BAR wrote:
H the K wrote:
BAR wrote:
H the K wrote:
JustWait wrote:


Nope, Armitage outed the agent to Novak. At least read a little
before spewing out. You are the one who want's to assure that
nobody is called guilty until convicted, but I guess when it comes
to repubs you can call them "traitor who outed a CIA agent" because
he is a republican, even though he got convicted of providing false
information, that's all. Now if you want to convict someone of
outing CIA agents, let's have an investigation into the recent
activity by the ACLU following real covert agents home,
photographing them and their families, and showing them to
prisoners and admitted AlQueda agents at Gitmo. And before you
deflect, please go to their page and read the admission in their
own words. OJ is innocent even though he was found responsible in
court, but Scooter is guilty of "treason" even though he didn't get
convicted of anything near that.. Man, your double standard showing...



Moron.

Harry, nice refutation of the facts.

"Moron" is all the moron deserves.

It means I can refute the facts presented so I'll just call you a name.

It's third grade behavior.



You apparently have "short memory syndrome." Remember, I told you,
probably a dozen times, I have no interest in "debating" or "discussing"
issues with right-wing retards. JustWait is a right-wing retard. So are
you. There is nothing to be gained by having retards "expand" on what
they perceive as "the issues."

Oh, I'm not saying everyone here who is right of center is a retard.

H the K wrote:
BAR wrote:
H the K wrote:
BAR wrote:
H the K wrote:
JustWait wrote:


Nope, Armitage outed the agent to Novak. At least read a little
before spewing out. You are the one who want's to assure that
nobody is called guilty until convicted, but I guess when it comes
to repubs you can call them "traitor who outed a CIA agent"
because he is a republican, even though he got convicted of
providing false information, that's all. Now if you want to
convict someone of outing CIA agents, let's have an investigation
into the recent activity by the ACLU following real covert agents
home, photographing them and their families, and showing them to
prisoners and admitted AlQueda agents at Gitmo. And before you
deflect, please go to their page and read the admission in their
own words. OJ is innocent even though he was found responsible in
court, but Scooter is guilty of "treason" even though he didn't
get convicted of anything near that.. Man, your double standard
showing...



Moron.

Harry, nice refutation of the facts.

"Moron" is all the moron deserves.

It means I can refute the facts presented so I'll just call you a name.

It's third grade behavior.



You apparently have "short memory syndrome." Remember, I told you,
probably a dozen times, I have no interest in "debating" or "discussing"
issues with right-wing retards. JustWait is a right-wing retard. So are
you. There is nothing to be gained by having retards "expand" on what
they perceive as "the issues."

Oh, I'm not saying everyone here who is right of center is a retard.

You are too easy to get a response out of Harry.

All I have to do is pull your leash and you yelp.

BAR wrote:
H the K wrote:
BAR wrote:
H the K wrote:
BAR wrote:
H the K wrote:
JustWait wrote:


Nope, Armitage outed the agent to Novak. At least read a little
before spewing out. You are the one who want's to assure that
nobody is called guilty until convicted, but I guess when it
comes to repubs you can call them "traitor who outed a CIA agent"
because he is a republican, even though he got convicted of
providing false information, that's all. Now if you want to
convict someone of outing CIA agents, let's have an investigation
into the recent activity by the ACLU following real covert agents
home, photographing them and their families, and showing them to
prisoners and admitted AlQueda agents at Gitmo. And before you
deflect, please go to their page and read the admission in their
own words. OJ is innocent even though he was found responsible in
court, but Scooter is guilty of "treason" even though he didn't
get convicted of anything near that.. Man, your double standard
showing...



Moron.

Harry, nice refutation of the facts.

"Moron" is all the moron deserves.

It means I can refute the facts presented so I'll just call you a name.

It's third grade behavior.



You apparently have "short memory syndrome." Remember, I told you,
probably a dozen times, I have no interest in "debating" or
"discussing" issues with right-wing retards. JustWait is a right-wing
retard. So are you. There is nothing to be gained by having retards
"expand" on what they perceive as "the issues."

Oh, I'm not saying everyone here who is right of center is a retard.

You are too easy to get a response out of Harry.

All I have to do is pull your leash and you yelp.


Yawn. Keep on congratulating yourself, moron. It's typical right-wing
retardo behavior here.

BAR wrote:
H the K wrote:
JustWait wrote:


Nope, Armitage outed the agent to Novak. At least read a little
before spewing out. You are the one who want's to assure that nobody
is called guilty until convicted, but I guess when it comes to repubs
you can call them "traitor who outed a CIA agent" because he is a
republican, even though he got convicted of providing false
information, that's all. Now if you want to convict someone of outing
CIA agents, let's have an investigation into the recent activity by
the ACLU following real covert agents home, photographing them and
their families, and showing them to prisoners and admitted AlQueda
agents at Gitmo. And before you deflect, please go to their page and
read the admission in their own words. OJ is innocent even though he
was found responsible in court, but Scooter is guilty of "treason"
even though he didn't get convicted of anything near that.. Man, your
double standard showing...



Moron.

Harry, nice refutation of the facts.

Gee. I thought it was his autobiography.

"John H" wrote in message
...
On Aug 29, 1:57 pm, "nom=de=plume" wrote:
"John H." wrote in message

...

Bush's screwup were never OK.

Thank you! I'm not going to ask which screwup was not ok, but.... lol

--
Nom=de=Plume

Did I make a typo? Glad it gave you a chuckle.


Proof that liberals can see humor in anything and conservatives aren't
perfect.

--
Nom=de=Plume

"John H." wrote in message
...
On Sat, 29 Aug 2009 10:56:22 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

"John H." wrote in message
. ..
I can't speak for other people, but I'm not justifying any actions. I'm
making a direct comparison. At the end of 8 (I'm hopeful) years, we can
compare the records more completely. For now, there are some obvious
comparisons possible.

Call it what you will. It is what it is.

"Bush screwed up, therefore Obama's screwups are OK."

Give me a break.


And, yet again, I have to disagree. No one is claiming that because Bush
screwed up, Obama's mistakes are ok.

Horse manure! That's the biggest laugh I've had in a month.

Are you claiming that no comparisons are valid? Isn't that the basis for a
program (a Bush program) called No Child Left Behind? Comparisons are
benchmarks. They are totally valid. The issue is making justifiable
comparisons.


Well, I certainly will concede that using "No one" is a bit of an
exaggeration, but I'm certainly not doing that.

--
Nom=de=Plume

"JustWait" wrote in message
...
In article ,
says...

On Sat, 29 Aug 2009 10:56:22 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

"John H." wrote in message
.. .
I can't speak for other people, but I'm not justifying any actions.
I'm
making a direct comparison. At the end of 8 (I'm hopeful) years, we
can
compare the records more completely. For now, there are some obvious
comparisons possible.

Call it what you will. It is what it is.

"Bush screwed up, therefore Obama's screwups are OK."

Give me a break.


And, yet again, I have to disagree. No one is claiming that because Bush
screwed up, Obama's mistakes are ok.

Horse manure! That's the biggest laugh I've had in a month.

Are you claiming that no comparisons are valid? Isn't that the basis for
a
program (a Bush program) called No Child Left Behind? Comparisons are
benchmarks. They are totally valid. The issue is making justifiable
comparisons.

So, you support NCLB? Or do we have yet another double standard...??


I support the concept, but I don't support the implimentation. It was never
funded properly and it has/had the nasty effect of forcing teachers to teach
to a test, rather than teaching for understanding.

--
Nom=de=Plume

"BAR" wrote in message
...
Are you claiming that no comparisons are valid? Isn't that the basis for
a program (a Bush program) called No Child Left Behind? Comparisons are
benchmarks. They are totally valid. The issue is making justifiable
comparisons.


Funny how No Child Left Behind winds up in Kennedy's top 10 legislative
accomplishments.

http://tinyurl.com/kns4ck

Kennedy worked closely with President George W. Bush to advance the No
Child Left Behind Act, one of Bush's earliest accomplishments and, critics
say, his last meaningful attempt at bipartisanship.


I might even agree with this. It *was* an accomplishment, but it fell flat
for reasons previously stated.

--
Nom=de=Plume

nom=de=plume wrote:
"BAR" wrote in message
...
Are you claiming that no comparisons are valid? Isn't that the basis for
a program (a Bush program) called No Child Left Behind? Comparisons are
benchmarks. They are totally valid. The issue is making justifiable
comparisons.

Funny how No Child Left Behind winds up in Kennedy's top 10 legislative
accomplishments.

http://tinyurl.com/kns4ck

Kennedy worked closely with President George W. Bush to advance the No
Child Left Behind Act, one of Bush's earliest accomplishments and, critics
say, his last meaningful attempt at bipartisanship.


I might even agree with this. It *was* an accomplishment, but it fell flat
for reasons previously stated.


Why does your opinion carry more weight than Time's?

"BAR" wrote in message
...
nom=de=plume wrote:
"BAR" wrote in message
...
Are you claiming that no comparisons are valid? Isn't that the basis
for a program (a Bush program) called No Child Left Behind? Comparisons
are benchmarks. They are totally valid. The issue is making justifiable
comparisons.

Funny how No Child Left Behind winds up in Kennedy's top 10 legislative
accomplishments.

http://tinyurl.com/kns4ck

Kennedy worked closely with President George W. Bush to advance the No
Child Left Behind Act, one of Bush's earliest accomplishments and,
critics say, his last meaningful attempt at bipartisanship.


I might even agree with this. It *was* an accomplishment, but it fell
flat for reasons previously stated.


Why does your opinion carry more weight than Time's?


Why do you think it does? Do you believe everything you read in Time?

--
Nom=de=Plume