Say goodbye to the internet as we know it
in [Golf]
|
From: Carbon on 12 Aug 2010 10:37 On Thu, 12 Aug 2010 07:11:58 -0500, Moderate wrote: > "William Clark" <wclark2(a)colnospamumbus.rr.com> wrote in message > news:wclark2-45211A.19495111082010(a)charm.magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu... >> In article >> <2136368492303258134.769901nospam-nomail.com(a)news.suddenlink.net>, >> Moderate <nospam(a)nomail.com> wrote: >>> William Clark <wclark2(a)colnospamumbus.rr.com> wrote: >>>> In article <i3ud1o$la$1(a)speranza.aioe.org>, "Moderate" >>>> <no_spam_(a)no_mail.com> wrote: >>>>> "R&B" <none_of_your_business(a)all.com> wrote in message >>>>> news:2010081023240999746-noneofyourbusiness(a)allcom... >>>>> >>>>>> Actually, you're wrong. This is one more place where the left >>>>>> and right differs. While the right likes to "stand by their man" >>>>>> even when he's demonstrably behaving like an idiot, the left will >>>>>> not hesitate to call out their leaders when their leaders fail to >>>>>> do what we elected them to do. >>>>> >>>>> So sayeth the Bill Clinton apologists. >>>> >>>> Er, I think Clinton was elected to make life better by creating a >>>> strong economy for Americans to enjoy. That he palpably did, so he >>>> justified the support and there is nothing to apologize for. The >>>> fact that your boy pissed it all away within eight years still >>>> sticks in your craw. >>>> >>>> The Lewinski nonsense was just the GoP hypocrites (yes, that's you >>>> Mssrs. Gingrich, Burton, etc.) trying to bring him down by whatever >>>> means they could. >>> >>> Thanks for perfectly making my point. I knew you would not >>> disappoint :-) >> >> We aim to please. Too bad you didn't actually have a point - at >> least, not one supported by any cogent facts. > > You are my fact as well as several others who have posted in this > thread. > > Now I would agree that there is not much point in pointing out an > error in one of RB's posts, but this one was a slow pitch right over > the center of the plate. It was an easy homer. Well immoderate, why don't you spell it out for everyone? If you've forgotten, the argument was that Clinton was an effective President even though he tried to screw everything that moved and then lied about it. You see, among the sane his behavior was seen as douchey but not nearly as bad as misleading the country into a war that so far has cost hundreds of billions of dollars and thousands of lives. Or his "let's cut taxes and print more money" economic policies. Or their endless bungling of their handling of detainees. Et cetera.
From: Carbon on 12 Aug 2010 10:39 On Thu, 12 Aug 2010 09:28:02 -0400, William Clark wrote: > In article <i40oeb$8tr$1(a)speranza.aioe.org>, "Moderate" > <no_spam_(a)no_mail.com> wrote: >> "William Clark" <wclark2(a)colnospamumbus.rr.com> wrote in message >> news:wclark2-45211A.19495111082010(a)charm.magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu... >>> In article >>> <2136368492303258134.769901nospam-nomail.com(a)news.suddenlink.net>, >>> Moderate <nospam(a)nomail.com> wrote: >>>> William Clark <wclark2(a)colnospamumbus.rr.com> wrote: >>>>> In article <i3ud1o$la$1(a)speranza.aioe.org>, "Moderate" >>>>> <no_spam_(a)no_mail.com> wrote: >>>>>> "R&B" <none_of_your_business(a)all.com> wrote in message >>>>>> news:2010081023240999746-noneofyourbusiness(a)allcom... >>>>>> >>>>>>> Actually, you're wrong. This is one more place where the left >>>>>>> and right differs. While the right likes to "stand by their >>>>>>> man" even when he's demonstrably behaving like an idiot, the >>>>>>> left will not hesitate to call out their leaders when their >>>>>>> leaders fail to do what we elected them to do. >>>>>> >>>>>> So sayeth the Bill Clinton apologists. >>>>> >>>>> Er, I think Clinton was elected to make life better by creating a >>>>> strong economy for Americans to enjoy. That he palpably did, so he >>>>> justified the support and there is nothing to apologize for. The >>>>> fact that your boy pissed it all away within eight years still >>>>> sticks in your craw. >>>>> >>>>> The Lewinski nonsense was just the GoP hypocrites (yes, that's you >>>>> Mssrs. Gingrich, Burton, etc.) trying to bring him down by >>>>> whatever means they could. >>>> >>>> Thanks for perfectly making my point. I knew you would not >>>> disappoint :-) >>> >>> We aim to please. Too bad you didn't actually have a point - at >>> least, not one supported by any cogent facts. >> >> You are my fact as well as several others who have posted in this >> thread. >> >> Now I would agree that there is not much point in pointing out an >> error in one of RB's posts, but this one was a slow pitch right over >> the center of the plate. It was an easy homer. > > Which gives a glaring insight into what passes for your IQ. It was certified by the internet.
From: Carbon on 12 Aug 2010 10:40 On Thu, 12 Aug 2010 09:25:37 -0400, William Clark wrote: > In article <MPG.26cda612db1c1bdd98a1e9(a)news.giganews.com>, BAR > <screw(a)you.com> wrote: >> In article <wclark2-9C5AF0.21495411082010(a)charm.magnus.acs.ohio- >> state.edu>, wclark2(a)colnospamumbus.rr.com says... >> >>> No, but in the great scheme of things there are far more important >>> transgressions. Like send several thousand of our young men to die >>> in a war justified by a pack of lies. >> >> At least he qualifed to be President. > > Meaning what? His legacy admission to Yale? Ol' Bert must be a birther. Figures.
From: bknight on 12 Aug 2010 10:46 On Thu, 12 Aug 2010 09:27:23 -0500, "MNMikeW" <MNMiikkew(a)aol.com> wrote: > >"William Clark" <wclark2(a)colnospamumbus.rr.com> wrote >> So you do admit that Dubya was not competent. Good, after all this time. > >Dems must not be either as we have no budget this year. > Unfortunate, but true. BK
From: Moderate on 12 Aug 2010 10:47
"Carbon" <nobrac(a)nospam.tampabay.rr.com> wrote in message news:4c64047e$0$4972$9a6e19ea(a)unlimited.newshosting.com... > On Thu, 12 Aug 2010 06:54:55 -0500, Moderate wrote: >> "Carbon" <nobrac(a)nospam.tampabay.rr.com> wrote in message >> news:4c634830$0$14243$9a6e19ea(a)unlimited.newshosting.com... >>> On Wed, 11 Aug 2010 20:56:16 -0400, BAR wrote: >>>> In article <wclark2-D02BAB.19501711082010(a)charm.magnus.acs.ohio- >>>> state.edu>, wclark2(a)colnospamumbus.rr.com says... >>>>> In article <4c631edb$0$4846$9a6e19ea(a)unlimited.newshosting.com>, >>>>> Carbon <nobrac(a)nospam.tampabay.rr.com> wrote: >>>>>> On Wed, 11 Aug 2010 15:44:16 -0500, bknight wrote: >>>>>>> On Wed, 11 Aug 2010 12:46:47 -0700 (PDT), dsc-ky >>>>>>> <Dudley.Cornman(a)eku.edu> wrote: >>>>>>>> On Aug 11, 3:18� pm, "Moderate" <no_spam_(a)no_mail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>> "R&B" <none_of_your_busin...(a)all.com> wrote in message >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> You want an apology for eight years of prosperity? >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Eight years of prosperity? � I guess you forgot about Clinton's >>>>>>>>> recession in 2000. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Times were pretty good in the Clinton years (for whatever reason - >>>>>>>> just pure luck most likely). >>>>>>> >>>>>>> The "recession" (commonly thought of as a non- recession because >>>>>>> it was hardly noticed) was actually in 2001. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/04_08/b3871044.htm >>>>>> >>>>>> Clinton was hardly perfect but he was a good President, especially >>>>>> compared to what came before and after. I don't care that he screwed >>>>>> his interns. I do care that, unlike either Bush, he actually managed >>>>>> to balance the budget. >>>>> >>>>> Or that he actually knew what a budget was. >>>> >>>> Balancing the budget is just a matter of accounting. Any competent >>>> accountant can "balance" a budget. >>> >>> If it's as easy as that the Republicans should hire some right away. >> >> Republican's haven't been in control of the budget for four years. >> There is no budget. > > You think Democrats were behind the Bush tax cuts and the quagmire in > the middle east? Wow. You really are paranoid. Tax revenue went up after the Bush tax cuts. Only one Democrat voted against the authorization to send troops. I don't think you understand what the word paranoid means. |