posted
they (the parties) argue in front of the cameras during the day, but they both drink out of the same champagne bottle behind closed doors in the evening..
I like that metaphor.....and its so effing true
-------------------- "Simplicity is the ultimate sophistication" Posts: 4005 | From: Shaolin | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
"if you don't like that? TAKE IT UP WITH THEM, NOT ME... it's just the truth."
The truth is that constant preaching of misinformation in order to denigrate the Clintons is a republican smoke screen strategy to hide their actual efforts.
"Bush latest eavesdroppng bill got passed by DEMOCRATS, (fact) or he would not have had anything to sign."
The truth here that they had no option because if they had passed the bill you would be on the Party line attack claiming the democrats voted against the troops. It's the same nonsense as the republican strategy for funding for Iraq. The democrats have no option; that is not the same as claiming they had options (plural) then declaring they "chose" the one that was inevitable.
The Senate cannot pass any bill the republican machine reject because to do so required 60 votes and the republicans won't free their Senators to vote except via the Party line (most of them are quite in tune with the one Party fascist agenda of the Party). The option is entirely the republican's and claiming otherwise is just more republican propaganda.
The republicans are the cause of this mess and trying to pass it off as if the democrats are participating in it is disingenuous.
Posts: 11304 | From: Fort Worth, Texas | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
lemme show you a few choice excerpts from the transcrpits of the '00 Bush-Gore debate:
BUSH: I want to take one-half of the surplus and dedicate it to Social Security, one-quarter of the surplus for important projects, and I want to send one-quarter of the surplus back to the people who pay the bills. I want everybody who pays taxes to have their tax rates cut.
Now that stands in contrast to my worthy opponent's plan, which will increase the size of government dramatically. His plan is three times larger than President Clinton's proposed plan eight years ago. It's a plan that will have 200 new programs, as well -- or expanded programs. It'll create 20,000 new bureaucrats. In other words, it empowers Washington.
LOL..Bush is more like the Dems than the DEMs are...
Bush: The vice president and I have a disagreement about the use of troops. He believes in nation-building. I would be very careful about using our troops as nation builders.
Secondly, whether or not the mission was clear, whether or not it was a clear understanding as to what the mission would be.
hmmmmm......
and? the coup de grace:
BUSH: They said we could, even though we're the strongest military, that if we don't do something quickly, we don't have a clearer vision of the military, if we don't stop extending our troops all around the world in nation-building missions, then we're going to have a serious problem coming down the road. And I'm going to prevent that. I'm going to rebuild our military power. It's one of the major priorities of my administration.
this is exactly what he's doing right now....
so calling Hillary Bush light is just as much about Bush acting like a Dem as it is vice-versa...
-------------------- Don't envy the happiness of those who live in a fool's paradise. Posts: 36378 | From: USA | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Now ya see this is exactly what your famous for. Within a sentence you say they did have an option and didnt. If they DIDNT have an option it would only be because theyre lacking in the spinal area. This is what Glass has been saying to you the whole time. They play into eachother...thus their in KAHOOTS
The truth here that they had no option because if they had passed the bill you would be on the Party line attack claiming the democrats voted against the troops.
-------------------- "Simplicity is the ultimate sophistication" Posts: 4005 | From: Shaolin | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
The stated intent (most often quoting Rove, but there are several other republican sources) of the re[publican party, is now an has been for years, nothing less than forcing the U.S. to become a "permanent one party controlled" state with essentially dictatorial power.
There is no other observation, quotation, event, or whatever that needs to be considered. The republican party, as it is now constituted, is fascist and evil and un-American and ANY form of support for it or any of its sub-goals is also.
A also point to that wise old saying, "The enemy of my enemy is my friend".
Posts: 11304 | From: Fort Worth, Texas | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by bdgee: Let me point out one over riding fact.
The stated intent (most often quoting Rove, but there are several other republican sources) of the re[publican party, is now an has been for years, nothing less than forcing the U.S. to become a "permanent one party controlled" state with essentially dictatorial power.
There is no other observation, quotation, event, or whatever that needs to be considered. The republican party, as it is now constituted, is fascist and evil and un-American and ANY form of support for it or any of its sub-goals is also.
A also point to that wise old saying, "The enemy of my enemy is my friend".
that wise old saying is how we ended up embroiled with Iraq and Iran right now... it's not wise at all...
-------------------- Don't envy the happiness of those who live in a fool's paradise. Posts: 36378 | From: USA | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
Musharraf decides against emergency By MATTHEW PENNINGTON, Associated Press Writer 34 minutes ago
ISLAMABAD, Pakistan - President Gen. Pervez Musharraf on Thursday decided against declaring a state of emergency in Pakistan and will press ahead with plans to hold elections, a government minister said.
ADVERTISEMENT
Pakistani media have been reporting that the military leader would impose a state of emergency to deal with rising violence and political instability — a move that a senior government official confirmed was under consideration. The
He met with legal experts, security officials and officials from the ruling party, a presidential aide said on condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the issue.
After speaking to Musharraf by phone, apparently following those meetings, Information Minister Mohammed Ali Durrani said the president was committed to holding free and fair elections.
"There were suggestions from the ruling coalition and also from certain other political entities that there is a requirement of emergency in the country. But these suggestions were obviously discussed and ultimately it was decided that it this is not the time," Durrani told The Associated Press.
Speculation that an emergency could be imminent grew after Musharraf on Wednesday abruptly pulled out of the meeting in Kabul with more than 600 Pakistani and Afghan tribal leaders, phoning Afghan President Hamid Karzai to say he couldn't attend because of "engagements" in Islamabad. Prime Minister Shaukat Aziz went instead.
Musharraf, a key ally in Washington's fight against terrorism, has seen dwindling popular support amid a failed bid to oust the country's chief justice, Iftikhar Mohammed Chaudhry — an independent-minded judge likely to rule on expected legal challenges to Musharraf's bid for re-election to another five-year term. Musharraf also has been beset by rising violence in the country, particularly following an army raid to end the takeover of the Red Mosque in Islamabad, an operation that left more than 100 people dead.
In Washington, President Bush said he is confident in Musharraf's ability to crack down on militants at the Afghan border and cooperate with the U.S.
He said he expected Musharraf to take "swift action if there is actionable intelligence inside his country." Bush refused to address whether the U.S. troops would go into Pakistan without permission from leaders there.
"We spend a lot of time with the leadership in Pakistan talking about what we will do with actionable intelligence," Bush said. "Am I confident they (terrorists) will be brought to justice? My answer is, `Yes I am.' "
Tariq Azim, the deputy information minister, had said earlier in the day that a state of emergency could not be ruled out because of "external and internal threats" and deteriorating security in Pakistan's volatile northwest near the Afghan border.
Azim also said talk from the United States about the possibility of U.S. military action against al-Qaida in Pakistan "has started alarm bells ringing and has upset the Pakistani public." He cited recent remarks by Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., a presidential candidate, saying they were one reason the government was debating a state of emergency.
Obama "remains concerned about the situation and has and will continue to underscore his commitment to maintaining a close working relationship with Pakistan, an important ally against terrorism," according to a statement from his spokesman, Bill Burton. "Part of any working relationship must be a candid and frank discussion of our shared interests in fighting terrorism, increasing regional stability, and promoting democracy."
More than 360 people have died in a wave of suicide attacks and clashes between militants and security forces that began with a bloody army assault on a pro-Taliban mosque in Islamabad in early July.
The government's acknowledgment that the possibility was under discussion appeared to deepen the sense of crisis surrounding the military ruler, who took power in a 1999 coup.
Political analyst Talat Masood said that if Musharraf had imposed a state of emergency, it would be an act of desperation that would doubtless be challenged in the courts, and could trigger a public backlash.
"This is his weapon of last resort," Masood said. "But it would be a weapon of mass destruction, of mass political destruction."
A state of emergency would give Musharraf sweeping powers, including the ability to restrict people's freedom to move, rally, engage in political activities and assert their fundamental rights through the courts.
Yet the Supreme Court — which has emerged as the most potent check on the military leader's dominance of Pakistani politics — could still challenge the legality of such a declaration.
Last week, a bench of the court freed a political opponent of Musharraf, and on Thursday heard a freedom of movement case lodged by former Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif, who is seeking to return from exile to run in parliamentary elections. Sharif went into exile after Musharraf ousted him in a 1999 coup.
Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice spoke with Musharraf by phone, State Department spokesman Sean McCormack said, declining to describe the conversation.
He said the United States believes Musharraf is committed to maintaining the rule of law and implementing democratic reform.
"President Musharraf and the Pakistani government have an interest and they have demonstrated that they want to operate within its laws and Pakistan's constitution," McCormack said.
Musharraf is under growing U.S. pressure to crack down on militants at the Afghan border because of fears that al-Qaida is regrouping there.
The Bush administration has also not ruled out unilateral military action inside Pakistan, but has stressed the need to work with Musharraf.
Another exiled former prime minister, Benazir Bhutto, who was widely reported to have met with Musharraf recently in the United Arab Emirates to discuss a power-sharing deal, told Geo TV a declaration of emergency would be "a negative step for the restoration of democracy."
Under Pakistan's Constitution, the president may declare a state of emergency if it is deemed the country's security is "threatened by war or external aggression, or by internal disturbance beyond" the authority of provincial government's authority to control
-------------------- "Simplicity is the ultimate sophistication" Posts: 4005 | From: Shaolin | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
(As I recall, there were those in the republican party seriously advocating the cancelling of the 2004 election here.)
In the past, when it looked like Musharref might be in hot water he always knew how to manipulate things to his advantage.
Posts: 11304 | From: Fort Worth, Texas | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Azim also said talk from the United States about the possibility of U.S. military action against al-Qaida in Pakistan "has started alarm bells ringing and has upset the Pakistani public." He cited recent remarks by Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., a presidential candidate, saying they were one reason the government was debating a state of emergency.
this really amazes me...
how did Reagan get elected? the same rhetoric....
the difference was Iran...
we recently increased the bounty for binladen to 50 millionUS$.. IMO? this just made him a bigger folk hero to the people that follow him...
we SHOULD take 10 million$ in GOLD dust or flakes there and set up a museum for all to see...
whoever brings in Bin laden or at least his head gets it all..
we'd prolly have him in less than six months...
-------------------- Don't envy the happiness of those who live in a fool's paradise. Posts: 36378 | From: USA | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:A also point to that wise old saying, "The enemy of my enemy is my friend".
Yes... that philosophy worked out so well with Bin Laden and Saddam didn't it.... LOL
(Edit: Guess I should read the second page before commenting... )
-------------------- One is never completely useless. One can always serve as a bad example. Posts: 2430 | From: CA | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
seriously? does anybody think our troops can't protect whatever turf (or rocky mountain top) they choose?
i (and i am confident the troops too) would be happy to see the taliban or alqueda come and try to take the "gold museum"... that would just be fewer bad guys out there....
gold dust or flakes are important because they aren't coin... the "mountain folk" just want to be able to collect the bounty and ghost....
coins and bullion would be identifiable, dust and flakes aren't.....
as far as they are concerned? cash is just toilet paper...
heroin or opium would probably work even better, but i guess we can't offer that...
-------------------- Don't envy the happiness of those who live in a fool's paradise. Posts: 36378 | From: USA | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by bdgee: Let me point out one over riding fact.
The stated intent (most often quoting Rove, but there are several other republican sources) of the re[publican party, is now an has been for years, nothing less than forcing the U.S. to become a "permanent one party controlled" state with essentially dictatorial power.
There is no other observation, quotation, event, or whatever that needs to be considered. The republican party, as it is now constituted, is fascist and evil and un-American and ANY form of support for it or any of its sub-goals is also.
A also point to that wise old saying, "The enemy of my enemy is my friend".
that wise old saying is how we ended up embroiled with Iraq and Iran right now... it's not wise at all...
First, we are not yet "embroiled with Iran right now", though it is one of the stated goals of the rightwing.
Second, you are beginning to understand.
Posts: 11304 | From: Fort Worth, Texas | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
"seriously? does anybody think our troops can't protect whatever turf (or rocky mountain top) they choose?"
Me.
And a whole lot of others that can see what has happened in Iraq.
And a whole lot of others that can see what has happened in Iraq and have paid attention to what has happend in almost any similar situation throughout history.....the American Revolutionary War, Viet Nam, Labanon, the English in Ireland, etc. (All those guys cheated and didn't fight fair, you know....refused to stand there and fight the way they would clearly loose.)
Those attackers would not launch a formal military attack on that gold, having announce their intent and methods ahead of time.
There is not "protection" from a determined and native enemy that is determined to last. Such a force does not need to win, just refuse to loose. Trying to wipe it out only breeds resentment and new members to replace those killed. It is the will of the people.
Posts: 11304 | From: Fort Worth, Texas | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
i am beginning to understand? budge, we have been embroiled with Iran and Iraq BOTH since Reagan...
Ollie North ring a bell?
we supported sadam(secular govt) to invade Iran when the Islamic govt there was still fledgling. sadam's invasion instilled patriotic attitudes (especially amongst the very young) within Iran that actually HELPED the Ayatoluh...
beginning to understand? sheesh...
-------------------- Don't envy the happiness of those who live in a fool's paradise. Posts: 36378 | From: USA | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by bdgee: "seriously? does anybody think our troops can't protect whatever turf (or rocky mountain top) they choose?"
Me.
And a whole lot of others that can see what has happened in Iraq.
And a whole lot of others that can see what has happened in Iraq and have paid attention to what has happend in almost any similar situation throughout history.....the American Revolutionary War, Viet Nam, Labanon, the English in Ireland, etc. (All those guys cheated and didn't fight fair, you know....refused to stand there and fight the way they would clearly loose.)
Those attackers would not launch a formal military attack on that gold, having announce their intent and methods ahead of time.
There is not "protection" from a determined and native enemy that is determined to last. Such a force does not need to win, just refuse to loose. Trying to wipe it out only breeds resentment and new members to replace those killed. It is the will of the people.
budgee, you've been out in the heat too long...
we have no problem taking and holding turf... it's the politicians that are screwing up all the time...
name me one shooting battle that we have lost in Iraq or Afghanistan? we haven't... the politicians have made poor decisions...
-------------------- Don't envy the happiness of those who live in a fool's paradise. Posts: 36378 | From: USA | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
And, had we not had a collection of scheming republican Congressmen arrange to make it impossible to put that bunch in prison and also help Reagan to lie to Congress about the participation of top level members of the Administration in that treasonous assault on world peace, we would not have the second coming of that cast of criminals manning the power structure of the republican party now.
But we are not presently and irreversibly "embroiled with Iran", just very very close.
What we must hope is that some means can be found to keep "king george", "The Decider" from bringing about open war between us and Iran (because everyone understands that our military can overwhelm any adversary anywhere anytime, of course, so what is there to loose?), which will eventually bring what could be the beginnings of a third world war.
The world is fed up with our arrogance.
Many of us are ashamed of our arrogance.
Posts: 11304 | From: Fort Worth, Texas | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Bdgee you do know that no matter who the next president is, we WILL be invading Iran? Chavez might want to roll out the welcome mat as well.
Posts: 2965 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
bdgge? maybe you don't know the proper definition for embroiled;
here:
Main Entry: em·broil Pronunciation: im-'broi(-&)l Function: transitive verb Etymology: French embrouiller, from Middle French, from en- + brouiller to jumble, from Old French brooilier, from Vulgar Latin *brodiculare -- more at BROIL Date: 1603 1 : to throw into disorder or confusion 2 : to involve in conflict or difficulties - em·broil·ment /-m&nt/ noun
we are embroiled with Iran and have been for along time... longer than iraq...
-------------------- Don't envy the happiness of those who live in a fool's paradise. Posts: 36378 | From: USA | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
I don't really care what sort of a half baked fool runs the show in Iran, he isn't close to as dangerous as the one we have here, The decider, who has "decided" to keep us embroiled with Iran.
What we are doing now with respect to Iran can be almost completely undone by simply saying so.
It is being done to convince the American public that the same sort of lies used as excuse to invade Iraq are also true about Iran.
Fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me.
Posts: 11304 | From: Fort Worth, Texas | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
Putin has just started sending his long range bombers back on their traditional cold war patrols... Russian bombers resuming Cold War patrols Reuters, The Associated Press Published: August 9, 2007
MOSCOW: Russian bombers have resumed Cold War-style long-haul missions to areas patrolled by NATO and the United States, top Russian generals said Thursday.
A Russian bomber flew over a U.S. naval base on the Pacific island of Guam on Wednesday and "exchanged smiles" with U.S. pilots who had scrambled to track it, said Major General Pavel Androsov, head of long-range aviation in the Russian Air Force.
seems he and Bush are in collusion too? they are restarting the cold war for profit?
seriously bdgee? i disagree with most o f the Bush policies, but i'm not about to agree with whatever the Dems do JUST because i don't like Bush either...
The flight to the Pacific island was part of a three-day exercise that saw Russian strategic bombers making 40 sorties and launching eight cruise missiles, said Androsov, who commands Russia's long-range bomber force.
just practicing for??????
-------------------- Don't envy the happiness of those who live in a fool's paradise. Posts: 36378 | From: USA | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Glass, I know it is out of the ordinary for us to disagree... but I think you are not seeing the big picture. I don't think "we" have any enemy but governments. We too often believe that our government's enemy is our own. As is their plan. The wars we see and the wars we will see are wars between governments... NOT people.
Posts: 2965 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Who knows what they are practicing for. Maybe it is just a stunt to convince the Russian public Russia still tries to be a super power. I doubt seriously Putin is fool enough to want war or anything close to that.
Whatever the case, it is against such forces as the Russian military that our own is best suited and can be expected to prevail. (And I'd bet Putin knows that too.)
Any yield of anything to this bunch of republican fascist (and that includes the whole Party, not just those now in the Administration), particularly when it is based on not approving of the democrats or their concerns along the Party line, is merely a statement that the Party line is to suplant national interest.
There is no such thing as a third alternative. Any such hope amounts to nothing but a pipe dream. Either the democrats (most likely as things now stand) or the republicans will prevail in the coming election. Should it be the republican party, there is a very strong chance this nation's Constitutional sanctity cannot recover and return to being what it must be for the Nation to last.
Repeating the denigrating babble of the RNC in effort to make a "permanent republicaan majority" is a quest to promote the destruction of the Constitution. That in turn is far more dangerous than anything seen here since the revolution.
Posts: 11304 | From: Fort Worth, Texas | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
i wasn't joking when i asked if Putin and Bush agreed to "restart" the cold war" cuz the people around the world really are beginning to realise the "war on terror" is costing people something like 10 billion$ per terrorist, and that is leading them to the next question which is why do guys living in Afghan/Paki caves have this much relevance to our lives... US Presidential power is almost entirely dependent on being "at war"....
second off: Putin may need the US to look like we are once again a threat to their sovereignty just as Bush made sadam appear to be a threat our sovereignty so that he can further consolidate his own power...
thirdly:
i still believe that government by the people and for the people is possible, but i don't think Hillary "is our girl" (as she puts it) for the job... thinking thaqt and stating the facts as to why i came to that decsision doesn't make me a GOP activist...
lastly: bdgee, accusing people of repeating the RNC party line (over and over again ad nauseum) will never get anybody to take you seriously.
if you recall or reread back thru the posts here? i have pulled direct quotes from people like Rove (in particular) saying their plan was nothing less than to permanently destroy the democratic party... i may have even been the one that showed YOU th exact quote, idunno, it don't matter who saw it first..
but
in the end we need at least two parties... i would like to see a third, and i'd like to see it happen now...
-------------------- Don't envy the happiness of those who live in a fool's paradise. Posts: 36378 | From: USA | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I didn't suggest that you were joking. Sorry if that is how it looked.
I'm sorry, but your constant "(over and over again ad nauseum)" railing against the Clintons, almost always the exact same stuff put out by the RNC and almost always without substance gets a bit old.
There was never anything but hateful political intent involved in all the attacks on the Clinton's through the absurd "investigations" that proved over and over that there was no basis for the "investigations". Accept the fact that your guys blew multi millions in the effort and were entirely off base all along. I'm tired of that BS about Clinton being a criminal, because it simply isn't true.
What was criminal and couldn't be investigated because the republican party refused to allow it to be investigated is how secret criminal grand jury testimony (having no relation to the "investigation" that was supposed to be the subject of the "investigation") was illegally handed to a civil court.
It isn't just the Bush Administration that we have a problem with, it is the Party that WILL NOT control its champion, The Decider, and, in the face of proof that he is violating the Constitution, insist on refusing to allow any correction.
Don't hold your breath waiting for a viable third party. It won't happen so long as this Country and its Constitution remain viable entities. Any vote for a third party, until things are already beyond reclamation is simply a thrown away vote. (And any protest vote actually counts a a vote for one of the major parties, depending on which side's total it dilutes.)
Yes, we need at least two parties. Without two viable and active parties, the Constitutionally provided separation of powers and checks and ballances are simply ignored by the party in power, creating a fascist dictatorship by the Party, unless the elected members of that party acts as statesmen rather than Party loyalist. But it is the established goal of the republican party to have only one party.
We know who and what it is that has infested our government. It is time to aim at the guilty, not just rail on that instead that the people in "the other party" are the same. Party loyalty by republicans got us here.....party over Country.
Otherwise, we get at least 4 more years of this mess and probably that "permanent republican majority" desired by the republicans. THEN we have a pure fascist system.
Posts: 11304 | From: Fort Worth, Texas | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
bdgee you couldn't have been reading my posts..
clinton lied under oath... it's not a topic of "debate" he did it... live with it...
i don't agree with MOST of their policies.. the policies that i don't like don't differ that much from Bush's policies... Bush said he was different, but he's not...
and when you accuse me of repeating RNC "dogma"? you are just proving you didn't read my posts, or can't remember what i have posted..
and for you to say that we still have a GOP majority or that the Dems didn't pass Bush's legislation tells me that you don't have a clue what's going on...
you said they are victims... LOL thats a whining excuse... and untrue...
i suggest you dig into the story deeper and quit making excuses for Pelosi and Reid... they have the POWER in the congress now..
and don't go on about the 60 senator rule either, i know exactly how that works...
i don't care who it is in office at the white house, they need pressure on them all the time...
Billary has been in control of the dems for a long time, and they are playing a long game here.. and i don't like it.. period...
IMO? the GOP wants to run against Hillary, so i'm not hurting the dems by pointing out the flaws there...
remeber, Billary went after the gun control legislation and lost control of the congress... they weren't listening to the people then either...
-------------------- Don't envy the happiness of those who live in a fool's paradise. Posts: 36378 | From: USA | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Bdgee, I think the point hes trying to make is.... plain and simple....Hillary is no better and will not be getting his vote.
She already served as Queen for 8 years. Your just in total denial if you cant see any ripple effects from THEIR era.
Another thing PLAIN AND SIMPLE. AS A PERSON... her husband cheated all over her. Do you honestly believe that relationship is real? If so what kind of a woman does that make her? Is she a woman scorn? Something tells me no....JUST A CARPET-BAGGIN AND MUNCHING BULL-DYKE.
-------------------- "Simplicity is the ultimate sophistication" Posts: 4005 | From: Shaolin | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
LOL rim... you're gonna hurt his feeling calling her carpet bagger...
but yeah that's correct....
she moved to NYNY for nothing more than her shot at the white house.. and it was only becuase they had a special residency rule that allowed her to run soooo soon after arriving there...
had she gone back to Arkansas to run? i wouldn't have scorn for her on that topic..
ask her opinion about hedge funds? LOL... she sounds just like a GOP hawk...
why not? after all? Chelsea works for one that specializes in "distressed" companies...
-------------------- Don't envy the happiness of those who live in a fool's paradise. Posts: 36378 | From: USA | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
This woman couldnt keep her husbands pecker in his pants and you want her to run OUR country.
And as far as "Bubba's integrety" goes.... Your wife is the closest person to you in the world if a person is WILLing to lie to that person on a daily basis what kind of a person does that make him? Trustworthy? Yeah I know, he only abused his wife and nobody else
You seem to take it very lightly what Bubba did to her. Are you Mormon?
I say give her a seat on a panel of "The View" and call it a wrap.
-------------------- "Simplicity is the ultimate sophistication" Posts: 4005 | From: Shaolin | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
i'm a dummy huh?![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
)
