Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
|
#1
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]() "JohnH" wrote in message ... On 09 Sep 2004 18:00:47 GMT, (Gould 0738) wrote: William J. Clinton, the forty-second President of the United States (1993-2001) 09/29/2000 $5,674,178,209,886.86 09/30/1992 $4,064,620,655,521.66 Thanks for supporting my point. The debt grew by a lesser amount in *eight* years under Clinton than it has in *four* years under Bush. Now why would you delete the rest of my post? John H On the 'Poco Loco' out of Deale, MD, on the beautiful Chesapeake Bay! He has a habit of doing that lately, especially when he is on the losing end of a discussion. He did the exact same think to me twice just today. |
#2
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
He has a habit of doing that lately, especially when he is on the losing end
of a discussion. He did the exact same think to me twice just today. I don't have to reprint your entire post to call "bull****" on a portion of it. |
#3
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]() "Gould 0738" wrote in message ... He has a habit of doing that lately, especially when he is on the losing end of a discussion. He did the exact same think to me twice just today. I don't have to reprint your entire post to call "bull****" on a portion of it. Struck a nerve Chuck? |
#4
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
Struck a nerve Chuck?
Not at all. But I do understand that some statements look even more absurd when highlighted as the only item on the page, rather than surrounded by meaningless pap. When somebody posts a long batch of nonsense leading to a false conclusion, it is appropriate to refute the conclusion without having to repeat all the nonsense. |
#5
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]() "Gould 0738" wrote in message ... He has a habit of doing that lately, especially when he is on the losing end of a discussion. He did the exact same think to me twice just today. I don't have to reprint your entire post to call "bull****" on a portion of it. Struck a nerve Chuck? Not at all. But I do understand that some statements look even more absurd when highlighted as the only item on the page, rather than surrounded by meaningless pap. When somebody posts a long batch of nonsense leading to a false conclusion, it is appropriate to refute the conclusion without having to repeat all the nonsense. Bull****. |
#6
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
Bull****.
Convincing argument. :-) |
Reply |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Forum | |||
( OT ) Creepier than Nixon -- Worse than Watergate | General | |||
OT--Not again! More Chinese money buying our politicians. | General |