🚀 go-pugleaf

In article 
<wildbilly-8393AF.23073208032008@c-61-68-245-199.per.connect.net.au>,
 Billy <wildbilly@getthe.net> wrote:

> In article 
> <albert.finney000-2036B1.08253908032008@news-server.tx.rr.com>,
>  Al <albert.finney000@geemail.coom> wrote:
> 
> > In article 
> > <wildbilly-CF15F3.18430207032008@c-61-68-245-199.per.connect.net.au>,
> >  Billy <wildbilly@getthe.net> wrote:
> > 
> > > In article 
> > > <albert.finney000-965814.07494303032008@news-server.tx.rr.com>,
> > >  Al <albert.finney000@geemail.coom> wrote:
> > > 
> > > > In article 
> > > > <wildbilly-623104.22340602032008@c-61-68-245-199.per.connect.net.au>,
> > > >  Billy <wildbilly@getthe.net> wrote:
> > > > 
> > > > > In article 
> > > > > <albert.finney000-26C38A.07290902032008@news-server.tx.rr.com>,
> > > > >  Al <albert.finney000@geemail.coom> wrote:
> > > > > 
> > > > > > We'll not revisit the record numbers of democrats connected to the 
> > > > > > Clintons who fell under the purview of jursiprudence, but we will 
> > > > > > note 
> > > > > > that the democrat party represents voter groups which traditionally 
> > > > > > have 
> > > > > > higher per-capita criminal convictions than those traditionally 
> > > > > > associated with repub's. I'm sure you catch my drift.
> > > > > 
> > > > > Why not? Go for it. As lame as Clinton  was, he looks like a white 
> > > > > knight next to this gang of liars and thieves.
> > > > 
> > > > You're missing my point. I'm referring to voters.
> > > > 
> > > > As to your opinion, it's just that - and by any legal standard this 
> > > > administration is squeaky clean 
> > > What kind of drugs you on boy, I gotta get me some of them. Or did you 
> > > just go for the full head-on lobotomy?  
> > > 
> > > They brought back the Iran-Contra gang. 
> > > 
> > > Elliott Abrams pleaded guilty to withholding information from Congress, 
> > > then was pardoned bythe first President Bush.
> > > 
> > > Poindexter was convicted in 1990 on five felony charges
> > 
> > I was unaware GW Bush was in power in 1990.
> > 
> > 
> > > Otto Reich, the State Department's top official for Latin America
> > > 
> > > Executive privilege and national security concerns keep us from finding 
> > > out what this government is doing form the secret attendees of Cheney's 
> > > "Energy Summit" which was followed by de-facto deregulation which lead 
> > > to the "Clean Air Amendment", "Clean Water Amendment" (of course neither 
> > > was clean), and the screwing of Californian electrical rate payers.
> > 
> > 
> > All charged and jailed on your opinion alone.
> >  
> > > Then there was the bald face lying that got us into Iraq.
> > > 
> > > Niger yellow cake uranium?
> > 
> > The British intel, or Joe Wilson's report of seeing a top Iraqi official 
> > in Niger? Granted, Wilson is a proved liar, but he's on your side, right?
> >  
> > > Let's not forget the stripping of the Constitution and the loss of the 
> > > 800 year old right of habeas corpus and the right to a jury of your 
> > > peers, illegal invasion of everyones privacy (foreign and domestic).
> > 
> > Are you thinking of the "drug war", or do you call Iran frequently?
> > 
> > > 
> > > Oh and the killing of "SUSPECTED" terrorists and the torturing of 
> > > "SUSPECTED" terrorists and the very real kidnapping of a Canadian and a 
> > > German who were tortured.
> > 
> > Oh my.
> >  
> > > At present the US is supplying weapons to both Sunni and Shia forces in 
> > > Iraq, which keeps the violence going and justifies our continued 
> > > presence and the spending of big bucks, so that Daddy Bush and friends 
> > > can continue to make big bucks.
> > 
> > Decreasing violence = increased violence.
> > 
> >  
> > > And the thing that really is the symbol for this administration of 
> > > thieves, liars, and murders is when we invaded Baghdad, the only part of 
> > > the infrastructure that was guarded was the Ministry of Oil.
> > 
> > How odd, that we would protect an element of Iraq's Number one source of 
> > income.
> > 
> >  
> > > Squeaky clean? You're nuts boy.
> > 
> > Well, boy, by legal measure - indictment, conviction, incarceration, you 
> > seem to have failed to make the case.
> > 
> > Sadly, your outrage is not prosecutable.
> > 
> > > > compared to previous admins. 
> > > 
> > > > If we had a system which relied on 
> > >    public opinion,  
> > > > many critics of this administration would be in the slammer as well.
> > > 
> > > You do know that Bush is a very unpopular person don't you?
> > 
> > 4 out of 5 Islamists, communists and neo-marxist wankers hate the guy. 
> > You're in good company.
> > 
> > > You must 
> > > know that. Lunatic Republicans (ask for them by name) are his only 
> > > supporters. If it was up to popular opinion, this administration would  
> > > be in prison or the Hague.
> > 
> > So that's it.
> > 
> > You set out to straighten me out about this, and end up making my case 
> > for me, you weren't even smart enough to mention Libby.
> > 
> > Care to try again?
> > 
> > List the indictments and convictions of the people in and surrounding 
> > the administration, then compare that list with previous 
> > administrations, and you will arrive at the same conclusion I just 
> > offered.
> > 
> > This is really 9th-grade stuff, youngster, are you still in 8th?
> > 
> > 
> > (BTW, you, like the other outraged ninny, failed to get the gist, so 
> > I'll repeat it once again. The democrat voter base is comprised in no 
> > small part by criminals)
> 
> I have to hand it to you. You certainly are an arrogant idiot. Proud of 
> your own ignorance.
> http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/02/15/AR2008021
> 502901.html?hpid%3Dopinionsbox1&sub=AR
> 
> washingtonpost.com  > Opinions  > Outlook
> The Dumbing Of America

Classic.

I was expecting maybe a long list of indictments and convictions to 
compare to previous administrations. But I guess that wouldn't support 
your argument.

Instead you post a lengthy unrelated article in an attempt to call me 
stupid.

The irony must escape you.

However, it was a good article, in that it answers the question "why do 
so many people vote democrat?"

Later, kid.