If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#331
|
|||
|
|||
39% of Americans believe Bush should be impeached.
On 2007-07-16 09:17:49 -0400, "Hertz Dount" said:
"sechumlib" wrote in message ... On 2007-07-16 06:11:47 -0400, "Hertz Dount" said: IN THE WHOTE HOUSE Oh, there. And your point is???? That you can't spell. |
#332
|
|||
|
|||
39% of Americans believe Bush should be impeached.
"sechumlib" wrote in message ... On 2007-07-16 09:17:49 -0400, "Hertz Dount" said: "sechumlib" wrote in message ... On 2007-07-16 06:11:47 -0400, "Hertz Dount" said: IN THE WHOTE HOUSE Oh, there. And your point is???? That you can't spell. Coming from someone who thinks 39% is a majority, that is funny! Honu |
#333
|
|||
|
|||
39% of Americans believe Bush should be impeached.
On Mon, 16 Jul 2007 00:11:47 -1000, "Hertz Dount"
wrote: "Hatunen" wrote in message .. . On Sat, 14 Jul 2007 20:17:27 -0400, sechumlib wrote: On 2007-07-14 17:45:42 -0400, Hatunen said: You're willfully ignoring all attempts to tell you what "impeahc" means. Hatunen, don't you really think your efforts are hopeless? The stuff you're responding to is by people who are determined to show that Clinton was a blackguard, and they accept the very political impeachment by the House as authentic proof that he was guilty. They are going to find him guilty no matter what idiocy, or lack of it, is involved in their reasoning. They are Clinton-haters, pure and simple. The world is full of Clinton-haters and their ilk. They aren't interested in truth, only in spin. I think it's time to start ignoring them. If I believed in a deity, I would pray to him to help me do that. May you be stronger than I am. I don't post with any hope changing the minds of people like that; I do want other readers who may not understand impeachment to get a clue as to what's really meant. Someone told me at lunch today that they were watching Bill Moyers and there were people on the show who represented a serious attempt to impeach Bush. I asked how many Congressman they had on their side? I was told "maybe one". I said, in that case it is NOT a serious attempt to impeach Bush. You have no hope because you think it is perfectly acceptable for a president to lie. Please quote where I said, or implied, any such thing. You think is is perfectly acceptable for a president to be adulterous. No I don't. I only said that Clinton was the first to get a lot of publicity about it. I suspect the Gary Hart affair triggered the press into being less protective. You have no hope because you fail to realize that anyone that would lie on the scale that Clinton did, and do what he did *IN THE WHOTE HOUSE* has no morals at all. None. Yet you continue to perceive him as some kind of Knight in Shining Armor. Do you honestly thing Clinton has been the only president who ever lied while President? You are sijmply too naive for words. All I ask is that you stop spouting legal nonsense. -- ************* DAVE HATUNEN ) ************* * Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow * * My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps * |
#334
|
|||
|
|||
39% of Americans believe Bush should be impeached.
On 2007-07-16 12:47:41 -0400, Hatunen said:
On Mon, 16 Jul 2007 00:11:47 -1000, "Hertz Dount" wrote: You think is is perfectly acceptable for a president to be adulterous. No I don't. I only said that Clinton was the first to get a lot of publicity about it. I suspect the Gary Hart affair triggered the press into being less protective. Somehow, the whole issue of whether or not a president is adulterous seems to me to be purest bull****. I'd hate to have to count the number of presidents who were adulterous. Some that immediately come to mind are Jefferson, Jackson, Harding, FD Roosevelt, Eisenhower, Nixon. Many of the people in Congress and elsewhere who shake moralistic fingers at adulterous presidents have themselves been adulterous; Gingrich is a blatant example. Other examples will be found readily among the religious leaders who scream loudest about adultery. Most countries ignore such peccadilloes of their chief executives, and they seem to muddle along at least as well as we do. Maybe it's time for us to follow their lead and become less hypocritical about this foible. |
#335
|
|||
|
|||
39% of Americans believe Bush should be impeached.
On Mon, 16 Jul 2007 13:00:16 -0400, sechumlib
wrote: On 2007-07-16 12:47:41 -0400, Hatunen said: On Mon, 16 Jul 2007 00:11:47 -1000, "Hertz Dount" wrote: You think is is perfectly acceptable for a president to be adulterous. No I don't. I only said that Clinton was the first to get a lot of publicity about it. I suspect the Gary Hart affair triggered the press into being less protective. Somehow, the whole issue of whether or not a president is adulterous seems to me to be purest bull****. I'd hate to have to count the number of presidents who were adulterous. Some that immediately come to mind are Jefferson, Jackson, Harding, FD Roosevelt, Eisenhower, Nixon. Many of the people in Congress and elsewhere who shake moralistic fingers at adulterous presidents have themselves been adulterous; Gingrich is a blatant example. Other examples will be found readily among the religious leaders who scream loudest about adultery. Most countries ignore such peccadilloes of their chief executives, and they seem to muddle along at least as well as we do. Maybe it's time for us to follow their lead and become less hypocritical about this foible. I have seen it said that at one point Warren Harding's secret service men kept Mrs Hardng at bay outside the oval office while the prez hid his mistress, Nan Britton, in a closet. -- ************* DAVE HATUNEN ) ************* * Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow * * My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps * |
#336
|
|||
|
|||
39% of Americans believe Bush should be impeached.
"Hatunen" wrote in message ... On Mon, 16 Jul 2007 00:11:47 -1000, "Hertz Dount" wrote: "Hatunen" wrote in message . .. On Sat, 14 Jul 2007 20:17:27 -0400, sechumlib wrote: On 2007-07-14 17:45:42 -0400, Hatunen said: You're willfully ignoring all attempts to tell you what "impeahc" means. Hatunen, don't you really think your efforts are hopeless? The stuff you're responding to is by people who are determined to show that Clinton was a blackguard, and they accept the very political impeachment by the House as authentic proof that he was guilty. They are going to find him guilty no matter what idiocy, or lack of it, is involved in their reasoning. They are Clinton-haters, pure and simple. The world is full of Clinton-haters and their ilk. They aren't interested in truth, only in spin. I think it's time to start ignoring them. If I believed in a deity, I would pray to him to help me do that. May you be stronger than I am. I don't post with any hope changing the minds of people like that; I do want other readers who may not understand impeachment to get a clue as to what's really meant. Someone told me at lunch today that they were watching Bill Moyers and there were people on the show who represented a serious attempt to impeach Bush. I asked how many Congressman they had on their side? I was told "maybe one". I said, in that case it is NOT a serious attempt to impeach Bush. You have no hope because you think it is perfectly acceptable for a president to lie. Please quote where I said, or implied, any such thing. You think is is perfectly acceptable for a president to be adulterous. No I don't. I only said that Clinton was the first to get a lot of publicity about it. I suspect the Gary Hart affair triggered the press into being less protective. You have no hope because you fail to realize that anyone that would lie on the scale that Clinton did, and do what he did *IN THE WHOTE HOUSE* has no morals at all. None. Yet you continue to perceive him as some kind of Knight in Shining Armor. Do you honestly thing Clinton has been the only president who ever lied while President? You are sijmply too naive for words. All I ask is that you stop spouting legal nonsense. Lied to the SCOTUS, Congress and every citizen of the U.S., intentionally, deliberately and repeatedly. Yes, I think he is the only President to lie on the scale that buffoon, I mean Clinton did. Honu -- ************* DAVE HATUNEN ) ************* * Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow * * My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps * |
#337
|
|||
|
|||
39% of Americans believe Bush should be impeached.
"sechumlib" wrote in message ... On 2007-07-16 12:47:41 -0400, Hatunen said: On Mon, 16 Jul 2007 00:11:47 -1000, "Hertz Dount" wrote: You think is is perfectly acceptable for a president to be adulterous. No I don't. I only said that Clinton was the first to get a lot of publicity about it. I suspect the Gary Hart affair triggered the press into being less protective. Somehow, the whole issue of whether or not a president is adulterous seems to me to be purest bull****. because like him, you have no morals or conscience. I'd hate to have to count the number of presidents who were adulterous. Some that immediately come to mind are Jefferson, Jackson, Harding, FD Roosevelt, Eisenhower, Nixon. Many of the people in Congress and elsewhere who shake moralistic fingers at adulterous presidents have themselves been adulterous; Gingrich is a blatant example. Other examples will be found readily among the religious leaders who scream loudest about adultery. Most countries ignore such peccadilloes of their chief executives, and they seem to muddle along at least as well as we do. Maybe it's time for us to follow their lead and become less hypocritical about this foible. So adultery, perjury, sodomy are all fine your book? Oh yeah....you are a liberal... Honu |
#338
|
|||
|
|||
39% of Americans believe Bush should be impeached.
"Hatunen" wrote in message ... On Mon, 16 Jul 2007 13:00:16 -0400, sechumlib wrote: On 2007-07-16 12:47:41 -0400, Hatunen said: On Mon, 16 Jul 2007 00:11:47 -1000, "Hertz Dount" wrote: You think is is perfectly acceptable for a president to be adulterous. No I don't. I only said that Clinton was the first to get a lot of publicity about it. I suspect the Gary Hart affair triggered the press into being less protective. Somehow, the whole issue of whether or not a president is adulterous seems to me to be purest bull****. I'd hate to have to count the number of presidents who were adulterous. Some that immediately come to mind are Jefferson, Jackson, Harding, FD Roosevelt, Eisenhower, Nixon. Many of the people in Congress and elsewhere who shake moralistic fingers at adulterous presidents have themselves been adulterous; Gingrich is a blatant example. Other examples will be found readily among the religious leaders who scream loudest about adultery. Most countries ignore such peccadilloes of their chief executives, and they seem to muddle along at least as well as we do. Maybe it's time for us to follow their lead and become less hypocritical about this foible. I have seen it said that at one point Warren Harding's secret service men kept Mrs Hardng at bay outside the oval office while the prez hid his mistress, Nan Britton, in a closet. Did he lie about it to the SCOTUS, Congress, and go on National TV and lie to every single person alive in the U.S. at that moment? Honu -- ************* DAVE HATUNEN ) ************* * Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow * * My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps * |
#339
|
|||
|
|||
39% of Americans believe Bush should be impeached.
On Mon, 16 Jul 2007 07:57:51 -1000, "Hertz Dount"
wrote: "Hatunen" wrote in message .. . On Mon, 16 Jul 2007 00:11:47 -1000, "Hertz Dount" wrote: "Hatunen" wrote in message ... On Sat, 14 Jul 2007 20:17:27 -0400, sechumlib wrote: On 2007-07-14 17:45:42 -0400, Hatunen said: You're willfully ignoring all attempts to tell you what "impeahc" means. Hatunen, don't you really think your efforts are hopeless? The stuff you're responding to is by people who are determined to show that Clinton was a blackguard, and they accept the very political impeachment by the House as authentic proof that he was guilty. They are going to find him guilty no matter what idiocy, or lack of it, is involved in their reasoning. They are Clinton-haters, pure and simple. The world is full of Clinton-haters and their ilk. They aren't interested in truth, only in spin. I think it's time to start ignoring them. If I believed in a deity, I would pray to him to help me do that. May you be stronger than I am. I don't post with any hope changing the minds of people like that; I do want other readers who may not understand impeachment to get a clue as to what's really meant. Someone told me at lunch today that they were watching Bill Moyers and there were people on the show who represented a serious attempt to impeach Bush. I asked how many Congressman they had on their side? I was told "maybe one". I said, in that case it is NOT a serious attempt to impeach Bush. You have no hope because you think it is perfectly acceptable for a president to lie. Please quote where I said, or implied, any such thing. You think is is perfectly acceptable for a president to be adulterous. No I don't. I only said that Clinton was the first to get a lot of publicity about it. I suspect the Gary Hart affair triggered the press into being less protective. You have no hope because you fail to realize that anyone that would lie on the scale that Clinton did, and do what he did *IN THE WHOTE HOUSE* has no morals at all. None. Yet you continue to perceive him as some kind of Knight in Shining Armor. Do you honestly thing Clinton has been the only president who ever lied while President? You are sijmply too naive for words. All I ask is that you stop spouting legal nonsense. Lied to the SCOTUS, Congress and every citizen of the U.S., intentionally, deliberately and repeatedly. Yes, I think he is the only President to lie on the scale that buffoon, I mean Clinton did. I expect there has been similarly broad lying by presdent in the past, but probably on different subjects. -- ************* DAVE HATUNEN ) ************* * Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow * * My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps * |
#340
|
|||
|
|||
39% of Americans believe Bush should be impeached.
"Hatunen" wrote in message ... On Mon, 16 Jul 2007 07:57:51 -1000, "Hertz Dount" wrote: "Hatunen" wrote in message . .. On Mon, 16 Jul 2007 00:11:47 -1000, "Hertz Dount" wrote: "Hatunen" wrote in message m... On Sat, 14 Jul 2007 20:17:27 -0400, sechumlib wrote: On 2007-07-14 17:45:42 -0400, Hatunen said: You're willfully ignoring all attempts to tell you what "impeahc" means. Hatunen, don't you really think your efforts are hopeless? The stuff you're responding to is by people who are determined to show that Clinton was a blackguard, and they accept the very political impeachment by the House as authentic proof that he was guilty. They are going to find him guilty no matter what idiocy, or lack of it, is involved in their reasoning. They are Clinton-haters, pure and simple. The world is full of Clinton-haters and their ilk. They aren't interested in truth, only in spin. I think it's time to start ignoring them. If I believed in a deity, I would pray to him to help me do that. May you be stronger than I am. I don't post with any hope changing the minds of people like that; I do want other readers who may not understand impeachment to get a clue as to what's really meant. Someone told me at lunch today that they were watching Bill Moyers and there were people on the show who represented a serious attempt to impeach Bush. I asked how many Congressman they had on their side? I was told "maybe one". I said, in that case it is NOT a serious attempt to impeach Bush. You have no hope because you think it is perfectly acceptable for a president to lie. Please quote where I said, or implied, any such thing. You think is is perfectly acceptable for a president to be adulterous. No I don't. I only said that Clinton was the first to get a lot of publicity about it. I suspect the Gary Hart affair triggered the press into being less protective. You have no hope because you fail to realize that anyone that would lie on the scale that Clinton did, and do what he did *IN THE WHOTE HOUSE* has no morals at all. None. Yet you continue to perceive him as some kind of Knight in Shining Armor. Do you honestly thing Clinton has been the only president who ever lied while President? You are sijmply too naive for words. All I ask is that you stop spouting legal nonsense. Lied to the SCOTUS, Congress and every citizen of the U.S., intentionally, deliberately and repeatedly. Yes, I think he is the only President to lie on the scale that buffoon, I mean Clinton did. I expect there has been similarly broad lying by presdent in the past, but probably on different subjects. I know of no president, other than Clinton, who deliberately and repeatedly lied to the citizens of this county. I know of no president, that when caught with DNA evidence linking him to a crime tried to change the meaning of a word in the English language I know of no ther president, save for perhaps Richard Nixon, who displayed such a lack of integrity as did Clinton. Honu |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Bush performance ratings by Americans polarized by income status | PJ O'Donovan[_1_] | Europe | 9 | March 22nd, 2007 10:24 AM |
BUSH KEEPS AMERICANS FROM TRAVELLING. | Victor Moralez | Europe | 10 | March 13th, 2007 11:12 PM |
Bush chaos: Americans should sue | Carole Allen | Europe | 2 | March 5th, 2005 09:08 AM |
HOW TO UNDERSTAND AMERICANS, AMERICA, AND GEORGE W. BUSH | anonymouse | Europe | 0 | November 5th, 2004 08:57 PM |
Haiti, RCL/CCL, Bush, Bush and Travel/Cruising. | Cruising Chrissy | Caribbean | 1 | February 24th, 2004 01:31 AM |