 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Car Forum / Toyota / Toyota Cars / February 2008(OT:) WHY didn't Condoleeza run?
She has what the voters want: she's black, so the Obama supporters will vote for her. She's a woman, so the Hillary supporters will vote for her. She's conservative, so the Republicans will vote for her. Not only that, she's so HOT she makes Hillary look like: http://www.funnyphotos.net.au/userimages/user756_1168230825.JPG > She has what the voters want: > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > http://www.funnyphotos.net.au/userimages/user756_1168230825.JPG She has never held any elected office at any level. Some people want to see that before they vote for a presidential candidate. >> She has what the voters want: >> [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > She has never held any elected office at any level. Some people want to > see that before they vote for a presidential candidate. Secretary of State is good for me! Fact is, NO Secratary of State has ever held the Presidency. Thomas Jefferson for one... Jack G. >>> She has what the voters want: >>> [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > Fact is, NO Secratary of State has ever held the Presidency. A quick search turned up these other Secretaries of State who became Presidents: James Madison, James Monroe, John Quincy Adams, Martin Van Buren and James Buchanan. Jack G > Thomas Jefferson for one... > > Jack G. > >> Fact is, NO Secratary of State has ever held the Presidency. > A quick search turned up these other Secretaries of State who became > Presidents: [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Jack G Wow. Thanks Jack. See what happens when you trust the Main Stream media? That's where I had heard no SoS had ever been President... >> Thomas Jefferson for one... >> >> Jack G. >> >>> Fact is, NO Secratary of State has ever held the Presidency. >> A quick search turned up these other Secretaries of State who became >> Presidents: [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] >>> >>>> Fact is, NO Secratary of State has ever held the Presidency. The mainstream media is chockful of liar LIEbrawls. No doubt they are brain damaged from listening to too much obscure ghetto dreck eh Sharky? Jack G. > The mainstream media is chockful of liar LIEbrawls. > No doubt they are brain damaged from listening to too much obscure ghetto > dreck eh Sharky? > > Jack G. No. Amy Wine'head'. >> The mainstream media is chockful of liar LIEbrawls. >>>> Thomas Jefferson for one... >>>> [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > The mainstream media is chockful of liar LIEbrawls. I believe you may be right. What else are they 'misreporting'? >> A quick search turned up these other Secretaries of State who became >> Presidents: [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > See what happens when you trust the Main Stream media? That's where I had > heard no SoS had ever been President... You should learn how to say "I don't know" and "I'm not sure". >> Wow. Thanks Jack. >> >> See what happens when you trust the Main Stream media? That's where I >> had heard no SoS had ever been President... > > You should learn how to say "I don't know" and "I'm not sure". Why? The Liberal Media told me no SoS had ever been elected President. Either NBC, NPR or CNN. Why should I doubt them? Why should *I* say "I don't know", when I have been given the information from what's supposed to be a 'reliable' source? Looks to me like the media in this country needs a revamping if they are to be trusted as being knowledgable. >>> Wow. Thanks Jack. >>> [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > Looks to me like the media in this country needs a revamping if they are > to be trusted as being knowledgable. When you wrote to the news source in question, what did they say? >>>> Wow. Thanks Jack. >>>> [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > When you wrote to the news source in question, what did they say? I don't remember who it was. Wish I did...I'd remove them from the selection. >>>>> Wow. Thanks Jack. >>>>> [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > > Wish I did...I'd remove them from the selection. Sure. >>>>>> Wow. Thanks Jack. >>>>>> [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > > Sure. Bite me. I don't have to lie about anything. If I said I heard it on the mainstream, I heard it on the mainstream. It may even have been Tim Russert. I can't recall. I don't have to make stuff up; the mainstream media is so stoopid just quoting them is good enough. > She has what the voters want: > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > http://www.funnyphotos.net.au/userimages/user756_1168230825.JPG Like so many other overly qualified people, I don't think she wants the job.  Signature"We're going to take things away from you on behalf of the common good." Hillary Clinton > Like so many other overly qualified people, I don't think she wants the job. Other than academic jobs, for what is she overqualified? > She has what the voters want: > > she's black, so the Obama supporters will vote for her. > She's a woman, so the Hillary supporters will vote for her. No stereotypes there in your thinking. > She's conservative, so the Republicans will vote for her. As conservative as a McCain Republican, meaning no enthusiasm from the rabid Bush/Reagan conservatives. > Not only that, she's so HOT she makes Hillary look like: > > http://www.funnyphotos.net.au/userimages/user756_1168230825.JPG Condi is so hot looking that when she walks into a room, all the guys turn their heads toward her and think, "wow, that woman sure is smart." The angry chipmunk face doesn't help her either. On Wed, 20 Feb 2008 03:38:10 -0800, manny wrote: >> She has what the voters want: >> >> she's black, so the Obama supporters will vote for her. She's a woman, >> so the Hillary supporters will vote for her. > > No stereotypes there in your thinking. It's a joke, I say, it's a *JOKE*, son! >> She's conservative, so the Republicans will vote for her. > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > their heads toward her and think, "wow, that woman sure is smart." The > angry chipmunk face doesn't help her either. > She has what the voters want: > > she's black, so the Obama supporters will vote for her. > She's a woman, so the Hillary supporters will vote for her. > She's conservative, so the Republicans will vote for her. Its a case of let "sleeping dogs lie." The last thing the Republicans want is to get their 9/11 *incompetence* (to put in mildly) back in the news. Like Gonzales and so many others touched by Bush and Rove, Condi is toast. Back to the oil business for her, and none too soon. http://thinkprogress.org/2008/01/30/zelikow-interfered/ >> She has what the voters want: >> [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > http://thinkprogress.org/2008/01/30/zelikow-interfered/ Hillary doesn't have any baggage? >>> She has what the voters want: >>> [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > Hillary doesn't have any baggage? Non Sequitur, but since you bring it up, not that kind. No one has *that* kind except the inner circle of the Bush Admin. >> Its a case of let "sleeping dogs lie." The last thing the Republicans >> want is to get their 9/11 *incompetence* (to put in mildly) back in the [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >> >> http://thinkprogress.org/2008/01/30/zelikow-interfered/ Rice never worked in the oil business. She has previously served on the board of directors for the Chevron Corporation, the Charles Schwab Corporation, the William and Flora Hewlett Foundation, the University of Notre Dame, the International Advisory Council of J.P. Morgan and the San Francisco Symphony Board of Governors. Before her government service she was Stanford University 's Provost (this is above the level of University President). Prior to that she was professor of political science on the Stanford faculty since 1981 It is incredible the number of lies that the left spreads about people. Have you no shame? >>> Its a case of let "sleeping dogs lie." The last thing the Republicans >>> want is to get their 9/11 *incompetence* (to put in mildly) back in the [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > Rice never worked in the oil business. She has previously served on the > board of directors for the Chevron Corporation I see, and what business is Chevron in? And the Bush family? And why is a Chevron oil tanker named after her? Does that suggest a conflict of interest in dealing with matters of public interest? The point really was her role in public life is "toast" because of her first bungling, and then not owning up to, her mistakes regarding 9/11. > I see, and what business is Chevron in? And the Bush family? And why is a > Chevron oil tanker named after her? Does that suggest a conflict of > interest in dealing with matters of public interest? > > The point really was her role in public life is "toast" because of her > first bungling, and then not owning up to, her mistakes regarding 9/11. Since serving in government, Rice has not been on the Board of Directors of Chevron or any other for-profit company. When she was on the board, she only earned a token salary and attended a few board meetings (usually 4 meetings per year for most boards) while also being Provost for Stanford University (her real job). Stanford is a private university. The Bush family is no longer in the oil business that I know of (has not been in a long time). Many prominent Democrats have been, or are now, on various corporate boards. Hilary Clinton was a member of the Wal-Mart board of directors between 1986 and 1992 (a company which is a favorite whipping boy of the left). There is no record of Hiliary objecting to any Wal-Mart corporate policies during her board membership. Former Georgia senator (and prominent Democrat) is currently a member of the Chevron board. Al Gore has been a member of the board of directors of Apple Inc. since 2003, and also serves as a Senior Advisor to Google Inc. > F.H. wrote: > > Its a case of let "sleeping dogs lie." The last thing the Republicans [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > Rice never worked in the oil business. She has previously served on the > board of directors for the Chevron Corporation, > It is incredible the number of lies that the left spreads about people. Have > you no shame? It's amazing how you "forgot" the main point of the story, that the executive director of the 9/11 comission tried to get the comission's report watered down, and many administration officials, including Condi Rice, were involved with the effort: "A forthcoming book by NYT reporter Philip Shenon -- 'The Commission: The Uncensored History of the 9/11 Investigation' -- asserts that former 9/11 Commission executive director Philip Zelikow interfered with the 9/11 report. 'According to the book, Zelikow had failed to inform the commission at the time he was hired that he was instrumental in helping Condoleezza Rice set up Bush's National Security Council in 2001. Some panel staffers believe Zelikow stopped them from submitting a report depicting Rice's performance prior to 9/11 as "amount[ing] to incompetence.' "After completing his work with the 9/11 Commission, Zelikow was hired by Condoleezza Rice as Counselor at the State Department. He resigned from that position in late 2006. In 1995, Rice and Zelikow co-authored a book entitled, 'Germany Unified and Europe Transformed.'" It is incredible the number of lies that the right defends about the right. Have you no shame? Apparently not. > It's amazing how you "forgot" the main point of the story, that the > executive director of the 9/11 comission tried to get the comission's [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > It is incredible the number of lies that the right defends about the > right. Have you no shame? Apparently not. I don't consider the New York Times to be either reliable, or objective, in their reporting or analysis. 9/11 Report watered down? What does that mean? You mean some people objected to attempts by biased members of the commission to blame Bush for 9/11 in the report? In that case, watered down actually means "make the report more accurate and objective, and not partisan." You want some truth about 9/11? The 9/11 plot was conceived right after Bill Clinton tried to kill on Osama bin Laden on August 20, 1998. Clinton attacked two locations, but failed to kill bin Laden, and Clinton never tried again. The reason for the attack was to draw attention away from the Monica Lewinski scandal, since Clinton had just finished testifying before the Office of Independent Counsel and the grand jury on August 17, 1998. Bob Kerry, a former Democratic senator and 9/11 commission member, said, "The most important thing the Clinton administration could have done would have been for the president, either himself or by going to Congress, asking for a congressional declaration to declare war on al-Qaeda, a military-political organization that had declared war on us." Senator Kerry's viewpoint above was not included in the commission report. The 9/11 commission report was watered-down to protect Clinton and not blame him for the 9/11 attack by bin Laden. How come liberals don't round up all the people who watered-down the report to protect Clinton? >> It's amazing how you "forgot" the main point of the story, that the >> executive director of the 9/11 comission tried to get the comission's [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > I don't consider the New York Times to be either reliable, or objective, > in their reporting or analysis. For you to trust the book, who would've had to write it? In other words, name some sources or authors you would trust, if they presented the EXACT SAME INFORMATION. > For you to trust the book, who would've had to write it? In other words, > name some sources or authors you would trust, if they presented the EXACT > SAME INFORMATION. Information can be taken out of context. It was easy to blame both Clinton and Bush, any many Democrats "watered-down" the report with respect to Clinton's culpability. It is not unreasonable for Republicans to do a quid pro quo and refuse to lay the blame on Bush. The report should have been a non-partisan review of the 9/11 tragedy, unfortunately there are always scum who want to use the death of 3000 people to blame everything on Bush (when it is easy to make the case that Clinton had much greater culpability). Those who tried to make the report non-partisan should not be criticized (as was done in the New York Times book), they should be cheered. >> For you to trust the book, who would've had to write it? In other words, >> name some sources or authors you would trust, if they presented the EXACT [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > non-partisan should not be criticized (as was done in the New York Times > book), they should be cheered. Again: For you to trust the book, who would've had to write it? In other words, name some sources or authors you would trust, if they presented the EXACT SAME INFORMATION. > Again: > > For you to trust the book, who would've had to write it? In other words, > name some sources or authors you would trust, if they presented the EXACT > SAME INFORMATION. It is not a question of "presenting the exact same information." It is a question of interpretation and presenting the facts in context and having a balanced view. Since I happen to know the facts in this case, anyone who suggests that making the report non-partisan is somehow "watering down" the report to favor only Bush, is distorting the truth (since the Dems watered-down the culpability of Clinton also). So what you and the New York Times (and others) may see as watering-down, is an attempt to be non-partisan on both sides, and to address the problems going forward rather than looking for a scapegoat for the 9/11 tragedy. Those who did that should be praised, instead of skewered. >> Again: >> [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > problems going forward rather than looking for a scapegoat for the 9/11 > tragedy. Those who did that should be praised, instead of skewered. The author of the book in question HAPPENS TO BE a NYT reporter. The NYT did not publish the book, nor did the NYT vet the information. > The author of the book in question HAPPENS TO BE a NYT reporter. The NYT > did not publish the book, nor did the NYT vet the information. The fact that the NYT hired him as a reporter, speaks both for the reporter and the NYT. >> The author of the book in question HAPPENS TO BE a NYT reporter. The NYT >> did not publish the book, nor did the NYT vet the information. > > The fact that the NYT hired him as a reporter, speaks both for the > reporter and the NYT. What other excuses do you pull out of your a.s for refusing to read books of any kind? > > Again: > > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > report to favor only Bush, is distorting the truth (since the Dems > watered-down the culpability of Clinton also). Not even Clinton watered-down his responsibility: "I tried to get Osama bin Laden, and I failed". And remember that when the FBI finally concluded that al Qaeda was behind the bombing of the USS cole, after GW Bush took office, he never ordered any retaliation for it. GW Bush never made any proactive measures against al Qaeda. >> > Again: >> > [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > never ordered any retaliation for it. GW Bush never made any > proactive measures against al Qaeda. Here's an interesting source which backs up what you just said. Fox News, the balanced source. My question is related to Usama bin Ladin. I'm sure with all the military intelligence that we have, they know where he and his deputies are. Why is that we have not killed them, What has become of the military leadership in this country? - Joseph, former military intelligent Col. Hunt: Joseph, in 2005, Rumsfeld canceled such a mission. You are right we do know, but we lack the political guts/will to do the right thing. Bin Laden being alive all these years is a massive mistake - which is a mistake we have made. http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,289476,00.html > Here's an interesting source which backs up what you just said. Fox News, > the balanced source. [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,289476,00.html Fox News frequently (more often than other networks) presents commentators with differing opinions, even those on the left. There are Democrats in the military who will say anything to embarrass Republicans, such as Gen. Wesley Clark who ran for President as a Democrat in 2004. Do we know where bin Laden is located (assuming he is alive)? Yes, probably 95% chance he is Pakistan. Do we know where in Pakistan he is? Not exactly, we only know what region he is in. Can we kill bin Laden with the info we know about his probable location? Only if we drop multiple nuclear bombs on Pakistan killing ten's of millions of people. Can we send troops into Pakistan to do door to door searches. Pakistan is a sovereign nation, and an ally (at the moment), and such a move would not be tolerated by Pakistan, the UN, or anyone of our other allies. >> Here's an interesting source which backs up what you just said. Fox News, >> the balanced source. [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > Do we know where in Pakistan he is? Not exactly, we only know what region > he is in. At the period described by Hunt, we ***DID*** know where AQ operatives were located. We knew enough to have special forces people actually loaded onto aircraft and ready to go. > Can we kill bin Laden with the info we know about his probable location? > Only if we drop multiple nuclear bombs on Pakistan killing ten's of [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > a sovereign nation, and an ally (at the moment), and such a move would not > be tolerated by Pakistan, the UN, or anyone of our other allies. Did you just say the "sovereign nation" is a reason to not go after someone? Did you really say that? Yes, or no? > Can we send troops into Pakistan to do door to door searches. Pakistan is >> a sovereign nation, and an ally (at the moment), and such a move would not [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > Yes, or no? Popcorn time. >> Can we send troops into Pakistan to do door to door searches. Pakistan is >>> a sovereign nation, and an ally (at the moment), and such a move would [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > Popcorn time. I'm tellin' ya....I'm seeing a Sopranos method for getting straight answers out of some of the twats who come up with these theories. What went on in some of these people's homes to make them totally unable to understand the cockamamie things that came out of their own mouths? > Did you just say the "sovereign nation" is a reason to not go after > someone? > > Did you really say that? > > Yes, or no? Depends on whether you know for sure exactly where bin Laden is, or you (and the colonel who is blowing smoke) just have a "hunch" of general location. Clinton "knew" where bin Laden was, and what we got was a failed assassination attempt that culminated in the 9/11 attacks. No, you cannot invade Pakistan just because you have a hunch of the general area where bin Laden is located. Pakistan has nuclear weapons and they can deliver them. Of the tens of thousands of US military officers, there is always a few egomaniacs who come out of the woodworks and claim they (and US government) knew where bin Laden is located. The are lying. > Not even Clinton watered-down his responsibility: "I tried to get > Osama bin Laden, and I failed". [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > never ordered any retaliation for it. GW Bush never made any > proactive measures against al Qaeda. Clinton only tried to get bin Laden on one (and only one) day (although he bombed two targets at the same time). Just coincidently (or maybe not a coincidence) it was right after his grand jury testimony in the Monica Lewinsky case, and one suspects (because he never went after bin Laden again) that the assassination attempt was for the purpose of drawing attention away from the scandal. >And remember that when the FBI finally concluded that al Qaeda was >behind the bombing of the USS cole, after GW Bush took office, he >never ordered any retaliation for it. GW Bush never made any >proactive measures against al Qaeda. ROFLMAO You are nuts!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! SignatureScott in Florida > > For you to trust the book, who would've had to write it? In other words, > > name some sources or authors you would trust, if they presented the EXACT [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > unfortunately there are always scum who want to use the death of 3000 people > to blame everything on Bush The 9/11 comission was headed by Democrat Lee Hamilton and Republican James Baker. Baker was Secretary of State during the real President George Bush administration and has been a close friend to the Bush family. So what did Baker do to make the 9/11 report partisan against Bush? > (when it is easy to make the case that Clinton had much greater culpability). Nonsense -- highly partisan, ignorant, unthinking nonsense. The Clinton administration warned GW Bush, in Jan. 2001, that al Qaeda was the #1 terrorist threat, but just after Richard Clarke finished saying this in his briefing, Condoleezza Rice presented her own briefing in which she told GW Bush that the #1 terrorist threat was Iraq. GW Bush's own intelligence people told him, almost a month before the 9/11 attacks, "Bin Laden Determined to Attack in the US", but he did nothing to stop him. > Those who tried to make the report non-partisan should not be criticized > (as was done in the New York Times book), they should be cheered. Unfortunately the people who did try to make the report partisan, including the White House and the 9/11 comission's Republican executive director (the person who ranked just below the comissioners), succeeded and whitewashed some of the administration's faults. >> > For you to trust the book, who would've had to write it? In other >> > words, [quoted text clipped - 40 lines] > comissioners), succeeded and whitewashed some of the administration's > faults. I wonder where Rice gets her information from. Hmmm......guess who's still reading bedtime stories to Washington insiders? "By all credible accounts, the source of this dubious tale was Manucher Ghorbanifar, an Iranian arms dealer who used middle-men and cut-outs to create the appearance of several sources. Ghorbanifar played a key role in the Iran-Contra scandal that threatened to take down the Reagan administration, in which the U.S. sold arms to Iran and diverted the proceeds to Nicaraguan militants. While the various threads of the larger story of Ghorbanifar and his intelligence peddling began in December of 2001, meetings in Paris in 2003 are far more important in illustrating -- as a microcosm -- the larger difficulties faced in untangling the facts relating to global intelligence trafficking." > Nonsense -- highly partisan, ignorant, unthinking nonsense. The > Clinton administration warned GW Bush, in Jan. 2001, that al Qaeda was [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > 9/11 attacks, "Bin Laden Determined to Attack in the US", but he did > nothing to stop him. Clinton is the one who tried to assassinate bin Laden on one (and only one) occasion, and then never went after him again. The failed attempt against bin Laden is what caused him to launch the 9/11 attacks. If you are going to assassinate someone, if you fail, you can reasonably expect revenge. For the remaining 2 years in office, Clinton did nothing against bin Laden or al Qaeda. Clark is a crybaby who was passed over for job he wanted in the Bush administration. > Unfortunately the people who did try to make the report partisan, > including the White House and the 9/11 comission's Republican > executive director (the person who ranked just below the > comissioners), succeeded and whitewashed some of the administration's > faults. How is that possible, considering all the Dems you mentioned on the commission. The reason is that the Clinton administration was more culpable than Bush, and everyone agreed to concentrate on what needs to be done in the future, rather than look for a scapegoat. Considering that Bush was only in office for less than 9 months on 9/22/2001, and Clinton was president for 8 years before that, it is absurd to blame 9/11 on Bush. As you probably recall, the terrorists entered the US and started flight training long before Bush took office. Once the plan was set into motion (after the failed assassination attempt on bin Laden), and the terrorists entered the US, killing bin Laden would not have prevented the attack. >> She has what the voters want: >> [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > news. Like Gonzales and so many others touched by Bush and Rove, Condi is > toast. Back to the oil business for her, and none too soon. Unlike so many strident, dried-up LIEbrawl biatches, Condie is wet enough to NOT need "oil", i.e. lubricant. > http://thinkprogress.org/2008/01/30/zelikow-interfered/ > Unlike so many strident, dried-up LIEbrawl biatches, Condie is wet enough to > NOT need "oil", i.e. lubricant. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FjKui1nt5N0 >> Unlike so many strident, dried-up LIEbrawl biatches, Condie is wet enough >> to >> NOT need "oil", i.e. lubricant. > > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FjKui1nt5N0 Well, he made his bed.. >>> Unlike so many strident, dried-up LIEbrawl biatches, Condie is wet enough >>> to [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Well, he made his bed.. I don't EVEN want to have that image in my head. >>>> Unlike so many strident, dried-up LIEbrawl biatches, Condie is wet >>>> enough [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > I don't EVEN want to have that image in my head. Or, Bill and Monica. Take your pick. >>> Well, he made his bed.. >> >> I don't EVEN want to have that image in my head. > > Or, Bill and Monica. Take your pick. AAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! "Hachiroku" <... > She has what the voters want: > > she's black, so the Obama supporters will vote for her. *snip* Not all blacks are voting for him. :-P Natalie > "Hachiroku" <... > > She has what the voters want: [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > Natalie And not all women are voting for hillary. Signature"We're going to take things away from you on behalf of the common good." Hillary Clinton >"Hachiroku" <... >> She has what the voters want: [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > >Natalie There are some 'thinking' blacks..... SignatureScott in Florida "Scott in Florida" "Wickeddoll®" wrote: >>"Hachiroku" <... >>> She has what the voters want: [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > There are some 'thinking' blacks..... And an equal amount of "unthinking" whites.... :-P Natalie >"Scott in Florida" > "Wickeddoll®" [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > >Natalie Agreed..... SignatureScott in Florida Scott in Florida wrote: >> "Scott in Florida" >> "Wickeddoll®" [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > > Agreed..... Getting shallow around here. Some puke-bag racist said: There are some 'thinking' blacks..... > And an equal amount of "unthinking" whites.... Good show. What a condescending prick. Hey, Natalie, guess what? SOME blacks can think. Apparently better than some cracker-a.s racist in Florida. > Some puke-bag racist said: There are some 'thinking' blacks..... >> [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > Apparently better than some cracker-a.s racist in Florida. Hey - where's the money you owe me, anyway? >> Hey, Natalie, guess what? SOME blacks can think. >> >> Apparently better than some cracker-a.s racist in Florida. > > Hey - where's the money you owe me, anyway? The bank rejected the currency. Said they'd never heard of "quatloos". >>> Hey, Natalie, guess what? SOME blacks can think. >>> [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > The bank rejected the currency. Said they'd never heard of "quatloos". http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w4jIpJSGL3c >>>> Hey, Natalie, guess what? SOME blacks can think. >>>> [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w4jIpJSGL3c Okay, okay. If I ever get to Rochester, breakfast or lunch or dinner is on me. Preferrably with several beers attached to either of the latter two. >>>>> Hey, Natalie, guess what? SOME blacks can think. >>>>> [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > >Preferrably with several beers attached to either of the latter two. Now that is a picture!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! The circle jerker's having beers together!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! ROFLMAO SignatureScott in Florida Scott in Florida wrote: > Now that is a picture!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! > > The circle jerker's having beers together!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! And you're screaming in delight because of it. You'll probably soak your pillow in beer so you can dream of them, night after night. > Scott in Florida wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > And you're screaming in delight because of it. You'll probably soak > your pillow in beer so you can dream of them, night after night. Gosh. I miss all the good posts. > She has what the voters want: > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > http://www.funnyphotos.net.au/userimages/user756_1168230825.JPG Buttaface, buttaface... The big problem with Rice is that she's just plain incompetent and has demonstrated no understanding of foreign policy, not even in regards to Russia, her field of specialty. Even the Israelis hold her in such low regard that her name has come to mean doing lots of busy work but accomplishing nothing. Rice is like a very smart music professor who's tone deaf and can barely sing or play a musical instrument. Her future is as the head of the Hoover Institute. >> She has what the voters want: >> [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > > Her future is as the head of the Hoover Institute. Ouch! :-) > >> She has what the voters want: > >> [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > > Ouch! :-) larrymoe is the site crackpot. Signature"We're going to take things away from you on behalf of the common good." Hillary Clinton >> >> She has what the voters want: >> >> [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > > larrymoe is the site crackpot. Yeah. He's the guy who confronts you with more facts and cites than anyone else here. Crackpot indeed. Tell me what he meant by his reference to "Hoover Institute". C'mon. Teach me something. > >> >> She has what the voters want: > >> >> [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > Tell me what he meant by his reference to "Hoover Institute". C'mon. Teach > me something. But he has no facts. That's what's so troubling. Signature"We're going to take things away from you on behalf of the common good." Hillary Clinton >> >> >> She has what the voters want: >> >> >> [quoted text clipped - 33 lines] > > But he has no facts. That's what's so troubling. Ignoring the facts he provides you with will not make them cease to exist. Sorry. And something else: It wouldn't matter anyway. Do you remember why? I'm going to help you remember, and then, as always, you will vanish from the discussion. YOU DO NOT READ. Do you need help remembering the stupid reasons you've given in the past? Here they are: 1) You have eye problems. 2) All authors are biased. 3) Authors only write for the money they get paid, so they can't be trusted. > >> >> . > >> >> > [quoted text clipped - 49 lines] > 2) All authors are biased. > 3) Authors only write for the money they get paid, so they can't be trusted. LOL. jsb you cite some weak and improbable reasons. I take your post to be grasping again. Maybe gasping would be better. What's your next leader? Maybe I'll respond if I'm humored enough, but more likely I'll go and paint the rest of the evening. Signature"We're going to take things away from you on behalf of the common good." Hillary Clinton >> >> >> . >> >> >> > [quoted text clipped - 57 lines] > LOL. jsb you cite some weak and improbable reasons. I take your post > to be grasping again. Maybe gasping would be better. Are you talking about the reasons you don't read? > What's your next leader? Maybe I'll respond if I'm humored enough, but > more likely I'll go and paint the rest of the evening. McCain > But he has no facts. That's what's so troubling. Why shouldn't Rice eventually become of the Hoover Institute? She was the chief academic officer of Stanford, and that think tank is located at Stanford. > > >> She has what the voters want: > > >> [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > > larrymoe is the site crackpot. And Scott is your lover whenever you can't find your pet goat. What has Rice done well in foreign policy? AFAIKT, keeping GW Bush from invading Iran is her only success. >>> She has what the voters want: >>> [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > > Ouch! :-) REALLY!! |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2009 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.