Retarded I may be but my memory is not selective. ... any way rather retarded than just plain stupid.
On Mon, Jul 6, 2009 at 5:14 PM, bruce majors <[email protected]> wrote: > Poor retarded markie. > Yes retarded markie both Bush and Clinton wereaccusedof telling lies. > > But your retardedclaim was that (1) someone here had defended the Bush > administration, and (2) that they did it by saying the Clinton's were the > same. > > I still haven't seen you find a Bush supporter who defended Bush against a > charge of being a liar by saying that the Clinton'slied too > > Can you asswipe airhead demwits go find an intelligent person to defend > your positions. Because you shit sucking "liberal;s" are a weak strain of > the infection > > On Mon, Jul 6, 2009 at 5:50 PM, Mark <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Bruce, >> >> One example... the lies Bush told (and there is NO doubt that he did so, >> ((senate intelligence report 2006)) ) to put the US into Iraq was >> consistently compared to Clintons testimony about consensual sex. >> >> Quit acting the idiot. Bushites trying to say Clinton left the US in debt >> and not one "red" cent was Bushs' fault. >> >> On Mon, Jul 6, 2009 at 3:25 PM, bruce majors <[email protected]>wrote: >> >>> sorry hollyfool >>> I don't know who the we is who you think defended Bush >>> >>> and I don't know many Bush supporters who spent a lot of time trying to >>> justify him by referring to Clinton >>> >>> maybe you can do your homework and find some examples >>> >>> >>> On Mon, Jul 6, 2009 at 4:34 PM, Hollywood >>> <[email protected]>wrote: >>> >>>> >>>> bruce, >>>> >>>> Why not/ You lads defended Bush for years by saying "But Bill >>>> Clinton.............". >>>> >>>> On Jul 6, 1:23 pm, bruce majors <[email protected]> wrote: >>>> > why do obamanoids think that saying Bush did something is a defense of >>>> > Odumba >>>> > >>>> > On Mon, Jul 6, 2009 at 1:55 PM, dick thompson < >>>> [email protected]>wrote: >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > > How is this like what Bush did. Bush did not implement a treaty >>>> without >>>> > > the approval of the Senate first. That is what Obama is trying to >>>> do. >>>> > > Suppose he implements it and the Senate votes it down. Then what >>>> happens. >>>> > >>>> > > Frederick The Moderate wrote: >>>> > >>>> > > It seems the Dems are now doing exactly what Bush did - except it's >>>> > > the GOP who's compaining this time. Now if Obama starts telling us >>>> how >>>> > > "We absolutely must do this right away or they will blow us all up >>>> > > with WMDs!", he will have completed his journey to the Dark Side of >>>> > > the Force. >>>> > >>>> > > I don't like the smell of it but will wait to see if they actually >>>> try >>>> > > it, before getting to rattled... >>>> > >>>> > > On Jul 6, 9:14 am, dick thompson <[email protected]> < >>>> [email protected]> wrote: >>>> > >>>> > > Sounds right to me. I don't see where the president can just make >>>> the >>>> > > treaty without the consent of the US Senate. If I remember right it >>>> > > takes both of them to approve the treaties. It is not really a done >>>> > > deal if the president signs it unless the senate also approves it. >>>> > > Guess they forgot that one. Of course they also tried to forget >>>> that >>>> > > when it came to Kyoto for a while as the Dems tried to force the US >>>> to >>>> > > implement a treaty that the Senate never ratified. Looks like >>>> another >>>> > > one coming along. >>>> > >>>> > > *The Constitution Imposes Severe Limits On A President's >>>> Treaty-Making >>>> > > Powers: * Here's the relevant section< >>>> http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Constitution_of_the_United_States_of_Am...> >>>> < >>>> http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Constitution_of_the_United_States_of_Am...>: >>>> >>>> > >>>> > > He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the >>>> > > Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators >>>> > > present concur; >>>> > >>>> > > The Obama administration is finding that limitation inconvenient< >>>> http://hotair.com/archives/2009/07/05/obama-hey-lets-bypass-the-senat...> >>>> < >>>> http://hotair.com/archives/2009/07/05/obama-hey-lets-bypass-the-senat.. >>>> .>, >>>> > > and so they are thinking of "temporarily bypassing"< >>>> http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2009/07/us-russian-arms-negot...> >>>> < >>>> http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2009/07/us-russian-arms-negot...> >>>> >>>> > > the Senate. Not on any important matter, just a little agreement >>>> with >>>> > > the Russians on limiting nuclear arms. >>>> > >>>> > > I looked carefully through the Constitution, and could not find any >>>> > > provision that allows a president to bypass, temporarily or >>>> otherwise, >>>> > > that limit on his treaty-making powers. >>>> > >>>> > > Senator Byrd --- among others --- isn't going to like this one >>>> little bit. >>>> > > - 8:08 AM, 6 July 2009 [link]< >>>> http://www.seanet.com/%7Ejimxc/Politics/July2009_1.html#jrm7578<http://www.seanet.com/~jimxc/Politics/July2009_1.html#jrm7578>> >>>> <http://www.seanet.com/%7Ejimxc/Politics/July2009_1.html#jrm7578<http://www.seanet.com/~jimxc/Politics/July2009_1.html#jrm7578>>- >>>> Hide quoted text - >>>> > >>>> > - Show quoted text - >>>> >>>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> Mark M. Kahle, , >>> www.filacoffee.com >>> >>> >>> > > > > -- Mark M. Kahle, , www.filacoffee.com --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups. For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. * Read the latest breaking news, and more. -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
