's about
individual responsibility. There are simply too few of them to make
the vision work.

Christians who walk the path? You mean, follow the teachings of Jesus?

There are none in this newsgroup.

But they're convinced that by staying with the church and aceepting
Jesus as their lord and savior, that they'll get to heaven.

Yikes.

...as is Obama. Yikes.

--
John H

All decisions, even those made by liberals, are the result of binary thinking.

jps wrote:
On Thu, 06 Aug 2009 11:34:55 -0400, H the K
wrote:

jps wrote:
On Thu, 06 Aug 2009 07:21:47 -0400, Little John
wrote:

I would guess that in your eyes, Obama must be a raging hypocrite, an
irrationale 'believer', or just a good liar.
I'm an admirer of Christians who walk the path. AK47 ownership for
some reason doesn't seem to fit with the life Jesus would model.

I'm also an admirer of Republicans who walk the path. It's about
individual responsibility. There are simply too few of them to make
the vision work.
Christians who walk the path? You mean, follow the teachings of Jesus?

There are none in this newsgroup.

But they're convinced that by staying with the church and aceepting
Jesus as their lord and savior, that they'll get to heaven.

Yikes.


What could be easier? No need to live a good, righteous, charitable life
when no matter what sort of really foul **** you are, you just say,
"Jesus is my saviour," and you get your ticket punched.

JustWait wrote:
In article ,
says...
JustWait wrote:
In article ,
says...
wrote:
On Wed, 05 Aug 2009 11:04:57 -0400, NotNow wrote:

wrote:
On Tue, 04 Aug 2009 16:06:58 -0400, NotNow wrote:

That no good dirty, nasty liberal ******* went to North Korea, and used
that damned namby-pamby liberal bull**** called diplomacy and got those
journalists released.
It was simply a way of giving Lil Kim the photo op with an important
American kissing his ass that he demanded without actually sending a
government official. I guess Jimmy Carter was busy.
Sarah Palin probably would have worked too ... by golly

Yeah. We should have just let Kim do anything he wanted with our
innocent Americans.
We are not really sure what was in the bag, we just know who the bag
man was. I imagine we gave them a fat foreign aid package.
The lesson reaffirmed was, take hostages or threaten us and the US
will pay up.
That has been true at least since the Kennedy administration when JFK
gave Kruschev everything he wanted to get the missiles out of Cuba, in
spite of a lot of gothic theater and saber rattling.
And what do you think would have happened if there was a (R) in office?
Kim asked specifically for Clinton. Clinton had the fortitude and
compassion to help DESPITE what he knew the naysayers would say about
him. What has come out here in rec.boats is foolish even on a Harry
scale of political one-sidedness.
Funny, I haven't seen any "naysayers" here, all supportive. Just want to
point out that Obama is God, not Clinton (anymore) so it is reasonable
to suspect this meeting was a cold call with nothing predecided... Show
me what anybody said that should be considered negative about Clinton in
this situation??

Again, just like the reverse of Harry, some find it plausible to dis
Clinton but hide it behind a very thin veil of bull****. I'm about sick
of it. From both sides.

I just don't know what you think we are saying that is negative, what
was it? All we are saying it "it isn't a cold call, issues were pre-
arranged". As it should be, these are countries involved, not
individuals. It shouldn't be left to any one person, democrat or
republican... He did exactly as he should of with his role in this
rescue. I give him nothing but credit. I always kinda' liked Bill, even
if I don't agree with his politics...


I for one, commend the man for what he done. You do realize that he put
his ass right in the line of fire, don't you? The North Koreans could
have just took him and did whatever they wanted. But what do all of the
conservatives say? All of the remarks were no where near "it isn't a
cold call". More like *we probably gave him rights to build all of the
nukes he wants* kind of bull****. Funny, a lot of the remarks I heard
here yesterday completely parroted Hannity when I listened to him on the
way home. Face it. Nothing a liberal does will ever please some people,
simply because it's a liberal. Hide it under a thin veil, and it's
Harryopposite.

Another John wrote:
On Thu, 06 Aug 2009 10:25:36 -0400, NotNow wrote:

Another John wrote:
On Thu, 06 Aug 2009 09:04:55 -0400, NotNow wrote:

it's me, Jim wrote:
NotNow wrote:
Little John wrote:
On Wed, 05 Aug 2009 16:33:34 -0400, NotNow wrote:

Little John wrote:
On Wed, 05 Aug 2009 14:46:49 -0400, NotNow wrote:

Little John wrote:
On Wed, 05 Aug 2009 10:51:54 -0400, NotNow wrote:

Little John wrote:
On Tue, 04 Aug 2009 16:56:58 -0400, NotNow
wrote:

Little John wrote:
On Tue, 04 Aug 2009 16:06:58 -0400, NotNow
wrote:

That no good dirty, nasty liberal ******* went to North
Korea, and used that damned namby-pamby liberal bull****
called diplomacy and got those journalists released.
Of course, we don't know (yet) what we gave them. Forgiveness
for
developing nukes? Missile development details? Promises for
reduced
penalties?

Or do you think it was just 'personality'? Remember,
diplomacy is a
two-way street.
--

John H
The White House is saying Clinton went on his own. I didn't
know he had the authority to do any of the above. But, I do
notice that without one shred of evidence or even hearsay,
you've swept it under the carpet as a bad thing.
I said no such thing. My, you are good at attempting to put
words in
the mouths of others.

Do you believe that diplomacy is a one way street? Do you really
believe Kim did thissimply as a reflection of North Korea's
"humanitarian and peaceloving policy"?
--

John H
Okay, so I was wrong. You like the fact that Clinton is a
humanitarian on a humanitarian mission and you like the fact
that he was, indeed great enough to get the reporters released.
Yes, you were wrong.

Are you changing your line from 'diplomacy' to 'humanitarian
mission'?

Do you honestly believe Kim, Jong Il will get nothing out of this
but
'charitable feelings'?
--

John H
I don't know John, perhaps we should have left those asshole sissy
journalists to die at the hands of Kim? Or would you suggest 10's
of billions in war debt?
I don't know either. But why make all the negative comments because
the questions are asked.

Why would you suggest the journalists be left to die?
Because Clinton did what he could do to get them released. And in
narrow mindedness, some here just can't except that because Oh, my
God he's a liberal........
I have never, ever heard you utter one statement here about any
liberal that wasn't negative. It's the reverse of Harry.
OK, maybe you're right.

Here goes...

"Obama can spend money faster than anyone I've ever heard of.?

How's that?
--

John H
I rest my case, antiHarry.
John is anti bull****. It doesn't matter who serves it up.
I don't think John or anyone else cares weather or not Harry lives or
dies. When Harry ceases his ranting, some other bozo will take his
place. The bull**** will continue.
Not true at all. I have never heard him make an anti-conservative
statement about anything.
I think Bush stepped on his dong with TARP and the HSA, along with a
few other expenditures that were nothing short of stupid.

That doesn't give Obama the right to be *more* profligate!
--
John H

All decisions, even those made by liberals, are the result of binary thinking.
Did you know that Bush signed more laws and executive orders amending
the Constitution than any president in U.S. history?

No.
--
John H

All decisions, even those made by liberals, are the result of binary thinking.

Well, he did. And to think the conservatives want the world to think
that liberals are the ones stomping all over the Constitution.

Another John wrote:
On Thu, 06 Aug 2009 11:29:11 -0400, NotNow wrote:

JustWait wrote:
In article ,
says...
wrote:
On Wed, 05 Aug 2009 11:04:57 -0400, NotNow wrote:

wrote:
On Tue, 04 Aug 2009 16:06:58 -0400, NotNow wrote:

That no good dirty, nasty liberal ******* went to North Korea, and used
that damned namby-pamby liberal bull**** called diplomacy and got those
journalists released.
It was simply a way of giving Lil Kim the photo op with an important
American kissing his ass that he demanded without actually sending a
government official. I guess Jimmy Carter was busy.
Sarah Palin probably would have worked too ... by golly

Yeah. We should have just let Kim do anything he wanted with our
innocent Americans.
We are not really sure what was in the bag, we just know who the bag
man was. I imagine we gave them a fat foreign aid package.
The lesson reaffirmed was, take hostages or threaten us and the US
will pay up.
That has been true at least since the Kennedy administration when JFK
gave Kruschev everything he wanted to get the missiles out of Cuba, in
spite of a lot of gothic theater and saber rattling.
And what do you think would have happened if there was a (R) in office?
Kim asked specifically for Clinton. Clinton had the fortitude and
compassion to help DESPITE what he knew the naysayers would say about
him. What has come out here in rec.boats is foolish even on a Harry
scale of political one-sidedness.
Funny, I haven't seen any "naysayers" here, all supportive. Just want to
point out that Obama is God, not Clinton (anymore) so it is reasonable
to suspect this meeting was a cold call with nothing predecided... Show
me what anybody said that should be considered negative about Clinton in
this situation??

Again, just like the reverse of Harry, some find it plausible to dis
Clinton but hide it behind a very thin veil of bull****. I'm about sick
of it. From both sides.

Show where Clinton was 'dissed'.
--
John H

All decisions, even those made by liberals, are the result of binary thinking.

Clap clap clap clap clap clap clap clap clap clap clap clap ...

That's more productive than what the asshole accomlished during his eight
years as "president."