Depends on how "a" is defined...
>And he did, so looks like they are right ;)
~|
Message: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=i:5:209963
Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/threads.cfm/5
Subscription: http://w
I'd probably have to go read it again and do some research to really decide. I
don't believe it is bunk because it contradicts teh Democratic party, though.
Offhand, I tend to believe somethng that gives its sources above something that
doesn't, though.
> So they all seem to be saying the RF
And he did, so looks like they are right ;)
> -Original Message-
> From: Dana Tierney [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Wednesday, June 21, 2006 1:39 PM
> To: CF-Community
> Subject: Re: Kennedy debunked
>
> "they" "they" say that Clinton go
"they" "they" say that Clinton got a blowjob ;)
> So they all seem to be saying the RFK article is bunk ;)
>
> On 6/19/06, Dana Tierney wrote:
> > hmm. Don't have much time right now but the article seems to be
> saying that Kennedy is wrong because he is contradicting the
> Democratic Part
So they all seem to be saying the RFK article is bunk ;)
On 6/19/06, Dana Tierney wrote:
> hmm. Don't have much time right now but the article seems to be saying that
> Kennedy is wrong because he is contradicting the Democratic Party, and
> besides, the last election was no more corrupt than th
Now I have nothing to back this up but personally, I think it was the
Democratic party who figured the Clinton's would be better back in office in
2008 than the likes of Kerry when he could have only won with a few votes
against Bush who was already in deep waters. Then, the Democrats started
pulli
hmm. Don't have much time right now but the article seems to be saying that
Kennedy is wrong because he is contradicting the Democratic Party, and besides,
the last election was no more corrupt than the one before it. Um ;/
And even at that it's not saying the election was fair -- it isn't -- i
Plain Dealer, not Plains Dealer. Are you saying it isn't?
> The Plains Dealer is Republican? Wow.
>
> Try this one:
> http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2006/06/03/kennedy/index_np.html
>
>
> On 6/19/06, Dana Tierney wrote:
> > um, a link from the local Republican paper... possibly worth reading
The Plains Dealer is Republican? Wow.
Try this one:
http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2006/06/03/kennedy/index_np.html
On 6/19/06, Dana Tierney wrote:
> um, a link from the local Republican paper... possibly worth reading if I
> could get past page 1 of the article, which essentially says don't
um... if anything is incomplete it's this article The page I can see
doesn't even tell me why I am supposed to believe it's all ok, really it is. I
suspect bias but there isn't any there there for me to be sure.
>OK, so a bunch of unsubstantiated incomplete theories from a biased party is
>cle
OK, so a bunch of unsubstantiated incomplete theories from a biased party is
clearly a better source.
> -Original Message-
> From: Dana Tierney [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Monday, June 19, 2006 3:38 PM
> To: CF-Community
> Subject: Re: Kennedy debunked
>
> um,
um, a link from the local Republican paper... possibly worth reading if I could
get past page 1 of the article, which essentially says don't worry be happy...
::shrug::
I don't worry, I am happy, and I am not convinced.
> Rest assured, we checked out Election 2004 thoroughly
> http://www.clevel
Rest assured, we checked out Election 2004 thoroughly
http://www.cleveland.com/search/index.ssf?/base/opinion/1150619659219900.xml?ocdia&coll=2
~|
Message: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=i:5:209714
Archives: http://ww
13 matches
Mail list logo
