"When Clinton lied no one died"
This letter has not been edited
Ernest E. Valdez, Thornton
Friday, March 21, 2008
In her letter of March 11, 2008, to the RMNs, Carol Rein Shwayder harashly suggested not to vote for Hillary Clinton, that they “had their chances and he blew it.” Ms. Shwayder stated “she has not forgotten nor can I forgive” Hillary’s “tacit approval to his lewd and lasciivious behavior..”
Well, boo hoo, where has Carol Shwayder been during the last 7 and a quarter years of disaster? Where has she been hibernating? Perhaps Clinton’s eight years of tranquility and good economic policies sent her into a deep sleep, and it has taken five and a half years of war, two recessions, a housing flop, a nation deep in debt and in stagflation to wake her up. To make matters worse now that she has woken up and all this catastrophic “behavior” sinks in, she might decide to go back into hibernation for a longer period.
Unfortunately, it may have done her soul some good and been able to forgive Hillary had she seen that car sticker out there which states, “When Clinton lied no one died.”
Post your comment
Registration is required. Click here to create your free user account, or login below.
Comments are the sole responsibility of the person posting them. You agree not to post comments that are off topic, defamatory, obscene, abusive, threatening or an invasion of privacy. Violators may be banned. Click here for our full user agreement.
March 21, 2008
6:36 p.m.
Suggest removal
skeptical writes:
Maybe no one died Ernest, but millions of school children were subjected an example of marital infidelity from the highest ranking official of their country. Then they witnessed him lying to get out of it. Then they watched the news as he twisted the truth inside out with statments like "it depends on what the definition of "is" is." Regardless of what G W Bush has done, it in no way changes what Bill Clinton did to bring reproach upon the office of the President of the United States.
March 21, 2008
7:03 p.m.
Suggest removal
nonayerbsns writes:
skeptical, you are unbelievable. The so-called 'millions' of school children aren't shocked or even interested in the liasons of the President. But, they are now, and will continue to be long into their old age - ifn' they live so long - adversely affected by this unneccessary war on a soveign nation in the name of oil.
Ah, but sex is worse than murder in your book?
March 21, 2008
7:07 p.m.
Suggest removal
farmboy writes:
“When Clinton lied no one died.”
Well, there was Vincent Foster.
I don't remember "Clinton's eight years of tranquility". I remember the bombings of Bosnia in 1995 and Baghdad in 1998. I remember people being incinerated at Waco, bombed in Oklahoma City and the Atlanta Olympics, and more being killed in other terrorist attacks in various parts of the world that Clinton did nothing about.
March 21, 2008
7:19 p.m.
Suggest removal
IronmanCarmichael writes:
"[M]illions of school children were subjected an example of marital infidelity from the highest ranking official of their country." Only because it was so vulgarly publicized by the so-called guardians of American morals. Never mind that many of them (Bob Barr, Newt) were indulging in "marital infidelity" themselves. (Barr even had the gall to say "My personal life is no one else's business.")
March 21, 2008
7:24 p.m.
Suggest removal
leftside writes:
I alway's love it when the right brings up the Vincent Foster case.
farmboy, would you like to tell us who the prosecutor was that finally declared Vincent Foster's death a suicide?
March 21, 2008
7:48 p.m.
Suggest removal
mytwosense writes:
farmboy: "I remember people being incinerated at Waco, bombed in Oklahoma City and the Atlanta Olympics"
So basically, farmboy is telling us he is a sympathizer of the weapons stockpilers at Waco and their child molester leader who refused to acknowledge the Feds' warrant, and the domestic terrorists who killed innocent children, men, and women because they worked and went to daycare in a Federal Government building.
You people are absolutely frightening in how much you hate your elected government.
Anarchists.
March 21, 2008
8:19 p.m.
Suggest removal
Old_Grouch writes:
Ah! Yes! Spring has sprung; and the sap(s) riseth. As do the "moralists", most of whom can't get anything else up to begin with; and so have to keep on moaning and groaning about how terrible it was that Clinton did.
But, it does give them an excuse for their own empty mental impotence when called upon to deal with problems in the REAL world today. They're too busy wringing out the crocodile tears from their lace handkerchiefs, shed over the awful events in the past, which so terribly affected the poor little innocent children - who most probably either never paid attention to any of it in the first place, or already knew (and know today as well) more about the "facts of life" than the "moralists" ever learn.
Anyone ever noticed how eager these "morally superior" people are to dwell on the level of the adolescent locker-room, and its fables and fantasies? Too bad they don't seem able to start growing up, getting a life of their own, and minding their own business. But, that's what "moral superiority" is all about; swooning over someone else's "sins".
March 21, 2008
8:49 p.m.
Suggest removal
castafiore writes:
skeptical:
I don't think the example of marital infidelity and lying by Clinton is any different than cocaine use and drunkeness by Bush. I have a hard time finding anything admirable in any elected officials. maybe it is true that power corrupts (congress)and absolute power corrupts absolutely (Clinton, Bush, Nixon).
March 21, 2008
10:11 p.m.
Suggest removal
Yankee writes:
Farmboy,
The Foster case is a good "right to bears arms" case.
If poor old Vince had had a gun he'd probably be alive today.
March 21, 2008
11:15 p.m.
Suggest removal
Charles_B writes:
farmboy described the tranquility of the Clinton years relative to the thousands of innocent Americans who perished under Bush:
"I remember the bombings of Bosnia in 1995 and Baghdad in 1998. I remember people being incinerated at Waco, bombed in Oklahoma City and the Atlanta Olympics, and more being killed in other terrorist attacks in various parts of the world..."
Wow farmboy! You were in *all those places*?
Just as an exercise let's add up all the victims of terrorism under Bush's watch vs. Clinton's. I wonder what those totals would look like. Hmmmm. Are you suggesting such a quantification would favor your Dear Leader?
March 21, 2008
11:17 p.m.
Suggest removal
Charles_B writes:
Yankee tried to make a joke while at the same time giving us a look at his tin-foil hat:
"The Foster case is a good "right to bears arms" case.
If poor old Vince had had a gun he'd probably be alive today."
Failure in the former and success in the latter.
No, being laughed *at* doesn't count.
March 21, 2008
11:32 p.m.
Suggest removal
skeptical writes:
Charles B
Right on. For once we agree
Old Grouch
You're right about two things, you're old and grouchy.
March 22, 2008
12:04 a.m.
Suggest removal
kathyM writes:
Doing nothing doesn't make the problem go away. Clinton did a whole lot of nothing regarding foreign policy (except maybe renting Lincoln Room to the highest bidders). So Bin Laden got to do his practice run on the WTC in 1993 and continue to organize his troops. When Bush took office, he inherited a decimated military and intelligence community that couldn't keep up with the bad guys. It was no coincidence AQ attacked in the first few months of Bush's presidency, before Bush could address the gaping holes in our defense. Is it any wonder Bush and those under him made such colossal blunders?
Clinton stuck our heads in the sand, and after he left, we got our asses kicked.
March 22, 2008
7:27 a.m.
Suggest removal
Earl writes:
I was wondering if spitzer shared phone numbers with bubba and that is why he has been out of sight the last week? no bubba likes the free interns.
what a guy and look at how the teens took his advice that oral stimulation is not sex and they all know how to put a condom on a banana.
a true leader of the democrat party.
it was janet who took out wacko as bill was busy in the oral office with monica, dicktating.
March 22, 2008
7:34 a.m.
Suggest removal
leftside writes:
Posted by leftside on March 21, 2008 at 7:24 p.m.
"farmboy, would you like to tell us who the prosecutor was that finally declared Vincent Foster's death a suicide?"
Now why hasn’t farmboy responded back? Maybe because the Vincent Foster case as well as all the case listed on the infamous “Clinton Body Count” or “Clinton Murder List” emails that have been floating around favorite conservative email groups is nothing but lies.
Farmboy , the third investigator to determine Vincent Foster did indeed shot himself was none other than Kenneth Starr. You do remember Ken don’t you farmboy? The conservatives favorite prosecutor.
“The 114 page summary of a three year investigation concluded that Foster shot himself with a pistol discovered in his right hand. There was no evidence of a struggle, no evidence he had been drugged or intoxicated or that his body had been moved”.
Ref. Snopes.com.
Yankee, still fill in a joking mood.
March 22, 2008
8:22 a.m.
Suggest removal
KW writes:
“When Clinton lied no one died.”
I'd like to see the letter writer explain that bumper sticker to the surviving families of the 17 people killed in the terrorist bombing of the USS Cole.
March 22, 2008
8:25 a.m.
Suggest removal
farmboy writes:
leftside,
The reason I hadn't responded yet was because I have a life outside of this forum.
As to who the prosecutor was, so what? Have you ever heard the term "Arkancide".
mytwosense,
I am not a sympathizer. I was simply responding to the letter writer's assertion that the Clinton years were tranquil. They were most assuredly were not.
Charles_B,
You really don't remember things like the bombings of the WTC in 1993 or the USS Cole in 2000? The bombings in Bosnia and Baghdad? The bombings of the Murrah Building in Oklahoma City or the Atlanta Olympics?
In your words, wow.
March 22, 2008
8:50 a.m.
Suggest removal
farmboy writes:
Charles_B wrote, "add up all the victims of terrorism under Bush's watch vs. Clinton's."
It wasn't due to the lack of attempts. It's estimated that if the the WTC had been destroyed during its first bombing in 1993, about 50,000 people would have been killed. And it's known now that the attacks on 9/11 were planned as far back as 1998.
March 22, 2008
8:54 a.m.
Suggest removal
leftside writes:
farmboy,
So what?!!
Let's put aside the fact that two other prosecutors came to the same conclusion as Starr. Or, I assume they did as Clinton is not in jail for murder and never was even put on trial for it.
It's about credibility. Nobody wanted to get Clinton more than Starr and he spent 3 years investigating this case and concluded it was suicide.
I figured since you referred mytwosense to snopes you might want to spend a little time there yourself but, as expected, you prove your "cherry picking" skills there as well.
March 22, 2008
9:01 a.m.
Suggest removal
leftside writes:
So farmboy, how far back was the WTC attacked planned. Maybe during Bush Sr.'s term. Your priceless farmboy.
March 22, 2008
9:36 a.m.
Suggest removal
farmboy writes:
leftside,
The reason I hadn't gone to snopes regarding Vincent Foster was because I responded to your post of 7:24 pm where there was no mention of it. I'll take snopes word on it.
March 22, 2008
9:53 a.m.
Suggest removal
leftside writes:
Have a good easter farmboy. I'm out.
March 22, 2008
11:04 a.m.
Suggest removal
Old_Grouch writes:
Isn't it wonderful?
Bush and company made "colossal blunders" - AND THEY SURELY DID THAT(!) - because of Clinton. Or so says KathyM anyway.
First time I've heard a Bush supporter admit the truth of anything. But of course, she did include the "conservative" Republican mantra: "It was the other fellow's fault."
So that makes everything, just "peachy keen" in the end; since now no one needs to expect the blundering buffoon in the White House to take any responsibility for HIS OWN mess.
And WOW! Just think! We could have another - at least - 4 years of the same, with McCain. Or another 100, maybe, if he gets to blame it all on Clinton too?
March 22, 2008
12:42 p.m.
Suggest removal
rg writes:
“marital infidelity” groans skeptical: But, it is really quite the norm: I certainly enjoyed it: Woman/Men are into such diversity on a grand scale; Jesus Christ hung out with a hooker; however, no infidelity there; however, that special gift of alchemy he possessed: the “water into wine thing” kept the party going. Why are a few so hung up on what is demanded by nature? All presidents cave in to infidelity: Even Jimmy Carter fornicated using his heart to exact penetration. Presidents are human and don’t claim to be men of the cloth except for W. Bush who lied and millions have paid. Richard Grimes: Deicide http://www.geocities.com/r22037/think...
Deicide Corner: “Bigger things than the State will fall, all religion will fall.” -- Henrik Ibsen -- The latest god to be slain by the deicide sword is Michael, the Mormon god from Kolob which LDS, in its abandon of Joseph Smith’s godly revelations, have rejected God Michael. LDS is embracing the “jew” baby transmogrified into an anti-Semitic Christian god: The 10% tithe continues. It is a money-making scheme. rg
March 22, 2008
2:54 p.m.
Suggest removal
me2 writes:
Okay, when a bumper sticker is deficient we need to change it for the little ones who can`t see the total meaning. So, "Clinton lied and no one died BECAUSE OF THAT ONE LIE.
The millions of poor, innocent little school kids would never have heard of his bj`s and don`t forget the phone sex, if the Republics had not carried their White Water investigation into the land of the absurd.
Imagine if our innocent school kids all started having safe phone sex because of Clinton. Imagine the phone bills!
Please realize that Republics make fun of bills aimed to prevent harm to "one child" yet get on their high but flimsy horses when millions of kids might see something they personally don`t like.
March 22, 2008
3:40 p.m.
Suggest removal
mtnsrfer writes:
When Slick Willy was chubby chasin, Al qeada was setting off bombs in the W.T.C. basement. They were blowing up U.S. embassys. They were killing sailors on the U.S.S. Cole. But yeah, nobody died right! Just keep your friggin head in the sand and keep saying the same ol' tired things. Go tell the mothers of the sailors on the U.S.S. Cole that no one died. Stupid!!!
March 22, 2008
3:47 p.m.
Suggest removal
mtnsrfer writes:
If Bill Clinton had been doing his job, instead of getting a job, in the Oral office we could have stopped Al qeada in the late 90's. In stead we have to deal with them now. Like it or not.
Ernest, you should try thinking for yourself one in a while. Not just repeating what code pink tells you to. STUPID!!!
March 22, 2008
6 p.m.
Suggest removal
Uno writes:
Clinton was by far the worst president in recent history for many reasons, should to shoulder with Carter. That his supporters feel the need to lie and make statements like "When Clinton lied no one died" is further proof of that.
March 22, 2008
7:46 p.m.
Suggest removal
me2 writes:
No one died because of Clintons lie about sex. Call all the names, have all the adult tantrums you want, link the Cole and anything else you want with the sex lie, but the only brains that will explode over these absurd combinations are yours.
You have no idea what Clinton could have done, or for that matter what Bush could have done to stop any or all of the terrorists attacks on ships, buildings and so on, in the past. Fewer people were killed by terrorist attacks while Clinton was pres. So, even at his moral, non lying best, Bush still watched more people die durring his administration, from terrorists attacks than Clinton did.
And lest you think I am scared off by your big boy yelling, no one died from Clinton`s lies or lie about sex.
Bush has destroyed the fragile balance in the Middle East and put us deep in debt with his lies, and many thousands of people that would be alive are dead because of him and his lies and his lying friends and politicians who supported, wholeheartedly, this ruinous war.
March 22, 2008
8:41 p.m.
Suggest removal
Uno writes:
Me2, that’s the whole point, Bush has stopped terrorist attacks on US soil. And the left hates him, too bad for you. Funny how Clinton didn’t have a problem killing US citizens at Waco and Ruby Ridge but pardoned FALN terrorists.
Also to claim that no one died in Clinton’s “wag the dog” incidents is a plain liar, and those on the left who keeps repeating this "When Clinton lied no one died" nonsense is either very arrogant or stupid, likely both.
March 22, 2008
9:04 p.m.
Suggest removal
me2 writes:
Uno, in what alternative universe is Bush the reason there have been no further attacks since 9-11? Law enforcement, better intelligence and citizens on the look out for anything suspicious have done the work so far. Has Bush stopped attacks by terrorists outside the U.S? Bush lied and many thousands, that is thousands, are dead, wouinded or displaced from their homes. Did Clintons one sex lie displace 2 million people?
You are trying to bolster a weak argument about Clinton`s sex lie with Waco and Ruby Ridge, et al. Won`t work
Original statement. No one died from Clintons one sex lie.
What a concidence that you call me arrogant, stupid or both. (see the joke here)?
March 22, 2008
10:10 p.m.
Suggest removal
Charles_B writes:
Uno thinks Bush took office on September 12th 2001:
"Me2, that’s the whole point, Bush has stopped terrorist attacks on US soil."
It fits conveniently into his inelegant web of delusional hyper-partisan hackery.
March 22, 2008
11:04 p.m.
Suggest removal
kathyM writes:
OG, Following your logic, it's OK to blame Reagan and Bush #1 (and every Republican president) for our current predicament. I see that often enough in these posts. But God forbid anyone cast aspersions on the Clinton record.
Every president inherits problems, no doubt about it! Some are directly caused by his predicessor, and some are not. The facts are that both the military and the intelligence budgets and personnel were slashed during the Clinton administration. If he understood how important both are to our current and future safety, he never would have approved of such cuts. But he did. He liked being known as the Nice President. And our enemies took full advantage of it.
The last time the US stopped keeping its eyes open, a HALF MILLION Americans paid the price. And we're paying again. Seems we never learn.
March 23, 2008
2:34 a.m.
Suggest removal
Ghengis_Bhong writes:
Kathy
What about the little intelligence nugget Bush had stating Bid Ladin Determined to Attack? The one Condoleeza testified as reading?
And here we are 7 years down the road from 9-11, and the true perpetrator of that act of infamy is still free to send his radio messages? Why does it not bother you that GW (with his revamped intel divisions, the Patriot Act, warrantless wire taps and all the money he can barrow for the full deployment of our troops to the ME) hasn't put the collar on Bid Ladin or taken him out?
Clinton tried to get Bin Ladin a few times, but failed. OK, his bad, but you can;t say that the Bush Admin wasn't warned and kept in the know about OBL.
And, I ask you, and all supporters of GW: How can you square your personal security with the death of all the innocent lives the War of Terror have claimed.
How many people should die so you have security?
The more I consider it, the more I conclude that the supporters of Bush's policies are the true and utter cowards.
Doesn't it seem bewildering that the U.S. spends 46x more on military spending that does China (the last great Communist bastion)? How much does Al Qeada spend on it's fight. By sheer economics, we are losing this war anyway. We spend money and build bombs, but we seeme to kill more of the wrong people than we do our true enemies.
But, as long as you think your safe from terrorists, it's ok. Nevermind that you are far more likely to be killed driving to work than in a terrorist attack.
Your security blanket is really just a cloak of blood.
and by the way, I do love America. I love her so much that I am duty bound to point out the good, the bad and the ugly.
March 23, 2008
6:18 a.m.
Suggest removal
Old_Grouch writes:
KathyM,
Bush being a blundering buffoon is Bush's own fault. Your statement concerning Bush making great blunders, BECAUSE of Clinton is ridiculous.
BUSH has not managed to catch bin Laden, yet. How many years after the World Trade Center disaster,
in spite of all his own rhetoric about "war on terrorism", are we supposed to wait for this, which was a primary objective of starting a war overseas to begin with? BUSH has even gone so far as to indicate he's no longer interested in bin Laden. And, even after our efforts, and at the cost of American lives, the Taliban still grows, and is re-taking parts of Afghanistan, where BUSH called it quits, to go into Iraq.
We have BUSH's quagmire in Iraq, because BUSH put us there.
Theoretical deficencies in number of troops, support of armed forces in general, and whatever else you may charge up against Clinton, had, in reality, nothing to do with BUSH making great blunders back when he became President; nor does what Clinton did, or did not, do in his term of office have anything to do with BUSH continuing to blunder all over the place now.
Presidents are responsible for THEIR OWN mistakes. Indeed, that's why one man runs against another for the job; supposedly to "correct" the mistakes, and do better.
March 23, 2008
8:57 a.m.
Suggest removal
Uno writes:
Me2, “Uno, in what alternative universe is Bush the reason there have been no further attacks since 9-11?” the one we live in. May be you can name the time and places the US was attacked by terrorists within it’s borders since 9/11 in your alternative universe.
“Has Bush stopped attacks by terrorists outside the U.S?” no, he has not, no one ever has. His job is to protect the US and it’s interests. Learn to live with the fact that he is done that.
The war in Afghanistan and Iraq done many good things the left want’s to deny and brush under the rug;
Libya’s Gaddafi turns his WMD program in for good.
North Korea’s Kim changed his tune, sticks with his iPod but not the nuclear program.
Iran is surrounded by US military, forcing Ahmadinejad to squeal like a cornered rat, talking though but not much else.
3 Husseins dead, especially Uday personally worse than his father.
Charles, “Uno thinks Bush took office on September 12th 2001“, you know that’s not what I said, that’s how you interpret it. But in many ways Bush did take office on that day, doing something about it. Clinton never did, letting it propagate into 9/11.
March 23, 2008
10:08 a.m.
Suggest removal
Old_Grouch writes:
Last time I looked at the map, Iran was bordered by Azerbaijan, Turkmenistan, Pakistan, Turkey, among a couple of other little nations left over from the breakup of the Soviet Union. Yes, a small part of Iran's border does lie alongside Afghanistan as well.
Now, in THIS Universe that hardly has "Iran . . . surrounded by U.S. Military". Unless, that is, we've invaded a whole lot of other territory than our present presence in Iraq and Afghanistan has kept completely secret. Which, of course, in THIS Universe would have been quite impossible, since several of those little nations left over from the Soviet Union would have, IMMEDIATELY, brought Russia into the act. And, so far, in THIS Universe anyway, we are not at war with Russia.
But of course, in whatever Universe Uno, and the rest of the Bush claque currently reside, things could be different. After all, imagination is unbounded; and certainly needs not be any respector of national boundaries. So, naturally, no one can "deny" Uno's statement, since no one else in THIS Universe has his imagination.
Hi, Sharon,
Ain't being a Bush supporter wonderful? One can go off and create a whole Universe of one's own; and nothing there is open to challenge here in REALITY.
And they want at least 4 years more - or even 100, if their Candidate is to be believed - with McCain. Sort of their own "perpetual motion" world, one of perpetual invention and imagination to suit the moment.
But, it does make the blog FUN!
March 23, 2008
10:21 a.m.
Suggest removal
kathyM writes:
I guess I didn't make myself clear: A bad decision made based on bad data is still a bad decision! I didn't say Clinton CAUSED Bush to make bad decisions. I said Clinton's slashing our military and intelligence made it hard for those personnel to keep up with the bad guys. So when it came crunch time, Bush had bad information, AND he made a bad decision.
BTW, I'm not a Republican. I'm an American.
March 23, 2008
11:15 a.m.
Suggest removal
Uno writes:
You got love bold faced liars on the left like Old Grouch. What, are you gonna redraw the map now too? First, curiously you didn’t even mention Iraq, sharing the longest land border with Iran (906 miles). Second, “Yes, a small part of Iran's border does lie alongside Afghanistan as well.” -you may want to go back to elementary school and learn more geography. A small part? 582 miles, or the third longest? You may get away with lying to you leftwing buddies whom doesn’t know any better (that’s why they leftwing), but don’t try to feed BS to me, it’s not gonna work.
March 23, 2008
12:15 p.m.
Suggest removal
me2 writes:
Uno, I was all in favor of the war against Afghanistan, still am. The terrorists on 9-11 were careful planners, they were also incredibly lucky that day. Almost all their plans worked. Now, since 9-11 everyone, and I mean everyone right down to the guy who works in a photo shop are on guard against terrorists. Bush didn`t protect this country single handed.
In my humble opinion Bush has done some good things, but he lied or exaggerated or something to get us into a war where thousands of people have died.
Uno in your second paragraph, substitute the name Clinton for Bush and you can see why all the confusion over the Cole and the embassies being part of Clintons failures doesn`t wash. So Clinton should have stopped foreign attacks, but not Bush.
You have now accused Clinton of failing to do something you say is not the presidents duty. Sweet. I think i will go celebrate this moment of clarity. You are right, presidents can`t protect foreign buildings or protect our ships in foreign ports. So stop bashing Clinton for something Bush can`t do either.
Bush played around with words, maybe he lied, maybe he didn`t know he was wrong, but millions of people have been affected by his war that resulted from the lies.
No one died from Clintons lie about "sex with that woman".
In case it has escaped your notice, I have not insulted you or the Republics here today. Can you make a stretch and stop with the invectives for once?
March 23, 2008
12:54 p.m.
Suggest removal
Old_Grouch writes:
Uno,
Go to your Google - or whatever search engine you use - and ask for "World Maps". The, go 6 down on the first page, to the one titled "World Maps", click on it; and when it comes up, click on the part marked "Asia".
When "Asia" comes up, take a good look at the map of Iran. And then tell me I am a "liar", when I listed some of the bordering countries on Iran. Furthermore, your statement about Afghanistan having one of the longer borders is also incorrect. The various little nations listed from Afghanistan northward, up to the border with Turkey make up a longer border than that with Afghanistan.
Also, sonny, your statement about Iraq over-values the presence we have there. Our troops are not on the Iranian border in any great numbers; nor are they present elsewhere in the Middle East in sufficient numbers to even begin to be surrounding, or encircling, Iran.
Your snide and nasty personal remarks aren't really much proof of your assertions, sonny. At least not in THIS Universe, whatever they be in your own little imaginary fantasy world.
March 23, 2008
1:03 p.m.
Suggest removal
Uno writes:
Me2, Clinton should have waked up right after the fist WTC bombing. He did not. If you want to defend his failures than go right ahead, you have long ways to go. The list is long and forgotten by most people. His lucky that most Americans have the attention span of a 14 year old with ADD.
March 23, 2008
1:33 p.m.
Suggest removal
Uno writes:
Old Grouch you are a liar. You said “Yes, a small part of Iran's border does lie alongside Afghanistan as well.” – which it’s not, and that makes you a liar.
March 23, 2008
2:15 p.m.
Suggest removal
Old_Grouch writes:
SOME VERSES FOR THE ELECTION YEAR 2008
We have a question today, you see,
Between Tweedledum and Tweedledee.
(Or Tweedledumber, as the case may be.)
Politics in the USA
Is certainly lots of fun to play.
Tweedledum says this;
Tweedledee says that;
Tweedledumber merely sits on his hat.
Politics in the USA
Is certainly lots of fun to play.
The faithful mount up on either side,
Their great white chargers, on which to ride
In all directions at once, betide.
Politics in the USA
Is certainly lots of fun to play.
A war of words is thus begun.
With nary a thought to be found among
The mounting heaps of equine dung.
Politics in the USA
Is certainly lots of fun to play.
The left is right.
And the right is righter.
The loudest mouth is the side’s best fighter.
Politics in the USA
Is certainly lots of fun to play.
OUR LEADER!, they shout,
While trying to rout
The forces of wickedness all about.
Politics in the USA
Is certainly lots of fun to play.
The question’s long lost in all the din
Concerning the PERSON who “ought to win”,
Because He’s the LEADER who is “without sin”.
Politics in the USA
Is certainly lots of fun to play.
No thought is involved in something like this.
Blind reaction provides immeasurable bliss.
And solution to problems gets a wide miss.
Politics in the USA
Is certainly lots of fun to play.
Democrat or Republican,
The end result is the same old one;
Just another round of Dee or Dum.
Politics in the USA
Is certainly lots of fun to play.
Why don't you make at least a small effort to try to grow up, Uno? "Small" in comparison to what? Certainly several other lengths of border between Iran and other nations.
And, how about your own statement, about Iran being "surrounded by U.S. military"? Is that now supposed to be "truth". Very childish, Uno.
March 23, 2008
4:17 p.m.
Suggest removal
Uno writes:
Old Grouch, if you feel that you’re a big enough boy to dish out insults, than you should be big enough to take them too. You don’t have to run and hide behind Sharon’s skirt like an overgrown baby. Your definition of small, like your liberal brain, just doesn’t add up.
March 23, 2008
5:53 p.m.
Suggest removal
me2 writes:
Goddess what was I thinking? I tried to make sense to Uno. Next I will be posting to the better nature of notchasb. Time to cart me away to the home.
March 23, 2008
7:30 p.m.
Suggest removal
Uno writes:
Me2, yes, what where you thinking? Are US embassies foreign buildings now? Just how many US embassies did terrorists blow up under Bush? No one was talking about some nightclub in Bali.
And what made you say this “You have now accused Clinton of failing to do something you say is not the presidents duty.” – no dear, you got it backwards. I accuse Clinton of not properly responding to repeated terrorist attacks on US soil. And that is the president’s job, to protect the US and it’s interests.
March 23, 2008
7:36 p.m.
Suggest removal
Uno writes:
Me2, also do you know what the “wag the dog” incident is? You seem so sure in this "When Clinton lied no one died" bumper sticker slogan.
March 23, 2008
7:41 p.m.
Suggest removal
Uno writes:
Leftside said, “So farmboy, how far back was the WTC attacked planned. Maybe during Bush Sr.'s term. Your priceless farmboy.” - wrong again. The planning for 9/11 started soon after the bombing of the WTC basement failed to bring down the building in 93.
March 23, 2008
7:55 p.m.
Suggest removal
Uno writes:
Old Grouch I’ll clarify what I meant for “surrounded by US military” for you;
Let’s go CCW, Turkey part of NATO, Iraq with US military presents, the Gulfs to the south with US and ally warships, Pakistan US ally on war on terror, Afghanistan US military presents. It may not be dense attack- ready attendants with a complete 100% circle, but sure looks more surrounded than not.
March 23, 2008
8:10 p.m.
Suggest removal
Old_Grouch writes:
Uno,
If you regard the courtesy of greeting Sharon as a friend from the old blog, and remarking on her being right when she is right - which is most of the time, sonny - as "hiding behind skirts", you are a much sicker puppy than most of us think you to be already.
Clarification accepted. That still doesn't make anyone else's comparative rebuttal a "lie", nor does it make the individual a "liar". Perhaps you might start eliminating the insults you continuously throw around, every time someone challenges your exagerated hyperbole; and then you can critique another's responses with a bit more complacent idea of self-righteousness, perhaps. Something about the "dust mote and the stick (or beam) in the eye" comes to mind here. But, that's not important, since it applies only to other people anyway.
March 23, 2008
8:11 p.m.
Suggest removal
Uno writes:
Old Grouch, you left detailed instructions on World Maps. I use Google Earth and I consider it a lot better.
If you don’t have it installed yet, here is a link;
http://earth.google.com/download-eart...
It’s free and also entertaining and accurate. See if you can find your own house, school, whatever else.
March 23, 2008
8:44 p.m.
Suggest removal
me2 writes:
Old Grouch, Oh my, so I am some times wrong? I can live with that, and I have decided that Uno is to be left alone because I can only take so much heart ache at one time.
I`m sure that some people died because of Clinton, that can be said of any president. And maybe we mistakenly bombed a real aspirin factory, or not.
somehow, comparing that to Bush is to suggest one mistake might be as grand as an entire war, started by mistake.
I don`t usually call Bush a liar, but as time goes on it looks more and more as if he knew he was lying.
March 23, 2008
9 p.m.
Suggest removal
Uno writes:
Old Grouch, as long as you keep using demeaning descriptions on me and others, I will continue with the insults. Because that’s what you deserve. So quit asking me not to insult you, while you keep up with your insults even in the same post, and that makes you look very unprofessional and downright arrogant.
Calling someone a liar when it’s an accurate description is what it is. If you don’t like being called a liar than quit doing it. If you lack information on something than look it up before you make your comments.
March 23, 2008
10:17 p.m.
Suggest removal
Charles_B writes:
Uno:
So Bush *did* take office on September 12th "in many ways"?
Pray tell, what ways?
The ones that allow him to escape accountability in your addled mind no doubt.
March 24, 2008
6:41 a.m.
Suggest removal
Old_Grouch writes:
Hi Sharon,
As to your being right, I really should have said, "ALL the time"; but I was attempting to deal with the rather hyperbolic exagerations of the young individual who freely expresses nonsense, but immediately refers to anyone disagreeing as " a liar", and insists that the nonsense is NOT.
I do have to agree that it is a futile and foolish waste of time to attempt dialogue, discussion, or even argument with this individual further, as witness the last set of comments. I gave the individual information, from a source available on the internet, which I had just looked up. And the reply still insists that my posting was from "lack (of) information".
Reminds me of those others, who, when faced with statements of something contrary to their own fixations do nothing but insist that, even in the face of documentation, and any other evidence as well, everyone else just MUST BE WRONG.
Some of them can be fun, though - at times, anyway. There is something hilarious - and quite enjoyable - about reading a posting which equates a letter writer with Christ, and criticism of the letter writer's production as "crucifixion". Ah! Well! I do get a kick out of the inmate(s) running the asylum. (A form of "March Madness", maybe?)
Spring is sprung; and the sap(s) riseth.
Have a good week.
March 24, 2008
12:30 p.m.
Suggest removal
RickyLee writes:
When Clinton lied, no one died. Nice little saying, and true.
Here's another, equally true;
Ted Kennedy's car has killed more people than my gun.