Parse this instead...
 

In article om,
says...
On Jul 11, 3:01 pm, jps wrote:

And if I answer your three questions, will you let me cross your
bridge? Sandy Berger made sure we will never know how much the
Clintons were involved, had knowledge of, or even told the Bush
administration. Specualate all you want, scream from the top of the
mountain that you beleive the Clintons to the end, then why did they
have to destroy documents, I specualte that they did not tell Bush
everything, but I won't stand on a stump and declare it "truth" beyond
doubt, and call anyone who does not agree, stupid...

OH MY GOD. I knew this was all the Clinton's fault all along. "I
speculate they did not tell Bush everything" as if you'd be in a
position to speculate on such a thing.

I was mocking you dork! I know none of you have the integerity to
seriously answer the question.

What is there to answer? Your supposition is pure fantasy whereas the
acts taken by the Bush administration are in plain public view. Bald-
faced and obviously quid pro quo.

How do you know that Sandy Berger was protecting Clinton and not
himself?

You're orbiting another planet.



Whatever Sandy Berger destroyed can't be 1/1000th of what Bush destroys
on a daily basis. If Clinton commuted the sentence of an aide who could
have been instrumental in impeachment proceedings, you'd have
simultaneously **** your pants and popped an artery.

What, retarded, childish speculation? Are you a hypocryte or just
liar?

You're filled with non-sequiturs. Did you rail against Clinton's
impeachment and are you now railing against Libby's commutation?


Not even Fox (Republican talking points distributor) News would have the
gall to share your rich fantasy.

Again, speculation based on nothing at all but ideology and childish
emotion. If I were your boss I would fire you, I have noticed that
spoiled little children with no moral core can get you in a lot of
trouble in their ever constant self indulgence.

What's wrong with my supposition? If anyone shared your view, do you
not think it would have been fully exploited by those dweebs at Fox News
who live to snipe Democrats?

You think Sandy Berger kept Clinton from jail? If this rich fantasy of
yours has merit, in your eyes, do you also think the same of the Libby
commutation?

jps

Parse this instead...
 

In article . com,
says...
On Jul 11, 4:08 pm, HK wrote:
wrote:

I have noticed that

spoiled little children with no moral core can get you in a lot of
trouble in their ever constant self indulgence.

Indeed, look at all the trouble Cheney has caused with his
self-indulgent bull****.

I would love to, can you state any facts or just more talking points
designed to deflect from the Dems, no plan, plan...

And what does the vacuum of ideas coming from the Democratic side have
to do with the Libby's commutation and Cheney/Bush constantly
maneuvering around the law?

jps

Parse this instead...
 

On Jul 11, 5:01 pm, jps wrote:
In article om,
says...





On Jul 11, 3:01 pm, jps wrote:

And if I answer your three questions, will you let me cross your
bridge? Sandy Berger made sure we will never know how much the
Clintons were involved, had knowledge of, or even told the Bush
administration. Specualate all you want, scream from the top of the
mountain that you beleive the Clintons to the end, then why did they
have to destroy documents, I specualte that they did not tell Bush
everything, but I won't stand on a stump and declare it "truth" beyond
doubt, and call anyone who does not agree, stupid...

OH MY GOD. I knew this was all the Clinton's fault all along. "I
speculate they did not tell Bush everything" as if you'd be in a
position to speculate on such a thing.

I was mocking you dork! I know none of you have the integerity to
seriously answer the question.

What is there to answer? Your supposition is pure fantasy whereas the
acts taken by the Bush administration are in plain public view. Bald-
faced and obviously quid pro quo.


Simple, what do you think Sandy was protecting, you are obviously not
against speculation?

Parse this instead...
 

On Jul 11, 4:59 pm, HK wrote:
wrote:
On Jul 11, 4:38 pm, HK wrote:
wrote:
On Jul 11, 4:08 pm, HK wrote:
wrote:
I have noticed that
spoiled little children with no moral core can get you in a lot of
trouble in their ever constant self indulgence.
Indeed, look at all the trouble Cheney has caused with his
self-indulgent bull****.
I would love to, can you state any facts or just more talking points
designed to deflect from the Dems, no plan, plan...
Facts about the problems Cheney has created for us and the rest of the
world with his self-indulgent bull****?

There isn't enough bandwidth on the internet for sort of dissertation.

You really need to unplug yourself from reich-wing media...or else get a
higher pair of jackboots.

So, you really have no facts then?

Please. Play that d.f. right-wing card game on someone else. I'm not
going to waste any time or make any effort to refute your reich-wing
political simplemindedness. You're not worth it.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

No harry, you have nothing. Has nothing to do with what I am worth, At
least I am really a boater so I already bring more to this table than
you!

Parse this instead...
 

In article . com,
says...
On Jul 11, 3:01 pm, jps wrote:
Not even Fox (Republican talking points distributor) News would have the
gall to share your rich fantasy.

jps-

You never even watched FOX. But regurgetated lies are fine for the
intellectually lazy. It's not FOX bias Hillary and others are afraid
of, they have been guaranteed unedited interviews. It is the idea of
having to actually answer a question without the benefit of a 10
second talking point, and the possiblily of having to answer a
followup quesiton. It gets me that otherwise good folks can just spout
this kind of crap to protect those they know could never stand up to a
real news confrence with unscripted questions. But you just keep
saying it, at least half of the folks you debate will know how
ignorant, or at least dishonest you really are.

I watch Fox all the time. I've nearly puked several times in the last
week watching the hit pieces on Hillary and the positioning that's
nearly impossible to separate from Republican talking points.

I'm not intellectually lazy as you state. I immerse myself in the
language and strategy of the worthy opponent (cough, cough). I even
defend their points when I think there's validity. But, as with Bill O,
they sprinkle a little truth in with the bull**** so it'll go down
easier.

Trouble is, this administration has to be the most corrupt in history,
but for the fact that simpletons like you cannot tell the difference
between partisanism and pure freaking corruption spells the difference
between our kids losing their lives in an ill-conceived bit of nation
building in the interest of access to oil, and a rational society that
pursues the ideals we all hope our country represents.

The right wing should be ashamed of what they've endorsed in the last 6
years.

No matter, even those among leadership of your "conservative" party are
facing reality. You'll be left behind with the rest of the Fox News
cheerleaders, lamenting those chicken **** Republicans that couldn't
hold their mud long enough for us to claim victory in Iraq.

Unfortunately, you'd die of old age before that proclamation could be
made.

jps

Parse this instead...
 

OK, well start slow, tell me a lie O'Rielly told? Or is it just your
emo way of saying you did not like what he said?

Parse this instead...
 

On Wed, 11 Jul 2007 16:08:51 -0400, HK wrote:

wrote:
I have noticed that
spoiled little children with no moral core can get you in a lot of
trouble in their ever constant self indulgence.



Indeed, look at all the trouble Cheney has caused with his
self-indulgent bull****.

Harry, did you get your computer fixed?":
--
John H

Parse this instead...
 

On Wed, 11 Jul 2007 12:01:59 -0700, jps wrote some more
political trash:

snippage

OH MY GOD. I knew this was all the Clinton's fault all along.

jps

Did Clinton own a Whaler? Wonder if he thought it was a rough riding boat
in anything over 6" . That little 15'er would definitely get up and go with
the 70hp Johnson it came with.
--
John H

Parse this instead...
 

In article .com,
says...

jps wrote:

Not even Fox (Republican talking points distributor) News would have the
gall to share your rich fantasy.

jps

I'm a republican and I don't talk points distributors anymore. With
both of my boats, I've gotten rid of the ignition points and gone with
HEI.

I installed Pertronix ignition kits in both. I really can't say they
initially start any easier, but after warm up, the engines kick right
off with very little effort. The performance is snappier, and I get a
lot better fuel per hr. I wouldn't go back to pioints distributors
if I had to.

On my 23' Marquis with the 5.7 GM (350 chevy) I'm even thinking on
going with an "MSD" (Multiple Discharge System) to see if I can add
even more spark performance. on cruise they don't do much, but under
load at 4000 rpm, I think the engine will perform better yet.

For no more than a MSD kit costs, It's at least worth a try.

Should have just broken down and purchased Mallory electronic
distributors. Cheap freakin' Republican.

jps

Parse this instead...
 

In article .com,
says...
OK, well start slow, tell me a lie O'Rielly told? Or is it just your
emo way of saying you did not like what he said?

oh for god's sake, the guy can't open his mouth without lying.

Let's start with the hundreds of armed lesbian gangs that wield pink
guns. The agency that monitors gangs confirmed a grand total of 1
lesbian gang coming anywhere near his description.

The guy is a serial liar that will rarely correct himself, even with the
facts shoved in his face. Blowhard idiot. Should have been a game show
host.

If you're watching him you should also be watching Olbermann as a
counter-balance.

Start with this one:

http://video.msn.com/v/us/msnbc.htm?...b2b-49e5-81ff-
003005828d82&p=Source_Countdown&t=c1149
&rf=http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19588942/&fg=