|
Yo!! Harry!! What is it about Democrat leaders
"HK" wrote in message . .. It's an absolutely honest answer. The Dems got their intel from the Bush Admin. In 1998? Eisboch |
Yo!! Harry!! What is it about Democrat leaders
On Jan 26, 7:44*pm, "Eisboch" wrote:
"HK" wrote in message . .. It's an absolutely honest answer. The Dems got their intel from the Bush Admin. In 1998? Eisboch hurmph... |
Yo!! Harry!! What is it about Democrat leaders
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." You fellows keep missing the real points. One of them is that it was Bush, not Clinton, that had the hard on to invade, even before he presumed office, and it was the Bush Admin that cooked the books to "justify" an invasion, it was the Bush Admin that decided to invade "light" of the necessary troops to handle the aftermath, and it has been the Bush Admin that has screwed up just about everything in and about Iraq since. And what have we learned about Bush bringing "democracy" to the Arab world? When you give them elections, they elect Hamas. Bush is the worst president in this country's history, and he's going to prove it every day until he is out of office. -- George W. Bush - the 43rd Best President Ever! |
What is it about Democrat leaders
wrote in message ... On Sat, 26 Jan 2008 18:19:31 -0500, Eisboch wrote: 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 Well, in a way, Reagan was at the start. In 1982, Reagan removed Iraq from the list of terrorist sponsoring countries, and started arming both Iraq and Iran during the Iraq/Iran War. Many consider the debt Iraq accrued during that war, the reason for the invasion of Kuwait. When you play geopolitical chess, the end game is sometimes problematic. Yep. And in the game of international political chess, the strategies change for the current conditions. The conditions in 1982 were very different than the conditions in 2002. Eisboch |
Yo!! Harry!! What is it about Democrat leaders
On Jan 26, 7:55*pm, HK wrote:
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." Because of Sandy Berger we will never know, could be he knew plenty and did not have the nards to do what was right. So your point is legitimatly debatable. What we do know is there was something worth Berger's life and freedom that needed to be purged. For that much risk, it must have been something big. You fellows keep missing the real points. One of them is that it was Bush, not Clinton, that had the hard on to invade, even before he presumed office, Honestly debatable and it was the Bush Admin that cooked the books to "justify" an invasion, Debatable it was the Bush Admin that decided to invade "light" of the necessary troops to handle the aftermath, and it has been the Bush Admin that has screwed up just about everything in and about Iraq since. An opinion you hold but still debatable. Before the war ever started I said it would take a generation to end this war, 20 years. I remember and you could probably google my analagy to the K*K here in the us, who through mass communication and education, has been diminished to no more than a pesky group of old diehards with no teeth... If we continue to support freedom, spread the wealth (which means btw we might have to all slim down a little (pretty progressive don'cha' think?)), fundamentalist killers (these are not religeos men, no matter what they say) can suffer the same fate. So again, are we winning? Depends on your timeline, mine has always been a little more forward looking if not as pleasant.. either way, it can succeed... And what have we learned about Bush bringing "democracy" to the Arab world? When you give them elections, they elect Hamas. And Hamas will find itself in a positition of self advocacy, if they only have free economys to deal with, they too will adapt. Look at China;) Bush is the worst president in this country's history, and he's going to prove it every day until he is out of office. Again, debatable, and this time, I think you are in a very slim minority in the view of legitimate scholors of presidential history... which, snerk you are not... -- Billary, the most sold out Whitehouse in history.... |
Yo!! Harry!! What is it about Democrat leaders
"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. ".... and it was the Bush Admin that cooked the books to "justify" an invasion," For the same justifications outlined by the Dems in 1998. Who cooked the books? "it was the Bush Admin that decided to invade "light" of the necessary troops to handle the aftermath, and it has been the Bush Admin that has screwed up just about everything in and about Iraq since." Valid criticism, although it's tactical and not stragegic Bush is the worst president in this country's history, and he's going to prove it every day until he is out of office. Keep repeating that Harry if it makes you feel good. Only history will tell the real story. Eisboch |
Yo!! Harry!! What is it about Democrat leaders
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. -- George W. Bush - the 43rd Best President Ever! |
Yo!! Harry!! What is it about Democrat leaders
"HK" wrote in message . .. Eisboch wrote: 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. Yet most of the Democratic leadership at the time, well before Bush took office, trusted the intel and advocated action. You've been provided with a partial list. The names are very familiar. Why didn't Big Bill do something? Eisboch |
Yo!! Harry!! What is it about Democrat leaders
On Jan 26, 8:45*pm, HK wrote:
Eisboch wrote: "HK" wrote in message ... Eisboch wrote: "HK" wrote in message om... 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. -- Billary, the most sold out Whitehouse in history. Harry (stinky) Krause ;) That's only cause you have the ear of the Supreme Overlord... |
Yo!! Harry!! What is it about Democrat leaders
Eisboch wrote:
"HK" wrote in message . .. Eisboch wrote: 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. Yet most of the Democratic leadership at the time, well before Bush took office, trusted the intel and advocated action. You've been provided with a partial list. The names are very familiar. Why didn't Big Bill do something? Eisboch Because he thought doing so would be...stupid? BTW, "advocating" sometimes is done for political posturing. You know that, right? The point remains. Oh...we haven't discussed Bush's real motivation for invading Iraq. It was...political...of course. -- George W. Bush - the 43rd Best President Ever! |
Yo!! Harry!! What is it about Democrat leaders
|
Yo!! Harry!! What is it about Democrat leaders
"HK" wrote in message . .. Eisboch wrote: "HK" wrote in message . .. Eisboch wrote: 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. Yet most of the Democratic leadership at the time, well before Bush took office, trusted the intel and advocated action. You've been provided with a partial list. The names are very familiar. Why didn't Big Bill do something? Eisboch Because he thought doing so would be...stupid? BTW, "advocating" sometimes is done for political posturing. You know that, right? The point remains. The point remains that the whole damn thing is a massive screw-up and the "blame" (if that's what it's called), should be shared equally between political parties and administrations. I am not excusing Bush for screwing things up, but I also don't believe for a moment that all the blame should be directed to him or his administration. That's one reason I respect Joe Lieberman. He was one of the Democrats, pre-Bush, who talked about the threat Iraq posed and potential action. He, unlike the rest of his Democratic associates who sang the same tune but now waffle or deny, stuck to his guns. Eisboch |
Yo!! Harry!! What is it about Democrat leaders
JimH wrote:
"HK" wrote in message . .. Eisboch wrote: "HK" wrote in message . .. Eisboch wrote: 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. Yet most of the Democratic leadership at the time, well before Bush took office, trusted the intel and advocated action. You've been provided with a partial list. The names are very familiar. Why didn't Big Bill do something? Eisboch Because he thought doing so would be...stupid? Then why did he order the launch of missiles into Iraq, including on a baby formula factory? Because it was smarter than sending in a couple of hundred thousand troops over five years, blowing nearly two trillion dollars, and seeing nearly 4000 Americans come home in body bags, and all for naught? -- George W. Bush - the 43rd Best President Ever! |
Yo!! Harry!! What is it about Democrat leaders
Eisboch wrote:
"HK" wrote in message . .. Eisboch wrote: "HK" wrote in message . .. Eisboch wrote: 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. Yet most of the Democratic leadership at the time, well before Bush took office, trusted the intel and advocated action. You've been provided with a partial list. The names are very familiar. Why didn't Big Bill do something? Eisboch Because he thought doing so would be...stupid? BTW, "advocating" sometimes is done for political posturing. You know that, right? The point remains. The point remains that the whole damn thing is a massive screw-up and the "blame" (if that's what it's called), should be shared equally between political parties and administrations. I am not excusing Bush for screwing things up, but I also don't believe for a moment that all the blame should be directed to him or his administration. That's one reason I respect Joe Lieberman. He was one of the Democrats, pre-Bush, who talked about the threat Iraq posed and potential action. He, unlike the rest of his Democratic associates who sang the same tune but now waffle or deny, stuck to his guns. Eisboch The decision to invade Iraq was entirely the responsibility of George W. Bush. He has the con until next January. You guys sound like bookies, trying to lay off bets. -- George W. Bush - the 43rd Best President Ever! |
Yo!! Harry!! What is it about Democrat leaders
"HK" wrote in message ... The decision to invade Iraq was entirely the responsibility of George W. Bush. He has the con until next January. You guys sound like bookies, trying to lay off bets. Well, fortunately and despite the public's unpopular view of the war, your extreme position is somewhat unique and not shared by most .... even within your political party of choice. Not to fear though. In short order you'll have another Republican POTUS to call a dumbf...k. Eisboch |
What is it about Democrat leaders
"Eisboch" wrote in message
... "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. |
Yo!! Harry!! What is it about Democrat leaders
Eisboch wrote:
"HK" wrote in message ... The decision to invade Iraq was entirely the responsibility of George W. Bush. He has the con until next January. You guys sound like bookies, trying to lay off bets. Well, fortunately and despite the public's unpopular view of the war, your extreme position is somewhat unique and not shared by most .... even within your political party of choice. Not to fear though. In short order you'll have another Republican POTUS to call a dumbf...k. Eisboch I doubt it. Romney will be easy to beat and McCain, though a decent guy, favors a hundred year war, is old, is disliked by much of the GOP base, and...well, that's enough. Romney likes to talk about his life as a businessman, but not his failure as a governator and the boatloads of user fees (aka taxes) he imposed. Add to that his flop-flops and they add to loser. -- George W. Bush - the 43rd Best President Ever! |
Yo!! Harry!! What is it about Democrat leaders
"HK" wrote in message ... Eisboch wrote: "HK" wrote in message ... The decision to invade Iraq was entirely the responsibility of George W. Bush. He has the con until next January. You guys sound like bookies, trying to lay off bets. Well, fortunately and despite the public's unpopular view of the war, your extreme position is somewhat unique and not shared by most .... even within your political party of choice. Not to fear though. In short order you'll have another Republican POTUS to call a dumbf...k. Eisboch I doubt it. Romney will be easy to beat and McCain, though a decent guy, favors a hundred year war, is old, is disliked by much of the GOP base, and...well, that's enough. Romney likes to talk about his life as a businessman, but not his failure as a governator and the boatloads of user fees (aka taxes) he imposed. Add to that his flop-flops and they add to loser. Too close to call right now, even for the "pros". My gut feeling is if Obama gets the nomination, the odds favor the Dems. If Hillary gets it, the odds shift to the Republicans. It's an interesting election this time, for sure. Eisboch |
Yo!! Harry!! What is it about Democrat leaders
JimH wrote:
"HK" wrote in message ... Eisboch wrote: "HK" wrote in message ... The decision to invade Iraq was entirely the responsibility of George W. Bush. He has the con until next January. You guys sound like bookies, trying to lay off bets. Well, fortunately and despite the public's unpopular view of the war, your extreme position is somewhat unique and not shared by most .... even within your political party of choice. Not to fear though. In short order you'll have another Republican POTUS to call a dumbf...k. Eisboch I doubt it. Romney will be easy to beat and McCain, though a decent guy, favors a hundred year war, is old, is disliked by much of the GOP base, and...well, that's enough. Romney likes to talk about his life as a businessman, but not his failure as a governator and the boatloads of user fees (aka taxes) he imposed. Add to that his flop-flops and they add to loser. Unless something changes it will be Romney vs.. Hillarity with Romney winning. End of story. Well, that should be a laugh. Romney. I can't wait for the fun to start. Ever watch him when he's closely questioned? He folds up like a balsawood model airplane. -- George W. Bush - the 43rd Best President Ever! |
What is it about Democrat leaders
"Smoked Herring" wrote in message
... On Sat, 26 Jan 2008 23:22:55 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote: "Eisboch" wrote in message om... "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@comcas t.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. You've become a joke, and you just don't get it. -- John H You disagree with what I just wrote? If you disagree, explain why. |
What is it about Democrat leaders
wrote in message
... On Jan 26, 1:42 pm, "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote: "Short Wave Sportfishing" wrote in messagenews:dppmp3pdv23mnd9vi1mb8icepan7qciei7@4ax .com... On Sat, 26 Jan 2008 09:47:10 -0500, "Eisboch" wrote: "hk" wrote in message m... 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.- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - Well, with my tin hat firmly pulled down I have always thought just the opposite. Regan set up Carter with some kind of back room deal or threat to Iran... =============== Reagan set up Carter? In what capacity (job) did Reagan do that? |
Yo!! Harry!! What is it about Democrat leaders
|
What is it about Democrat leaders
On Jan 26, 9:59*pm, "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote:
wrote in message ... On Jan 26, 1:42 pm, "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote: "Short Wave Sportfishing" wrote in messagenews:dppmp3pdv23mnd9vi1mb8icepan7qciei7@4ax .com... On Sat, 26 Jan 2008 09:47:10 -0500, "Eisboch" wrote: "hk" wrote in message m... 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.- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - Well, with my tin hat firmly pulled down I have always thought just the opposite. Regan set up Carter with some kind of back room deal or threat to Iran... =============== Reagan set up Carter? In what capacity (job) did Reagan do that?- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - none |
Yo!! Harry!! What is it about Democrat leaders
On Sat, 26 Jan 2008 20:56:22 -0500, Eisboch wrote:
Yet most of the Democratic leadership at the time, well before Bush took office, trusted the intel and advocated action. You've been provided with a partial list. The names are very familiar. Why didn't Big Bill do something? Eisboch A better question is, why are Republicans so slow? Clinton did attack Iraq. On 12/16/98, he launched 200 cruise missiles at Iraq. What was the Republican response? Clinton's "Wagging the Dog" to avoid dealing with the Lewinsky matter. Fast forward 5 years, and the Republicans are all on board invading Iraq. Clearly there were no political motivations as this was a matter of national security, so one just has to assume Republicans are slow. |
Yo!! Harry!! What is it about Democrat leaders
"Eisboch" wrote in message ... "HK" wrote in message ... The decision to invade Iraq was entirely the responsibility of George W. Bush. He has the con until next January. You guys sound like bookies, trying to lay off bets. Well, fortunately and despite the public's unpopular view of the war, your extreme position is somewhat unique and not shared by most .... even within your political party of choice. Not to fear though. In short order you'll have another Republican POTUS to call a dumbf...k. Eisboch How about an Obama / Lieberman ticket? May be a winning ticket. |
What is it about Democrat leaders
"JoeSpareBedroom" wrote in message ... "Smoked Herring" wrote in message ... On Sat, 26 Jan 2008 23:03:44 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote: "Smoked Herring" wrote in message ... On Sat, 26 Jan 2008 22:39:27 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote: "Smoked Herring" wrote in message om... On Sat, 26 Jan 2008 15:37:19 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote: "Kippered" wrote in message news:hnjmp3ht9pue2tp4dv1imbqb0qrvl3c3en@4ax .com... On Sat, 26 Jan 2008 14:42:05 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote: "Kippered" wrote in message news:hvcmp3tqorgj6ulot8732op3hapktbe70a@4 ax.com... 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:271lp3lvkn4ovp9po2ta8suv0hr9flo6 ... On Sat, 26 Jan 2008 00:44:45 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote: "JG2U" wrote in message news:9vukp3llhf10ko0rpqv5h4rk6r2c5i ... On Fri, 25 Jan 2008 19:55:10 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote: "BAR" wrote in message news:MLWdnS7E37GyoAfanZ2dnUVZ_oji ... 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. He needed the question asked. He was being sued for sexual harassment. Seemed to be he did harrass as he paid a lot of money to the lady. |
Yo!! Harry!! What is it about Democrat leaders
On Sat, 26 Jan 2008 23:52:16 -0500, JG2U wrote:
On Sat, 26 Jan 2008 22:11:39 -0500, "D.Duck" wrote: "HK" wrote in message m... 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. Astounding. He will not apply reason, intellectual honesty, or rationality to his anti-Bush or anti-religion rhetoric, yet this morning there were about 50 posts between HK, et al, on politics, just in two threads. -- John H |
What is it about Democrat leaders
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 ... On Sat, 26 Jan 2008 22:39:27 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote: "Smoked Herring" wrote in message om... On Sat, 26 Jan 2008 15:37:19 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote: "Kippered" wrote in message news:hnjmp3ht9pue2tp4dv1imbqb0qrvl3c3en@4ax .com... On Sat, 26 Jan 2008 14:42:05 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote: "Kippered" wrote in message news:hvcmp3tqorgj6ulot8732op3hapktbe70a@4 ax.com... 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:271lp3lvkn4ovp9po2ta8suv0hr9flo6 ... On Sat, 26 Jan 2008 00:44:45 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote: "JG2U" wrote in message news:9vukp3llhf10ko0rpqv5h4rk6r2c5i ... On Fri, 25 Jan 2008 19:55:10 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote: "BAR" wrote in message news:MLWdnS7E37GyoAfanZ2dnUVZ_oji ... 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 |
What is it about Democrat leaders
On Sun, 27 Jan 2008 02:58:13 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote: "Smoked Herring" wrote in message .. . On Sat, 26 Jan 2008 23:22:55 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote: "Eisboch" wrote in message news:R8OdnXXDtfCYXQbanZ2dnUVZ_vamnZ2d@giganews. com... "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@comca st.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. You've become a joke, and you just don't get it. -- John H You disagree with what I just wrote? If you disagree, explain why. I neither agree nor disagree. I think you're farcical. (Look it up.) You and Harry belong in the same room. He beat you, by the way. -- John H |
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. |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 06:07 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com