|
That damned Clinton
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. |
That damned Clinton
"NotNow" wrote in message ... 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. Better watch yourself Kevin...you might get drummed out of his Dope Army. |
That damned Clinton
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? |
That damned Clinton
Don White wrote:
"NotNow" wrote in message ... 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. Better watch yourself Kevin...you might get drummed out of his Dope Army. Imagine being in a company of soldiers commanded by Herring. No wonder the Vietnamese kicked our butts. |
Yo jps - religious ridicule
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. |
That damned Clinton
On Thu, 6 Aug 2009 02:30:10 -0700 (PDT), Tim
wrote: On Aug 6, 2:44*am, jps wrote: On Wed, 5 Aug 2009 19:55:41 -0700 (PDT), Tim wrote: On Aug 5, 8:35*pm, H the K wrote: Tim wrote: On Aug 5, 8:24 pm, H the K wrote: wrote: On Wed, 05 Aug 2009 14:43:42 -0400, NotNow wrote: 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? If Nixon had won in 1960 there wouldn't be any Soviets in Cuba because we would have supported the Bay of Pigs the way we promised the Cuban nationalists we would. Castro would be a footnote in history and they would speak english in Miami. 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. I imagine they asked for Bill Clinton because Hillary wouldn't go. It does give Kim a level of satisfaction with plausible deniability from the US government. Actually not a bad move in retrospect as long as we don't care what Kim says about it.. Do you boys *ever*' do more than guess? When Kim Il-sung died in 1994, President Clinton sent a note of condolence to his son, Kim Jong-il, the current dictator, who remembered Clinton's thoughtfulness 15 years ago, and wanted to repay that act of "kindness." Maybe Bubba is the only friend he's got? What about Jesus? When's he's about ready to die, Kim Jong-il may discover Jesus and therefore be admitted through the pearly gates, right? 1 John 1:9 Harry, I'm not about to put limits on Gods grace. You've assumed he has grace, why not estimate its boundaries? Not necessrily. However, I believe you assume He doesn't and is limited. I don't think of he in the body, mind or soul of a man. He is mother nature. There's grace in the design of life. There are no pearly gates. |
That damned Clinton
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. |
Yo jps - religious ridicule
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. |
That damned Clinton
|
That damned Clinton
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 |
That damned Clinton
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. |
That damned Clinton
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. |
Yo jps - religious ridicule
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. |
Yo jps - religious ridicule
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. |
Yo jps - religious ridicule
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. |
Yo jps - religious ridicule
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. |
That damned Clinton
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. |
That damned Clinton
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. |
That damned Clinton
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." |
That damned Clinton
On Thu, 06 Aug 2009 12:41:41 -0400, NotNow wrote:
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. They are. -- John H All decisions, even those made by liberals, are the result of binary thinking. |
That damned Clinton
On Thu, 06 Aug 2009 12:40:09 -0400, NotNow wrote:
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. I wonder if Hannity said, "Wow, that's the same thing those folks on rec.boats were saying!" Yes, the North Koreans could have just "took him and did whatever they wanted". But then they wouldn't benefit from any promises made during any negotiations, would they? Diplomacy is not a one-way street. -- John H All decisions, even those made by liberals, are the result of binary thinking. |
That damned Clinton
On Thu, 06 Aug 2009 12:45:02 -0400, NotNow wrote:
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." Man, now I'm really confused. Here you were angry with several of us for allegedly 'dissing' Clinton, and then you go calling him an 'asshole' who accomplished little during his eight years as "president". What the hell do you want? -- John H All decisions, even those made by liberals, are the result of binary thinking. |
Yo jps - religious ridicule
On Thu, 06 Aug 2009 12:00:14 -0400, Another John
wrote: 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. I didn't sidestep anything. I don't see Obama as a hypocrite. From what I can tell, he takes his faith seriously and is much closer to acting like a true Christian than any president since Eisenhower. 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. I don't claim to be a follower of Jesus but I'm a lot closer to walking his path than most of the idiots who claim him as their lord and savior. Who would Jesus kill with an AK 47? |
That damned Clinton
|
Yo jps - religious ridicule
jps wrote:
On Thu, 06 Aug 2009 12:00:14 -0400, Another John wrote: 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. I didn't sidestep anything. I don't see Obama as a hypocrite. From what I can tell, he takes his faith seriously and is much closer to acting like a true Christian than any president since Eisenhower. 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. I don't claim to be a follower of Jesus but I'm a lot closer to walking his path than most of the idiots who claim him as their lord and savior. Who would Jesus kill with an AK 47? John Herring? For specious arguing and hypocrisy? |
Yo jps - religious ridicule
On Thu, 06 Aug 2009 10:40:29 -0700, jps wrote:
On Thu, 06 Aug 2009 12:00:14 -0400, Another John wrote: 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. I didn't sidestep anything. I don't see Obama as a hypocrite. From what I can tell, he takes his faith seriously and is much closer to acting like a true Christian than any president since Eisenhower. 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. I don't claim to be a follower of Jesus but I'm a lot closer to walking his path than most of the idiots who claim him as their lord and savior. Who would Jesus kill with an AK 47? I'm happy that you are proud of following the path of Jesus. Spread the word. It's not a bad path to follow. I've no idea where your silly AK 47 question came from. Who would Jesus kill with a BMW or German screwdrivers? -- John H All decisions, even those made by liberals, are the result of binary thinking. |
That damned Clinton
On Thu, 06 Aug 2009 10:41:21 -0700, jps wrote:
On Thu, 06 Aug 2009 12:31:35 -0400, wrote: On Thu, 06 Aug 2009 06:39:13 -0400, H the K wrote: wrote: On Wed, 05 Aug 2009 21:24:26 -0400, H the K wrote: When Kim Il-sung died in 1994, President Clinton sent a note of condolence to his son, Kim Jong-il, the current dictator, who remembered Clinton's thoughtfulness 15 years ago, and wanted to repay that act of "kindness." Also, as his term was ending, Clinton was involved in ways to improve relations between the U.S. and North Korea. The idiot who succeeded Clinton thought *that* was a bad idea, and now, eight years later, the North Koreans have nuclear bombs. Yet another legacy of Bush the Idiot. If you are right Kim III will drop his nuclear program now, stop threatening Japan and maybe we can bring home the 50,000 guys we have on his southern border. I bet none of them happen What are you talking about? Clinton *did* send a letter of condolence and Clinton wanted to de-escalate the situation between the U.S. and North Korea, and Bush did more or less ignore ways to improve relations with North Korea and, worse, make our relationship with that nation deteriorate even further. That has nothing to do with me being "right." It has everything to do with our failed diplomacy during the Dubya years. What Kim does now after eight years of Bush is unpredictable. He may respect Bill Clinton, but who knows how he feels about the U.S., whether those feelings can be improved, or whether his illness totally clouds his abilities. The point is that we could have been in a better situation vis-a-vis North Korea but for the incomptencies, failures and wrong-headedness of the Bush Administration. You righties keeping wanting to forget that Bush more or less ****ed the world over during his presidency. TEN presidents in a row have ****ed up the Korean problem. Clinton had 8 years to do something and nothing happened. It is like Iraq. That cluster **** has gone on for 18 years. A kid born the day we started that war could be drafted to go fight in it now. As for JPs allegation that Bush ignored Israel, why does he think we are in Iraq in the first place? Oil. That was funny the first time you said it. It's even funnier now. Where's the oil? -- John H All decisions, even those made by liberals, are the result of binary thinking. |
That damned Clinton
|
That damned Clinton
Another John wrote:
On Thu, 06 Aug 2009 12:41:41 -0400, NotNow wrote: 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. They are. -- John H All decisions, even those made by liberals, are the result of binary thinking. And so are the republicans. But again, you one-sidedness doesn't allow you to say anything about that, huh? |
That damned Clinton
Another John wrote:
On Thu, 06 Aug 2009 12:40:09 -0400, NotNow wrote: 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. I wonder if Hannity said, "Wow, that's the same thing those folks on rec.boats were saying!" Yes, the North Koreans could have just "took him and did whatever they wanted". But then they wouldn't benefit from any promises made during any negotiations, would they? Diplomacy is not a one-way street. -- John H All decisions, even those made by liberals, are the result of binary thinking. What promises? |
That damned Clinton
Another John wrote:
On Thu, 06 Aug 2009 12:45:02 -0400, NotNow wrote: 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." Man, now I'm really confused. Here you were angry with several of us for allegedly 'dissing' Clinton, and then you go calling him an 'asshole' who accomplished little during his eight years as "president". What the hell do you want? -- John H All decisions, even those made by liberals, are the result of binary thinking. Uh, John, you asked for an example and got one. Don't try to be coy, that's Don's M.O. |
That damned Clinton
On Thu, 06 Aug 2009 15:00:21 -0400, NotNow wrote:
Another John wrote: On Thu, 06 Aug 2009 12:41:41 -0400, NotNow wrote: 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. They are. -- John H All decisions, even those made by liberals, are the result of binary thinking. And so are the republicans. But again, you one-sidedness doesn't allow you to say anything about that, huh? I already told you I didn't know that Bush signed more laws....etc. I still don't know that. So I can't say anything about that. I do know that Obama seems to think the Constitution is little more than a hindrance to the socialization of this country. -- John H All decisions, even those made by liberals, are the result of binary thinking. |
That damned Clinton
On Thu, 06 Aug 2009 15:01:49 -0400, NotNow wrote:
Another John wrote: On Thu, 06 Aug 2009 12:40:09 -0400, NotNow wrote: 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. I wonder if Hannity said, "Wow, that's the same thing those folks on rec.boats were saying!" Yes, the North Koreans could have just "took him and did whatever they wanted". But then they wouldn't benefit from any promises made during any negotiations, would they? Diplomacy is not a one-way street. -- John H All decisions, even those made by liberals, are the result of binary thinking. What promises? THAT, my dear friend, is the question! -- John H All decisions, even those made by liberals, are the result of binary thinking. |
That damned Clinton
"H the K" wrote in message ... Imagine being in a company of soldiers commanded by Herring. No wonder the Vietnamese kicked our butts. I fell sorry for the real soldiers and Marines who actually went into harms way...and had to put up with officers like JohnnyH...hiding back on safe territory. |
That damned Clinton
On Thu, 6 Aug 2009 16:21:53 -0300, "Don White"
wrote: "H the K" wrote in message ... Imagine being in a company of soldiers commanded by Herring. No wonder the Vietnamese kicked our butts. I fell sorry for the real soldiers and Marines who actually went into harms way...and had to put up with officers like JohnnyH...hiding back on safe territory. Back on the tit, Donny. You're making a fool of yourself. -- John H All decisions, even those made by liberals, are the result of binary thinking. |
That damned Clinton
Don White wrote:
"H the K" wrote in message ... Imagine being in a company of soldiers commanded by Herring. No wonder the Vietnamese kicked our butts. I fell sorry for the real soldiers and Marines who actually went into harms way...and had to put up with officers like JohnnyH...hiding back on safe territory. Doesn't get any safer than the Isle of Nover Skosher, does it Donny boy? |
That damned Clinton
"just Jim" wrote in message ... Don White wrote: "H the K" wrote in message ... Imagine being in a company of soldiers commanded by Herring. No wonder the Vietnamese kicked our butts. I fell sorry for the real soldiers and Marines who actually went into harms way...and had to put up with officers like JohnnyH...hiding back on safe territory. Doesn't get any safer than the Isle of Nover Skosher, does it Donny boy? Geesh...is there any limit to the stupidity here? Nova Scotia *is not* an island. |
That damned Clinton
Don White wrote:
"just Jim" wrote in message ... Don White wrote: "H the K" wrote in message ... Imagine being in a company of soldiers commanded by Herring. No wonder the Vietnamese kicked our butts. I fell sorry for the real soldiers and Marines who actually went into harms way...and had to put up with officers like JohnnyH...hiding back on safe territory. Doesn't get any safer than the Isle of Nover Skosher, does it Donny boy? Geesh...is there any limit to the stupidity here? Nova Scotia *is not* an island. It's flajim's ongoing excuse...his glory days were nearly 40 years ago, chipping paint and swabbing out the heads on the U.S.S. NeverLeavetheDock. |
That damned Clinton
Don White wrote:
"just Jim" wrote in message ... Don White wrote: "H the K" wrote in message ... Imagine being in a company of soldiers commanded by Herring. No wonder the Vietnamese kicked our butts. I fell sorry for the real soldiers and Marines who actually went into harms way...and had to put up with officers like JohnnyH...hiding back on safe territory. Doesn't get any safer than the Isle of Nover Skosher, does it Donny boy? Geesh...is there any limit to the stupidity here? Nova Scotia *is not* an island. A minor technicality. It's hanging off New Brunswick like a hangnail. |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 09:01 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com