[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Aug 31, 8:21*am, Clyde Slick wrote:
On 31 Aug, 03:55, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"

wrote:
On Aug 31, 2:01*am, Clyde Slick wrote:

Bush said it when he was running for the Republican
nomination. Of course, he was referring to uniting republicans.

Oh, my bad. I thought he meant "everybody" because he also famously
said that he was the "president of everybody".

he is, every President is the Preident of everybody.
no Pres can unite everybody in a bitter, evenly divided
electorate.

I wonder where that bitterness came from. I don't recall it being
nearly as bitter when Clinton was in office.

[George M. Middius[_4_]]

Shhhh! said:

no Pres can unite everybody in a bitter, evenly divided
electorate.

I wonder where that bitterness came from. I don't recall it being
nearly as bitter when Clinton was in office.

Yes, isn't that noteworthy? I think when the Republicans realized some
people were still having fun, they flew into a collective rage and took it
out on Bubba.

[Clyde Slick]

On 31 Aug, 12:55, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
wrote:
On Aug 31, 8:21*am, Clyde Slick wrote:

On 31 Aug, 03:55, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"

wrote:
On Aug 31, 2:01*am, Clyde Slick wrote:

Bush said it when he was running for the Republican
nomination. Of course, he was referring to uniting republicans.

Oh, my bad. I thought he meant "everybody" because he also famously
said that he was the "president of everybody".

he is, every President is the Preident of everybody.
no Pres can unite everybody in a bitter, evenly divided
electorate.

I wonder where that bitterness came from. I don't recall it being
nearly as bitter when Clinton was in office.

does the word impeachment suggest unity to you?

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Aug 31, 1:45*pm, Clyde Slick wrote:
On 31 Aug, 12:55, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"





wrote:
On Aug 31, 8:21*am, Clyde Slick wrote:

On 31 Aug, 03:55, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"

wrote:
On Aug 31, 2:01*am, Clyde Slick wrote:

Bush said it when he was running for the Republican
nomination. Of course, he was referring to uniting republicans.

Oh, my bad. I thought he meant "everybody" because he also famously
said that he was the "president of everybody".

he is, every President is the Preident of everybody.
no Pres can unite everybody in a bitter, evenly divided
electorate.

I wonder where that bitterness came from. I don't recall it being
nearly as bitter when Clinton was in office.

does the word impeachment suggest unity to you?

Is "unity" a synonym for "bitterness"?

In any event, that disunity or bitterness came from...

....the republicans. What was it they spent? $150 million dollars? I'll
tell them a whole list of women who've given me a blow job for only
$500,000. I'd need to get releases first though, as I do not kiss and
tell. LOL!

[Clyde Slick]

On 31 Aug, 17:19, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
wrote:
On Aug 31, 1:45*pm, Clyde Slick wrote:





On 31 Aug, 12:55, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"

wrote:
On Aug 31, 8:21*am, Clyde Slick wrote:

On 31 Aug, 03:55, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"

wrote:
On Aug 31, 2:01*am, Clyde Slick wrote:

Bush said it when he was running for the Republican
nomination. Of course, he was referring to uniting republicans.

Oh, my bad. I thought he meant "everybody" because he also famously
said that he was the "president of everybody".

he is, every President is the Preident of everybody.
no Pres can unite everybody in a bitter, evenly divided
electorate.

I wonder where that bitterness came from. I don't recall it being
nearly as bitter when Clinton was in office.

does the word impeachment suggest unity to you?

Is "unity" a synonym for "bitterness"?

In any event, that disunity or bitterness came from...

...the republicans. What was it they spent? $150 million dollars? I'll
tell them a whole list of women who've given me a blow job for only
$500,000. I'd need to get releases first though, as I do not kiss and
tell. LOL!-

thanks for amking my point, nobody can unite Dems and Reps

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Aug 31, 7:16*pm, Clyde Slick wrote:
On 31 Aug, 17:19, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"





wrote:
On Aug 31, 1:45*pm, Clyde Slick wrote:

On 31 Aug, 12:55, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"

wrote:
On Aug 31, 8:21*am, Clyde Slick wrote:

On 31 Aug, 03:55, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"

wrote:
On Aug 31, 2:01*am, Clyde Slick wrote:

Bush said it when he was running for the Republican
nomination. Of course, he was referring to uniting republicans.

Oh, my bad. I thought he meant "everybody" because he also famously
said that he was the "president of everybody".

he is, every President is the Preident of everybody.
no Pres can unite everybody in a bitter, evenly divided
electorate.

I wonder where that bitterness came from. I don't recall it being
nearly as bitter when Clinton was in office.

does the word impeachment suggest unity to you?

Is "unity" a synonym for "bitterness"?

In any event, that disunity or bitterness came from...

...the republicans. What was it they spent? $150 million dollars? I'll
tell them a whole list of women who've given me a blow job for only
$500,000. I'd need to get releases first though, as I do not kiss and
tell. LOL!-

thanks for amking my point, nobody can unite Dems and Reps

My point was that somehow legislation got passed, somehow the business
of government got done. Clinton compromised, Kennedy compromised but
(and this is a *good* thing according to 2pid) the republicans don't.

It is not a shared thing here. It is not 50-50. Since Newt Gingrich in
1994 the republicans have been abominable. Somehow under Clinton
things still got done.

[George M. Middius[_4_]]

Shhhh! said:

It is not a shared thing here. It is not 50-50. Since Newt Gingrich in
1994 the republicans have been abominable. Somehow under Clinton
things still got done.

Clinton out-maneuvered Newt & Co. when the gubmint had to shut down. The
dickheads in congress got all the blame.

[Clyde Slick]

On 31 Aug, 23:00, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
wrote:

My point was that somehow legislation got passed, somehow the business
of government got done. Clinton compromised, Kennedy compromised but
(and this is a *good* thing according to 2pid) the republicans don't.

It is not a shared thing here. It is not 50-50. Since Newt Gingrich in
1994 the republicans have been abominable. Somehow under Clinton
things still got done.-

Right!!
Congress was Republican.
thanks!!!!

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Sep 1, 10:46*am, Clyde Slick wrote:
On 31 Aug, 23:00, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"

wrote:
My point was that somehow legislation got passed, somehow the business
of government got done. Clinton compromised, Kennedy compromised but
(and this is a *good* thing according to 2pid) the republicans don't.

It is not a shared thing here. It is not 50-50. Since Newt Gingrich in
1994 the republicans have been abominable. Somehow under Clinton
things still got done.-

Right!!
Congress was Republican.
thanks!!!!

Clinton was willing to compromise, as were the Dems. The republicans
are no longer interested. For proof, note that Clintion approached the
republicans (I believe it was Orrin Hatch in particular) about Supreme
Court nominations.

Back to your simplistic conclusions...