Clintoon's Cartoon Cabinet
HOOVER
We've had to put up with these bunch of boobs now for six years, when
will it ever end?
Ron "The only reason I didn't end up in prison was because of a plane
crash" Brown; Donna "Dwarf Woman" Shalala (where the hell did Billy Bob
ever find this loser??); Warren "the senile old fart" Christopher; the
list goes on. The only one with any credibility at all has been William
Cohen, and he's a Republican.
Add all of the southern, redneck hicks lounging around the White House
(not to mention James "Serpent Head" Carville) and it's like a
never-ending freak show in D.C. Send them all back to the woods and let
them chase little furry animals.
Donald L Ferry
>Has there ever been a bigger bunch of losers in an administration.
>We've had to put up with these bunch of boobs now for six years, when
>will it ever end?
>Ron "The only reason I didn't end up in prison was because of a plane
>crash" Brown; Donna "Dwarf Woman" Shalala (where the hell did Billy Bob
>ever find this loser??); Warren "the senile old fart" Christopher; the
>list goes on. The only one with any credibility at all has been William
>Cohen, and he's a Republican.
Madam HalfBright has disgraced any legitmate role women may have in
high government.
Ted Holden
>Has there ever been a bigger bunch of losers in an administration.
>We've had to put up with these bunch of boobs now for six years, when
>will it ever end?
>Ron "The only reason I didn't end up in prison was because of a plane
>crash" Brown; Donna "Dwarf Woman" Shalala (where the hell did Billy Bob
>ever find this loser??); Warren "the senile old fart" Christopher; the
>list goes on. The only one with any credibility at all has been William
>Cohen, and he's a Republican.
>Add all of the southern, redneck hicks lounging around the White House
>(not to mention James "Serpent Head" Carville) and it's like a
>never-ending freak show in D.C....
Best description of it I've read so far. What they might want to do
is something I saw in the Wizard of Id once, i.e. let them all pay 50
cents to walk into a tent which says "Freak Show" on it and stand
there and stare at eachother.
Ted Holden
med...@access.digex.com
Carl Spakler
in the past 30 years. A bunch of inept ex radical hippies dictating
policy here and abroad. They have the morals and integrity of a wart
hog.... What people dont get is that the damaging policies and inept
foreign
stategies they promoted will prove to be damaging if not damning to our
kids and grandkids..
Clowns like Roselle will spout out about VWRC but I ( and he) as a
traditional democratic voter smelled this bunch coming .. What an
embarassment.. what a shame..
Carl
Yatsu
HOOVER <ho...@global.net> wrote in article <35A8EE...@global.net>...
> Has there ever been a bigger bunch of losers in an administration.
Definitely, how about the Reagan Administration. Oliver North, John
Poindexter, and the senile president Reagan himself, just to name a few.
This bunch of guys was much worse than the Clinton administration, from
multiplying our debt to looking the other way while crack made it's way
into America.
> We've had to put up with these bunch of boobs now for six years, when
> will it ever end?
> Ron "The only reason I didn't end up in prison was because of a plane
> crash" Brown; Donna "Dwarf Woman" Shalala (where the hell did Billy Bob
> ever find this loser??); Warren "the senile old fart" Christopher; the
> list goes on. The only one with any credibility at all has been William
> Cohen, and he's a Republican.
> Add all of the southern, redneck hicks lounging around the White House
> (not to mention James "Serpent Head" Carville) and it's like a
Alanirving
would "look like America." He decided from the start that his choices for
cabinet members would not follow tradition and be composed of the brightest,
the best, and the most qualified this country has to offer, but would meet the
liberal notions of diversity and affirmative action. This is the one promise
Clinton actually kept.
al
DeadCosmonautJim
ranting off?
HOOVER <ho...@global.net> wrote in article <35A8EE...@global.net>...
> Has there ever been a bigger bunch of losers in an administration.
guesswho
Definitely, how about the Reagan Administration. Oliver North, John
Poindexter, and the senile president Reagan himself, just to name a few.
This bunch of guys was much worse than the Clinton administration, from
multiplying our debt to looking the other way while crack made it's way
into America.
Weren't they flown into Mena Ark.?
F. Prefect
>Has there ever been a bigger bunch of losers in an administration.
>We've had to put up with these bunch of boobs now for six years, when
>will it ever end?
>Ron "The only reason I didn't end up in prison was because of a plane
>crash" Brown; Donna "Dwarf Woman" Shalala (where the hell did Billy Bob
>ever find this loser??); Warren "the senile old fart" Christopher; the
>list goes on. The only one with any credibility at all has been William
>Cohen, and he's a Republican.
>Add all of the southern, redneck hicks lounging around the White House
>(not to mention James "Serpent Head" Carville) and it's like a
>never-ending freak show in D.C. Send them all back to the woods and let
>them chase little furry animals.
Some people just can't stand prosperity.
Ford
"If there's anything more important than my ego around, I want
it caught and shot, now." Z. Beeblebrox
Steve Wall
On Sun, 12 Jul 1998 17:12:15 +0000, HOOVER <ho...@global.net> wrote:
>Add all of the southern, redneck hicks lounging around the White House
>(not to mention James "Serpent Head" Carville) and it's like a
>never-ending freak show in D.C. Send them all back to the woods and let
>them chase little furry animals.
Yeah, but they are scalawags, viz. Southerners who talk the talk of
ignorant and hypocritical damyankees.
My regionalism is consonant with yours; if I had my way you damyankee
frauds would require passports to visit the Confederate States of America.
Steve Wall
Carl Spakler
Its just Clinton surrounded himself with a bunch of southern crooked
politicians,
Carl
DeZyN
Yatsu <*ya...@nospam.geocities.com"> wrote in message
<01bdadf8$8e76ffe0$8208...@gibbsjoh.user.msu.edu>...
>
>Poindexter, and the senile president Reagan himself, just to name a few.
>This bunch of guys was much worse than the Clinton administration, from
>multiplying our debt to looking the other way while crack made it's way
>into America.
>
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
You aren't to bright are you?
LOLOL
>
>> We've had to put up with these bunch of boobs now for six years, when
>> will it ever end?
>> Ron "The only reason I didn't end up in prison was because of a plane
>> crash" Brown; Donna "Dwarf Woman" Shalala (where the hell did Billy Bob
>> ever find this loser??); Warren "the senile old fart" Christopher; the
>> list goes on. The only one with any credibility at all has been William
>> Cohen, and he's a Republican.
DeZyN
DeadCosmonautJim wrote in message <6oc1gj$k...@bgtnsc03.worldnet.att.net>...
>How about backing up your statements with given examples or are you just
>ranting off?
>
Why bother ? Everyone is already familiar with those people and their deeds.
Oh, I get it.
We are supposed to supply these documented examples and then you stomp on
em, huh?
Go back to your sand box and play, little child.
>HOOVER <ho...@global.net> wrote in article <35A8EE...@global.net>...
>> Has there ever been a bigger bunch of losers in an administration.
DeZyN
HOOVER wrote in message <35A8EE...@global.net>...
>Has there ever been a bigger bunch of losers in an administration.
>We've had to put up with these bunch of boobs now for six years, when
>will it ever end?
>Ron "The only reason I didn't end up in prison was because of a plane
>crash" Brown; Donna "Dwarf Woman" Shalala (where the hell did Billy Bob
>ever find this loser??); Warren "the senile old fart" Christopher; the
>list goes on. The only one with any credibility at all has been William
>Cohen, and he's a Republican.
>Add all of the southern, redneck hicks lounging around the White House
>(not to mention James "Serpent Head" Carville) and it's like a
>never-ending freak show in D.C. Send them all back to the woods and let
>them chase little furry animals.
Don't forget the biggest embarrassment of all, the condom lady (or was she a
man in drag) :
Jocelyn Elders.
Wonder what she's doin now that she got shit canned?
Probably wearing out kneepads at the salvation army....
HOOVER
Wow, good call! How the hell did I forget that loser? Where is she
now? Probably masturbating in some movie theater in downtown DC.
Carl Spakler
with america) new
secretary of the air force nominee... The clown was grounded for being
an inept flyer and is being investigated due to unsavory business
practices.. What an embarrassment...
Carl
Weasel X
Arkansas Democrat-Gazette 7/15/98
GENE LYONS
Sex confuses everybody, so it should come as no surprise that the
Monica Lewinsky affair appears to have paralyzed the critical
faculties of the Washington press mob.
Consider the famous "talking points." Allegedly handed to Linda Tripp
by Lewinsky with fortuitous timing on Jan. 14, a mere 24 hours after
Kenneth Starr's prosecutors had wired Tripp and sent her out to go
drinking and talk dirty with Monica about her supposed love affair
with President Clinton, the talking points are widely seen as the
proverbial "smoking gun" apt to bring the administration down.
Newsweek, which broke the story, put it this way in its Feb. 2 issue:
"Onits face, 'points to make in an affidavit' is what lawyers call
subornation of perjury. Lewinsky was giving Tripp a road map to lying
under oath . . . [W]hen Tripp handed Starr's deputies 'points to make
in an affidavit,' the prosecutors knew they had been given a powerful
tool to squeeze Lewinsky.
What's more, Starr strongly doubted that Lewinsky had drafted those
talking points herself. That meant she was getting coaching--from
whom?"
Supposedly, the talking points instruct Tripp to lie about Kathleen
Willey's claim that Clinton groped her in the Oval Office. "You now do
not believe that what she claimed happened reallyhappened," they say.
"You now find it completely plausible that she herself smeared her
lipstick, untucked her blouse, etc. You never saw her go into the Oval
Office, or come out of the Oval Office. You have never observed the
President behaving inappropriately with anybody."
On TV talk shows devoted to Monica Madness, the rhetorical question
"Who wrote the talking points?" has become a Republican trump card.
Because unanswerable, it's presented as decisive proof of Clinton's
guilt. The "Clinton scandals" have worked that way from the start.
Don't know who did it? Then Clinton's henchmen did. In that spirit,
Philip Weiss of The New York Observer recently wrote what William
Safire called a "brilliant exegesis . . . speculating that [White
House aide Bruce] Lindsey may be the suborn-again author."
The Washington Times made it official. According to a June 22,
article, "[I]ndependent counsel Kenneth W. Starr has focused on White
House Deputy Counsel Bruce R. Lindsey as the possible source of the
controversial 'talking points' Monica Lewinsky gave to Linda R. Tripp,
sources told The Washington Times. . . . [T]he independent counsel's
office is trying to gather evidence to bolster the following scenario:
Mrs. Tripp relayed her concerns to Miss Lewinsky, who mentioned them
to Mr. Clinton. The president then briefed Mr. Lindsey, his closest
adviser, who responded by arranging for Miss Lewinsky to give Mrs.
Tripp the talking points."
A skeptic might notice that no evidence exists to confirm that such
conversations among Clinton, Lewinsky and Lindsey ever took place.
Also that Lindsey makes a real convenient suspect from Starr's
political point of view.
Neither Monica nor Clinton has testified. Lindsey has, and has
publicly denied any knowledge of the talking points. He's almost
certain to have told the grand jury exactly that--unless Starr found a
way not to ask him.
A cautious, meticulous man without a blot on his professional record,
Lindsey is a Little Rock native who followed Clinton to Washington;
hence, unlike, say, the president's private attorneys, Bob Bennett and
David Kendall, he can be accused by Starr's press allies without
offending any permanent vested interests inside the Beltway. A
"notorious consigliere," Safire calls him.
Pointing to Lindsey also provides Starr a legal smoke screen. By
asking Lindsey, a member of the White House Counsel's staff, direct
questions about his conversations with the president, Starr
deliberately provoked a lawyer-client privilege fight. Should he lose
in the Supreme Court, as he recently lost a similar attempt to get his
hands on Vince Foster's lawyer's notes, Starr's got his alibi: the
cover-up worked. If Starr wins, but the evidence still fails to
materialize, he'll nevertheless have prolonged Monica Madness for
months and gained time to construct more ingenious diversions. That's
what the recent Webb Hubbell and Susan McDougal indictments are all
about. After the White House recently withdrew a claim of executive
privilege regarding Clinton aide Sidney Blumenthal, Starr's sleuths
posed him this question:
"Does the president's religion include sexual intercourse?"
Is that more juvenile or more offensive? It's your call.
A skeptic might also argue that nothing known about Lindsey indicates
he'd be dumb enough to entrust anything ticklish to Monica Lewinsky
for delivery to Linda Tripp. (Actually, there's no sign Lindsey and
Monica have ever met.) Both women repoertedly had been fired by the
White House and exiled to the Pentagon partly due to their respective
fascination with the president's sex life.
And this ain't Tripp's first rodeo, either. She was CNN's source for
its public querying of President Bush about his alleged mistress back
in 1992, as well as one of Newsweek's sources for the Willey tale.
Extreme caution in dealing with her would clearly have been indicated.
Meanwhile, Newsweek has been scuttling away from the "subornation of
perjury" angle in an oddly crablike manner. Why? Perjury involves the
deliberate misstatement of material facts. By definition, Tripp's
opinion of Willey's credibility doesn't qualify.
Secondly, if Newsweek's own earlier coverage of the Willey tale is to
be believed, Tripp never did see the fair Kathleen enter or leave the
Oval Office. On May 26, her lawyer, Anthony Zaccagnini, told Larry
King that "what happened is Kathleen Willey had come down to Linda's
office at a different location in the West Wing." (Meaning,
incidentally, that Willey walked clear across the crowded West Wing
and took an elevator to the second floor without anybody noticing her
disheveled appearance.) As for witnessing the president "behaving
inappropriately," Tripp has never claimed that.
Now it turns out that Tripp sent Newsweek an unpublished letter in
August 1997 indicating strong skepticism about Willey's claims.
"Whatever happened that day in the Oval Office, if anything," Tripp
wrote, "is known to only two people. One must wonder, however, how
such disparate allegations spanning a period of four years could have
much, if any, credibility."
In short, Tripp's stated position regarding Willey not only appears
perfectly congruent with the talking points, but always has, a fact
Newsweek editors were uniquely qualified to know. While flogging
Monica Madness for all it's worth, the magazine has been sitting on a
key piece of evidence that gave the lie to its own feverish
speculation.
In the July 13 issue, Michael Isikoff and Evan Thomas, the pair of
aces who've covered the presidential sex beat since 1992, inform us
that "Starr may have trouble proving that the talking points were an
attempt to make Tripp lie if they closely track the language and
sentiments that Tripp used five months earlier."
Get this: "In the end," these geniuses think, "Tripp may have tried to
frame a guilty man."
A friend from my own days at Newsweek recently warned me that
skepticism about the Lewinsky business would damage my reputation. My
response? So far, I'm 2-0 on Whitewater and Paula Jones; Newsweek is
0-2. And I haven't had to sweep anything under the carpet.
DeZyN
HOOVER wrote in message <35B04B...@global.net>...
She came and went so fast it's easy to forget her....
I heard she is shacking up with Marion Barry.
After all, her son was his pusher.
DeZyN
Spee...@nsm.htp.org wrote in message
<1998071818250...@nsm.htp.org>...
>On Sat, 18 Jul 1998 07:15:08 +0000 HOOVER <ho...@global.net> wrote:
>
>>DeZyN wrote:
>>>
>>> HOOVER wrote in message <35A8EE...@global.net>...
>>> >Has there ever been a bigger bunch of losers in an administration.
>>> >We've had to put up with these bunch of boobs now for six years, when
>>> >will it ever end?
>
>
>But I don't think you're going to like Al Gore's cabinet any better.
>
The 2x4 stumps medicine cabinet is hardly an issue.
Mr. Bush's cabinet will whip this society back into shape as it so
desperately wants and needs.
>
>
>
ROCS
Clinton Administration? Obviously it's a brain dead liberal. The Reagan
years were the best this country has ever seen. The longest peace time
expansion in history and the downfall of communism and the cold war are just
a couple of the great achievments of Reagan. As for the debt, you have the
democrats to blame more than Reagan. Although Reagan does share in the
blame, the democrats never, ever, sent Reagan a balanced budget. Also, they
never delivered on the $2 spending cut for each additonal new dollar spent.
I, for one, believe that defeating communism was a much bigger problem in
which we had to spend money for.
Robert
DeZyN wrote in message <6op35e$e...@bgtnsc02.worldnet.att.net>...
>
>Yatsu <*ya...@nospam.geocities.com"> wrote in message
><01bdadf8$8e76ffe0$8208...@gibbsjoh.user.msu.edu>...
>>
>>
>>HOOVER <ho...@global.net> wrote in article <35A8EE...@global.net>...
>>> Has there ever been a bigger bunch of losers in an administration.
>>
>>Definitely, how about the Reagan Administration. Oliver North, John
>>Poindexter, and the senile president Reagan himself, just to name a few.
>>This bunch of guys was much worse than the Clinton administration, from
>>multiplying our debt to looking the other way while crack made it's way
>>into America.
>>
>
>HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
>You aren't to bright are you?
>LOLOL
>
>
>
>
>>
>>> We've had to put up with these bunch of boobs now for six years, when
>>> will it ever end?
DeZyN
If so, you aren't going to believe the depths of the depravity of some of
the liberals on here.
They are hillarious and hysterical !!!
I agree with your post.
Unfortunately for liberals it takes more than 2 braincells to understand
what you said, so ALL the liberals are automatically disqualified.
ROCS wrote in message <35b2b...@newsman.viper.net>...
Eric Chomko
: What idiot even dared try to compare the Reagan Administration with the
: Clinton Administration? Obviously it's a brain dead liberal. The Reagan
Reagan was a liberal the first half of his life. Did you know that?
: years were the best this country has ever seen. The longest peace time
: expansion in history and the downfall of communism and the cold war are just
: a couple of the great achievments of Reagan.
Reagan did not end the Cold War. The USSR fell due to a number of factors,
mostly domestic problems.
: As for the debt, you have the
: democrats to blame more than Reagan. Although Reagan does share in the
: blame, the democrats never, ever, sent Reagan a balanced budget. Also, they
: never delivered on the $2 spending cut for each additonal new dollar spent.
: I, for one, believe that defeating communism was a much bigger problem in
: which we had to spend money for.
Defeating communism didn't require us to do anything. It's just something
the Republicans want to feel good about. The nukes didn't go away and
neither did the threat.
Eric
Michael Beck
>In alt.politics.org.cia ROCS <ro...@entercomp.com> wrote:
>: What idiot even dared try to compare the Reagan Administration with the
>: Clinton Administration? Obviously it's a brain dead liberal. The Reagan
>
>Reagan was a liberal the first half of his life. Did you know that?
First quarter and counting....
And then he grew up.
>
>: years were the best this country has ever seen. The longest peace time
>: expansion in history and the downfall of communism and the cold war are just
>: a couple of the great achievments of Reagan.
>
>Reagan did not end the Cold War. The USSR fell due to a number of factors,
>mostly domestic problems.
As a result of being 'bled" by the proactive engagement of the US.
>
>: As for the debt, you have the
>: democrats to blame more than Reagan. Although Reagan does share in the
>: blame, the democrats never, ever, sent Reagan a balanced budget. Also, they
>: never delivered on the $2 spending cut for each additonal new dollar spent.
>: I, for one, believe that defeating communism was a much bigger problem in
>: which we had to spend money for.
>
>Defeating communism didn't require us to do anything. It's just something
>the Republicans want to feel good about. The nukes didn't go away and
>neither did the threat.
You dimwit. Go across the old wall in Berlin and see if you get shot.
How many *did* during the glory days of the USSR?
>
>Eric
Carl Spakler
Eric.
Get real
Carl
Donald L Ferry
A lot less people got shot at the wall than our heros in Indonesia
killed in East Timor. Seems to me the Republicans just want to spend
money. They are up for the Missle defense system again in an age of
increasing Cruse Missle tech = Not that after billions they can shoot
down even one missle from a know launch point and trajectory!
A Corbett
> Reagan was a liberal the first half of his life. Did you know that?
Who cares if he was a liberal till the day he was inaugurated. The point is that his
administration was conservation as were his economic and foreign policies.
> Reagan did not end the Cold War. The USSR fell due to a number of factors,
> mostly domestic problems.
Of course he didn't single-handedly tear apart their domestic economy. That's just
naturaly follows too many years in an ill-designed communist system, and he didn't "end
the Cold War". However, his policy of peace-through-strength gave the USSR the
incentive to cut down on nuclear proliferation and come to the bargaining table.
> Defeating communism didn't require us to do anything. It's just something
> the Republicans want to feel good about. The nukes didn't go away and
> neither did the threat.
You know that's bull shit! Just like a liberal... blame the in-power Republicans for the
negative changes and claim that the positive changes were luck.
Gipper
Joe
>In alt.politics.org.cia ROCS <ro...@entercomp.com> wrote:
>: What idiot even dared try to compare the Reagan Administration with the
>: Clinton Administration? Obviously it's a brain dead liberal. The Reagan
>
>Reagan was a liberal the first half of his life. Did you know that?
So was I. There is a famous quote (Winston Churchill?): "If
you're not a Liberal when you're young you don't have a heart.
If you're not a Conservative when you grow up you don't have a
brain."
>
>: years were the best this country has ever seen. The longest peace time
>: expansion in history and the downfall of communism and the cold war are just
>: a couple of the great achievments of Reagan.
>
>Reagan did not end the Cold War. The USSR fell due to a number of factors,
>mostly domestic problems.
>
>: As for the debt, you have the
>: democrats to blame more than Reagan. Although Reagan does share in the
>: blame, the democrats never, ever, sent Reagan a balanced budget. Also, they
>: never delivered on the $2 spending cut for each additonal new dollar spent.
>: I, for one, believe that defeating communism was a much bigger problem in
>: which we had to spend money for.
>
>Defeating communism didn't require us to do anything. It's just something
>the Republicans want to feel good about. The nukes didn't go away and
>neither did the threat.
>
>Eric
Donald L Ferry
>On 20 Jul 1998 19:03:43 GMT, Eric Chomko <cho...@IDT.NET> wrote:
>
>>In alt.politics.org.cia ROCS <ro...@entercomp.com> wrote:
>>: What idiot even dared try to compare the Reagan Administration with the
>>: Clinton Administration? Obviously it's a brain dead liberal. The Reagan
>>
>>Reagan was a liberal the first half of his life. Did you know that?
>
>So was I. There is a famous quote (Winston Churchill?): "If
>you're not a Liberal when you're young you don't have a heart.
>If you're not a Conservative when you grow up you don't have a
>brain."
Yes!! Well I see the British threw Brainy out after WWII. I don't
think Churchill had a liberal stadge!
John Alway
[...]
> >Reagan did not end the Cold War. The USSR fell due to a number of factors,
> >mostly domestic problems.
> As a result of being 'bled" by the proactive engagement of the US.
I'd say you're both right. The USSR was going to implode and would
have sooner had the West not given them aid, but Reagan's pressure did
accelerate the process.
Btw, I've always like the liberal epithet "raygun". He should be
proud of that one.
...John
dana raffaniello
Eric Chomko wrote in message <6p04af$a...@nnrp1.farm.idt.net>...
>In alt.politics.org.cia ROCS <ro...@entercomp.com> wrote:
>: What idiot even dared try to compare the Reagan Administration with the
>: Clinton Administration? Obviously it's a brain dead liberal. The Reagan
>
>Reagan was a liberal the first half of his life. Did you know that?
>
>: expansion in history and the downfall of communism and the cold war are
just
>: a couple of the great achievments of Reagan.
>
>mostly domestic problems.
>
>: democrats to blame more than Reagan. Although Reagan does share in the
>: blame, the democrats never, ever, sent Reagan a balanced budget. Also,
they
>: never delivered on the $2 spending cut for each additonal new dollar
spent.
>: I, for one, believe that defeating communism was a much bigger problem in
>: which we had to spend money for.
>
>Defeating communism didn't require us to do anything. It's just something
>the Republicans want to feel good about. The nukes didn't go away and
>neither did the threat.
>
>Eric
of communist russia. At the same time they pat bill boy kkklinton on the
back for starting a new arms race in asia.
ROCS
liberal. Back in those days democrats were not the bleeding heart, tax &
spend, and big government radicals that they are now. The main reason he
had to change parties was because he realized that the democrats punished
achievment. They did this with tax rates of up to 70 percent.
If you recall, when Reagan came into office the Soviet Union was the
strongest and most dangerous country on earth. Had it not been for the arms
race and Reagan's strong leadership there is no telling what would have
happened.
Robert
DeZyN
Joe wrote in message <35b3cfb7....@news.supernews.com>...
>>: What idiot even dared try to compare the Reagan Administration with the
>>: Clinton Administration? Obviously it's a brain dead liberal. The
Reagan
>>
>>Reagan was a liberal the first half of his life. Did you know that?
>
>you're not a Liberal when you're young you don't have a heart.
>If you're not a Conservative when you grow up you don't have a
>brain."
>
I think this is one of the best quotes I've ever read.
Thank you.
Michael Beck
wrote:
>Michael Beck wrote:
>
>> On 20 Jul 1998 19:03:43 GMT, Eric Chomko <cho...@IDT.NET> wrote:
>
> [...]
>
>> >Reagan did not end the Cold War. The USSR fell due to a number of factors,
>> >mostly domestic problems.
>> As a result of being 'bled" by the proactive engagement of the US.
>
> I'd say you're both right. The USSR was going to implode and would
>have sooner had the West not given them aid, but Reagan's pressure did
>accelerate the process.
>
> Btw, I've always like the liberal epithet "raygun". He should be
>proud of that one.
>
>
>
> ...John
OK. I agree with you.
Eric Chomko
: On 20 Jul 1998 19:03:43 GMT, Eric Chomko <cho...@IDT.NET> wrote:
: >In alt.politics.org.cia ROCS <ro...@entercomp.com> wrote:
: >: What idiot even dared try to compare the Reagan Administration with the
: >: Clinton Administration? Obviously it's a brain dead liberal. The Reagan
: >
: >Reagan was a liberal the first half of his life. Did you know that?
: So was I. There is a famous quote (Winston Churchill?): "If
: you're not a Liberal when you're young you don't have a heart.
: If you're not a Conservative when you grow up you don't have a
: brain."
Yes, it is as old as dirt and just as useful. Since my tomato garden is in
place, do you have anything else to offer?
Eric
Eric Chomko
: Eric Chomko wrote:
: > Reagan was a liberal the first half of his life. Did you know that?
: Who cares if he was a liberal till the day he was inaugurated. The point is that his
: administration was conservation as were his economic and foreign policies.
I wa wondering how would answer this one. Corbett, you?! ok. He switched
after he made his first million. If you don't own a million $$$, then you
should be a democrat!
: > Reagan did not end the Cold War. The USSR fell due to a number of factors,
: > mostly domestic problems.
: Of course he didn't single-handedly tear apart their domestic economy. That's just
: naturaly follows too many years in an ill-designed communist system, and he didn't "end
: the Cold War". However, his policy of peace-through-strength gave the USSR the
: incentive to cut down on nuclear proliferation and come to the bargaining table.
Table? Where is the Reagan book? Oh that's right, Reagan is nuts...I mean
he suffers from Altzheimers (gotta be politically correct on this one).
Where is the Reagan Book? There isn't one? From his colleagues? Nothing!
That's right, no one could keep that great story straight. Why? IT NEVER
FUCKING OCCURRED. Better, let's here his kids tell it?!
Cheap shot?! Ask their kids!!
: > Defeating communism didn't require us to do anything. It's just something
: > the Republicans want to feel good about. The nukes didn't go away and
: > neither did the threat.
: You know that's bull shit! Just like a liberal... blame the in-power Republicans for the
: negative changes and claim that the positive changes were luck.
Nothing happened, except that Reagan's kids have always said that their
dad is an asshole. What else?
Where the hell is their book describing how their dad won the Cold War.
Hell, I can write one and you don't even know my dad's first name!
Eric
: Gipper
Eric Chomko
: liberal. Back in those days democrats were not the bleeding heart, tax &
: spend, and big government radicals that they are now. The main reason he
: had to change parties was because he realized that the democrats punished
: achievment. They did this with tax rates of up to 70 percent.
He made his first million! He was a bledding heart until he had $$$, then
he switched.
: If you recall, when Reagan came into office the Soviet Union was the
: strongest and most dangerous country on earth.
No, our nuclear strike force far exceeded their power. Conventionally, in
Europe, maybe. But never a threat at home.
: Had it not been for the arms
: race and Reagan's strong leadership there is no telling what would have
: happened.
The USSR would have imploded, and it would look like what we have today.
Regan did nothing.
Eric
Eric Chomko
[...]
: Ignorant liberals will not face the facts that Reagan did cause the downfall
: of communist russia. At the same time they pat bill boy kkklinton on the
: back for starting a new arms race in asia.
And not Bush?! Surely, you are a moron! Reagan's great legacy surly would
have Bush win a second term. Didn't happen? Then I guess we never had a
the great Reagan legacy. I want to hear his kids tell the story.....
ROFLOL....
Eric
Eric Chomko
: Joe wrote in message <35b3cfb7....@news.supernews.com>...
: >Eric Chomko wrote:
: >>
: >>Reagan was a liberal the first half of his life. Did you know that?
: >
: >So was I. There is a famous quote (Winston Churchill?): "If
: >you're not a Liberal when you're young you don't have a heart.
: >If you're not a Conservative when you grow up you don't have a
: >brain."
: >
: I think this is one of the best quotes I've ever read.
: Thank you.
It is as old as dirt. And as such, do you want to buy some?
My garden is in. But I can use some fertilizer. The kicker is that
Churchill would be laughing with me, and eating my tomatoes.
Eric
Eric Chomko
: On Mon, 20 Jul 1998 21:33:53 -0500 "ROCS" <ro...@entercomp.com> wrote:
: >Reagan may have been a democrat early in his life; however, he was not a
: >liberal. Back in those days democrats were not the bleeding heart, tax &
: >spend, and big government radicals that they are now.
: No, back then they were "New Deal" Democrats, who wrought the most
: far-ranging changes to the way the federal government interacts with
: the states since the civil war.
: Please ask you teacher to review your posts before sending them.
^^^
My teacher only pointed out that your usage in the above sentence was
wrong. You should have used 'your'instead of 'you'.. And then he said that
you were an asshole for completely missing the Great Depression, but
blamed it upon you being a brain-dead conservative.
I quickly stated that "braindead conservative" was a redundant statement.
He laughed and agreed.
Eric
DeZyN
Eric Chomko wrote in message <6p16s6$3...@nnrp2.farm.idt.net>...
>: > Reagan was a liberal the first half of his life. Did you know that?
>
Michael Reagan has a show on talk radio and he mentions his dad frequently.
Patty is so messed up from her drug days she doesn't know which way is up.
>Hell, I can write one and you don't even know my dad's first name!
>
Yeah, the book would be called:
'The Chumpko Jellyfish'
>
>Eric
>
>
>
>: Gipper
>
DeZyN
It's from your garden : A large zuchini and 2 tomatoes....
Eric Chomko wrote in message <6p17pg$3...@nnrp2.farm.idt.net>...
>In alt.politics.org.cia DeZyN <creative...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>
>: Joe wrote in message <35b3cfb7....@news.supernews.com>...
>: >Eric Chomko wrote:
>: >>
>: >>Reagan was a liberal the first half of his life. Did you know that?
>: >
DeZyN
nob...@nsm.htp.org wrote in message
<1998072103461...@nsm.htp.org>...
>On Mon, 20 Jul 1998 21:33:53 -0500 "ROCS" <ro...@entercomp.com> wrote:
>
>>Reagan may have been a democrat early in his life; however, he was not a
>>liberal. Back in those days democrats were not the bleeding heart, tax &
>>spend, and big government radicals that they are now.
>
>No, back then they were "New Deal" Democrats, who wrought the most
>far-ranging changes to the way the federal government interacts with
>the states since the civil war.
>
>Please ask you teacher to review your posts before sending them.
>
Is that who reviews yours?
>
>
>
DeZyN
Eric Chomko wrote in message <6p17cb$3...@nnrp2.farm.idt.net>...
>In alt.politics.org.cia ROCS <ro...@entercomp.com> wrote:
>: Reagan may have been a democrat early in his life; however, he was not a
>: liberal. Back in those days democrats were not the bleeding heart, tax
&
he
>: had to change parties was because he realized that the democrats punished
>: achievment. They did this with tax rates of up to 70 percent.
>
>He made his first million! He was a bledding heart until he had $$$, then
>he switched.
>
>
>: If you recall, when Reagan came into office the Soviet Union was the
>: strongest and most dangerous country on earth.
>
>
>No, our nuclear strike force far exceeded their power. Conventionally, in
>Europe, maybe. But never a threat at home.
>
>
>: Had it not been for the arms
>: race and Reagan's strong leadership there is no telling what would have
>: happened.
>
>The USSR would have imploded, and it would look like what we have today.
>Regan did nothing.
>
>Eric
And this comes from the person that said that Reagan never said :
'Mr Gorbachev, tear down this wall.'
Hey, Mr. Lack O'Credibility, got any more good ones ? LOL
DeZyN
Eric Chomko wrote in message <6p17j6$3...@nnrp2.farm.idt.net>...
Why do you keep bringing up his kids?
Is that all you have?
Apparently it is.
>
>ROFLOL....
>
>
>
>Eric
Carl J. Hudecek
The tax rates for millionaires were over NINETY percent, and
believe me, it WORKED. There was no incentive to rape the customers.
We had our greatest growth with these rates in effect.
What we need is a 110% tax on ALL INCOME ABOVE $200 K. That fixes
EVERY remaining USA economic problem, and cuts the price of tickets
to the ball game to $5.
******************************************************************
In <35b3f...@newsman.viper.net> "ROCS" <ro...@entercomp.com> writes:
>
>Reagan may have been a democrat early in his life; however, he was not
a
>liberal. Back in those days democrats were not the bleeding heart,
tax &
>spend, and big government radicals that they are now. The main
reason he
>had to change parties was because he realized that the democrats
punished
>achievment. They did this with tax rates of up to 70 percent.
>
>If you recall, when Reagan came into office the Soviet Union was the
>strongest and most dangerous country on earth. Had it not been for
the arms
>race and Reagan's strong leadership there is no telling what would
have
>happened.
>
>Robert
>
>
>Eric Chomko wrote in message <6p04af$a...@nnrp1.farm.idt.net>...
>>In alt.politics.org.cia ROCS <ro...@entercomp.com> wrote:
>>: What idiot even dared try to compare the Reagan Administration with
the
>>: Clinton Administration? Obviously it's a brain dead liberal. The
Reagan
>>
>>Reagan was a liberal the first half of his life. Did you know that?
>>
>>: years were the best this country has ever seen. The longest peace
time
>>: expansion in history and the downfall of communism and the cold war
are
>just
>>: a couple of the great achievments of Reagan.
>>
>>Reagan did not end the Cold War. The USSR fell due to a number of
factors,
>>mostly domestic problems.
>>
>>: As for the debt, you have the
>>: democrats to blame more than Reagan. Although Reagan does share in
the
>>: blame, the democrats never, ever, sent Reagan a balanced budget.
Also,
>they
>>: never delivered on the $2 spending cut for each additonal new
dollar
>spent.
>>: I, for one, believe that defeating communism was a much bigger
problem in
>>: which we had to spend money for.
>>
>>Defeating communism didn't require us to do anything. It's just
something
>>the Republicans want to feel good about. The nukes didn't go away and
>>neither did the threat.
>>
>>Eric
>
>
Bruce Campbell
nob...@nsm.htp.org wrote in message
<1998072103461...@nsm.htp.org>...
>On Mon, 20 Jul 1998 21:33:53 -0500 "ROCS" <ro...@entercomp.com> wrote:
>
>>liberal. Back in those days democrats were not the bleeding heart, tax &
>>spend, and big government radicals that they are now.
>
>far-ranging changes to the way the federal government interacts with
>the states since the civil war.
>
>Please ask you teacher to review your posts before sending them.
An interesting quote from FDR about welfare;
This is for widows and orphans, we have no intention of supporting bastards.
John LaBrecque
Because Chumpko, like Reagan's kids, live in the shadow of his father's
accomplishments.
--
Semper Fi
Jack L
http://members.aol.com/jitb/stand.htm
CIS-[GO ATTNCR]
My son, Marc, is now one of the few, the proud,
a United States Marine.
"Some people live their entire lifetime and wonder if
they ever made a difference to the world. Marines don't
have that problem." -- Ronald Reagan, January 1995
Bruce Campbell
Carl J. Hudecek wrote in message <6p1pbi$p...@sjx-ixn10.ix.netcom.com>...
>
> The tax rates for millionaires were over NINETY percent, and
>believe me, it WORKED. There was no incentive to rape the customers.
Nor was there much incentive to earn more money, taxable income that is.
>
> We had our greatest growth with these rates in effect.
Growth was greater in the 1800's when there was no income tax. However much
of that growth was due to an expanding population.
As to growing when marginal tax rates were 90%, the main purpose was to slow
growth domestically so that the world (Europe, primarily) would grow after
WWII. Plus it shouldn't be surprising that we were growing nicely when you
consider that there was little international competition.
>
> What we need is a 110% tax on ALL INCOME ABOVE $200 K. That fixes
>EVERY remaining USA economic problem, and cuts the price of tickets
>to the ball game to $5.
I hope you're being sarcastic.
Based on 1993 tax returns, the top 1% earned $185,791 or higher. This group
paid about 30% of all income taxes. If you apply a 100% rate to all income
above $200k, you can pretty much guarantee that no will make more than 200k
unless by accident. Why would they bother, they wouldn't get any of it. Any
ideas how we'll make up for the loss of tax revenue?
What we need is a tax code that people can understand.
John LaBrecque
>
> In alt.politics.org.cia ROCS <ro...@entercomp.com> wrote:
> : What idiot even dared try to compare the Reagan Administration with the
> : Clinton Administration? Obviously it's a brain dead liberal. The Reagan
>
> Reagan was a liberal the first half of his life. Did you know that?
>
By today's standards, politicians of the era that Reagan switched
parties, JFK would be considered a conservative.
Michael Beck
>In alt.politics.org.cia DeZyN <creative...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>
>: Joe wrote in message <35b3cfb7....@news.supernews.com>...
>: >Eric Chomko wrote:
>: >>
>: >>Reagan was a liberal the first half of his life. Did you know that?
>: >
>: >So was I. There is a famous quote (Winston Churchill?): "If
>: >you're not a Liberal when you're young you don't have a heart.
>: >If you're not a Conservative when you grow up you don't have a
>: >brain."
>: >
>
>: I think this is one of the best quotes I've ever read.
>: Thank you.
>
>It is as old as dirt. And as such, do you want to buy some?
>
>My garden is in. But I can use some fertilizer. The kicker is that
>Churchill would be laughing with me, and eating my tomatoes.
>
>Eric
He'd only be eating your tomatoes if he found a way to crush them into
juice and then add vodka.....
Michael Beck
>In alt.politics.org.cia Joe <big_...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>: On 20 Jul 1998 19:03:43 GMT, Eric Chomko <cho...@IDT.NET> wrote:
>
>: >In alt.politics.org.cia ROCS <ro...@entercomp.com> wrote:
>: >: What idiot even dared try to compare the Reagan Administration with the
>: >: Clinton Administration? Obviously it's a brain dead liberal. The Reagan
>: >
>: >Reagan was a liberal the first half of his life. Did you know that?
>
>: So was I. There is a famous quote (Winston Churchill?): "If
>: you're not a Liberal when you're young you don't have a heart.
>: If you're not a Conservative when you grow up you don't have a
>: brain."
>
>Yes, it is as old as dirt and just as useful. Since my tomato garden is in
>place, do you have anything else to offer?
>
>Eric
Sure. The b.s. that you post would make good fertilizer.....
Michael Beck
>In alt.politics.org.cia ROCS <ro...@entercomp.com> wrote:
>: Reagan may have been a democrat early in his life; however, he was not a
>: liberal. Back in those days democrats were not the bleeding heart, tax &
>: spend, and big government radicals that they are now. The main reason he
>: had to change parties was because he realized that the democrats punished
>: achievment. They did this with tax rates of up to 70 percent.
>
>He made his first million! He was a bledding heart until he had $$$, then
>he switched.
>
>
>: If you recall, when Reagan came into office the Soviet Union was the
>: strongest and most dangerous country on earth.
>
>
>No, our nuclear strike force far exceeded their power. Conventionally, in
>Europe, maybe. But never a threat at home.
>
>
>: Had it not been for the arms
>: race and Reagan's strong leadership there is no telling what would have
>: happened.
>
>The USSR would have imploded, and it would look like what we have today.
>Regan did nothing.
Perhaps that's why Reagan's chief of staff (Donald Regan) was fired.
>
>Eric
Michael Beck
>In alt.politics.org.cia nob...@nsm.htp.org wrote:
>: On Mon, 20 Jul 1998 21:33:53 -0500 "ROCS" <ro...@entercomp.com> wrote:
>
>: >Reagan may have been a democrat early in his life; however, he was not a
>: >liberal. Back in those days democrats were not the bleeding heart, tax &
>: >spend, and big government radicals that they are now.
>
>: No, back then they were "New Deal" Democrats, who wrought the most
>: far-ranging changes to the way the federal government interacts with
>: the states since the civil war.
>
>: Please ask you teacher to review your posts before sending them.
> ^^^
>
>
>My teacher only pointed out that your usage in the above sentence was
>wrong. You should have used 'your'instead of 'you'.. And then he said that
>you were an asshole for completely missing the Great Depression, but
>blamed it upon you being a brain-dead conservative.
>
>I quickly stated that "braindead conservative" was a redundant statement.
>He laughed and agreed.
>
I'm sure he was one of the teaching establishment that can't pass a
basic competency test and a strong supporter of the NEA.
>Eric
>
>
>
Michael Beck
>In alt.politics.org.cia A Corbett <ae...@gte.net> wrote:
>: Eric Chomko wrote:
>: > Reagan was a liberal the first half of his life. Did you know that?
>
>: Who cares if he was a liberal till the day he was inaugurated. The point is that his
>: administration was conservation as were his economic and foreign policies.
>
>I wa wondering how would answer this one. Corbett, you?! ok. He switched
>after he made his first million. If you don't own a million $$$, then you
>should be a democrat!
How do you explain Kennedy, Rubin, Kerry, Rockefeller,......
>
>
>: > Reagan did not end the Cold War. The USSR fell due to a number of factors,
>: > mostly domestic problems.
>
>: Of course he didn't single-handedly tear apart their domestic economy. That's just
>: naturaly follows too many years in an ill-designed communist system, and he didn't "end
>: the Cold War". However, his policy of peace-through-strength gave the USSR the
>: incentive to cut down on nuclear proliferation and come to the bargaining table.
>
>Table? Where is the Reagan book? Oh that's right, Reagan is nuts...I mean
>he suffers from Altzheimers (gotta be politically correct on this one).
Alzheimer's disease makes a person "nuts"? Wow! Did your criminal
relatives teach you that?
>Where is the Reagan Book? There isn't one? From his colleagues? Nothing!
>That's right, no one could keep that great story straight. Why? IT NEVER
>FUCKING OCCURRED. Better, let's here his kids tell it?!
His legacy will be more fondly remembered than *your* president's.
>
>Cheap shot?! Ask their kids!!
Which one?
>
>
>: > Defeating communism didn't require us to do anything. It's just something
>: > the Republicans want to feel good about. The nukes didn't go away and
>: > neither did the threat.
>
>: You know that's bull shit! Just like a liberal... blame the in-power Republicans for the
>: negative changes and claim that the positive changes were luck.
>
>Nothing happened, except that Reagan's kids have always said that their
>dad is an asshole. What else?
No. His daughter was the only one who *strayed* but she came *back*
in the past few years and reconciled with them both.
>
>Where the hell is their book describing how their dad won the Cold War.
>Hell, I can write one and you don't even know my dad's first name!
Dick?
>
>
>Eric
>
>
>
>: Gipper
DeadCosmonautJim
recoil back with some offensive? Fuck you. First off, you're strategys
weak and your mind is that of the consistancy and effectiveness of tapioca.
Lay off the porno and stop calling me kid because from where I stand you
don't sound any older than I.
DeZyN <creative...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in article
<6op395$f...@bgtnsc02.worldnet.att.net>...
>
> DeadCosmonautJim wrote in message
<6oc1gj$k...@bgtnsc03.worldnet.att.net>...
> >How about backing up your statements with given examples or are you just
> >ranting off?
> >
>
>
> Why bother ? Everyone is already familiar with those people and their
deeds.
> Oh, I get it.
> We are supposed to supply these documented examples and then you stomp on
> em, huh?
> Go back to your sand box and play, little child.
>
>
>
> >HOOVER <ho...@global.net> wrote in article <35A8EE...@global.net>...
> >> Has there ever been a bigger bunch of losers in an administration.
> >> We've had to put up with these bunch of boobs now for six years, when
> >> will it ever end?
> >> Ron "The only reason I didn't end up in prison was because of a plane
> >> crash" Brown; Donna "Dwarf Woman" Shalala (where the hell did Billy
Bob
> >> ever find this loser??); Warren "the senile old fart" Christopher;
the
> >> list goes on. The only one with any credibility at all has been
William
> >> Cohen, and he's a Republican.
> >> Add all of the southern, redneck hicks lounging around the White House
> >> (not to mention James "Serpent Head" Carville) and it's like a
> >> never-ending freak show in D.C. Send them all back to the woods and
let
> >> them chase little furry animals.
> >>
>
>
>
Tim
than Union of Soviet Socialist Republics or the Russian Soviet Socialist
Republic.
> >Ignorant liberals will not face the facts that Reagan did cause the
downfall
> >of communist russia.
>
> Most educated people, liberal or conservative, know that there was
> never any such country as communist russia.
Eric Chomko
: Eric Chomko wrote in message <6p17cb$3...@nnrp2.farm.idt.net>...
: >
: >The USSR would have imploded, and it would look like what we have today.
: >Regan did nothing.
: >
: And this comes from the person that said that Reagan never said :
: 'Mr Gorbachev, tear down this wall.'
Yeah, after it was half way down by the East and West Germans
: Hey, Mr. Lack O'Credibility, got any more good ones ? LOL
Hey I never said Reagan would pass up a good photo op.
Eric
Eric Chomko
: It's from your garden : A large zuchini and 2 tomatoes....
More like a piece of okra and two raisins.
Eric
Eric Chomko
: Eric Chomko wrote in message <6p17j6$3...@nnrp2.farm.idt.net>...
[...]
: >
: >And not Bush?! Surely, you are a moron! Reagan's great legacy surly would
: >have Bush win a second term. Didn't happen? Then I guess we never had a
: >the great Reagan legacy. I want to hear his kids tell the story.....
: >
: Why do you keep bringing up his kids?
Beacuse if he is so great, then why do his kids hate him?
: Is that all you have?
No, Bush ran policy for 12 years.
: Apparently it is.
Oh, yes...you are still a moron.
Eric
Eric Chomko
: On 21 Jul 1998 04:53:26 GMT, Eric Chomko <cho...@IDT.NET> wrote:
: >I wa wondering how would answer this one. Corbett, you?! ok. He switched
: >after he made his first million. If you don't own a million $$$, then you
: >should be a democrat!
: How do you explain Kennedy, Rubin, Kerry, Rockefeller,......
There are liberal republicans, too.
: >Table? Where is the Reagan book? Oh that's right, Reagan is nuts...I mean
: >he suffers from Altzheimers (gotta be politically correct on this one).
: Alzheimer's disease makes a person "nuts"? Wow! Did your criminal
: relatives teach you that?
No his kids say that he's nuts.
: >Where is the Reagan Book? There isn't one? From his colleagues? Nothing!
: >That's right, no one could keep that great story straight. Why? IT NEVER
: >FUCKING OCCURRED. Better, let's here his kids tell it?!
: His legacy will be more fondly remembered than *your* president's.
My president? Well, we will see about that. It's not over yet.
: >
: >Cheap shot?! Ask their kids!!
: Which one?
Any of them. They are already bickering over who will get what when RR
kicks.
: >Nothing happened, except that Reagan's kids have always said that their
: >dad is an asshole. What else?
: No. His daughter was the only one who *strayed* but she came *back*
: in the past few years and reconciled with them both.
Do THEY say he won the Cold War?
: >Where the hell is their book describing how their dad won the Cold War.
: >Hell, I can write one and you don't even know my dad's first name!
: Dick?
Nope.
Eric
Michael Beck
<DeadREDCo...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>Sandbox? I ask for written examples just so I can see for myself and you
>recoil back with some offensive? Fuck you. First off, you're strategys
>weak and your mind is that of the consistancy and effectiveness of tapioca.
> Lay off the porno and stop calling me kid because from where I stand you
>don't sound any older than I.
snip
How old would that be? Eleven? Twelve?
Seriously, you come across like a cocky, know-it-all college
sophomore. That's why your views are so sophomoric.
p.s., have you ever held a *real* job?
Michael Beck
>In alt.politics.org.cia DeZyN <creative...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>: Eat this...
>: It's from your garden : A large zuchini and 2 tomatoes....
>
>More like a piece of okra and two raisins.
>
>Eric
or two capers and a grain of rice......
Michael Beck
>In alt.politics.org.cia DeZyN <creative...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>
>: Eric Chomko wrote in message <6p17j6$3...@nnrp2.farm.idt.net>...
>[...]
>: >
>: >And not Bush?! Surely, you are a moron! Reagan's great legacy surly would
>: >have Bush win a second term. Didn't happen? Then I guess we never had a
>: >the great Reagan legacy. I want to hear his kids tell the story.....
>: >
>
>
>: Why do you keep bringing up his kids?
>
>Beacuse if he is so great, then why do his kids hate him?
They don't. Where do you get that?
>
>: Is that all you have?
>
>No, Bush ran policy for 12 years.
>
>: Apparently it is.
>
>Oh, yes...you are still a moron.
>
>Eric
By the way, if Hillary is so great, why does her husband chase after
all those *other* women?
John LaBrecque
>
> In alt.politics.org.cia John LaBrecque <JI...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
> : DeZyN wrote:
> : >
> : > Why do you keep bringing up his kids?
> : >
>
> : Because Chumpko, like Reagan's kids, live in the shadow of his father's
> : accomplishments.
>
> what my father did. And my dad did not put pressure on me to either. Can
> the same be said for you and your son?
>
Actually, I tried to convince my son to look into the Navy or the Air
Force when he told me he wanted to go into the service after he got his
degree. He then told me that he wanted to serve his country and wanted
to be part of "The Brotherhood" even if it meant for him to work harder
to get what he wanted out of the service. When I went in, it was a
given that military service was part of the picture after high school or
college (unless you got a deferment). We should be very proud of those
that choose to serve in any branch of the armed forces today. Don't ask
me to explain what the "Brotherhood" is to you. It's something that
non-Marines and people like you could never understand.
Michael Beck
>snip
>: His legacy will be more fondly remembered than *your* president's.
>
>My president? Well, we will see about that. It's not over yet.
>
He'll *never* be *my* president.
A Corbett
> Based on 1993 tax returns, the top 1% earned $185,791 or higher. This group
> paid about 30% of all income taxes. If you apply a 100% rate to all income
> above $200k, you can pretty much guarantee that no will make more than 200k
> unless by accident. Why would they bother, they wouldn't get any of it. Any
> ideas how we'll make up for the loss of tax revenue?
Or any idea how small business would stay afloat?
A Corbett
flada
Eric Chomko wrote in message <6p04af$a...@nnrp1.farm.idt.net>...
>: Clinton Administration? Obviously it's a brain dead liberal. The Reagan
>
>
Reagan may ahve been a Dem, but he changed parties as soon as he realized
that his ideals could not support the Dems crazy socialist philosophy.
>: years were the best this country has ever seen. The longest peace time
>: expansion in history and the downfall of communism and the cold war are
just
>: a couple of the great achievments of Reagan.
>
>Reagan did not end the Cold War. The USSR fell due to a number of factors,
>mostly domestic problems.
>
>: As for the debt, you have the
>: democrats to blame more than Reagan. Although Reagan does share in the
>: blame, the democrats never, ever, sent Reagan a balanced budget. Also,
they
>: never delivered on the $2 spending cut for each additonal new dollar
spent.
>: I, for one, believe that defeating communism was a much bigger problem in
>: which we had to spend money for.
>
>Defeating communism didn't require us to do anything. It's just something
>the Republicans want to feel good about. The nukes didn't go away and
>neither did the threat.
>
The nukes didn't go away? I could have sworn during Billnochio's last
campaign (Presidential, I mean, I guess he still campaigns) he stated that
there were no nukes pointed at our children... guess that's another
Billnochio lie.
>Eric
Donald L Ferry
>Reagan may ahve been a Dem, but he changed parties as soon as he realized
>that his ideals could not support the Dems crazy socialist philosophy.
Reaggy Boy changed parties when he sniffed out where the real money
was!
Spirit
> > you're not a Liberal when you're young you don't have a heart.
> > brain."
>
> Well, as a young Conservative I must say that I'd rather be accused of not having a
> heart than not having a brain!
> A Corbett
The actual quote(a favorite of mine) is as follows:
If you are 18 and not liberal, you have no heart. But if you are 40 and
not conservative, you have no brain.
Another I like is from Ecclesiastes 10:2 The heart of the wise inclines
to the right, but the heart of the fool to the left.
-Spirit-
--I used to just despise the Clintons, now I despise their supporters--
DeZyN
Gipper wrote in message <6p31ni$mnu$1...@news-1.news.gte.net>...
>Sorc...@nsm.htp.org wrote:
>> On Mon, 20 Jul 1998 18:32:56 -0400 A Corbett <ae...@gte.net> wrote:
>> >> Reagan did not end the Cold War. The USSR fell due to a number of
factors,
>> >> mostly domestic problems.
>> >
That's just
>> >naturaly follows too many years in an ill-designed communist system, and
he didn't "end
>> >the Cold War". However, his policy of peace-through-strength gave the
USSR the
>> >incentive to cut down on nuclear proliferation and come to the
bargaining table.
>>
>> But it's going to get you drummed out of the VRWC :-)
>
>And who said I was ever part of a VRWC?
>A Corbett
>
HilLIARy said it.
Spirit
Actually, he sniffed out the difference between the party of rights and
liberty and the party of corruption and socialism. You really should
study history a bit more before you make such an ass of yourself.
DeZyN
Michael Beck wrote in message <35b7b891...@enews.newsguy.com>...
>On 21 Jul 1998 14:15:35 GMT, Eric Chomko <cho...@IDT.NET> wrote:
>
>>In alt.politics.org.cia DeZyN <creative...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>>: It's from your garden : A large zuchini and 2 tomatoes....
>>
>>More like a piece of okra and two raisins.
>>
>>Eric
>or two capers and a grain of rice......
or 2 nutrons and 1 proton....
DeZyN
Eric Chomko wrote in message <6p2810$d...@nnrp2.farm.idt.net>...
>: >
>: >The USSR would have imploded, and it would look like what we have today.
>: >Regan did nothing.
>: >
>
>: And this comes from the person that said that Reagan never said :
>: 'Mr Gorbachev, tear down this wall.'
>
>Yeah, after it was half way down by the East and West Germans
>
Again, your lack of exposure to reality is evident.
The East German border was never 1/2 way down.
I pulled enough guard on that border to know that much.
How do you make armed guards and minefields 1/2 way?
You are laughable...
DeZyN
Gipper wrote in message <6p32a0$btj$1...@news-1.news.gte.net>...
>Eric Chomko wrote:
>> Beacuse if he is so great, then why do his kids hate him?
>
she hated any
>idea that wasn't thought up at Woodstock. His kids love him alot. Most of
the family
>troubles were caused by Nancy who couldn't seem to get along with anyone
but her
>husband. Don't mess with me on this area (Reagan's life) Chomko... I've
researched it
>alot!
>A Corbett
>
If chumpko had .001% of a brain he'd listen to Michael Reagan tonight on
talk radio, just to hear him mention his dad again.
But that would prove that he DOES approve of his dad, and it would make
chumpko a LIAR...again.
DeZyN
Carl J. Hudecek wrote in message <6p1pbi$p...@sjx-ixn10.ix.netcom.com>...
>
> The tax rates for millionaires were over NINETY percent, and
>believe me, it WORKED. There was no incentive to rape the customers.
>
> We had our greatest growth with these rates in effect.
>
> What we need is a 110% tax on ALL INCOME ABOVE $200 K. That fixes
>EVERY remaining USA economic problem, and cuts the price of tickets
>to the ball game to $5.
>
Old Czech proverb:
When the gov't rules get tougher, the citizens get sneakier.
>******************************************************************
>
>In <35b3f...@newsman.viper.net> "ROCS" <ro...@entercomp.com> writes:
>>
>>Reagan may have been a democrat early in his life; however, he was not
>a
>>liberal. Back in those days democrats were not the bleeding heart,
>tax &
>>spend, and big government radicals that they are now. The main
>reason he
>>had to change parties was because he realized that the democrats
>punished
>>achievment. They did this with tax rates of up to 70 percent.
>>
>>If you recall, when Reagan came into office the Soviet Union was the
>>strongest and most dangerous country on earth. Had it not been for
>the arms
>>race and Reagan's strong leadership there is no telling what would
>have
>>happened.
>>
>>Robert
>>
>>
>>Eric Chomko wrote in message <6p04af$a...@nnrp1.farm.idt.net>...
>>>In alt.politics.org.cia ROCS <ro...@entercomp.com> wrote:
>>>: What idiot even dared try to compare the Reagan Administration with
>the
>>>: Clinton Administration? Obviously it's a brain dead liberal. The
>Reagan
>>>
>>>Reagan was a liberal the first half of his life. Did you know that?
>>>
>>>: years were the best this country has ever seen. The longest peace
>time
>>>: expansion in history and the downfall of communism and the cold war
>are
>>just
>>>: a couple of the great achievments of Reagan.
>>>
>>>Reagan did not end the Cold War. The USSR fell due to a number of
>factors,
>>>mostly domestic problems.
>>>
>>>: As for the debt, you have the
>>>: democrats to blame more than Reagan. Although Reagan does share in
>the
>>>: blame, the democrats never, ever, sent Reagan a balanced budget.
>Also,
>>they
>>>: never delivered on the $2 spending cut for each additonal new
>dollar
>>spent.
>>>: I, for one, believe that defeating communism was a much bigger
>problem in
>>>: which we had to spend money for.
>>>
>>>Defeating communism didn't require us to do anything. It's just
>something
>>>the Republicans want to feel good about. The nukes didn't go away and
>>>neither did the threat.
>>>
>>>Eric
>>
>>
>
DeZyN
John LaBrecque wrote in message <6p2ivp$6...@bgtnsc03.worldnet.att.net>...
>Eric Chomko wrote:
>>
>> In alt.politics.org.cia John LaBrecque <JI...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>> : DeZyN wrote:
>> : >
>> : > Why do you keep bringing up his kids?
>> : > Is that all you have?
>> : > Apparently it is.
>> : >
>>
>> : Because Chumpko, like Reagan's kids, live in the shadow of his father's
>> : accomplishments.
>>
>> Nope, I got my degree and job all by myself. I did not feel the need to
do
>> what my father did. And my dad did not put pressure on me to either. Can
>> the same be said for you and your son?
>>
>Actually, I tried to convince my son to look into the Navy or the Air
>Force when he told me he wanted to go into the service after he got his
>degree. He then told me that he wanted to serve his country and wanted
>to be part of "The Brotherhood" even if it meant for him to work harder
>to get what he wanted out of the service. When I went in, it was a
>given that military service was part of the picture after high school or
>college (unless you got a deferment). We should be very proud of those
>that choose to serve in any branch of the armed forces today. Don't ask
>me to explain what the "Brotherhood" is to you. It's something that
>non-Marines and people like you could never understand.
>
Very true, cept the Marine part.
I was Army and I know what you mean about brotherhood.
Unit cohesion.
Essayons et Faisons !!
75th Ranger Battalion
Bad Tolz, Germany
DeZyN
Eric Chomko wrote in message <6p2bki$d...@nnrp2.farm.idt.net>...
>In alt.politics.org.cia John LaBrecque <JI...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>: DeZyN wrote:
>: >
>: > Why do you keep bringing up his kids?
>: > Is that all you have?
>: > Apparently it is.
>: >
>
>: Because Chumpko, like Reagan's kids, live in the shadow of his father's
>: accomplishments.
>
>Nope, I got my degree and job all by myself. I did not feel the need to do
>what my father did. And my dad did not put pressure on me to either. Can
>the same be said for you and your son?
>
You still live in his shadow.
>
>: --
DeZyN
flada wrote in message <6p31tu$3fl$1...@holly.prod.itd.earthlink.net>...
>
>Eric Chomko wrote in message <6p04af$a...@nnrp1.farm.idt.net>...
>>In alt.politics.org.cia ROCS <ro...@entercomp.com> wrote:
>>: What idiot even dared try to compare the Reagan Administration with the
>>: Clinton Administration? Obviously it's a brain dead liberal. The
Reagan
>>
>>Reagan was a liberal the first half of his life. Did you know that?
>>
>
>that his ideals could not support the Dems crazy socialist philosophy.
>
>>: expansion in history and the downfall of communism and the cold war are
>just
>>: a couple of the great achievments of Reagan.
>>
>>Reagan did not end the Cold War. The USSR fell due to a number of factors,
>>mostly domestic problems.
>>
>>: As for the debt, you have the
>>: democrats to blame more than Reagan. Although Reagan does share in the
>>: blame, the democrats never, ever, sent Reagan a balanced budget. Also,
>they
>>: never delivered on the $2 spending cut for each additonal new dollar
>spent.
>>: I, for one, believe that defeating communism was a much bigger problem
in
>>: which we had to spend money for.
>>
>>Defeating communism didn't require us to do anything. It's just something
>>the Republicans want to feel good about. The nukes didn't go away and
>>neither did the threat.
>>
>
>campaign (Presidential, I mean, I guess he still campaigns) he stated that
>there were no nukes pointed at our children... guess that's another
>Billnochio lie.
>
I heard that artist Brett Livingston Strong was assigned by the US gov't to
assemble dissembled Russian ICBM's into a giant sculptor honoring peace
between the Us and the USSR. It looks like 2 human arms intertwined 100 feet
tall holding the earth. Brett is an amazing artist. I also heard that Michae
l Jackson is partially funding this project. This info is from a press
release from 'Gallery Rodeo' art gallery in Beverly Hills.
DeZyN
Donald L Ferry wrote in message <35b5222...@news.mindspring.com>...
>"flada" <fladan...@jersey.net> wrote:
>
>>Reagan may ahve been a Dem, but he changed parties as soon as he realized
>>that his ideals could not support the Dems crazy socialist philosophy.
>
>was!
and liberals think that anyone that has some money should give it to
them....
Q.
Know how to spot a liberal in a crowd?
A.
They are the ones with their hand in your ASS POCKET !!!
DeZyN
DeadCosmonautJim wrote in message <6p27fh$k...@bgtnsc03.worldnet.att.net>...
>Sandbox? I ask for written examples just so I can see for myself and you
>recoil back with some offensive? Fuck you. First off, you're strategys
>weak and your mind is that of the consistancy and effectiveness of tapioca.
> Lay off the porno and stop calling me kid because from where I stand you
>don't sound any older than I.
>
And what do you do, you come back and reinforce what I have said.
Your mentality is childlike, so....get back to your sandbox....and STAY
THERE !!!!
Til you grow another braincell...
>DeZyN <creative...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in article
><6op395$f...@bgtnsc02.worldnet.att.net>...
>>
>> DeadCosmonautJim wrote in message
><6oc1gj$k...@bgtnsc03.worldnet.att.net>...
>> >How about backing up your statements with given examples or are you just
>> >ranting off?
>> >
>>
>>
>> Why bother ? Everyone is already familiar with those people and their
>deeds.
>> Oh, I get it.
>> We are supposed to supply these documented examples and then you stomp on
>> em, huh?
>> Go back to your sand box and play, little child.
>>
>>
>>
>> >HOOVER <ho...@global.net> wrote in article <35A8EE...@global.net>...
>> >> Has there ever been a bigger bunch of losers in an administration.
>> >> We've had to put up with these bunch of boobs now for six years, when
>> >> will it ever end?
>> >> Ron "The only reason I didn't end up in prison was because of a plane
>> >> crash" Brown; Donna "Dwarf Woman" Shalala (where the hell did Billy
>Bob
>> >> ever find this loser??); Warren "the senile old fart" Christopher;
>the
>> >> list goes on. The only one with any credibility at all has been
>William
>> >> Cohen, and he's a Republican.
>> >> Add all of the southern, redneck hicks lounging around the White House
>> >> (not to mention James "Serpent Head" Carville) and it's like a
>> >> never-ending freak show in D.C. Send them all back to the woods and
>let
>> >> them chase little furry animals.
>> >>
>>
>>
>>
A Corbett
> Another I like is from Ecclesiastes 10:2 The heart of the wise inclines
> to the right, but the heart of the fool to the left.
> -Spirit-
A few verses down is another great political verse: "If the spirit of the ruler rise up
against theee, leave not they place; for yielding pacifieth great offences."
A Corbett
JRStern
>The USSR would have imploded, and it would look like what we have today.
>Regan did nothing.
And that was just what was called for -- nothing, done noisily.
J.
John LaBrecque
It's too bad that Ford squeaked out a win against Reagan (at the
convention) to run against Jimmy (I lusted in my heart) Carter. I think
Reagan would have won against Carter and the nation's recovery process
and the fall of communism would have started four years earlier. We
also would not have had a failed hostage rescue attempt.
John LaBrecque
>
> Donald L Ferry wrote:
> >
> > "flada" <fladan...@jersey.net> wrote:
> >
> > >Reagan may ahve been a Dem, but he changed parties as soon as he realized
> > >that his ideals could not support the Dems crazy socialist philosophy.
> >
> > Reaggy Boy changed parties when he sniffed out where the real money
> > was!
>
> liberty and the party of corruption and socialism. You really should
> study history a bit more before you make such an ass of yourself.
>
> -Spirit-
>
> --I used to just despise the Clintons, now I despise their supporters--
Could it be that Reagan just decided that he did not want to be in a
party where the top leaders felt that rank and privilege made them
exempt from the law and good behavior? Around that time we had a
president that cheated on his wife about every three days or so and had
a brother that, later on, got away with vehicular homicide while DUI.
The same party that gave us a president that has involked more
privileges than any president in history.
Eric Chomko
[...]
: >
: > Nope, I got my degree and job all by myself. I did not feel the need to do
: > what my father did. And my dad did not put pressure on me to either. Can
: > the same be said for you and your son?
: Actually, I tried to convince my son to look into the Navy or the Air
: Force when he told me he wanted to go into the service after he got his
: degree. He then told me that he wanted to serve his country and wanted
: to be part of "The Brotherhood" even if it meant for him to work harder
: to get what he wanted out of the service. When I went in, it was a
: given that military service was part of the picture after high school or
: college (unless you got a deferment). We should be very proud of those
: that choose to serve in any branch of the armed forces today. Don't ask
: me to explain what the "Brotherhood" is to you. It's something that
: non-Marines and people like you could never understand.
Oh, I know what it means. Sounds kind of like Bush's Skull and Bones from
Yale or perhaps the Freemasons. Call me a rogue but I have no use for
gangs and gang mentality.
Eric
: --
Eric Chomko
: Eric Chomko wrote:
: > Beacuse if he is so great, then why do his kids hate him?
: His kids DO NOT hate him, man. Patty hated his _policy_. But then again, she hated any
: idea that wasn't thought up at Woodstock. His kids love him alot. Most of the family
: troubles were caused by Nancy who couldn't seem to get along with anyone but her
: husband. Don't mess with me on this area (Reagan's life) Chomko... I've researched it
: alot!
Just because you've researched it doesn't mean your interpretation of the
facts is correct. Reagan was a studge for Bush. Bush cut a deal with Iran
at the height of the hostage crisis and it cost Carter his re-election. In
my book that's treason. And the whole Iran/Contra thing, well if he didn't
know, then I'd say that that is just about as bad as knowing and condoning
it.
Eric
Eric Chomko
: > after he made his first million. If you don't own a million $$$, then you
: > should be a democrat!
: Hell, they make clothes to fit fat people and clothes to fit thin people. Why not have
: two parties to fit two classes of people? Only makes sense.
: 80% of the taxes are paid by the top 20% of the population... just doesn't seem right
Your little statistic, does it include corporate taxes or only taxes
related to individuals?
: when you're on top. But then, it doesn't seem right to have to struggle at the bottom
: when you work just as hard. I know, I've been on the bottom and top... things just look
: different depending on where you're standing.
When corporations become more international enities rather than domestic
(American) enitites, they fight like hell to pay less tax. And unless you
leave the country you have to make up for it. Yet you'd blame the
govvernment. The GOP sucks up to corporations that are basically saying
"screw America".
: > Table? Where is the Reagan book? Oh that's right, Reagan is nuts...I mean
: > he suffers from Altzheimers (gotta be politically correct on this one).
: > Where is the Reagan Book? There isn't one? From his colleagues? Nothing!
: > That's right, no one could keep that great story straight. Why? IT NEVER
: > FUCKING OCCURRED. Better, let's here his kids tell it?!
: > Cheap shot?! Ask their kids!!
: > Where the hell is their book describing how their dad won the Cold War.
: > Hell, I can write one and you don't even know my dad's first name!
: Let's keep this discussion clear... What "never fucking occurred"? The bargaining
The winning of the Cold War. The dismantling of the former USSR is not
some kind of great victory of ours.
: table? Because I'm afraid it's a historical fact that we bargained with the Soviets in
: the 80's. And why would his kids be the best ones to tell his story? What the hell do
: they know? They smoked pot and ballet danced while their dad was working his ass of to
: prevent nuclear war. BTW, there was a documentary on TV a couple months ago (PBS, I
: think) in which Ron spoke out about his father. He remains very proud of his
: father's accomplishments.
My point is that the GOP is jumping through hoops trying to make Reagan
somekind of great president when in reality he really didn't have a clue.
The renaing of National Airport is a joke. The man's not even dead yet.
His kids are jockeying for position to get his estate.
Many pro-Reagan conservatives are anti-Clinton types for no other reason.
Eric
Eric Chomko
: > So was I. There is a famous quote (Winston Churchill?): "If
: > you're not a Liberal when you're young you don't have a heart.
: > if you're not a Conservative when you grow up you don't have a
: > brain."
: Well, as a young Conservative I must say that I'd rather be accused of not having a
: heart than not having a brain!
I'm sure that you would. I rest my case.
Eric
Eric Chomko
: Eric Chomko wrote in message <6p04af$a...@nnrp1.farm.idt.net>...
: >In alt.politics.org.cia ROCS <ro...@entercomp.com> wrote:
: >: What idiot even dared try to compare the Reagan Administration with the
: >: Clinton Administration? Obviously it's a brain dead liberal. The Reagan
: >
: >Reagan was a liberal the first half of his life. Did you know that?
: >
: Reagan may ahve been a Dem, but he changed parties as soon as he realized
: that his ideals could not support the Dems crazy socialist philosophy.
No, according to George Murphy, former California senator, Reagan switched
after he made his first million. It had nothing to do with idels or
philosophy.
: >
: >Defeating communism didn't require us to do anything. It's just something
: >the Republicans want to feel good about. The nukes didn't go away and
: >neither did the threat.
: >
: The nukes didn't go away? I could have sworn during Billnochio's last
: campaign (Presidential, I mean, I guess he still campaigns) he stated that
: there were no nukes pointed at our children... guess that's another
: Billnochio lie.
Wasn't he referring to China? Not that I believe him about that.
Eric
Eric Chomko
: Eric Chomko wrote in message <6p2810$d...@nnrp2.farm.idt.net>...
: >
: >: And this comes from the person that said that Reagan never said :
: >: 'Mr Gorbachev, tear down this wall.'
: >
: >Yeah, after it was half way down by the East and West Germans
: >
: Again, your lack of exposure to reality is evident.
: The East German border was never 1/2 way down.
Who siad anything about the border. I was talking about the Berlin Wall!
: I pulled enough guard on that border to know that much.
Somehow I picture you walking off demerits instead.
: How do you make armed guards and minefields 1/2 way?
What the hell are you talking about? I'm talking about the wall and you're
off the wall....lol
: You are laughable...
Yes, but you have the clownsuit on!
Eric
Eric Chomko
Called for? Called for, for what? To win? What did we win? Spoils?????
Eric
: J.
Eric Chomko
: Very true, cept the Marine part.
: I was Army and I know what you mean about brotherhood.
: Unit cohesion.
: Essayons et Faisons !!
: 75th Ranger Battalion
: Bad Tolz, Germany
So you were in Germany. Well so was I. Did you learn anything while you
were there, or just wait for your time to get short and get your ass back
to the "world"??
Somehow, I think you missed Germany.
Eric
Eric Chomko
: It's too bad that Ford squeaked out a win against Reagan (at the
: convention) to run against Jimmy (I lusted in my heart) Carter. I think
: Reagan would have won against Carter and the nation's recovery process
: and the fall of communism would have started four years earlier. We
: also would not have had a failed hostage rescue attempt.
John,
What did we win with this "fall of communism" as you put it?
Eric
Eric Chomko
: party where the top leaders felt that rank and privilege made them
: exempt from the law and good behavior? Around that time we had a
: president that cheated on his wife about every three days or so and had
: a brother that, later on, got away with vehicular homicide while DUI.
: The same party that gave us a president that has involked more
: privileges than any president in history.
And then got shot by a cabell of right wingers. Do you support that
notion? Would you say it's justifiable to whack Clinton, now? Blame it on
some loser, all for the ends which you and your ilk deem fit? IS THAT HOW
YOUR MIND WORKS, LeBrecque? I'll tell you, you'd better hope there's no
God.
Eric
A Corbett
> Just because you've researched it doesn't mean your interpretation of the
> facts is correct. Reagan was a studge for Bush. Bush cut a deal with Iran
> at the height of the hostage crisis and it cost Carter his re-election. In
> my book that's treason. And the whole Iran/Contra thing, well if he didn't
> know, then I'd say that that is just about as bad as knowing and condoning
> it.
> Eric
However, my educated assumptions would naturally have more validity than your uneducated
guesses... both assumptions nonetheless (I'll give you that). Little late to be
charging him of treason don't you think? Besides, the courts with the responsibility to
investigate the executive branch seem to be a little busy these days! *S*
A Corbett (previously "Gipper" by accident)
A Corbett
> And then got shot by a cabell of right wingers. Do you support that
> notion? Would you say it's justifiable to whack Clinton, now? Blame it on
> some loser, all for the ends which you and your ilk deem fit? IS THAT HOW
> YOUR MIND WORKS, LeBrecque? I'll tell you, you'd better hope there's no
> God.
Who was shot by right wingers? I know you're not talking about JFK!
A Corbett