|
What is it about Democrat leaders
"Smoked Herring" wrote in message
... On Sat, 26 Jan 2008 22:39:27 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote: "Smoked Herring" wrote in message . .. On Sat, 26 Jan 2008 15:37:19 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote: "Kippered" wrote in message m... On Sat, 26 Jan 2008 14:42:05 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote: "Kippered" wrote in message news:hvcmp3tqorgj6ulot8732op3hapktbe70a@4ax. com... On Sat, 26 Jan 2008 02:22:22 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote: "JG2U" wrote in message news:gi5lp3ph0vpuv5blqs6ae6htl9agct4eg4@4a x.com... On Sat, 26 Jan 2008 01:05:59 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote: "JG2U" wrote in message news:271lp3lvkn4ovp9po2ta8suv0hr9flo60o@ 4ax.com... On Sat, 26 Jan 2008 00:44:45 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote: "JG2U" wrote in message news:9vukp3llhf10ko0rpqv5h4rk6r2c5ikni ... On Fri, 25 Jan 2008 19:55:10 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote: "BAR" wrote in message news:MLWdnS7E37GyoAfanZ2dnUVZ_ojinZ2 ... wrote: On Fri, 25 Jan 2008 10:24:18 -0500, Kippered wrote: Harry, it's not the sex. I know this is, for you, especially hard to understand. The guy *perjured* himself. That means lying. Believe it or not, most folks consider that wrong. Of course, you and your buddy find nothing wrong with that because it gains you notoriety, and some probably think it's right cool. But it isn't. Uh, perjury and lying are not the same thing. Clinton was guilty of one, but we was not guilty of the other. Don't you remember Bill pointing his finger at us and saying "I did not have sex with that woman, Monica Lewinski!" Let's ask the wives if a blow job is sex or not before you parse Bill's answer. I wonder if it's illegal for presidents to have sex with anyone they want, wherever they want. I said ILLEGAL. Yes, it IS illegal. A president can not have sex with anyone they want, wherever they want. Period. Do you think they can? If so, explain how. I might be wrong, but I don't think it's illegal. You sound pretty sure of it, though. Do you recall where you heard or read that? As far as my explaining "how", that's really a subject better discussed with your dad. You *are* wrong. Anyone? OK, your ex-wife. Anywhere? Town Square at noon. Illegal on two counts, rape (unless she's easy) and indecent exposure. Hell, you made the rules. You made it too easy. Anyway, being pres does NOT let you have sex with anyone, anywhere you choose. You know that. You've now been taught why. ;-) Bye You knew I meant "consenting adults", but you're now using that technicality to wiggle out of proving your legal theory. You also knew I meant that the act would not happen in the place where it would be illegal for ANYONE. You're also using that as an excuse to not prove your point. I can't (and wouldn't want to) read your mind. I can't help that your statement was poorly defined. My statement your original statement stands as true. Prove that it was illegal for Clinton to have sex with Lewinski. Do it now. Unless he coerced her, that was not illegal. Unethical, sleazy, immoral, indicative of his moral values, proof of his lack of a moral compass, proving him to ba a risk to national security, YES. Illegal, no. It was the purgery that was illegal. But I never said otherwise. You know that. Great. We agree. It wasn't illegal. Now, you can agree that the fake saints asked him the infamous question only for political gain. There were no ***SINCERE*** concerns about blackmail or national security. Only a child pretends that the president cannot make a problem like that vanish. He was questioned about his unethical, sleazy, and immoral activities. Or is unethical behavior something that you don't believe can exist? You never saw me claim that his behavior was NOT unethical. If you disagree, please find the text, written by me, which suggests that I approve of what he did. Copy & past a sample of that text into your next response. "Now, you can agree that the fake saints asked him the infamous question only for political gain." No. They asked him the question because of his unethical, sleazy, and immoral behavior. Your implication that they had no reason to question his behavior is horse****. You will (or should) recall that the biggest mouth during the inquisition belonged to Gingrich, who later said he was having an affair at the time. He didn't think HIS OWN behavior was wrong. Therefore, he didn't REALLY believe Clinton's behavior was wrong. Based on these FACTS, we can only conclude that he led the charge for political gain, not because of his opinion of Clinton's behavior. How can you possibly claim to know what Gingrich thought. You are way too full of yourself. Your implication is still horse****. -- John H Do you think Gingrich was wracked with guilt during his affair? Of course not. He did it because he thought it was enjoyable. Gingrich's guilt or lack thereof has no bearing on your horse**** implication. -- John H My implication is perfect. Gingrich went after Clinton for only one reason: To make political hay because he needed to at the time. Nobody gave a damn about Clinton's sex life. Clinton simply provided them with a tool to use against him. That was his biggest mistake. |
Yo!! Harry!! What is it about Democrat leaders
"JoeSpareBedroom" wrote in message ... "Short Wave Sportfishing" wrote in message ... On Sat, 26 Jan 2008 16:59:41 GMT, Short Wave Sportfishing wrote: On Sat, 26 Jan 2008 09:34:37 -0500, hk wrote: Short Wave Sportfishing wrote: On Sat, 26 Jan 2008 08:48:42 -0500, hk wrote: Short Wave Sportfishing wrote: On Sat, 26 Jan 2008 08:05:42 -0500, hk wrote: Come on - you are smarter than that. Yup. Bill Lied About Sex. It not about WHAT he lied about - it's that he LIED about it. Yeah, well, if it had been something important, it might have mattered. As it was over sex, it didn't. It's not the issue - the issue is that he lied. Period. End of Dicsussion. Now, lying us into a war - as Bush has done - that matters. "The community of nations may see more and more of the very kind of threat Iraq poses now: a rogue state with weapons of mass destruction, I've seen all that crap a zillion times. Just answer the question - it's simple. Did all those people lie about the WMDs? If you can't give a yes or no answer based on your statement below, then you are a partisan hack and not a very good one either. Bush lied us into war. No way out of it. I'll ask you again - did all those other people, including President Clinton, lie about Iraq's WMDs? Yes or no. I'm still waiting - yoo hoo - anybody home? Hello? They all said what they believed at the time. The issue is the word TIME. When did he have these things, and how close was he to actually having them ready to use? "Moments from turning the last screw", as the CIA put it when debating where Pakistan was in its nuke program. The facts are pretty well established, both in text and video. For you're memory summary: http://youtube.com/watch?v=FNgaVtVaiJE Eisboch |
What is it about Democrat leaders
"JG2U" wrote in message
... On Sat, 26 Jan 2008 22:39:27 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote: "Smoked Herring" wrote in message . .. On Sat, 26 Jan 2008 15:37:19 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote: "Kippered" wrote in message m... On Sat, 26 Jan 2008 14:42:05 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote: "Kippered" wrote in message news:hvcmp3tqorgj6ulot8732op3hapktbe70a@4ax. com... On Sat, 26 Jan 2008 02:22:22 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote: "JG2U" wrote in message news:gi5lp3ph0vpuv5blqs6ae6htl9agct4eg4@4a x.com... On Sat, 26 Jan 2008 01:05:59 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote: "JG2U" wrote in message news:271lp3lvkn4ovp9po2ta8suv0hr9flo60o@ 4ax.com... On Sat, 26 Jan 2008 00:44:45 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote: "JG2U" wrote in message news:9vukp3llhf10ko0rpqv5h4rk6r2c5ikni ... On Fri, 25 Jan 2008 19:55:10 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote: "BAR" wrote in message news:MLWdnS7E37GyoAfanZ2dnUVZ_ojinZ2 ... wrote: On Fri, 25 Jan 2008 10:24:18 -0500, Kippered wrote: Harry, it's not the sex. I know this is, for you, especially hard to understand. The guy *perjured* himself. That means lying. Believe it or not, most folks consider that wrong. Of course, you and your buddy find nothing wrong with that because it gains you notoriety, and some probably think it's right cool. But it isn't. Uh, perjury and lying are not the same thing. Clinton was guilty of one, but we was not guilty of the other. Don't you remember Bill pointing his finger at us and saying "I did not have sex with that woman, Monica Lewinski!" Let's ask the wives if a blow job is sex or not before you parse Bill's answer. I wonder if it's illegal for presidents to have sex with anyone they want, wherever they want. I said ILLEGAL. Yes, it IS illegal. A president can not have sex with anyone they want, wherever they want. Period. Do you think they can? If so, explain how. I might be wrong, but I don't think it's illegal. You sound pretty sure of it, though. Do you recall where you heard or read that? As far as my explaining "how", that's really a subject better discussed with your dad. You *are* wrong. Anyone? OK, your ex-wife. Anywhere? Town Square at noon. Illegal on two counts, rape (unless she's easy) and indecent exposure. Hell, you made the rules. You made it too easy. Anyway, being pres does NOT let you have sex with anyone, anywhere you choose. You know that. You've now been taught why. ;-) Bye You knew I meant "consenting adults", but you're now using that technicality to wiggle out of proving your legal theory. You also knew I meant that the act would not happen in the place where it would be illegal for ANYONE. You're also using that as an excuse to not prove your point. I can't (and wouldn't want to) read your mind. I can't help that your statement was poorly defined. My statement your original statement stands as true. Prove that it was illegal for Clinton to have sex with Lewinski. Do it now. Unless he coerced her, that was not illegal. Unethical, sleazy, immoral, indicative of his moral values, proof of his lack of a moral compass, proving him to ba a risk to national security, YES. Illegal, no. It was the purgery that was illegal. But I never said otherwise. You know that. Great. We agree. It wasn't illegal. Now, you can agree that the fake saints asked him the infamous question only for political gain. There were no ***SINCERE*** concerns about blackmail or national security. Only a child pretends that the president cannot make a problem like that vanish. He was questioned about his unethical, sleazy, and immoral activities. Or is unethical behavior something that you don't believe can exist? You never saw me claim that his behavior was NOT unethical. If you disagree, please find the text, written by me, which suggests that I approve of what he did. Copy & past a sample of that text into your next response. "Now, you can agree that the fake saints asked him the infamous question only for political gain." No. They asked him the question because of his unethical, sleazy, and immoral behavior. Your implication that they had no reason to question his behavior is horse****. You will (or should) recall that the biggest mouth during the inquisition belonged to Gingrich, who later said he was having an affair at the time. He didn't think HIS OWN behavior was wrong. Therefore, he didn't REALLY believe Clinton's behavior was wrong. Based on these FACTS, we can only conclude that he led the charge for political gain, not because of his opinion of Clinton's behavior. How can you possibly claim to know what Gingrich thought. You are way too full of yourself. Your implication is still horse****. -- John H Do you think Gingrich was wracked with guilt during his affair? Of course not. He did it because he thought it was enjoyable. There lies the base problem with you, Doug. You can't conceive of someone feeling remorse during the commission of an immoral, lying, cheating act. You don't either. The feeling is alien to you. Others have a better moral compass to guide them. Keep striving; you can do better. ;-) Try and come to grips with the perfect truth: Gingrich the fake saint was a hypocrite. He hounded Clinton while he was doing the exact same thing as Clinton. He did not go after Clinton because he had a problem with his behavior. He went after Clinton for political gain, and no other reason. +++++++++ WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Former House speaker and potential presidential candidate Newt Gingrich has confessed, telling conservative Christian leader James Dobson that he was cheating on his wife at around the same time the House was impeaching President Bill Clinton over his White House affair with Monica Lewinsky. But Gingrich said that didn't make him a hypocrite, because Clinton was impeached not for the affair, but for lying about it. +++++++++ BULL****! |
What is it about Democrat leaders
On Jan 26, 6:05*pm, JG2U wrote:
On Sat, 26 Jan 2008 22:39:27 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote: "Smoked Herring" wrote in message .. . On Sat, 26 Jan 2008 15:37:19 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote: "Kippered" wrote in message ... On Sat, 26 Jan 2008 14:42:05 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote: "Kippered" wrote in message om... On Sat, 26 Jan 2008 02:22:22 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote: "JG2U" wrote in message news:gi5lp3ph0vpuv5blqs6ae6htl9agct4eg4@4ax .com... On Sat, 26 Jan 2008 01:05:59 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote: "JG2U" wrote in message news:271lp3lvkn4ovp9po2ta8suv0hr9flo60o@4 ax.com... On Sat, 26 Jan 2008 00:44:45 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote: "JG2U" wrote in message news:9vukp3llhf10ko0rpqv5h4rk6r2c5iknis @4ax.com... On Fri, 25 Jan 2008 19:55:10 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote: "BAR" wrote in message news:MLWdnS7E37GyoAfanZ2dnUVZ_ojinZ2d @comcast.com... wrote: On Fri, 25 Jan 2008 10:24:18 -0500, Kippered wrote: Harry, it's not the sex. I know this is, for you, especially hard to understand. The guy *perjured* himself. That means lying. Believe it or not, most folks consider that wrong. Of course, you and your buddy find nothing wrong with that because it gains you notoriety, and some probably think it's right cool. But it isn't. Uh, *perjury and lying are not the same thing. *Clinton was guilty of one, but we was not guilty of the other. Don't you remember Bill pointing his finger at us and saying "I did not have sex with that woman, Monica Lewinski!" Let's ask the wives if a blow job is sex or not before you parse Bill's answer. I wonder if it's illegal for presidents to have sex with anyone they want, wherever they want. I said ILLEGAL. Yes, it IS illegal. *A president can not have sex with anyone they want, wherever they want. *Period. Do you think they can? *If so, explain how. I might be wrong, but I don't think it's illegal. You sound pretty sure of it, though. Do you recall where you heard or read that? As far as my explaining "how", that's really a subject better discussed with your dad. You *are* wrong. *Anyone? *OK, your ex-wife. *Anywhere? *Town Square at noon. *Illegal on two counts, rape (unless she's easy) and indecent exposure. Hell, you made the rules. *You made it too easy. Anyway, being pres does NOT let you have sex with anyone, anywhere you choose. *You know that. *You've now been taught why. *;-) Bye You knew I meant "consenting adults", but you're now using that technicality to wiggle out of proving your legal theory. You also knew I meant that the act would not happen in the place where it would be illegal for ANYONE. You're also using that as an excuse to not prove your point. I can't (and wouldn't want to) read your mind. *I can't help that your statement was poorly defined. *My statement your original statement stands as true. Prove that it was illegal for Clinton to have sex with Lewinski. Do it now. Unless he coerced her, that was not illegal. *Unethical, sleazy, immoral, indicative of his moral values, proof of his lack of a moral compass, proving him to ba a risk to national security, YES. Illegal, no. *It was the purgery that was illegal. *But I never said otherwise. You know that. Great. We agree. It wasn't illegal. Now, you can agree that the fake saints asked him the infamous question only for political gain. There were no ***SINCERE*** concerns about blackmail or national security. *Only a child pretends that the president cannot make a problem like that vanish. He was questioned about his unethical, sleazy, and immoral activities. Or is unethical behavior something that you don't believe can exist? You never saw me claim that his behavior was NOT unethical. If you disagree, please find the text, written by me, which suggests that I approve of what he did. Copy & past a sample of that text into your next response. "Now, you can agree that the fake saints asked him the infamous question only for political gain." No. They asked him the question because of his unethical, sleazy, and immoral behavior. Your implication that they had no reason to question his behavior is horse****. You will (or should) recall that the biggest mouth during the inquisition belonged to Gingrich, who later said he was having an affair at the time. He didn't think HIS OWN behavior was wrong. Therefore, he didn't REALLY believe Clinton's behavior was wrong. Based on these FACTS, we can only conclude that he led the charge for political gain, not because of his opinion of Clinton's behavior. How can you possibly claim to know what Gingrich thought. You are way too full of yourself. Your implication is still horse****. -- John H Do you think Gingrich was wracked with guilt during his affair? Of course not. He did it because he thought it was enjoyable. There lies the base problem with you, Doug. *You can't conceive of someone feeling remorse during the commission of an immoral, lying, cheating act. *You don't either. *The feeling is alien to you. Others have a better moral compass to guide them. *Keep striving; you can do better. *;-)- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - He needs Jesus;) |
Yo!! Harry!! What is it about Democrat leaders
"Eisboch" wrote in message
... "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote in message ... "Short Wave Sportfishing" wrote in message ... On Sat, 26 Jan 2008 16:59:41 GMT, Short Wave Sportfishing wrote: On Sat, 26 Jan 2008 09:34:37 -0500, hk wrote: Short Wave Sportfishing wrote: On Sat, 26 Jan 2008 08:48:42 -0500, hk wrote: Short Wave Sportfishing wrote: On Sat, 26 Jan 2008 08:05:42 -0500, hk wrote: Come on - you are smarter than that. Yup. Bill Lied About Sex. It not about WHAT he lied about - it's that he LIED about it. Yeah, well, if it had been something important, it might have mattered. As it was over sex, it didn't. It's not the issue - the issue is that he lied. Period. End of Dicsussion. Now, lying us into a war - as Bush has done - that matters. "The community of nations may see more and more of the very kind of threat Iraq poses now: a rogue state with weapons of mass destruction, I've seen all that crap a zillion times. Just answer the question - it's simple. Did all those people lie about the WMDs? If you can't give a yes or no answer based on your statement below, then you are a partisan hack and not a very good one either. Bush lied us into war. No way out of it. I'll ask you again - did all those other people, including President Clinton, lie about Iraq's WMDs? Yes or no. I'm still waiting - yoo hoo - anybody home? Hello? They all said what they believed at the time. The issue is the word TIME. When did he have these things, and how close was he to actually having them ready to use? "Moments from turning the last screw", as the CIA put it when debating where Pakistan was in its nuke program. The facts are pretty well established, both in text and video. For you're memory summary: http://youtube.com/watch?v=FNgaVtVaiJE Eisboch That video shows statements by politicians. I think I see the problem here. I'm reading something you're not. Read this, and then let me know what you think about statements made by politicians: http://search.barnesandnoble.com/boo...46199575&itm=1 I'll have it finished by Monday. By then, you should be able to find out if your public library has the book. Without it, I honestly don't think you can discuss the subject any further, especially if your idea of "facts" is typified by that youtube video. |
What is it about Democrat leaders
wrote in message
... On Jan 26, 6:05 pm, JG2U wrote: On Sat, 26 Jan 2008 22:39:27 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote: "Smoked Herring" wrote in message .. . On Sat, 26 Jan 2008 15:37:19 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote: "Kippered" wrote in message ... On Sat, 26 Jan 2008 14:42:05 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote: "Kippered" wrote in message om... On Sat, 26 Jan 2008 02:22:22 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote: "JG2U" wrote in message news:gi5lp3ph0vpuv5blqs6ae6htl9agct4eg4@4ax .com... On Sat, 26 Jan 2008 01:05:59 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote: "JG2U" wrote in message news:271lp3lvkn4ovp9po2ta8suv0hr9flo60o@4 ax.com... On Sat, 26 Jan 2008 00:44:45 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote: "JG2U" wrote in message news:9vukp3llhf10ko0rpqv5h4rk6r2c5iknis @4ax.com... On Fri, 25 Jan 2008 19:55:10 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote: "BAR" wrote in message news:MLWdnS7E37GyoAfanZ2dnUVZ_ojinZ2d @comcast.com... wrote: On Fri, 25 Jan 2008 10:24:18 -0500, Kippered wrote: Harry, it's not the sex. I know this is, for you, especially hard to understand. The guy *perjured* himself. That means lying. Believe it or not, most folks consider that wrong. Of course, you and your buddy find nothing wrong with that because it gains you notoriety, and some probably think it's right cool. But it isn't. Uh, perjury and lying are not the same thing. Clinton was guilty of one, but we was not guilty of the other. Don't you remember Bill pointing his finger at us and saying "I did not have sex with that woman, Monica Lewinski!" Let's ask the wives if a blow job is sex or not before you parse Bill's answer. I wonder if it's illegal for presidents to have sex with anyone they want, wherever they want. I said ILLEGAL. Yes, it IS illegal. A president can not have sex with anyone they want, wherever they want. Period. Do you think they can? If so, explain how. I might be wrong, but I don't think it's illegal. You sound pretty sure of it, though. Do you recall where you heard or read that? As far as my explaining "how", that's really a subject better discussed with your dad. You *are* wrong. Anyone? OK, your ex-wife. Anywhere? Town Square at noon. Illegal on two counts, rape (unless she's easy) and indecent exposure. Hell, you made the rules. You made it too easy. Anyway, being pres does NOT let you have sex with anyone, anywhere you choose. You know that. You've now been taught why. ;-) Bye You knew I meant "consenting adults", but you're now using that technicality to wiggle out of proving your legal theory. You also knew I meant that the act would not happen in the place where it would be illegal for ANYONE. You're also using that as an excuse to not prove your point. I can't (and wouldn't want to) read your mind. I can't help that your statement was poorly defined. My statement your original statement stands as true. Prove that it was illegal for Clinton to have sex with Lewinski. Do it now. Unless he coerced her, that was not illegal. Unethical, sleazy, immoral, indicative of his moral values, proof of his lack of a moral compass, proving him to ba a risk to national security, YES. Illegal, no. It was the purgery that was illegal. But I never said otherwise. You know that. Great. We agree. It wasn't illegal. Now, you can agree that the fake saints asked him the infamous question only for political gain. There were no ***SINCERE*** concerns about blackmail or national security. Only a child pretends that the president cannot make a problem like that vanish. He was questioned about his unethical, sleazy, and immoral activities. Or is unethical behavior something that you don't believe can exist? You never saw me claim that his behavior was NOT unethical. If you disagree, please find the text, written by me, which suggests that I approve of what he did. Copy & past a sample of that text into your next response. "Now, you can agree that the fake saints asked him the infamous question only for political gain." No. They asked him the question because of his unethical, sleazy, and immoral behavior. Your implication that they had no reason to question his behavior is horse****. You will (or should) recall that the biggest mouth during the inquisition belonged to Gingrich, who later said he was having an affair at the time. He didn't think HIS OWN behavior was wrong. Therefore, he didn't REALLY believe Clinton's behavior was wrong. Based on these FACTS, we can only conclude that he led the charge for political gain, not because of his opinion of Clinton's behavior. How can you possibly claim to know what Gingrich thought. You are way too full of yourself. Your implication is still horse****. -- John H Do you think Gingrich was wracked with guilt during his affair? Of course not. He did it because he thought it was enjoyable. There lies the base problem with you, Doug. You can't conceive of someone feeling remorse during the commission of an immoral, lying, cheating act. You don't either. The feeling is alien to you. Others have a better moral compass to guide them. Keep striving; you can do better. ;-)- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - He needs Jesus;) ===================== Gingrich played the god card while simultaneously confessing his adulterous behavior to the press. That's always a warning sign when a politician plays the god card. |
What is it about Democrat leaders
"JoeSpareBedroom" wrote in message ... "Short Wave Sportfishing" wrote in message ... On Sat, 26 Jan 2008 09:47:10 -0500, "Eisboch" wrote: "hk" wrote in message om... I've seen all that crap a zillion times. Bush lied us into war. No way out of it. Pretty much sums it up. I gave him another chance at it - let's see if he'll man up and say the right thing. It's my considered opinion that Bush was set up by the Clintons and their main henchman in the process was George Tenant. I suppose you think Reagan was set up by Carter, in terms of inheriting the Pakistan nightmare. There you go again, dissing old Ronny Wrinkles, who has nothing to do with this topic and, BTW, is a favorite of Barack Obama. Eisboch |
What is it about Democrat leaders
"Eisboch" wrote in message
... "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote in message ... "Short Wave Sportfishing" wrote in message ... On Sat, 26 Jan 2008 09:47:10 -0500, "Eisboch" wrote: "hk" wrote in message news:6MOdncJnI4ue2AbanZ2dnUVZ_vHinZ2d@comcast. com... I've seen all that crap a zillion times. Bush lied us into war. No way out of it. Pretty much sums it up. I gave him another chance at it - let's see if he'll man up and say the right thing. It's my considered opinion that Bush was set up by the Clintons and their main henchman in the process was George Tenant. I suppose you think Reagan was set up by Carter, in terms of inheriting the Pakistan nightmare. There you go again, dissing old Ronny Wrinkles, who has nothing to do with this topic and, BTW, is a favorite of Barack Obama. Eisboch Actually, I wasn't dissing Reagan at all. The implied point was that all presidents inherit nightmares from their predecessors. You know that, and so does Tom. Any other conclusion suggests a dependency on children's books for knowledge of recent history. |
What is it about Democrat leaders
"hk" wrote in message . .. Short Wave Sportfishing wrote: On Sat, 26 Jan 2008 09:47:10 -0500, "Eisboch" wrote: "hk" wrote in message . .. I've seen all that crap a zillion times. Bush lied us into war. No way out of it. Pretty much sums it up. I gave him another chance at it - let's see if he'll man up and say the right thing. It's my considered opinion that Bush was set up by the Clintons and their main henchman in the process was George Tenant. If you believe that, then you must believe Bush is even dumber than I think he is. Hmmmm.... that must mean that someone is smarter than they thought they were .... or something like that. Eisboch |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 05:39 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com