"Dave Hall" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 06 Jan 2005 08:21:29 -0500, Harry Krause
wrote:


Sex belongs in the privacy of consenting adult's bedrooms. Not on the
pages of the news, the prime time TV channels, or in "flash and
glitter" magazines.


You should have explained that to the GOP during the Clinton years.

Sigh. The clueless liberal who still thinks the whole Clinton scandal
was about sex. It was about PERJURY.


Dave

Ask 100 people what one word they remember foremost from that period of
time. You know the word. It's a dirty one. Your elected officials turned it
into front page news.

On Thu, 6 Jan 2005 11:50:35 -0500, "P.Fritz"
wrote:


"Dave Hall" wrote in message
.. .
On Thu, 06 Jan 2005 09:57:06 -0500, DSK wrote:

Dave Hall wrote:
If that's what the majority wants, then what's wrong with it?

The fact that "the majority" has no influence on what's right; and that
our constitutional principles are founded on limiting the tyranny of the
majority. That is a big reason why the United States is a republic, not
a democracy.

Bull ****. Our republic is set up exactly so that the will of the
majority of the people can prevent the tyranny of ONE (or a few)
dictator (a minority). It is exactly set that way so that the wishes
of the majority will be heard.

You are wrong here.......the consitution was set up as a republic to protect
minority rights from that of the majority's wishes, and second, to limit the
power of the federal guvmint.

Gee, then if that was true, then why were slaves not given any due
consideration for their rights until after the civil war? It would
seem that there were exceptions to this concept of guaranteed minority
rights.

When I was in school the definition given for this country's
government was stated as a "representative democracy". A form of
democracy where we elect people to represent our wishes before the
congress. Our senators and representatives are then SUPPOSED to vote
the will of their constituency.

There has been much word smithing being done as of late on the
semantics of the terms "democracy", "republic", "representative
democracy" etc.. It would seem to me that much of this is simply
being done in order to twist the words of our founding fathers into a
more liberal interpretation of what they actually meant.

Do you mean to tell me that our election process, and in the voting
in of propositions and local ordinances are not based on the results
of a majority ruling?

I think there's a disconnect in terminology here. "Rights" do not
necessarily mean the same thing as "laws" or "the will of the people"


http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/ar...TICLE_ID=42248


It makes logical sense that the needs of the majority outweighs the
needs of the few.

But it makes greater sense that the RIGHTS of the individual outweigh the
wants of the majority.

Not if they are in direct conflict with them.

Otherwise what you are basically saying is that the will of the
greater number of people is to be held hostage to the will of the
lesser. It defies logic.

Is it more logical to **** off a large group of people, or a small
one?

Certain basic rights shall be guaranteed to the minority as well as
the majority, but the majority still makes the rules. Otherwise why
have elections at all?

Rights are also not guarantees. You have the right to vote, but you
don't have the guarantee that your guy will win. You have the right to
the pursuit of happiness, but not the guarantee that you'll achieve
it. You have the right to seek gainful employment, but no guarantee
that you'll get the job you want or be able to keep it. You have the
right to challenge or protest a law or action you feel is somehow
"wrong", but there is no guarantee that the majority of the rest of
the people will agree with you, or that the action will be overturned.

If you like opera, and want the town planners to build a theater for
it, but the majority of the town would rather build a new football
stadium, guess who will win?

THAT is what I mean by majority rule.

Dave

"Dave Hall" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 6 Jan 2005 11:50:35 -0500, "P.Fritz"
wrote:


"Dave Hall" wrote in message
. ..
On Thu, 06 Jan 2005 09:57:06 -0500, DSK wrote:

Dave Hall wrote:
If that's what the majority wants, then what's wrong with it?

The fact that "the majority" has no influence on what's right; and that
our constitutional principles are founded on limiting the tyranny of the
majority. That is a big reason why the United States is a republic, not
a democracy.

Bull ****. Our republic is set up exactly so that the will of the
majority of the people can prevent the tyranny of ONE (or a few)
dictator (a minority). It is exactly set that way so that the wishes
of the majority will be heard.

You are wrong here.......the consitution was set up as a republic to
protect
minority rights from that of the majority's wishes, and second, to limit
the
power of the federal guvmint.

Gee, then if that was true, then why were slaves not given any due
consideration for their rights until after the civil war? It would
seem that there were exceptions to this concept of guaranteed minority
rights.

Because slaves were not considered citizens at the time, and therefore had
no rights.


When I was in school the definition given for this country's
government was stated as a "representative democracy". A form of
democracy where we elect people to represent our wishes before the
congress. Our senators and representatives are then SUPPOSED to vote
the will of their constituency.

Your school was wrong. The form of guvmint is a Constitutionally Limited
Republic.

No, they are not supposed to vote the will of their
constituency........there is no law stating such.



There has been much word smithing being done as of late on the
semantics of the terms "democracy", "republic", "representative
democracy" etc.. It would seem to me that much of this is simply
being done in order to twist the words of our founding fathers into a
more liberal interpretation of what they actually meant.

I am beginning to beleive you are the one with the difficulty in
understanding the basic concepts.



Do you mean to tell me that our election process, and in the voting
in of propositions and local ordinances are not based on the results
of a majority ruling?

Only within the confines of the consitution and the protection of individual
rights.


I think there's a disconnect in terminology here. "Rights" do not
necessarily mean the same thing as "laws" or "the will of the people"

Rights are inalienable. Laws are only valid if they do not infringe on
those inalienable rights.



http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/ar...TICLE_ID=42248


It makes logical sense that the needs of the majority outweighs the
needs of the few.

But it makes greater sense that the RIGHTS of the individual outweigh the
wants of the majority.

Not if they are in direct conflict with them.

WRONG


Otherwise what you are basically saying is that the will of the
greater number of people is to be held hostage to the will of the
lesser. It defies logic.

Nope. Rights are inalienable. They cannot be trumphed by the majority
will. That is the very reason why the Constitution is such a great
document, and the founding fathers had such great foresight NOT to establish
a democracy.



Is it more logical to **** off a large group of people, or a small
one?

Doesn't matter, the individual's rights are all that matter, not the
majority will.


Certain basic rights shall be guaranteed to the minority as well as
the majority, but the majority still makes the rules. Otherwise why
have elections at all?

Only as long as the individual rights are not violated.


Rights are also not guarantees. You have the right to vote, but you
don't have the guarantee that your guy will win. You have the right to
the pursuit of happiness, but not the guarantee that you'll achieve
it. You have the right to seek gainful employment, but no guarantee
that you'll get the job you want or be able to keep it.

And your point is?

You have the
right to challenge or protest a law or action you feel is somehow
"wrong", but there is no guarantee that the majority of the rest of
the people will agree with you, or that the action will be overturned.

If the law violates your rights, then it will be overturned despite the will
of the majority.


If you like opera, and want the town planners to build a theater for
it, but the majority of the town would rather build a new football
stadium, guess who will win?

It depends.


THAT is what I mean by majority rule.

And majority want does not equate to majority rule......which is the beauty
of the constitution.......other wise I could organize a majority to say that
all your pocessions are forfeited to the majority.


Dave

If that's what the majority wants, then what's wrong with it?

The fact that "the majority" has no influence on what's right; and that
our constitutional principles are founded on limiting the tyranny of the
majority. That is a big reason why the United States is a republic, not
a democracy.

Dave Hall wrote:
Bull ****.

Nope. It's the truth. Ask anybody who got an A in high school history
and/or civics.



... Our republic is set up exactly so that the will of the
majority of the people can prevent the tyranny of ONE (or a few)
dictator (a minority).

That's also true. So why is it that you support the idea that a minority
of one can imprison or kill any citizen (or take away any lesser
Constitutional rights) on a whim?


I'm not the one who's ignorant.

Uh huh... and Nixon kept repeating "I am not a crook!"

DSK

I think the all of the clinton gate scandals were just a distraction while the
corporations tightened their grip on the government.
Clinton did nothing to stop them since his whole agenda was pro business and it
aided in the execution. Everyone, including the most anti corporation dems were
blinded by the light. Eight years later we woke up to find China and their US
outlet mall, Walmart/Sams (Bentonville Arkansas), had gobbled up a huge portion
of our economy.
Does anyone really believe the governor of a state dominated by a single
corporation would act differently?
The Chinese connection doesn't stop there. The phony assault weapons ban
conveniently ignored the products from Norinco/Polytech and they managed to
dump over a million "post-ban" AKs, SKS's and other military clone weapons on
the US market in the ban inspired buying frenzy. The reality was NOTHING was
really banned except magazines for 22LR Ruger 1022s. It was the only thing I
saw that was not availble in the discount mail order rags and gun stores.

Sigh. The clueless liberal who still thinks the whole Clinton scandal
was about sex. It was about PERJURY.


Dave

Sigh. Another clueless right winger who fails to realize there would have been
no perjury if the Republican Congress hadn't spent $80-million taxpayer dollars
investigating Clinton's sex life in the first place.

A married mad lied about an affair. Not news. Dumb schlitz did it under oath...

I see that W and Cheney learned a lot from Clinton's problem, however. When
called before the 9-11 commission to testify, they simply refused to be sworn
in. :-)

"Gould 0738" wrote in message
...
Sigh. The clueless liberal who still thinks the whole Clinton scandal
was about sex. It was about PERJURY.


Dave

Sigh. Another clueless right winger ........

Why the need to insult Dave just because he disagrees with you?

Your first sentence in your reply to Dave is exactly what you often complain
about...a personal attack.

Will the real Chuck please stand up?

"JimH" wrote in message
...

"Gould 0738" wrote in message
...
Sigh. The clueless liberal who still thinks the whole Clinton scandal
was about sex. It was about PERJURY.


Dave

Sigh. Another clueless right winger ........

Why the need to insult Dave just because he disagrees with you?

Your first sentence in your reply to Dave is exactly what you often
complain about...a personal attack.

Will the real Chuck please stand up?


Why don't you respond to the meat of what Chuck wrote? Dave can take care of
himself.

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...

It's kind of humorous in a perverted way that Hertvik and Herring keep
making snotty or snide comments while they protest what they think are
snotty and snide comments of others.

From the king of snotty and snide comments... and perversions.

JimH wrote:
Why the need to insult Dave just because he disagrees with you?

Why did Dave need to insult people who disagree with him?

DSK

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
Jack Goff wrote:
"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...

It's kind of humorous in a perverted way that Hertvik and Herring keep
making snotty or snide comments while they protest what they think are
snotty and snide comments of others.


From the king of snotty and snide comments... and perversions.



Well, at least I am the king of something. You, on the other hand, are
the jackoff of all times, and, dare I posit it, a master baiter of
nothing.

Now, go play with your fellow stunatzes...


Oh... you're so irrelevant when you talk that way...

I think the only thing you are king of is your zipper... you're definitely
fixated on it, eh?

"Gould 0738" wrote in message
...
Sigh. The clueless liberal who still thinks the whole Clinton scandal
was about sex. It was about PERJURY.


Dave

Sigh. Another clueless right winger who fails to realize there would have
been
no perjury if the Republican Congress hadn't spent $80-million taxpayer
dollars
investigating Clinton's sex life in the first place.

A married mad lied about an affair. Not news. Dumb schlitz did it under
oath...

I see that W and Cheney learned a lot from Clinton's problem, however.
When
called before the 9-11 commission to testify, they simply refused to be
sworn
in. :-)

You forget or ignore that Clinton was not being investigated for perjury, he
and President Hillary were being investigated for fraud! Clinton got his
mr. happy in the wringer, because the courts ruled that he could be sued for
sexual harassment by a state employee. That the POTUS was not above the law
of the land. And then he committed perjury. Most people go to jail for
that in a court of law. And odd that the missing law firm records showed up
in the bedroom of the POTUS after the investigation was almost completed.

Calif Bill wrote:
You forget or ignore that Clinton was not being investigated for perjury, he
and President Hillary were being investigated for fraud!

And you conveniently forget that after spending ~ $80 million and 6+
years investigating, they found nothing prosecutable.

DSK

"DSK" wrote in message
.. .
Calif Bill wrote:
You forget or ignore that Clinton was not being investigated for
perjury, he
and President Hillary were being investigated for fraud!

And you conveniently forget that after spending ~ $80 million and 6+
years investigating, they found nothing prosecutable.

DSK


OJ got off also. They were very good at blocking the investigation.
Especially after they said they would cooperate completely. That blocking
probabaly added $40mm to the total.

"Jack Goff" wrote in message
m...

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...

It's kind of humorous in a perverted way that Hertvik and Herring keep
making snotty or snide comments while they protest what they think are
snotty and snide comments of others.

From the king of snotty and snide comments... and perversions.



Harry said I was killfiled yet he continues to respond directly to posts I
make.

Funny.

Calif Bill wrote:
OJ got off also.

OJ got tried by a jury.

The Clintons were never charged with anything, because there was no
evidence found of a prosecutable crime.


... They were very good at blocking the investigation.
Especially after they said they would cooperate completely. That blocking
probabaly added $40mm to the total.


Two ironic things- it is of course inconceivable to you (and many
others) that the reason why nothing was found is because there was
nothing to find. You are convinced that Clintons are guilty guilty
guilty of some heinous crime, you just can't figure out what it is.
2ndly, you often claimed to be a "moderate Democrat" before the
election... are you now dropping that pretense and admitting that you're
a witch-burning Jeso-fascist whacko?

DSK

Bert Robbins wrote:
Why was there a "cleanup" team put in place during Clinton's first run for
President?


Why are you so concerned about it, 12 years later?

Isn't it more important that President Bush *still* hasn't gotten Osama
Bin Laden?

DSK

"DSK" wrote in message
...
Bert Robbins wrote:
Why was there a "cleanup" team put in place during Clinton's first run
for President?


Why are you so concerned about it, 12 years later?

Bill Clinton was and is a sexual predator and his Hillary was and is an
enabler of his sexual predation. Hilliary is an evil woman that is power
hungry and hitched her wagon to Bill to ride his wave to the top of the
political world. Hillary is also a crook!

Isn't it more important that President Bush *still* hasn't gotten Osama
Bin Laden?

I don't care if Pres. Bush ever gets Osama Bin Laden.

I want our military forces to chase down any and all terrorists around the
world and kill them. Terrorism is a fight that we will be involved in
forever.

"Bert Robbins" wrote in message
...

"DSK" wrote in message
...
Bert Robbins wrote:
Why was there a "cleanup" team put in place during Clinton's first run
for President?


Why are you so concerned about it, 12 years later?

Bill Clinton was and is a sexual predator and his Hillary was and is an
enabler of his sexual predation. Hilliary is an evil woman that is power
hungry and hitched her wagon to Bill to ride his wave to the top of the
political world. Hillary is also a crook!

Considering that you, personally, seem to have no need for evidence, you
will agree at this point that your president was a deserter.

On Thu, 06 Jan 2005 15:38:47 -0500, DSK wrote:

If that's what the majority wants, then what's wrong with it?

The fact that "the majority" has no influence on what's right; and that
our constitutional principles are founded on limiting the tyranny of the
majority. That is a big reason why the United States is a republic, not
a democracy.

Dave Hall wrote:
Bull ****.

Nope. It's the truth. Ask anybody who got an A in high school history
and/or civics.

I got B's, and I was always taught that we lived in a "republic" which
was a representative form of democracy. So are you telling me that all
my years of history were wrong? I realize that I was in school
probably before the liberals started their revisionist history
training, but you're older than I am so......


... Our republic is set up exactly so that the will of the
majority of the people can prevent the tyranny of ONE (or a few)
dictator (a minority).

That's also true. So why is it that you support the idea that a minority
of one can imprison or kill any citizen (or take away any lesser
Constitutional rights) on a whim?

I never said anything of the sort. This country's government was set
up such that checks and balances ensure than no one person or group
can attain absolute power.

Dave

On Thu, 06 Jan 2005 13:07:51 -0500, Harry Krause
wrote:

Dave Hall wrote:
On Thu, 06 Jan 2005 08:21:29 -0500, Harry Krause
wrote:


Sex belongs in the privacy of consenting adult's bedrooms. Not on the
pages of the news, the prime time TV channels, or in "flash and
glitter" magazines.


You should have explained that to the GOP during the Clinton years.


Sigh. The clueless liberal who still thinks the whole Clinton scandal
was about sex. It was about PERJURY.


Dave

No, it wasn't. The *entire* anti-Clinton tirade was about GOP efforts to
cripple Clinton's presidency any way it could.

That may have been the initial driving force. But the fact that they
DID find something, and he LIED about it is a matter of public record.

Dave

On Thu, 06 Jan 2005 18:23:10 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote:


"Dave Hall" wrote in message
.. .
On Thu, 06 Jan 2005 08:21:29 -0500, Harry Krause
wrote:


Sex belongs in the privacy of consenting adult's bedrooms. Not on the
pages of the news, the prime time TV channels, or in "flash and
glitter" magazines.


You should have explained that to the GOP during the Clinton years.

Sigh. The clueless liberal who still thinks the whole Clinton scandal
was about sex. It was about PERJURY.


Dave

Ask 100 people what one word they remember foremost from that period of
time. You know the word. It's a dirty one. Your elected officials turned it
into front page news.


What those 100 people say is irrelevant. The facts are that he was
impeached for the crime of perjury.

Dave

On 06 Jan 2005 23:03:53 GMT, (Gould 0738) wrote:

Sigh. The clueless liberal who still thinks the whole Clinton scandal
was about sex. It was about PERJURY.


Dave

Sigh. Another clueless right winger who fails to realize there would have been
no perjury if the Republican Congress hadn't spent $80-million taxpayer dollars
investigating Clinton's sex life in the first place.

If you recall, the whole reason his sex life was being investigated at
all was due to credible allegations of sexual harassment by Paula
Jones, with supporting statements from Kathleen Willey, and Gennifer
Flowers. Susan McDougal went to prison rather than incriminate
Clinton. There was plenty of stuff there. Not just a "big deal"
extramarital affair.


A married mad lied about an affair. Not news. Dumb schlitz did it under oath...

That was the only thing he didn't effectively cover up.

Dave

On Thu, 06 Jan 2005 23:31:00 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote:


"JimH" wrote in message
...

"Gould 0738" wrote in message
...
Sigh. The clueless liberal who still thinks the whole Clinton scandal
was about sex. It was about PERJURY.


Dave

Sigh. Another clueless right winger ........

Why the need to insult Dave just because he disagrees with you?

Your first sentence in your reply to Dave is exactly what you often
complain about...a personal attack.

Will the real Chuck please stand up?


Why don't you respond to the meat of what Chuck wrote? Dave can take care of
himself.


Why thank you Doug, for the words of endorsement. ;-)

Dave

On Thu, 06 Jan 2005 21:53:12 -0500, DSK wrote:

Calif Bill wrote:
You forget or ignore that Clinton was not being investigated for perjury, he
and President Hillary were being investigated for fraud!

And you conveniently forget that after spending ~ $80 million and 6+
years investigating, they found nothing prosecutable.

All that proves is that Clinton was fairly good at covering his
tracks. Not that there was nothing actually wrong.

Dave

"Dave Hall" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 06 Jan 2005 18:23:10 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote:


"Dave Hall" wrote in message
. ..
On Thu, 06 Jan 2005 08:21:29 -0500, Harry Krause
wrote:


Sex belongs in the privacy of consenting adult's bedrooms. Not on the
pages of the news, the prime time TV channels, or in "flash and
glitter" magazines.


You should have explained that to the GOP during the Clinton years.

Sigh. The clueless liberal who still thinks the whole Clinton scandal
was about sex. It was about PERJURY.


Dave

Ask 100 people what one word they remember foremost from that period of
time. You know the word. It's a dirty one. Your elected officials turned
it
into front page news.


What those 100 people say is irrelevant. The facts are that he was
impeached for the crime of perjury.

Dave


Oh no. It's totally relevant, since it's a response to your comment about
how sex does not belong in the news or on prime time TV. Your boys PUT it
there, and they did so with full intent.

On Fri, 07 Jan 2005 08:44:27 -0500, DSK wrote:

Bert Robbins wrote:
Why was there a "cleanup" team put in place during Clinton's first run for
President?


Why are you so concerned about it, 12 years later?

Because it establishes precedent and provides perspective.


Isn't it more important that President Bush *still* hasn't gotten Osama
Bin Laden?

That could change at any time. But then again, Clinton had his chance
to nab OBL, but chose not to......

Dave

Bert Robbins wrote:
... Hillary is also a crook!


You are totally convinced of that, despite an $80 million prosecution
effort could find *nothing* serious enough to prefer charges.

In other words, you're full of nonsense.


Isn't it more important that President Bush *still* hasn't gotten Osama
Bin Laden?


I don't care if Pres. Bush ever gets Osama Bin Laden.

I want our military forces to chase down any and all terrorists around the
world and kill them. Terrorism is a fight that we will be involved in
forever.

More nonsense. Osama Bin Laden perpetrated the most horrific & deadly
terrorist attack on the U.S. in all history. President Bush was warned
about him and his cabinet given thick folders of intel on OBL's
operation. But they had other priorities.

You've swallowed all the malarkey whole, and are just spitting it back
up. It makes no sense and following such stupid policies cannot lead to
success.

DSK

Dave Hall wrote:
You are convinced that Bush is guilty guilty guilty, but you have no
proof as to what he is guilty of.

Quote *one* post of mine where I said President Bush is guilty of
anything...

Other than lying (which is proven by his own public statements), such as
starting a war under false pretenses. Of course, he's unquestionably
guilty of dodging service in Viet Nam, of DWI, and of various kinds of
fiscal malfeasance, all of which he's been found guilty of by our legal
system, and let slide because of his family connections & wealth.



You've often claimed to be a conservative, yet you are constantly
defending liberals

Not at all. I am pointing out the stupidity of many people who claim to
be "conservative" but are nothing other than hate-spewing morons.

Besides, President Clinton was a centrist, a moderate. That is one of
the keys to his success.

DSK

"Dave Hall" wrote in message
...


Another purveyor of double standards......


Yep. You and I.

"Dave Hall" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 07 Jan 2005 08:44:27 -0500, DSK wrote:

Bert Robbins wrote:
Why was there a "cleanup" team put in place during Clinton's first run
for
President?


Why are you so concerned about it, 12 years later?

Because it establishes precedent and provides perspective.


Isn't it more important that President Bush *still* hasn't gotten Osama
Bin Laden?

That could change at any time. But then again, Clinton had his chance
to nab OBL, but chose not to......

Dave

Well....actually, Clinton chose not to invade two countries, and then enlist
the occasional help of the Pakistanis (as Bush did) when they wanted nothing
more than to buy weapons from us. You can see the result of the current
policy. Is that what you think Clinton should've done?

On Fri, 07 Jan 2005 01:40:02 GMT, "Jack Goff" wrote:


"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...

It's kind of humorous in a perverted way that Hertvik and Herring keep
making snotty or snide comments while they protest what they think are
snotty and snide comments of others.

From the king of snotty and snide comments... and perversions.


Krause can't remember the last time I lowered myself to answer one of
his posts. He must still be ****ed that I wouldn't ride on his boat
with him!

John H

On the 'PocoLoco' out of Deale, MD,
on the beautiful Chesapeake Bay!

"Divide each difficulty into as many parts as is feasible and necessary to resolve it."
Rene Descartes

"JohnH" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 07 Jan 2005 01:40:02 GMT, "Jack Goff" wrote:


"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...

It's kind of humorous in a perverted way that Hertvik and Herring keep
making snotty or snide comments while they protest what they think are
snotty and snide comments of others.

From the king of snotty and snide comments... and perversions.


Krause can't remember the last time I lowered myself to answer one of
his posts. He must still be ****ed that I wouldn't ride on his boat
with him!

John H

On the 'PocoLoco' out of Deale, MD,
on the beautiful Chesapeake Bay!

"Divide each difficulty into as many parts as is feasible and necessary to
resolve it."
Rene Descartes

I have the dummy killfiled also. It is funny to see him reply directly to
some of my posts when he says he killfiled me.

Which boat were you invited on John, the real 25 foot fishing boat or the
imaginary custom made 36 foot lobster boat?

On Fri, 7 Jan 2005 15:20:58 -0500, "JimH" wrote:


"JohnH" wrote in message
.. .
On Fri, 07 Jan 2005 01:40:02 GMT, "Jack Goff" wrote:


"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...

It's kind of humorous in a perverted way that Hertvik and Herring keep
making snotty or snide comments while they protest what they think are
snotty and snide comments of others.

From the king of snotty and snide comments... and perversions.


Krause can't remember the last time I lowered myself to answer one of
his posts. He must still be ****ed that I wouldn't ride on his boat
with him!

John H

On the 'PocoLoco' out of Deale, MD,
on the beautiful Chesapeake Bay!

"Divide each difficulty into as many parts as is feasible and necessary to
resolve it."
Rene Descartes

I have the dummy killfiled also. It is funny to see him reply directly to
some of my posts when he says he killfiled me.

Which boat were you invited on John, the real 25 foot fishing boat or the
imaginary custom made 36 foot lobster boat?


The Parker. I couldn't stand the thought of spending any more than
about 15 minutes withing 25' of the guy, so I wouldn't go. I think
that must have upset his fragile ego. He's been ****ed at me ever
since. It bothers me a little -- very damn little.

John H

On the 'PocoLoco' out of Deale, MD,
on the beautiful Chesapeake Bay!

"Divide each difficulty into as many parts as is feasible and necessary to resolve it."
Rene Descartes

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...


Mot at all.
It just convinced me you were an ill-mannered asshole, Herring, and
nothing you've done or posted since would change my mind.

snip

What a guy...you invite him out for a boat ride and he ****s all over you.
I always appreciated being invited and quite a few times went even though I
knew we'd simply be sailing a couple hours over the same ground that we'd
done uncountable times before.

On Fri, 07 Jan 2005 21:41:58 GMT, "Don White"
wrote:


"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...


Mot at all.
It just convinced me you were an ill-mannered asshole, Herring, and
nothing you've done or posted since would change my mind.

snip

What a guy...you invite him out for a boat ride and he ****s all over you.
I always appreciated being invited and quite a few times went even though I
knew we'd simply be sailing a couple hours over the same ground that we'd
done uncountable times before.


By refusing an offer to spend *quality* time with him, I **** all over
Harry?

How?

John H

On the 'PocoLoco' out of Deale, MD,
on the beautiful Chesapeake Bay!

"Divide each difficulty into as many parts as is feasible and necessary to resolve it."
Rene Descartes

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
Don White wrote:
"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...


Mot at all.
It just convinced me you were an ill-mannered asshole, Herring, and
nothing you've done or posted since would change my mind.


snip

What a guy...you invite him out for a boat ride and he ****s all over
you.
I always appreciated being invited and quite a few times went even though
I
knew we'd simply be sailing a couple hours over the same ground that we'd
done uncountable times before.



As I said, Herring's an ill-mannered asshole.

Maybe John saw how Big Pussy vanished, in "The Sopranos", and decided a boat
ride with you was inadvisable (an understatement, to be sure). :-)

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
Maybe John saw how Big Pussy vanished, in "The Sopranos", and decided a
boat
ride with you was inadvisable (an understatement, to be sure). :-)



Dumping raw sewage in the Bay from a boat is illegal.

Then how do you take a swim?

"DSK" wrote in message
...
Bert Robbins wrote:
... Hillary is also a crook!


You are totally convinced of that, despite an $80 million prosecution
effort could find *nothing* serious enough to prefer charges.

In other words, you're full of nonsense.

The timing couldn't have been any better:

http://www.wnbc.com/politics/4063107/detail.html
http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive...2clinton1.html

Why does illegal activity and scandal follow Bill and Hillary so much?

If it walks like a crook, talks like a crook and smells like a crook it must
be a crook.


Isn't it more important that President Bush *still* hasn't gotten Osama
Bin Laden?


I don't care if Pres. Bush ever gets Osama Bin Laden.

I want our military forces to chase down any and all terrorists around
the world and kill them. Terrorism is a fight that we will be involved in
forever.
More nonsense. Osama Bin Laden perpetrated the most horrific & deadly
terrorist attack on the U.S. in all history. President Bush was warned
about him and his cabinet given thick folders of intel on OBL's operation.
But they had other priorities.

And Bill Clinton didn't nab OBL when he had numerous oppourtunities. Just
think if Bill was thinking like a president and not a lawyer those 3000
people that died on 9/11 would still be alive.

You've swallowed all the malarkey whole, and are just spitting it back up.
It makes no sense and following such stupid policies cannot lead to
success.

And just what does success mean? I wan't my president to fight for our
nation's survival.

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
Jack Goff wrote:
"Harry Krause" wrote in message

Dumping raw sewage in the Bay from a boat is illegal.


Then how do you take a swim?


Very carefully.

Yeah.. don't want to get arrested, huh? It would be tough being the
defendant and evidence all in one.