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.

That damned Clinton
 

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??

--
Wafa free since 2009

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
 

In article ,
says...

BAR wrote:
H the K wrote:
BAR wrote:
H the K wrote:
BAR wrote:
H the K wrote:
BAR wrote:
H the K wrote:
BAR wrote:
H the K wrote:
BAR wrote:
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.

Clinton was used.



Clinton got the young ladies out of North Korea. That's what
matters.

Where was your president, you know...Dubya...drunk?

What did Obama do to get them out? Absolutely nothing!



How would you know that?

Enlighten me.



Enlightening you would be a Sisyphean task.

Your grasp of politics as played, yes played, on the world stage is
staggeringly light.


This from a dummy who joined the marines instead of going to college?

It sucks when a guy you believe is dumber than you actually knows
more about the world than you do, isn't it Harry?

And it is Marines with a capital M.



A. If you are referring to yourself, I've not seen anything to
substantiate your claim.
'
B. Sorry, but "capital M" doesn't pass my who gives a **** test.
It is marines.

That's what people find so dis-likable about you.

Amazing that someone who's done NOTHING for his country, let's others
keep his fat nasty ass safe and cozy comes up with **** like that. It
seems there are very few here that are truly open minded and middle of
the road. Some can say nothing good about anybody or anything with a
hint of conservative in it, and some can say nothing about anybody or
anyone with a hint of liberal in it.

I dunno.. I remember most of us including myself noting mistakes by the
Bush administration and frustration with many of his policies and
actions. Bush was a dissappointment to many of us in many ways. I
suspect open minded Dems will say the same about Obama, if we are
allowed to by then...:(

--
Wafa free since 2009