"nom=de=plume" wrote in message
...



And, Clinton invaded Iraq when? And, Bush claimed that WMDs where where?
Bush listened to Clinton about anything??? Keep defending Bush. You're
doing so well!




Please read previous response.

Why do people like yourself automatically jump to the conclusion that a
statement of fact that may illuminate a broader influence on a controversial
subject means that the author of that statement is a "rightie" or Bush
supporter? This is exactly the type of current political animosity that
has divided this country. Now-a-days you are either left or right
apparently. There's no middle ground anymore.

I have never "defended" Bush without reservation. I have, on occasion,
expressed support for some of Obama's initiatives. I don't agree with much
of how he is trying to accomplish them however.

The first step to getting this country back on track is to stop the stupid
finger pointing.

Eisboch

On Mon, 15 Feb 2010 02:54:56 -0500, "Eisboch" wrote:


"nom=de=plume" wrote in message
...



And, Clinton invaded Iraq when? And, Bush claimed that WMDs where where?
Bush listened to Clinton about anything??? Keep defending Bush. You're
doing so well!




Please read previous response.

Why do people like yourself automatically jump to the conclusion that a
statement of fact that may illuminate a broader influence on a controversial
subject means that the author of that statement is a "rightie" or Bush
supporter? This is exactly the type of current political animosity that
has divided this country. Now-a-days you are either left or right
apparently. There's no middle ground anymore.

because it's an obvious distortion. no one cares what clinton thought
because he didn't invade iraq. and he may have been WRONG but bush
LIED.

so you guys just keep ignoring the FACTS and SPIN them to make it
look like bush was nothing more than some guy who worked for clinton.

"bpuharic" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 15 Feb 2010 02:54:56 -0500, "Eisboch" wrote:


"nom=de=plume" wrote in message
...



And, Clinton invaded Iraq when? And, Bush claimed that WMDs where where?
Bush listened to Clinton about anything??? Keep defending Bush. You're
doing so well!




Please read previous response.

Why do people like yourself automatically jump to the conclusion that a
statement of fact that may illuminate a broader influence on a
controversial
subject means that the author of that statement is a "rightie" or Bush
supporter? This is exactly the type of current political animosity that
has divided this country. Now-a-days you are either left or right
apparently. There's no middle ground anymore.

because it's an obvious distortion. no one cares what clinton thought
because he didn't invade iraq. and he may have been WRONG but bush
LIED.

so you guys just keep ignoring the FACTS and SPIN them to make it
look like bush was nothing more than some guy who worked for clinton.



That's a really strange and weird interpretation of what I said
however it furthers my point.

This place has gone to hell in a handbasket. No point in further
discussion.

Eisboch

"Eisboch" wrote in message
...

"bpuharic" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 15 Feb 2010 02:54:56 -0500, "Eisboch" wrote:


"nom=de=plume" wrote in message
...



And, Clinton invaded Iraq when? And, Bush claimed that WMDs where
where?
Bush listened to Clinton about anything??? Keep defending Bush. You're
doing so well!




Please read previous response.

Why do people like yourself automatically jump to the conclusion that a
statement of fact that may illuminate a broader influence on a
controversial
subject means that the author of that statement is a "rightie" or Bush
supporter? This is exactly the type of current political animosity that
has divided this country. Now-a-days you are either left or right
apparently. There's no middle ground anymore.

because it's an obvious distortion. no one cares what clinton thought
because he didn't invade iraq. and he may have been WRONG but bush
LIED.

so you guys just keep ignoring the FACTS and SPIN them to make it
look like bush was nothing more than some guy who worked for clinton.



That's a really strange and weird interpretation of what I said
however it furthers my point.

This place has gone to hell in a handbasket. No point in further
discussion.

Eisboch



Which is the point. Bush let it, actually forced it out of control with the
invasion. Obama is attempting to put the pieces back together. Feel free to
skedaddle from the conversation.

--
Nom=de=Plume

On Mon, 15 Feb 2010 09:45:36 -0500, "Eisboch" wrote:


"bpuharic" wrote in message
.. .
On Mon, 15 Feb 2010 02:54:56 -0500, "Eisboch" wrote:


"nom=de=plume" wrote in message
...



And, Clinton invaded Iraq when? And, Bush claimed that WMDs where where?
Bush listened to Clinton about anything??? Keep defending Bush. You're
doing so well!




Please read previous response.

Why do people like yourself automatically jump to the conclusion that a
statement of fact that may illuminate a broader influence on a
controversial
subject means that the author of that statement is a "rightie" or Bush
supporter? This is exactly the type of current political animosity that
has divided this country. Now-a-days you are either left or right
apparently. There's no middle ground anymore.

because it's an obvious distortion. no one cares what clinton thought
because he didn't invade iraq. and he may have been WRONG but bush
LIED.

so you guys just keep ignoring the FACTS and SPIN them to make it
look like bush was nothing more than some guy who worked for clinton.



That's a really strange and weird interpretation of what I said
however it furthers my point.

This place has gone to hell in a handbasket. No point in further
discussion.

Eisboch


You, sir, are a fast learner.
--
***Are you better off than you were FOUR TRILLION DOLLARS ago?***

John H

In article ,
says...

"bpuharic" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 15 Feb 2010 02:54:56 -0500, "Eisboch" wrote:


"nom=de=plume" wrote in message
...



And, Clinton invaded Iraq when? And, Bush claimed that WMDs where where?
Bush listened to Clinton about anything??? Keep defending Bush. You're
doing so well!




Please read previous response.

Why do people like yourself automatically jump to the conclusion that a
statement of fact that may illuminate a broader influence on a
controversial
subject means that the author of that statement is a "rightie" or Bush
supporter? This is exactly the type of current political animosity that
has divided this country. Now-a-days you are either left or right
apparently. There's no middle ground anymore.

because it's an obvious distortion. no one cares what clinton thought
because he didn't invade iraq. and he may have been WRONG but bush
LIED.

so you guys just keep ignoring the FACTS and SPIN them to make it
look like bush was nothing more than some guy who worked for clinton.



That's a really strange and weird interpretation of what I said
however it furthers my point.

This place has gone to hell in a handbasket. No point in further
discussion.

Eisboch

It sure has! Herring does NOTHING here anymore but post political right
wing extreme bull****.

On Mon, 15 Feb 2010 14:02:30 -0500, Don White wrote:

In article ,
says...

"bpuharic" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 15 Feb 2010 02:54:56 -0500, "Eisboch" wrote:


"nom=de=plume" wrote in message
...



And, Clinton invaded Iraq when? And, Bush claimed that WMDs where where?
Bush listened to Clinton about anything??? Keep defending Bush. You're
doing so well!




Please read previous response.

Why do people like yourself automatically jump to the conclusion that a
statement of fact that may illuminate a broader influence on a
controversial
subject means that the author of that statement is a "rightie" or Bush
supporter? This is exactly the type of current political animosity that
has divided this country. Now-a-days you are either left or right
apparently. There's no middle ground anymore.

because it's an obvious distortion. no one cares what clinton thought
because he didn't invade iraq. and he may have been WRONG but bush
LIED.

so you guys just keep ignoring the FACTS and SPIN them to make it
look like bush was nothing more than some guy who worked for clinton.



That's a really strange and weird interpretation of what I said
however it furthers my point.

This place has gone to hell in a handbasket. No point in further
discussion.

Eisboch

It sure has! Herring does NOTHING here anymore but post political right
wing extreme bull****.

Oh, Loogy, cry a river, build a bridge, and get over it!
--
***Are you better off than you were FOUR TRILLION DOLLARS ago?***

John H

"Eisboch" wrote in message
...

"nom=de=plume" wrote in message
...



And, Clinton invaded Iraq when? And, Bush claimed that WMDs where where?
Bush listened to Clinton about anything??? Keep defending Bush. You're
doing so well!




Please read previous response.

Why do people like yourself automatically jump to the conclusion that a
statement of fact that may illuminate a broader influence on a
controversial subject means that the author of that statement is a
"rightie" or Bush supporter? This is exactly the type of current
political animosity that has divided this country. Now-a-days you are
either left or right apparently. There's no middle ground anymore.

I have never "defended" Bush without reservation. I have, on occasion,
expressed support for some of Obama's initiatives. I don't agree with
much of how he is trying to accomplish them however.

The first step to getting this country back on track is to stop the stupid
finger pointing.

Eisboch



If that's the case, why bring up something that was always obvious. I notice
you didn't mention Bush the First's invasion either. Or, Rumsfeld's or
Cheney's previous involvement with Saddam. You didn't mention the British
establishing Iraq to begin with either. The first step to getting this
country back on track is to be intellectually honest.

--
Nom=de=Plume

"nom=de=plume" wrote in message
...

"Eisboch" wrote in message
...


Please read previous response.

Why do people like yourself automatically jump to the conclusion that a
statement of fact that may illuminate a broader influence on a
controversial subject means that the author of that statement is a
"rightie" or Bush supporter? This is exactly the type of current
political animosity that has divided this country. Now-a-days you are
either left or right apparently. There's no middle ground anymore.

I have never "defended" Bush without reservation. I have, on occasion,
expressed support for some of Obama's initiatives. I don't agree with
much of how he is trying to accomplish them however.

The first step to getting this country back on track is to stop the
stupid finger pointing.

Eisboch



If that's the case, why bring up something that was always obvious. I
notice you didn't mention Bush the First's invasion either. Or, Rumsfeld's
or Cheney's previous involvement with Saddam. You didn't mention the
British establishing Iraq to begin with either. The first step to getting
this country back on track is to be intellectually honest.



Based on the few posts of yours that I have read, I would respectfully
suggest that you lead the way.

Eisboch

In article ,
says...

"nom=de=plume" wrote in message
...

"Eisboch" wrote in message
...


Please read previous response.

Why do people like yourself automatically jump to the conclusion that a
statement of fact that may illuminate a broader influence on a
controversial subject means that the author of that statement is a
"rightie" or Bush supporter? This is exactly the type of current
political animosity that has divided this country. Now-a-days you are
either left or right apparently. There's no middle ground anymore.

I have never "defended" Bush without reservation. I have, on occasion,
expressed support for some of Obama's initiatives. I don't agree with
much of how he is trying to accomplish them however.

The first step to getting this country back on track is to stop the
stupid finger pointing.

Eisboch



If that's the case, why bring up something that was always obvious. I
notice you didn't mention Bush the First's invasion either. Or, Rumsfeld's
or Cheney's previous involvement with Saddam. You didn't mention the
British establishing Iraq to begin with either. The first step to getting
this country back on track is to be intellectually honest.



Based on the few posts of yours that I have read, I would respectfully
suggest that you lead the way.

Eisboch

Hey Dick, good to see you checkin' in.

Scotty