Yo!! Harry!! What is it about Democrat leaders
 

D.Duck wrote:
"HK" wrote in message


That's only cause you have the ear of the Supreme Overlord...

No, it is because I believe the FBI is a corrupt agency.





--
George W. Bush - the 43rd Best President Ever!

Is there anything, just anything about this country that you like?




What does "liking" this country have to do with respecting corrupt
institutions or incompetent public officials? Am I suppose to respect
the U.S. Justice Department, for example, when, for the last few years
it was run by an incompetent political hack or is now run by a judge who
cannot decide whether torture is torture? Am I supposed to like Donald
Rumsfeld?

I like this country, so I expect it to do better.

Yo!! Harry!! What is it about Democrat leaders
 

JG2U wrote:
On Sat, 26 Jan 2008 22:11:39 -0500, "D.Duck" wrote:

"HK" wrote in message
. ..
wrote:
On Jan 26, 8:45 pm, HK wrote:
Eisboch wrote:
"HK" wrote in message
. ..
Eisboch wrote:
"HK" wrote in message
. ..
It's an absolutely honest answer. The Dems got their intel from the
Bush
Admin.
In 1998?
Eisboch
Whatever information Clinton had in 1998 wasn't enough for him to
decide
to invade Iraq, depose Saddam, and set up an ersatz "democracy."
Yet most of the influencial Democrats in Congress promoted such action
at
the time, a fact you seem to refuse to recognize.
"You fellows keep missing the real points.
" One of them is that it was Bush, not Clinton, that had the hard on
to
invade, ......"
Stop. Again, most leading Dems advocated such action well before
Bush
took office.
The fact that Clinton didn't is somewhat of a mystery.
Maybe Bill didn't trust the intel. I wouldn't trust a word from certain
federal intel or police agencies, e.g., the FBI.








That's only cause you have the ear of the Supreme Overlord...

No, it is because I believe the FBI is a corrupt agency.





--
George W. Bush - the 43rd Best President Ever!
Is there anything, just anything about this country that you like?


harry is the original disenfranchised voter.

Everything is corrupt except labor unions, their affiliated
organizaitons, and the DNC in Harry's eyes.

Yo!! Harry!! What is it about Democrat leaders
 

HK wrote:
D.Duck wrote:

Is there anything, just anything about this country that you like?



What does "liking" this country have to do with respecting corrupt
institutions or incompetent public officials? Am I suppose to respect
the U.S. Justice Department, for example, when, for the last few years
it was run by an incompetent political hack or is now run by a judge who
cannot decide whether torture is torture? Am I supposed to like Donald
Rumsfeld?

I like this country, so I expect it to do better.

What about when Janet Reno ran the Justice department? There are many US
citizens who believe she ran the most corrupt Justice department.

Many people died because of her faulty decisions.

Yo!! Harry!! What is it about Democrat leaders
 

BAR wrote:
HK wrote:
D.Duck wrote:

Is there anything, just anything about this country that you like?



What does "liking" this country have to do with respecting corrupt
institutions or incompetent public officials? Am I suppose to respect
the U.S. Justice Department, for example, when, for the last few years
it was run by an incompetent political hack or is now run by a judge
who cannot decide whether torture is torture? Am I supposed to like
Donald Rumsfeld?

I like this country, so I expect it to do better.

What about when Janet Reno ran the Justice department? There are many US
citizens who believe she ran the most corrupt Justice department.

Many people died because of her faulty decisions.




Without getting into the particulars, perhaps you should go to the book
store today, find a dictionary, and look up "corrupt" and "faulty," and
see if they mean the same thing.

--
George W. Bush - the 43rd Best President Ever!

Yo!! Harry!! What is it about Democrat leaders
 

HK wrote:
BAR wrote:
HK wrote:
D.Duck wrote:

Is there anything, just anything about this country that you like?



What does "liking" this country have to do with respecting corrupt
institutions or incompetent public officials? Am I suppose to respect
the U.S. Justice Department, for example, when, for the last few
years it was run by an incompetent political hack or is now run by a
judge who cannot decide whether torture is torture? Am I supposed to
like Donald Rumsfeld?

I like this country, so I expect it to do better.

What about when Janet Reno ran the Justice department? There are many
US citizens who believe she ran the most corrupt Justice department.

Many people died because of her faulty decisions.




Without getting into the particulars, perhaps you should go to the book
store today, find a dictionary, and look up "corrupt" and "faulty," and
see if they mean the same thing.


You've told me I too stupid to understand big words. Why don't you
explain it to me using little worlds which I might understand.

Yo!! Harry!! What is it about Democrat leaders
 

BAR wrote:
HK wrote:
BAR wrote:
HK wrote:
D.Duck wrote:

Is there anything, just anything about this country that you like?



What does "liking" this country have to do with respecting corrupt
institutions or incompetent public officials? Am I suppose to
respect the U.S. Justice Department, for example, when, for the last
few years it was run by an incompetent political hack or is now run
by a judge who cannot decide whether torture is torture? Am I
supposed to like Donald Rumsfeld?

I like this country, so I expect it to do better.

What about when Janet Reno ran the Justice department? There are many
US citizens who believe she ran the most corrupt Justice department.

Many people died because of her faulty decisions.




Without getting into the particulars, perhaps you should go to the
book store today, find a dictionary, and look up "corrupt" and
"faulty," and see if they mean the same thing.


You've told me I too stupid to understand big words. Why don't you
explain it to me using little worlds which I might understand.


"Corrupt" and "Faulty" are not big words.



--
George W. Bush - the 43rd Best President Ever!

Yo!! Harry!! What is it about Democrat leaders
 

"BAR" wrote in message
. ..
JG2U wrote:
On Sat, 26 Jan 2008 22:11:39 -0500, "D.Duck" wrote:

"HK" wrote in message
. ..
wrote:
On Jan 26, 8:45 pm, HK wrote:
Eisboch wrote:
"HK" wrote in message
. ..
Eisboch wrote:
"HK" wrote in message
. ..
It's an absolutely honest answer. The Dems got their intel from
the Bush
Admin.
In 1998?
Eisboch
Whatever information Clinton had in 1998 wasn't enough for him to
decide
to invade Iraq, depose Saddam, and set up an ersatz "democracy."
Yet most of the influencial Democrats in Congress promoted such
action at
the time, a fact you seem to refuse to recognize.
"You fellows keep missing the real points.
" One of them is that it was Bush, not Clinton, that had the hard
on to
invade, ......"
Stop. Again, most leading Dems advocated such action well
before Bush
took office.
The fact that Clinton didn't is somewhat of a mystery.
Maybe Bill didn't trust the intel. I wouldn't trust a word from
certain
federal intel or police agencies, e.g., the FBI.








That's only cause you have the ear of the Supreme Overlord...

No, it is because I believe the FBI is a corrupt agency.





--
George W. Bush - the 43rd Best President Ever!
Is there anything, just anything about this country that you like?

harry is the original disenfranchised voter.

Everything is corrupt except labor unions, their affiliated organizaitons,
and the DNC in Harry's eyes.

Unfortunately, Harry has it all bass ackwards. Somebody did a good job
brainwashing him.

Yo!! Harry!! What is it about Democrat leaders
 

"HK" wrote in message
. ..
BAR wrote:
HK wrote:
BAR wrote:
HK wrote:
D.Duck wrote:

Is there anything, just anything about this country that you like?



What does "liking" this country have to do with respecting corrupt
institutions or incompetent public officials? Am I suppose to respect
the U.S. Justice Department, for example, when, for the last few years
it was run by an incompetent political hack or is now run by a judge
who cannot decide whether torture is torture? Am I supposed to like
Donald Rumsfeld?

I like this country, so I expect it to do better.

What about when Janet Reno ran the Justice department? There are many
US citizens who believe she ran the most corrupt Justice department.

Many people died because of her faulty decisions.




Without getting into the particulars, perhaps you should go to the book
store today, find a dictionary, and look up "corrupt" and "faulty," and
see if they mean the same thing.


You've told me I too stupid to understand big words. Why don't you
explain it to me using little worlds which I might understand.


"Corrupt" and "Faulty" are not big words.
And they are not mutually exclusive. You seem to have trouble recognizing
this. What's your problem Harry?

What is it about Democrat leaders
 

"Smoked Herring" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 27 Jan 2008 02:57:30 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

"Smoked Herring" wrote in message
. ..
On Sat, 26 Jan 2008 23:03:44 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

"Smoked Herring" wrote in message
m...
On Sat, 26 Jan 2008 22:39:27 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

"Smoked Herring" wrote in message
news:tcdnp318b456aadm8h4lkdp83r8l6hinsp@4ax. com...
On Sat, 26 Jan 2008 15:37:19 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

"Kippered" wrote in message
news:hnjmp3ht9pue2tp4dv1imbqb0qrvl3c3en@4a x.com...
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:gi5lp3ph0vpuv5blqs6ae6htl9agct4eg ...
On Sat, 26 Jan 2008 01:05:59 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

"JG2U" wrote in message
news:271lp3lvkn4ovp9po2ta8suv0hr9flo ...
On Sat, 26 Jan 2008 00:44:45 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

"JG2U" wrote in message
news:9vukp3llhf10ko0rpqv5h4rk6r2c5 ...
On Fri, 25 Jan 2008 19:55:10 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

"BAR" wrote in message
news:MLWdnS7E37GyoAfanZ2dnUVZ_oj ...
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.


Other than the fact that his sex life was sleazy, unethical, and
immoral,
no one gave a **** about it.

But, he perjured himself. That's what gave 'them' the tool to use.
--
John H


Work backwards, John. He perjured himself because he was asked a question.
The question was asked because someone needed ammunition. The question
should never have been asked, particularly because the loudest proponent
of
the question was Gingrich, who was equally guilty AT THE VERY TIME THE
QUESTION WAS ASKED.


Backwards my ass. He perjured himself, regardless of your 'reason'. Your
implication remains horse****.
--
John H


It's obvious that he committed perjury. That is not my point. How many
repetitions do you need before you understand that we agree on the perjury
issue?

What is it about Democrat leaders
 

"JG2U" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 27 Jan 2008 02:35:15 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

"Eisboch" wrote in message
om...

"JoeSpareBedroom" wrote in message
...



Do you think Gingrich was wracked with guilt during his affair? Of
course
not. He did it because he thought it was enjoyable.


You just crossed the line of any future consideration to credibility in
your posts.
You have absolutely no knowledge of your accusation.

Eisboch



You may have heard the saying "When you live in a glass house, don't throw
stones." Newt lived in a glass house, and he threw stones. If his
self-awareness was so lacking that he didn't realize that, he had no
business being in a position of power.


If a rapist reports another rapist, does it make either one of them
less a rapist? Should we give the reported rapist a pass because he
was turned in by someone also guilty?

Why are you saying "look over there" when your boy clinton was, and
is, guilty as charged?

Let him who is without sin cast the first stone. Know what I mean.

Meanwhile, back in the world of grownups, there was much more important to
be conducted.