foraker

So, you're just here for the circle-jerk. Why didn't you say so!? That explains everything.

What you say: What he hears:

that's where the "if you don't eat it now you'll be eating it cold for breakfast" ploy always comes in handy.

That what I thought, a bunch of hot air. I'm telling you. Answer my previous questions and I'll answer yours. Go back through all the posts where I put to you some good serious questions and get back to me on them. I'll be more than happy to answer yours. Since you obviously aren't going to do that...well....have fun talking to yourself.

And that big new Medicaid program created by Bush and a Republican senate? What was that? Some DemoLibSocialEngineering program? And all that pork-barrel spending the last six years? What was that for? Seems the Republicans know a thing or two about wasteful spending and social engineering. It's just that their social engineering isn't about making society better as it is about enriching their friends.

You've never answered any of mine, fool. You catch up with all the questions put to you first and then we'll talk about me answering questions. Please return to your paranoid delusional fantasies.

What is it about conservatives with this "if you criticize Bush then you must LOVE Clinton!" Everything works in opposites with you guys. If you disagree with the war then you must love terrorists and hate America. On and on. There's just no other possible views but a) your own, and b) the extreme, extreme opposite. I won't be voting for Hillary in 2008 if you must know. At this point the only support I have for any political movement is seeing corruption get exposed. The unfortunate part of it is, like in the past, those doing all the police work today will probably be the ones being investigated ten years from now.

Oh, there you go with your knee jerk responses again.

Keep defending scum, scum. It funnier than hell. ooooh. that was a witty riposte! i see all those hours ditching class and huffing glue in the playground weren't wasted!

well, i think perhaps you're a tad bit on the lucky side too. my kid has thrown more than his share of tantrums, publicly embarrassed me and annoyed other people. h/e that doesn't mean that i hadn't drawn the line. he was just more stubborn about accepting his inability to get what he wants. i think the key is that he doesn't win them. now that he's older, he's a great kid that behaves himself, mostly does what he's asked with a normal amount of pre-teen grousing, still hugs his mom, opens doors for strangers and says thank you. i think it's a gross oversimplification to say that tantrums in younger children is a reflection of an unhealthy sense of entitlement. I'm glad someone posted something like this. Armchair quarterbacks abound (and often have never played the game). Kids having a tantrum is one thing. Parents enabling a child's tantrum is another.

funny how you say both parties suck but then revert back to your Unquestioning Loyal Party Member ways.

getting there, you little spoog-gargler. that was just a little Seachicken hairball or something. try harder.

come on, son. you haven't managed to work Clinton in your morning verbal diarrhea. cough it up before you give yourself an aneurysm.

that article reminded me of something that happened a couple of years ago. i was in this bookstore and somone's precious little Snotleigh was beating the holy hell out of a hard cover book that he picked off of a shelf. his mom was nowhere to be seen so i looked down at him and said 'hey, stop doing that. that's not yours'. kid looked at me like no one had ever told him no before. the kicker was his mom tracked me down in the store a minute later and read me the riot act about how i wasn't supposed to speak to her child like that blah blah blah wah wah wah zzzzzzzzz (insect buzzing sound)...... i guess she was over drinking coffee and reading magazines for free and was just upset about having her 10 quiet minutes out of her day disturbed.

what happened to the buxom blonde nympho with a bad memory option?

man, you're a nutcase. i comfort myself in knowing that in Clinton could have save the country a lot of annoyance if he'd simply invoked executive privilege and told Congress to shove it.

once again: gonzales clearly lied to congress. don't you think he should be flushed? i mean, lies are lies, right? or is lying about a blow job to congress different and more heinous than lying about something else? i guess we know your answers to those questions already.

once again, you're stealing someone else's blog material without proper citation. so, which federal prosecutor's were 'turning up the heat' on clinton at the time he was inaugurated? if he fired some for political reasons, why didn't the republicans complain about it and force an investigation? could it be because clinton himself appointed a special prosecutor in 1994 and released all his papers prior to that? despite republican control of congress throughout most of the investigation, did they ever say that clinton had incorrectly replaced all of his us attorney's in order to avoid or delay prosecution? i don't recall that but maybe your neocon buddies can help me out.

obviously you're so uncomfortable with your own ethical failings and simple minded sheep-thinking, you can't answer simple questions.

apparently, you're massively confused about the nature of the us attorney's office. answer the questions about your situational ethics, noob. since it's obvious to everyone and their dog that gonzales lied to congress, he should be tossed out, right? or should he be given the medal of freedom and a promotion? how about all that illegal fbi activity? how do you feel about that? you're probably alright with that, herr seahawk.

as per the other thread, how about that quote that bush also said we shouldn't go into rwanda. is it then ok for bush to 'let rwandan's die' and not clinton? seems to me this is just another example of your glaring absence of historical knowledge as well as a prime example of your relative, rather than absolute, sense of ethics.

so can you prove that clinton removed any prosecutor from office for investigating him? or is that you just blowing hot air again? the us attorneys are also supposed to be basically immune from political influence. it's clear that bush and gonzales have been trying to rig the game for political ends. should he or should he not have done that, regardless of what you 'believe' clinton did?

same whinging neocon who can't think for himself, always complaining about Clinton, and rationalizing the behavior of the current administration. care to explain all the hundreds and thousands of hours of testimony by Clinton White House officials, at the president's behest I might add, before Congress, all with transcripts and in the open? Or is Bush just 'special' and shouldn't be held to the same standards? Why is open and transparent government only something you require of Democrats?

i guess that means no foot rub tonight, eh?

http://dir.salon.com/story/news/feature/2003/03/18/bush/index.html?pn=2