Now all we have to do is nab that other jerk...

I doubt Al Gore can really be considered a threat, although he is a
jerk.

Randall

Missiles and nerve gas don't kill people, evil ******* dictators do.

Add George W to the list of things that kill people.

mike

Add George W to the list of things that kill people.

Oh, it's OK to kill the enemy but of course who decides who the enemy is.....





---------------------------------------
"I know enough to know I don't know enough"

Its the real deal. Maybe they can cut a deal with him to turn in his
buddy Bin Laden

That's precisely the problem (or lack thereof). They weren't buddies.

"Rich Andrews" wrote in message

Now all we have to do is nab that other jerk...


Naaa - he's just an Audio Guy ......

;-)

geoff

William Sommerwerck wrote:
Its the real deal. Maybe they can cut a deal with him to turn in his
buddy Bin Laden


That's precisely the problem (or lack thereof). They weren't buddies.

Hence the wink.

"Gack" wrote in message
.com...

...at the same time, outsourcing as many jobs as they
can to the third world.

And why do you think this is? How much did the computer you use cost? The
original made in USA IBMs were well over $3k. Would you pay that much for a
PC now? How much does your TV cost?

Let's face it. The US consumer won't pay a plugged nickel more than they
have to for certain goods, and with AP quality at acceptable (to the
consumer) level, given the expansive return policies of the retail world and
the amazingly quick technology turns of the producst, US made goods can't
compete.

Glenn D.

Rich Andrews wrote:

DNA tests. It is hard to fake those.

A 15 minute DNA proof? ... my brother already has a brigde, I need
something else to give him for x-mas. The guy looks right on images tho'
.....

e


Kind regards

Peter Larsen

--
************************************************** ***********
* My site is at: http://www.muyiovatki.dk *
************************************************** ***********

Now that I have seen the pictures, I think we have actually captured
Jerry
Garcia.

Doug Joyce
Animix Productions,
Durango, CO

Holy crap!!! ROTFL!!! I should not have been taking a sip of coffee when I
read your post!! "splat" ...coffee everywhere!!

Thanks,

Now all we have to do is nab that other jerk...

He's easy to find: 1600 Pennsylvania Ave.

In article , jt wrote:

Now all we have to do is nab that other jerk...

He's easy to find: 1600 Pennsylvania Ave.

He's the MAIN jerk. Him and Will.

Mark Thies

I hear that!When did it become OK to kill people so you teach the world
what
happens to people who kill people!!!

The number of innocents inadvertenly killed during the war is far below
the number that Saddam would have killed of his own people, based on his
history as a ruler. Furthermore a business College did an estimate of the
cost of "Containing" Saddam (maintaining no-fly zones, etc.) vs. the cost of
the War and the $85 million budget. As it turns out, the War was cheaper by
far.

So Bush saved lives and saved money.

Will Miho
NY Music & TV Audio Guy
Off the Morning Show! & sleepin' In... / Fox News
"The large print giveth and the small print taketh away..." Tom Waits

"DJ"

Now that I have seen the pictures, I think we have actually captured Jerry
Garcia.

Jerry's dead. Try Nick Nolte...

Will Miho
NY Music & TV Audio Guy
Off the Morning Show! & sleepin' In... / Fox News
"The large print giveth and the small print taketh away..." Tom Waits

Peter Larsen wrote in message ...
Rich Andrews wrote:

DNA tests. It is hard to fake those.

A 15 minute DNA proof? ... my brother already has a brigde, I need
something else to give him for x-mas. The guy looks right on images tho'
....

e


Kind regards

Peter Larsen

No, my bet is its a case mistaken identity.
The guy is clearly the Muppits drummer Animal.

Steve Lane

"Rob Adelman" wrote in message
...


William Sommerwerck wrote:
Its the real deal. Maybe they can cut a deal with him to turn in his
buddy Bin Laden


That's precisely the problem (or lack thereof). They weren't buddies.

Hence the wink.


Unfortunately, the buddies were (at one time) bin Laden and the US
government. Of course, at one time it was Saddam and the US government.
Hell, this gets really confusing.

In article ,
ospam (WillStG) wrote:

The number of innocents inadvertenly killed during the war is far
below
the number that Saddam would have killed of his own people, based on his
history as a ruler.

Given that no attempt has been made to assess the civilian casualties,
that's an unsustainable claim.

Furthermore a business College did an estimate of
the
cost of "Containing" Saddam (maintaining no-fly zones, etc.) vs. the
cost of
the War and the $85 million budget. As it turns out, the War was
cheaper by
far.

I guess removing three zeros from the budget helped reach the desired
conclusion there?

D150
He's the MAIN jerk. Him and Will.

Your political hatred is consuming your ablility to reason. Worse than
Saddam, is the President and myself? Brilliant.

Saddam Hussein is an evil man who was destined someday to have to account
for his many crimes against humanity. And that that day has finally come
should be satisfying for anyone who actually cares about justice and their
fellow human beings.

Will Miho
NY Music & TV Audio Guy
Off the Morning Show! & sleepin' In... / Fox News
"The large print giveth and the small print taketh away..." Tom Waits

"D150" wrote in message
...
Now all we have to do is nab that other jerk...

He's easy to find: 1600 Pennsylvania Ave.

He's the MAIN jerk. Him and Will.

Now that IS taking potshots. Hitting on Will for his stance is one thing,
but bringing him up out of thin air is something else entirely.

--


Roger W. Norman
SirMusic Studio
RAP FAQ and Purchase your copy of the Fifth of RAP CD set at
www.recaudiopro.net.
See how far $20 really goes.

"WillStG" wrote in message
...

Your political hatred is consuming your ablility to reason. Worse
than
Saddam, is the President and myself? Brilliant.

Saddam Hussein is an evil man who was destined someday to have to
account
for his many crimes against humanity. And that that day has finally come
should be satisfying for anyone who actually cares about justice and their
fellow human beings.

Let's put this into perspective, Will. Saddam is and always was a pathetic
individual who just happened to have risen to power through his force of
will, lack of morals and his ability to have his henchmen kill his opponents
for him. The threat? His cronies that were out of favor, his countrymen
that tried to rebel as Bush41 asked them to do, and his distain for
religiously governed countries like Iran. Then he became greedy and tried
to re-apportion Kuwait back into what had once, prior to British
interference, been part of Persia. More's the pity, the man actually
believed in what the US government told him over the years, whilst trying to
find others who could overthrow him and be even LESS of a threat to
Americans. Just little things like Bush41 telling Saddam that the US would
NOT interfere with Arab to Arab relations. I mean, it's like claiming that
Noriega was a drug dealing despot when it was Bush41 that set up the
relationship, and with the information we've had since then, apparently the
CIA was supporting all of that Iran/Contra thing by selling cocaine in
America when we were already involved with a WAR ON DRUGS. These are far
more nefarious than the overt actions of a pompous, overblown dictator who
generally thought no one could touch him. Bad man, yes. Threat to
Americans on American soil? Probably very over-rated.

His capture is a feather in Bush's political hat, but it's not the end to
anything having to do with the war on terror. A man hiding in a hole is no
threat to anybody. He wasn't ever a threat to Americans, not then, not in
that future, and certainly not now. But he's gone and that's just fine. If
our mandate is take down all the tyrants in the world than we still have a
major job to do.

But our real job is finding Bin Laden and putting an end to terrorism, which
is going to be about one million times harder to do than capturing a man
hiding in a hole.

Some salient facts.

Saddam held power by fear and threats. Bin Laden holds the hearts and minds
of about 5 times the number of people that Saddam subjugated. When Prince
Bandar talks about only 10% of muslims are islamists who support Bin Laden,
he's still talking about 120 MILLION muslims. Saddam's whole country has a
population of maybe 25 million. 120 million muslims could rule the planet,
and don't doubt it. America may have the technological might, but when
you've got 20 million people storming your castle with 100 million in
reserve, well, even killing yourselves with nukes in an effort to kill the
20 million won't rid the world of the problem.

Bin Laden apparently has the ability to move around freely, record messages
distributed through a guaranteed source with Al Jazeera, and undoubtedly
could have his followers and supporters join freely in any efforts to harm
the US, Israel and the west and he wouldn't run out of fanatics for a very
long time indeed. This is the most predominant threat to the world. Saddam
was as pitiful as the idea of him having to hide in holes spread across the
country.

So while Saddam may have been an evil man, Bin Laden's threat is pure evil
that overstates any possible individual, just as his men and women are
willing to martyr themselves in his name and his teachings. Evil is a force
in the world. Saddam wasn't. We can't forget that Evil, pure Evil, has
been around since time immemorial, since before written history. An evil
man is nothing in comparison.

So while the political windfall may help Bush maintain power after the next
election, and even if Bin Laden were caught, pure Evil would still be the
threat. Bush is going to have to learn to keep his eye on the ball. Strike
two will mean more dead Americans. We have to be 100% correct to defeat
something like Evil. We can't even come close to accomplishing that feat if
how we handle it is to become Evil ourselves.

--


Roger W. Norman
SirMusic Studio
RAP FAQ and Purchase your copy of the Fifth of RAP CD set at
www.recaudiopro.net.
See how far $20 really goes.

The US invaders capturing Saddam is just macho posturing, and
irrelevant at this stage.

Um, what about these elusive 'weapons of mass destruction' that the
americans are donating their sons to try to find???? Didn't they say
they had EVIDENCE?

Its sad that middle class Americans don't realise their own tax
dollars are funding the so-called-war so the oil companies and weapons
manufacturers, can make a 'killing'. Well, what do you expect when the
owners of those companies are entrenched in the whitehouse?

Thats the real regime that is a threat to the American people.


Andybaby
ps Who came up with this 'ace of spades' crap?


ospam (WillStG) wrote in message ...
D150
He's the MAIN jerk. Him and Will.

Your political hatred is consuming your ablility to reason. Worse than
Saddam, is the President and myself? Brilliant.

Saddam Hussein is an evil man who was destined someday to have to account
for his many crimes against humanity. And that that day has finally come
should be satisfying for anyone who actually cares about justice and their
fellow human beings.

Will Miho
NY Music & TV Audio Guy
Off the Morning Show! & sleepin' In... / Fox News
"The large print giveth and the small print taketh away..." Tom Waits

You are so right. funny how on the ball Bill Hicks was in all this so
many years ago - for those who dont know him he was perhaps one of the
funniest Americans before his much too early death at the age of 32.
Check him out

Dave

Not at all. If one wants to find out who the culprit is, one need only look
at the least common denominator - the United States. Is it any wonder that
Al Qaeda says it's our policies?

--


Roger W. Norman
SirMusic Studio
RAP FAQ and Purchase your copy of the Fifth of RAP CD set at
www.recaudiopro.net.
See how far $20 really goes.





"Mike" wrote in message
...

"Rob Adelman" wrote in message
...


William Sommerwerck wrote:
Its the real deal. Maybe they can cut a deal with him to turn in his
buddy Bin Laden


That's precisely the problem (or lack thereof). They weren't buddies.

Hence the wink.


Unfortunately, the buddies were (at one time) bin Laden and the US
government. Of course, at one time it was Saddam and the US government.
Hell, this gets really confusing.

"Abyssmal" wrote in message
...
It is easy to throw stones from the sideline.Anyone who gets in the
game and carries the ball a few times will realize you cannot please
everyone.Bush is in the game, we watch and complain from the stands.

I carried the ball into Laos and Cambodia, rescuing downed CIA pilots for
Air America (SouthEast Asian Airlines). I fought in jungles, sometimes
hiked 150 plus clicks back to civilization through enemy territory, sat in
leech infested muck while patrols went by, did my best to stay alive, and
never killed anyone who wasn't a bad guy.

Bush is in the game alright, but idiots don't play well. And he couldn't
possibly play the game for real. He didn't have it in him then, and he
doesn't have it in him now. Don't try to tell veterans who the President
is. We know. And in case you're wondering, I spent two years as the
Eastern District Commander of Amvets for the State of Virginia spearheading
the grassroots effort to get the Bureau of Veteran's Affairs to become a
cabinet position (did happen) and I got 7 million dollars for Va. Vets that
were being withheld (the single most outpayment in Veteran's history up to
then). I also started 26 new Amvets posts in Virginia during my 2 year
stint, and I worked ALL THE TIME with REAL Vets. Guys who fought the wars,
not ones that spent the time hiding from the obligations.

Bush is the game. Pull.

--


Roger W. Norman
SirMusic Studio
RAP FAQ and Purchase your copy of the Fifth of RAP CD set at
www.recaudiopro.net.
See how far $20 really goes.

"Abyssmal" wrote in message
.. .
It is easy to throw stones from the sideline.Anyone who gets in the
game and carries the ball a few times will realize you cannot please
everyone.Bush is in the game, we watch and complain from the stands.

I carried the ball into Laos and Cambodia, rescuing downed CIA pilots for
Air America (SouthEast Asian Airlines). I fought in jungles, sometimes
hiked 150 plus clicks back to civilization through enemy territory, sat in
leech infested muck while patrols went by, did my best to stay alive, and
never killed anyone who wasn't a bad guy.

That is very admirable.Anyone with any awareness will realize you
sacraficed a lot, and I for one appreciate your efforts.But I am sure
the family of any soldier would argue that their child was not a bad
guy, but yet they died in battle.There will always be those opposed to
war, but sometimes bringing war to the bad guy is the only way to
teach a lesson.Who the bad guy is, is a matter of perception.
George Bush may not have great perception, but most politicians dont.
I do perceive Muslim fanaticism as a threat.Iit is the fastest growing
religion in the world.Lines need to be drawn in the sand.


Bush is in the game alright, but idiots don't play well. And he couldn't
possibly play the game for real. He didn't have it in him then, and he
doesn't have it in him now. Don't try to tell veterans who the President
is. We know. And in case you're wondering, I spent two years as the
Eastern District Commander of Amvets for the State of Virginia spearheading
the grassroots effort to get the Bureau of Veteran's Affairs to become a
cabinet position (did happen) and I got 7 million dollars for Va. Vets that
were being withheld (the single most outpayment in Veteran's history up to
then). I also started 26 new Amvets posts in Virginia during my 2 year
stint, and I worked ALL THE TIME with REAL Vets. Guys who fought the wars,
not ones that spent the time hiding from the obligations.

Bush is in the game of politics, where change can be enacted.
Unfortunately those in the military have always been puppets for
politicians.You spill your blood while they screw things up from afar.
Has it really changed since the dawn of time?

Randall

You should probably go back and read a couple of my posts. Islamists are
the problem. Saddam wasn't even a good muslim.

--


Roger W. Norman
SirMusic Studio
RAP FAQ and Purchase your copy of the Fifth of RAP CD set at
www.recaudiopro.net.
See how far $20 really goes.





"Abyssmal" wrote in message
...


"Abyssmal" wrote in message
.. .
It is easy to throw stones from the sideline.Anyone who gets in the
game and carries the ball a few times will realize you cannot please
everyone.Bush is in the game, we watch and complain from the stands.

I carried the ball into Laos and Cambodia, rescuing downed CIA pilots for
Air America (SouthEast Asian Airlines). I fought in jungles, sometimes
hiked 150 plus clicks back to civilization through enemy territory, sat
in
leech infested muck while patrols went by, did my best to stay alive, and
never killed anyone who wasn't a bad guy.

That is very admirable.Anyone with any awareness will realize you
sacraficed a lot, and I for one appreciate your efforts.But I am sure
the family of any soldier would argue that their child was not a bad
guy, but yet they died in battle.There will always be those opposed to
war, but sometimes bringing war to the bad guy is the only way to
teach a lesson.Who the bad guy is, is a matter of perception.
George Bush may not have great perception, but most politicians dont.
I do perceive Muslim fanaticism as a threat.Iit is the fastest growing
religion in the world.Lines need to be drawn in the sand.


Bush is in the game alright, but idiots don't play well. And he couldn't
possibly play the game for real. He didn't have it in him then, and he
doesn't have it in him now. Don't try to tell veterans who the President
is. We know. And in case you're wondering, I spent two years as the
Eastern District Commander of Amvets for the State of Virginia
spearheading
the grassroots effort to get the Bureau of Veteran's Affairs to become a
cabinet position (did happen) and I got 7 million dollars for Va. Vets
that
were being withheld (the single most outpayment in Veteran's history up
to
then). I also started 26 new Amvets posts in Virginia during my 2 year
stint, and I worked ALL THE TIME with REAL Vets. Guys who fought the
wars,
not ones that spent the time hiding from the obligations.

Bush is in the game of politics, where change can be enacted.
Unfortunately those in the military have always been puppets for
politicians.You spill your blood while they screw things up from afar.
Has it really changed since the dawn of time?

Randall

Andrew M. wrote:


I suppose we will all find out in less than a year if the Bush
administrations timing on the capture can make GW a 2 termer. I am
thinking that it won't.

Depends who he's up against. If it is Dean, he is a shoe in.

Rob Adelman wrote:

Andrew M. wrote:

I suppose we will all find out in less than a year if the Bush
administrations timing on the capture can make GW a 2 termer. I am
thinking that it won't.

Depends who he's up against. If it is Dean, he is a shoe in.

I'd really like to think that you are wrong, but I'm not at all sure of
it. In my view, Dean is without a doubt the best of the candidates.

But it's not really my view that matters - I'll vote for any democratic
candidate who makes the ticket. The important question is which of the
democratic candidates can draw in the independent vote. The answer may
be Wesley Clark.

At this point, the critical issue is getting Bush out of office.

Jim Gilliland wrote:

Rob Adelman wrote:


Andrew M. wrote:

I suppose we will all find out in less than a year if the Bush
administrations timing on the capture can make GW a 2 termer. I am
thinking that it won't.


Depends who he's up against. If it is Dean, he is a shoe in.


I'd really like to think that you are wrong, but I'm not at all sure of
it. In my view, Dean is without a doubt the best of the candidates.

I have voted for the Democratic candidate in every Presidential election
since I was old enough to vote. But Dean gives me the creeps. I would
not vote for him. I would probably vote independent if it were him.

But it's not really my view that matters - I'll vote for any democratic
candidate who makes the ticket. The important question is which of the
democratic candidates can draw in the independent vote. The answer may
be Wesley Clark.

I sure hope it is Clark, I like him and he has a way better chance up
against Bush, that is why the Republican's are hoping for Dean.


At this point, the critical issue is getting Bush out of office.

It's not going to be easy.

Jim Gilliland

In my view, Dean is without a doubt the best of the candidates.

But it's not really my view that matters - I'll vote for any democratic
candidate who makes the ticket. The important question is which of the
democratic candidates can draw in the independent vote. The answer may
be Wesley Clark.

In my estimation both of these guys are the kind that would leave you
"crying at the altar" Jim. They both have changed their positions a lot of
times, and I think they're just telling the anti-war crowd what they want to
hear for the sake of their own political fortunes, rather than speaking from
personal conviction.

This is the problem with the "anybody but Bush" mentality - you make
yourselves extremely vulnerable to hucksters and con men. What if a candidate
was in bed with organized crime and only in the race for the most selfish of
motivations - would you trust such a person with our National security and
secrets merely to defeat Bush? Would you wreak that kind of havoc on the Nation
and World because a man whispers sweet nothings in your ear?

As Democrats I hope you'll subject the people your Party puts forth as a
candidate to at least a little critical scrutiny, for everyone's sake.

Will Miho
NY Music & TV Audio Guy
Off the Morning Show! & sleepin' In... / Fox News
"The large print giveth and the small print taketh away..." Tom Waits

WillStG wrote:

This is the problem with the "anybody but Bush" mentality - you make
yourselves extremely vulnerable to hucksters and con men. What if a candidate
was in bed with organized crime and only in the race for the most selfish of
motivations - would you trust such a person with our National security and
secrets merely to defeat Bush? Would you wreak that kind of havoc on the Nation
and World because a man whispers sweet nothings in your ear?

I agree... and basically the reason Bush wound up as president was because
of the "anybody but Clinton" mentality.

As Democrats I hope you'll subject the people your Party puts forth as a
candidate to at least a little critical scrutiny, for everyone's sake.

Sadly I think this goes for both major parties.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

(Scott Dorsey)

I agree... and basically the reason Bush wound up as president was because
of the "anybody but Clinton" mentality.

I don't think so Scott. Agree or disagree with him, I think basically
Americans believe Bush is sincere. That's the reason his adversaries call the
man "stupid", they can't effectively attack his sincerity of belief so they
attack his intelligence. Same deal with Reagan.

Now with Clinton you knew he was a smart guy, but all those homey stories
he made up on the campaign trail about his "Uncle" were actually bull****.
Totally insincere, but that works in poltical campaigning and in hunting Babes.
But did you care? After all he said all the right things to you while he sold
out your liberal political values and the Lincoln Bedroom, didn't he?

Insincere people make lousy leaders, however much fun they are at a
party...

Will Miho
NY Music & TV Audio Guy
Off the Morning Show! & sleepin' In... / Fox News
"The large print giveth and the small print taketh away..." Tom Waits

WillStG wrote:

Jim Gilliland

In my view, Dean is without a doubt the best of the candidates.

But it's not really my view that matters - I'll vote for any democratic
candidate who makes the ticket. The important question is which of the
democratic candidates can draw in the independent vote. The answer may
be Wesley Clark.

In my estimation both of these guys are the kind that would leave you
"crying at the altar" Jim. They both have changed their positions a lot of
times, and I think they're just telling the anti-war crowd what they want to
hear for the sake of their own political fortunes, rather than speaking from
personal conviction.

Obviously, I don't agree. I could see making that statement about
Lieberman (who is an obvious opportunist) and some of the others, but
these two don't strike me that way.

What if a candidate
was in bed with organized crime and only in the race for the most selfish of
motivations - would you trust such a person with our National security and
secrets merely to defeat Bush?

Probably, yes, and I'm not exaggerating. I really think that little of
Bush. I think he's the worst thing that's happened to this country in
my lifetime, and I've lived through McCarthy and Nixon among others. A
common crook in the white house wouldn't be as big a problem. You'd be
hard-pressed to come up with a candidate that I wouldn't support over
Bush.

In any event, this is one of those threads that could probably go on
forever, so feel free to comment back and then lets wind it down. I'm
sure we'll have plenty of chances to argue about candidates in the next
twelve months. g

As Democrats I hope you'll subject the people your Party puts forth as a
candidate to at least a little critical scrutiny, for everyone's sake.

Ah, you're a Kucinich man. vbg Now there's someone who stands up for
what he believes in.

WillStG wrote:
(Scott Dorsey)

I agree... and basically the reason Bush wound up as president was because
of the "anybody but Clinton" mentality.

I don't think so Scott. Agree or disagree with him, I think basically
Americans believe Bush is sincere. That's the reason his adversaries call the
man "stupid", they can't effectively attack his sincerity of belief so they
attack his intelligence. Same deal with Reagan.

I think he's sincere too, but I don't know what that has to do with it.
Sincerity is not enough to make me vote for somebody.

I agree that Reagan was sincere too, but that doesn't forgive any of the
things he did in his sincerity, things which had detrimental effects that
he didn't expect. I think he did truly believe what he said, and someone
who truly believes wrong things is more hazardous than someone who just
mouths them without thinking.

Now with Clinton you knew he was a smart guy, but all those homey stories
he made up on the campaign trail about his "Uncle" were actually bull****.
Totally insincere, but that works in poltical campaigning and in hunting Babes.
But did you care? After all he said all the right things to you while he sold
out your liberal political values and the Lincoln Bedroom, didn't he?

I never said Clinton was a good president... I just said that the backlash
against him is what got Bush elected. You can consider that good or bad
depending on your perspective.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

Furthermore a business College did an estimate of the
cost of "Containing" Saddam (maintaining no-fly zones, etc.) vs. the cost of
the War and the $85 million budget. As it turns out, the War was cheaper by
far.

So Bush saved lives and saved money.

With logic like this we'll have world peace and a balanced budget in just a few
short wars! On to Iran, boys and girls!!




Joe Egan
EMP
Colchester, VT
www.eganmedia.com

Scott Dorsey wrote:


I never said Clinton was a good president... I just said that the backlash
against him is what got Bush elected.

That is true. You could say that Clinton's blowjob got Bush elected.
Hope it was a good one...

Or just watch Dennis Leary - who stole pretty much his ENTIRE routine
from Billy Hicks.

Hicks, when accused of stealing Leary's routine (by people who had
never heard of him but who had heard Leary), used to say something
along the lines of: 'thats not the half of it - I'm such an evil
******* that I stole his routine 5 years before he started doing it'
:-)

Hicks was SO right on.

On 15 Dec 2003 13:21:33 -0800,
(amnesiac jimmy) wrote:

You are so right. funny how on the ball Bill Hicks was in all this so
many years ago - for those who dont know him he was perhaps one of the
funniest Americans before his much too early death at the age of 32.
Check him out

Dave

Rob Adelman wrote:

Scott Dorsey wrote:

I never said Clinton was a good president... I just said that the
backlash against him is what got Bush elected.

That is true. You could say that Clinton's blowjob got Bush elected.

I don't think so. I really don't think anyone held Gore responsible for
Clinton's blowjobs. Gore may have carried some other Clinton baggage,
but he certainly doesn't have a reputation as a womanizer.

If you really want to know what got Bush "elected", just count the
number of Supreme Court appointees that came from the years 1980-1992.
After all, in the long run there were only nine votes that counted.

On Mon, 15 Dec 2003 18:22:24 -0500, "Roger W. Norman"
wrote:


Unfortunately, the buddies were (at one time) bin Laden and the US
government. Of course, at one time it was Saddam and the US government.
Hell, this gets really confusing.




Actually, the bin Laden family was one of mini-Bush's maijor investors
in his first oil company . . . .

Jim Gilliland wrote:



I don't think so. I really don't think anyone held Gore responsible for
Clinton's blowjobs. Gore may have carried some other Clinton baggage,
but he certainly doesn't have a reputation as a womanizer.

But Gore distanced himself from Clinton because of this and the whole
impeachment debacle. He "lost" by such slim margin that this could have
certainly made the difference.


If you really want to know what got Bush "elected", just count the
number of Supreme Court appointees that came from the years 1980-1992.
After all, in the long run there were only nine votes that counted.

I was pretty sure at the time that this was the case. But we really
don't know if more vote counting would have turned it around or not.
Doesn't much matter at this point though.

"Scott Dorsey" wrote in message
...

Sadly I think this goes for both major parties.

The sad fact is, anyone who would run for president probably shouldn't
be elected. The people who want power are the last people who should have
it. It's the guy who doesn't want the power because of the possibility of
making a mistake that could cost other people their lives that makes the
best leader. Sure, most politicians probably started out with good
intentions, but by the time a person is a professional politician, they can
no longer be trusted to have your best interests in mind.

ryanm