"Don" wrote in message
...
"basskisser" wrote
John H wrote in message
*** Quotes from 60 Minutes broadcast, 18APR04. ***

Y'all gotta get your heads together. On the one hand you're whining
that
there
were no plans, on the other you're whining that Bush gave them away!

Come on folks. Good gosh, even my totally liberal, but somewhat
intelligent,
brother can't believe the atrociously ridiculous stuff some of y'all
are
posting.

Fact is, we had absolutely NO business invading Iraq.
And, I can't believe that you totally conservative people buy
everything that the dunce in chief spews. He is a proven liar, yet
you'd walk off a cliff with the other lemmings if he said it was good
for national security.

Just a few years ago the same thing happened on the other side of the
aisle
with the smeared blue dress, remember?
Idiocy doesn't choose sides.
People defending lying politicians are displaying their own character.
Anymore, elections aren't about voting YOUR guy in but rather voting the
OTHER guy out.



That blue dress killed thousands of people, too, didn't it? You're right. It
was "the same thing". :-)

"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
news
"Don" wrote in message
...
"basskisser" wrote
John H wrote in message
*** Quotes from 60 Minutes broadcast, 18APR04. ***

Y'all gotta get your heads together. On the one hand you're whining
that
there
were no plans, on the other you're whining that Bush gave them away!

Come on folks. Good gosh, even my totally liberal, but somewhat
intelligent,
brother can't believe the atrociously ridiculous stuff some of y'all
are
posting.

Fact is, we had absolutely NO business invading Iraq.
And, I can't believe that you totally conservative people buy
everything that the dunce in chief spews. He is a proven liar, yet
you'd walk off a cliff with the other lemmings if he said it was good
for national security.

Just a few years ago the same thing happened on the other side of the
aisle
with the smeared blue dress, remember?
Idiocy doesn't choose sides.
People defending lying politicians are displaying their own character.
Anymore, elections aren't about voting YOUR guy in but rather voting the
OTHER guy out.



That blue dress killed thousands of people, too, didn't it? You're right.
It
was "the same thing". :-)

Jethro Klintin ordered the killing of many too, or have you forgotten
already?
The point is, in case it eluded you Doug, is that the lying *******s
revealed their true character with their very first lie.
Blue dress, WMD, what the hell's the diff?
In spite of that, many people (you?) defend them anyway.
The voters get exactly the slaveholder they choose.

"Don" wrote in message
...

"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
news
"Don" wrote in message
...
"basskisser" wrote
John H wrote in message
*** Quotes from 60 Minutes broadcast, 18APR04. ***

Y'all gotta get your heads together. On the one hand you're
whining
that
there
were no plans, on the other you're whining that Bush gave them
away!

Come on folks. Good gosh, even my totally liberal, but somewhat
intelligent,
brother can't believe the atrociously ridiculous stuff some of
y'all
are
posting.

Fact is, we had absolutely NO business invading Iraq.
And, I can't believe that you totally conservative people buy
everything that the dunce in chief spews. He is a proven liar, yet
you'd walk off a cliff with the other lemmings if he said it was
good
for national security.

Just a few years ago the same thing happened on the other side of the
aisle
with the smeared blue dress, remember?
Idiocy doesn't choose sides.
People defending lying politicians are displaying their own character.
Anymore, elections aren't about voting YOUR guy in but rather voting
the
OTHER guy out.



That blue dress killed thousands of people, too, didn't it? You're
right.
It
was "the same thing". :-)

Jethro Klintin ordered the killing of many too, or have you forgotten
already?
The point is, in case it eluded you Doug, is that the lying *******s
revealed their true character with their very first lie.
Blue dress, WMD, what the hell's the diff?
In spite of that, many people (you?) defend them anyway.
The voters get exactly the slaveholder they choose.



Most presidents give orders to kill people. But the blowjob was in no way
related to the deaths of anyone. That's the difference. Clinton didn't use a
continuously evolving fairy tale to justify a war.

"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
news
"Don" wrote in message
...

"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
news
"Don" wrote in message
...
"basskisser" wrote
John H wrote in message
*** Quotes from 60 Minutes broadcast, 18APR04. ***

Y'all gotta get your heads together. On the one hand you're
whining
that
there
were no plans, on the other you're whining that Bush gave them
away!

Come on folks. Good gosh, even my totally liberal, but somewhat
intelligent,
brother can't believe the atrociously ridiculous stuff some of
y'all
are
posting.

Fact is, we had absolutely NO business invading Iraq.
And, I can't believe that you totally conservative people buy
everything that the dunce in chief spews. He is a proven liar, yet
you'd walk off a cliff with the other lemmings if he said it was
good
for national security.

Just a few years ago the same thing happened on the other side of
the
aisle
with the smeared blue dress, remember?
Idiocy doesn't choose sides.
People defending lying politicians are displaying their own
character.
Anymore, elections aren't about voting YOUR guy in but rather voting
the
OTHER guy out.



That blue dress killed thousands of people, too, didn't it? You're
right.
It
was "the same thing". :-)

Jethro Klintin ordered the killing of many too, or have you forgotten
already?
The point is, in case it eluded you Doug, is that the lying *******s
revealed their true character with their very first lie.
Blue dress, WMD, what the hell's the diff?
In spite of that, many people (you?) defend them anyway.
The voters get exactly the slaveholder they choose.



Most presidents give orders to kill people. But the blowjob was in no way
related to the deaths of anyone. That's the difference. Clinton didn't use
a
continuously evolving fairy tale to justify a war.

Clinton lied his ass off continuously and ordered the killings of thousands
during his 2 terms.
There is little difference at all between Clinton and Bush.
BTW: According to the precise wording of the Constitution the current
military action in Iraq is NOT a war.

"Don" wrote in message
...


Most presidents give orders to kill people. But the blowjob was in no
way
related to the deaths of anyone. That's the difference. Clinton didn't
use
a
continuously evolving fairy tale to justify a war.

Clinton lied his ass off continuously and ordered the killings of
thousands
during his 2 terms.
There is little difference at all between Clinton and Bush.

As far as being consummate politicians, and therfore liars, no. There is
little difference. As far as keeping certain things secret with regard to
foreign policy or military action, there are similarities, but ALL
presidents have to maintain a certain amount of discretion, or plans simply
won't work right.

However, lying about blowjobs is still the focus of many people who didn't
like Clinton. These people pretend not to understand that Clinton's exploits
in a closet are in no way related to foreign policy. These same people are
quite happy to ignore the fact that every time someone lets the air out of
one of Bush's reasons for going to war, he reaches into his pocket and says
"Wait! I have another one here somewhere...."


BTW: According to the precise wording of the Constitution the current
military action in Iraq is NOT a war.

Do you consider that statement positive or negative? Explain why.

"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...
"Don" wrote in message
...


Most presidents give orders to kill people. But the blowjob was in no
way
related to the deaths of anyone. That's the difference. Clinton didn't
use
a
continuously evolving fairy tale to justify a war.

Clinton lied his ass off continuously and ordered the killings of
thousands
during his 2 terms.
There is little difference at all between Clinton and Bush.

As far as being consummate politicians, and therfore liars, no. There is
little difference. As far as keeping certain things secret with regard to
foreign policy or military action, there are similarities, but ALL
presidents have to maintain a certain amount of discretion, or plans
simply
won't work right.

Right there is where the *slippery path* starts.
I don't believe there is anything that one of the citizens employees does
that should be secret.
Let's be clear, the president and all politicians are paid by the taxpayers,
who are therefore their employers.
Employees cannot keep secrets from their employers.
The truth is, the politicians should not be fooling around with stuff that
requires secrecy, period.
And that includes clandestine manueverings with foreign entities/gov'ts.


However, lying about blowjobs is still the focus of many people who didn't
like Clinton. These people pretend not to understand that Clinton's
exploits
in a closet are in no way related to foreign policy. These same people are
quite happy to ignore the fact that every time someone lets the air out of
one of Bush's reasons for going to war, he reaches into his pocket and
says
"Wait! I have another one here somewhere...."

While I dispised Clinton, it was not for his personal choices.
I couldn't care less what he does with a dumpy cow, just don't do it on
company time.
That's not what the taxpayers are paying him for.

BTW: According to the precise wording of the Constitution the current
military action in Iraq is NOT a war.

Do you consider that statement positive or negative? Explain why.

Negative, of course.
The Congress basically wrote a blank check to the president, so that he may
declare war as he deems it appropriate. This is a direct violation to the
wording of the Constitution. This action has taken the responsibility of war
off the shoulders of the congressmen whom would be accountable to their
constituents and possibly voted out of office at the next election. The
president is a 2 trick pony, will be out of office in 2 terms anyway, so
being voted out of office is not a deterrent to him.
In my opinion, all of the politicians that voted to give the president the
sole authority to wage war, in direct violation to the Constitution, should
be brought up on charges. Perhaps treason.

"Don" wrote in message
...

"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...
"Don" wrote in message
...


Most presidents give orders to kill people. But the blowjob was in
no
way
related to the deaths of anyone. That's the difference. Clinton
didn't
use
a
continuously evolving fairy tale to justify a war.

Clinton lied his ass off continuously and ordered the killings of
thousands
during his 2 terms.
There is little difference at all between Clinton and Bush.

As far as being consummate politicians, and therfore liars, no. There is
little difference. As far as keeping certain things secret with regard
to
foreign policy or military action, there are similarities, but ALL
presidents have to maintain a certain amount of discretion, or plans
simply
won't work right.

Right there is where the *slippery path* starts.
I don't believe there is anything that one of the citizens employees does
that should be secret.
Let's be clear, the president and all politicians are paid by the
taxpayers,
who are therefore their employers.
Employees cannot keep secrets from their employers.
The truth is, the politicians should not be fooling around with stuff that
requires secrecy, period.
And that includes clandestine manueverings with foreign entities/gov'ts.

I don't like secrets either, but I don't think the invasion of Normandy
would've gone real well if it had been published in the newspapers a week
ahead of time. The Manhattan Project might gone badly, too.


However, lying about blowjobs is still the focus of many people who
didn't
like Clinton. These people pretend not to understand that Clinton's
exploits
in a closet are in no way related to foreign policy. These same people
are
quite happy to ignore the fact that every time someone lets the air out
of
one of Bush's reasons for going to war, he reaches into his pocket and
says
"Wait! I have another one here somewhere...."

While I dispised Clinton, it was not for his personal choices.
I couldn't care less what he does with a dumpy cow, just don't do it on
company time.
That's not what the taxpayers are paying him for.

Everyone needs to relax. Is it OK with you if a president plays golf a
couple of times a month? How about a few hours of fishing? Poker? Frankly,
what a president does for fun is none of anyone's damned business, as long
as it's legal.


BTW: According to the precise wording of the Constitution the current
military action in Iraq is NOT a war.

Do you consider that statement positive or negative? Explain why.

Negative, of course.
The Congress basically wrote a blank check to the president, so that he
may
declare war as he deems it appropriate. This is a direct violation to the
wording of the Constitution. This action has taken the responsibility of
war
off the shoulders of the congressmen whom would be accountable to their
constituents and possibly voted out of office at the next election. The
president is a 2 trick pony, will be out of office in 2 terms anyway, so
being voted out of office is not a deterrent to him.
In my opinion, all of the politicians that voted to give the president the
sole authority to wage war, in direct violation to the Constitution,
should
be brought up on charges. Perhaps treason.

Agreed. Unfortunately, it'll never happen, although Nader is suggesting
exactly this type of "cleansing".