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

On Wed, 05 Aug 2009 16:42:55 -0400, 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?

Oh, I guess I could have said Pelosi's a cute little thing.

But being called the reverse of Harry is quite an honor. Thank you.
--

John H

Little John wrote:
On Wed, 05 Aug 2009 16:42:55 -0400, 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?

Oh, I guess I could have said Pelosi's a cute little thing.

But being called the reverse of Harry is quite an honor. Thank you.
--

John H
If you think so.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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

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

FDR changed the country from "united states" to a federal republic and
changed "promote the general welfare" to "guaranteed welfare" (at
least for those over 65).
That was the most significant change in our history. In fact the
SCOTUS ruled that some of his changes went too far.

Yep, as expected.....it's all the liberals fault.