|
"Charles Bull" wrote in message ... http://www.chler.com/198shtml Funny that the only two posts to this group were to bash the President. Your agenda is no better than his. |
President Bush has my support (as well as a tiny bit more than
half the rest of the US population too-he did win-twice) to take the fight with middle eastern muslim terrorist to the middle east. Sorry you don't approve but you can keep drinking. Robert Smith Charles Bull wrote: On Tue, 27 Sep 2005 00:40:41 GMT, "Edwin Pawlowski" wrote: "Charles Bull" wrote in message ... http://www.chler.com/198shtml Funny that the only two posts to this group were to bash the President. Your agenda is no better than his. No bashing or any other agenda intended, but rather a question is he drinking again? If he is let us all pray for him otherwise, we will be on the marching to another war before the present war in Iraq end. |
"Charles Bull" wrote in message ... On Tue, 27 Sep 2005 00:40:41 GMT, "Edwin Pawlowski" wrote: "Charles Bull" wrote in message ... http://www.chler.com/198shtml Funny that the only two posts to this group were to bash the President. Your agenda is no better than his. No bashing or any other agenda intended, but rather a question is he drinking again? If he is let us all pray for him otherwise, we will be on the marching to another war before the present war in Iraq end. ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ Dope |
"Charles Bull" wrote in message ... On Tue, 27 Sep 2005 00:40:41 GMT, "Edwin Pawlowski" wrote: "Charles Bull" wrote in message ... http://www.chler.com/198shtml Funny that the only two posts to this group were to bash the President. Your agenda is no better than his. No bashing or any other agenda intended, but rather a question is he drinking again? If he is let us all pray for him otherwise, we will be on the marching to another war before the present war in Iraq end. You are nothing more than an ignorant liberal. You actually believe such using the source you listed? I really feel sorry for ya. As mentioned post something useful or bug off. Chris |
"Charles Bull" wrote in message No bashing or any other agenda intended, but rather a question is he drinking again? Sure. Thanks for the explanation. I'll never doubt you again. With all my love, your friend, Ed |
OT Is George Bush Drinking?
|
On Tue, 27 Sep 2005 00:40:41 GMT, "Edwin Pawlowski" wrote:
"Charles Bull" wrote in message ... http://www.chler.com/198shtml Funny that the only two posts to this group were to bash the President. Your agenda is no better than his. No bashing or any other agenda intended, but rather a question is he drinking again? If he is let us all pray for him otherwise, we will be on the marching to another war before the present war in Iraq end. |
In article ,
Charles Bull wrote: http://www.chortler.com/19866ittas.shtml Wow... I didn't know George had stopped drinking. I knew Yeltsin and Churchill liked to have a few. But George's behaviour does bolt on to a definition of an alcoholic I heard once: An alcoholic is a megalomaniac with an inferiority complex. I'm at least glad that the 'chortler' piece gave credit where it was due..the National Enquirer..... which is probably more accurate than Fox news ? G In a few years you won't be able to find anybody who will admit to have voted for Bush..kinda like Nixon. In Canada, NOBODY voted for Brian Mulroney. Nobody. Ooops, I slipped, I wasn't getting into political discussions..G |
On Tue, 27 Sep 2005 02:21:03 GMT, "Edwin Pawlowski" wrote:
"Charles Bull" wrote in message No bashing or any other agenda intended, but rather a question is he drinking again? Sure. Thanks for the explanation. I'll never doubt you again. Thank you for your understanding and no where in my posts did I bash anyone? OK, I'll retract the Iraq war stuff. There rumours floating around he's starting drinking again. I really cannot see anything wrong drinking as hundred of millions people drinks every day. I don't drink so I don't know if it's addictive Take care and have a good evening:-). With all my love, your friend, Ed |
Robatoy wrote: In article , Charles Bull wrote: http://www.chortler.com/19866ittas.shtml Wow... I didn't know George had stopped drinking. I knew Yeltsin and Churchill liked to have a few. But George's behaviour does bolt on to a definition of an alcoholic I heard once: An alcoholic is a megalomaniac with an inferiority complex. I'm at least glad that the 'chortler' piece gave credit where it was due..the National Enquirer..... which is probably more accurate than Fox news ? G In a few years you won't be able to find anybody who will admit to have voted for Bush..kinda like Nixon. In Canada, NOBODY voted for Brian Mulroney. Nobody. Ooops, I slipped, I wasn't getting into political discussions..G |
Ever since George Bush got elected President, I've been drinking.
|
"Charles Bull" wrote in message ... http://www.chortler.com/19866ittas.shtml If he has had a drink he certainly deserves it. |
"Ever since George Bush got elected President, I've been drinking. Good for you, did you turn 21 on his first inaugural? Or is your drinking problem his fault as well... |
"Leon" wrote in message
. .. "Charles Bull" wrote in message ... http://www.chortler.com/19866ittas.shtml If he has had a drink he certainly deserves it. It appears that you liberals will believe anything the slam sheets have to say. Especially, if it's against someone you don't like. Who are you liberals going to pick on after Bush leaves office. John Mc Cane? You all better get used to a Republican President. I predict we will have one for at least the next 12 years and if you libs don't like it I suggest you move to Canada. Who on the Dem side could handle what's going on today, Al Gore (what a big dumb Ox he is), Kerry ( the phony one), Hillary (what a joke), Biden (the phony big mouth)? Name one person on the Democrat side that the masses would support. You'd be hard pressed to find one. Tell the truth who would you suggest that has any class. That party is not the party I grew up with when they were for the working person. There are no more Sam Nunn's left in that party. |
"Scott" wrote in message news:uXc_e.371082$_o.20361@attbi_s71... It appears that you liberals will believe anything the slam sheets have to say. Especially, if it's against someone you don't like. Who are you liberals going to pick on after Bush leaves office. John Mc Cane? You all better get used to a Republican President. I predict we will have one for at least the next 12 years and if you libs don't like it I suggest you move to Canada. Who on the Dem side could handle what's going on today, Al Gore (what a big dumb Ox he is), Kerry ( the phony one), Hillary (what a joke), Biden (the phony big mouth)? Name one person on the Democrat side that the masses would support. You'd be hard pressed to find one. Tell the truth who would you suggest that has any class. That party is not the party I grew up with when they were for the working person. There are no more Sam Nunn's left in that party. Getting a Democrat back in the White House is much easier thatn you think. Take Jimmy Carter for instance. He won the presidency simply because he did not run Republican. |
"Charles Bull" wrote in message ... http://www.chortler.com/19866ittas.shtml Dunno - but he sure as hell SHOULD be. |
"Leon" wrote in message . .. "Charles Bull" wrote in message ... http://www.chortler.com/19866ittas.shtml If he has had a drink he certainly deserves it. Hey, the guy thinks dinosaurs and humans walked the earth at the same time, drinking is the least of his problems. |
On Tue, 27 Sep 2005 14:46:50 GMT, "Scott" wrote:
"Charles Bull" wrote in message ... http://www.chortler.com/19866ittas.shtml If he has had a drink he certainly deserves it. It appears that you liberals will believe anything the slam sheets have to say. Especially, if it's against someone you don't like. Who are you liberals going to pick on after Bush leaves office. John Mc Cane? You all better get used to a Republican President. I predict we will have one for at least the next 12 years and if you libs don't like it I suggest you move to Canada. Who on the Dem side could handle what's going on today, Al Gore (what a big dumb Ox he is), Kerry ( the phony one), Hillary (what a joke), Biden (the phony big mouth)? Name one person on the Democrat side that the masses would support. You'd be hard pressed to find one. Tell the truth who would you suggest that has any class. That party is not the party I grew up with when they were for the working person. There are no more Sam Nunn's left in that party. What has Liberals got to do with this? The question is do you think he start drinking again? |
Huh? Is it possible that W wants to divide, and be disliked? Meaning,
he's earned it, with the guidance of Rove. Maybe, in reality, your dividing people into two groups so simplistically is not possible. It is silly. Most folks come down in different parts of the spectrum (progressive, conservative, reactionary) on different issues, and for you to categorize and judge anyone makes as little sense as the converse. (Ever hear of McCarthy and "pinko"?) Some would conjure a different name for "the phony one." |
On Tue, 27 Sep 2005 14:46:50 GMT, "Scott" wrote:
"Leon" wrote in message ... "Charles Bull" wrote in message ... http://www.chortler.com/19866ittas.shtml If he has had a drink he certainly deserves it. It appears that you liberals will believe anything the slam sheets have to say. Especially, if it's against someone you don't like. Who are you liberals going to pick on after Bush leaves office. John Mc Cane? You all better get used to a Republican President. I predict we will have one for at least the next 12 years and if you libs don't like it I suggest you move to Canada. Who on the Dem side could handle what's going on today, Al Gore (what a big dumb Ox he is), Kerry ( the phony one), Hillary (what a joke), Biden (the phony big mouth)? Name one person on the Democrat side that the masses would support. You'd be hard pressed to find one. Tell the truth who would you suggest that has any class. That party is not the party I grew up with when they were for the working person. There are no more Sam Nunn's left in that party. Once John Mc Cain gets tired of the people in his party misspelling his name, he will switch over to the Party Of The People, and run as a Democrat. If that doesn't happen quickly enough, we have Hillary, who has damned near shed that 250 pounds of embarrassing fat ( Bill). And should be in a prefect position to run. I have to tell you, these are promising days to be a Democrat. (Good Lord, I am so grateful to live in a country where even babbling idiots have the vote.) Tom Watson - WoodDorker tjwatson1ATcomcastDOTnet (email) http://home.comcast.net/~tjwatson1/ (website) |
"Tom Watson" wrote in message
news:1127866962.33e4903b676fc2c52d30c2210b271c03@t eranews... Once John Mc Cain gets tired of the people in his party misspelling his name, he will switch over to the Party Of The People, and run as a Democrat. If that doesn't happen quickly enough, we have Hillary, who has damned near shed that 250 pounds of embarrassing fat ( Bill). And should be in a prefect position to run. I have to tell you, these are promising days to be a Democrat. It's pretty telling that the #1 option that Democrats have is that John McCain will switch parties. todd |
On Tue, 27 Sep 2005 21:34:37 -0500, "Todd Fatheree"
wrote: "Tom Watson" wrote in message news:1127866962.33e4903b676fc2c52d30c2210b271c03@ teranews... Once John Mc Cain gets tired of the people in his party misspelling his name, he will switch over to the Party Of The People, and run as a Democrat. If that doesn't happen quickly enough, we have Hillary, who has damned near shed that 250 pounds of embarrassing fat ( Bill). And should be in a prefect position to run. I have to tell you, these are promising days to be a Democrat. It's pretty telling that the #1 option that Democrats have is that John McCain will switch parties. Not so much switch parties as acknowledge reality. He hasn't been a Republican for years. :-( Probably the only thing that saved him from recall was 9/11 -- the group doing the recall petition suspended its activity in the interest of preserving unity. A favor which McCain did not return todd +--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+ If you're gonna be dumb, you better be tough +--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+ |
On Tue, 27 Sep 2005 20:22:39 -0400, Tom Watson wrote:
On Tue, 27 Sep 2005 14:46:50 GMT, "Scott" wrote: "Leon" wrote in message m... "Charles Bull" wrote in message ... http://www.chortler.com/19866ittas.shtml If he has had a drink he certainly deserves it. It appears that you liberals will believe anything the slam sheets have to say. Especially, if it's against someone you don't like. Who are you liberals going to pick on after Bush leaves office. John Mc Cane? You all better get used to a Republican President. I predict we will have one for at least the next 12 years and if you libs don't like it I suggest you move to Canada. Who on the Dem side could handle what's going on today, Al Gore (what a big dumb Ox he is), Kerry ( the phony one), Hillary (what a joke), Biden (the phony big mouth)? Name one person on the Democrat side that the masses would support. You'd be hard pressed to find one. Tell the truth who would you suggest that has any class. That party is not the party I grew up with when they were for the working person. There are no more Sam Nunn's left in that party. Once John Mc Cain gets tired of the people in his party misspelling his name, he will switch over to the Party Of The People, and run as a Democrat. If that doesn't happen quickly enough, we have Hillary, who has damned near shed that 250 pounds of embarrassing fat ( Bill). And should be in a prefect position to run. I have to tell you, these are promising days to be a Democrat. (Good Lord, I am so grateful to live in a country where even babbling idiots have the vote.) You better be, that's the only reason you will get a Democrat president. ;-) Tom Watson - WoodDorker tjwatson1ATcomcastDOTnet (email) http://home.comcast.net/~tjwatson1/ (website) +--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+ If you're gonna be dumb, you better be tough +--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+ |
On Tue, 27 Sep 2005 12:50:51 -0500, "Battleax"
wrote: "Leon" wrote in message ... "Charles Bull" wrote in message ... http://www.chortler.com/19866ittas.shtml If he has had a drink he certainly deserves it. Hey, the guy thinks dinosaurs and humans walked the earth at the same time, drinking is the least of his problems. ... as opposed to believing a theory that, for its fundamental premise violates all logical and scientific principles? (i.e, substituting "from nothing, nothing comes" with "from nothing, everything comes") +--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+ If you're gonna be dumb, you better be tough +--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+ |
Mark & Juanita wrote:
: Not so much switch parties as acknowledge reality. He hasn't been a : Republican for years. :-( He's been an old-style, fiscal conservative, pro-military, anti-interventionist Republican. What he hasn't been is the new style of spend like money is free, interfere anywhere and all the time, anti-soldier-respect, screw the Constitution neo-con. And for that he should be commended. -- Andy Barss |
On Wed, 28 Sep 2005 03:08:48 +0000 (UTC), Andrew Barss
wrote: Mark & Juanita wrote: : Not so much switch parties as acknowledge reality. He hasn't been a : Republican for years. :-( He's been an old-style, fiscal conservative, pro-military, anti-interventionist Republican. What he hasn't been is the new style of spend like money is free, interfere anywhere and all the time, anti-soldier-respect, screw the Constitution neo-con. McCain-Feingold meets those criteria? The most egregious attack on the first amendment in recent times? Hardly. And for that he should be commended. -- Andy Barss The one thing I will give him commendations for has been his steadfast support for the war effort and maintaining unity with the President on this issue. +--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+ If you're gonna be dumb, you better be tough +--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+ |
On Tue, 27 Sep 2005 20:22:39 -0400, Tom Watson wrote:
(Good Lord, I am so grateful to live in a country where even babbling idiots have the vote.) Maybe we should deprive these babbling liberal idiots their civil right or the right to votes like we did to the black in the South? Should we now segregate these damn liberal too, including anyone who doesn't look like us or think like us? Good Lord we are heading in the right direction? |
Vic Baron wrote: "Charles Bull" wrote in message ... http://www.chortler.com/19866ittas.shtml Dunno - but he sure as hell SHOULD be. He claims to have quit around his 40th birthday. That and using cocaine. Not because he had any REAL problems with booze and coke, mind you, but because he got religion, and the religion he got doesn't approve of mind-altering drug use. |
Mark & Juanita wrote: On Tue, 27 Sep 2005 21:34:37 -0500, "Todd Fatheree" wrote: "Tom Watson" wrote in message news:1127866962.33e4903b676fc2c52d30c2210b271c03@ teranews... Once John Mc Cain gets tired of the people in his party misspelling his name, he will switch over to the Party Of The People, and run as a Democrat. If that doesn't happen quickly enough, we have Hillary, who has damned near shed that 250 pounds of embarrassing fat ( Bill). And should be in a prefect position to run. I have to tell you, these are promising days to be a Democrat. It's pretty telling that the #1 option that Democrats have is that John McCain will switch parties. I don't know that he is yet, or ever will be willing to abandon the Republican Party to the backsliding religious nut-jobs. Not so much switch parties as acknowledge reality. He hasn't been a Republican for years. :-( To the extent that is true, it is true for the same reason that Ronald Reagan gave for leaving the Democratic party. In actuality, they didn't change that much, beyond maturation. Their respective parties changed, leaving them rather than vice-versa. Probably the only thing that saved him from recall was 9/11 -- the group doing the recall petition suspended its activity in the interest of preserving unity. Meaning, I suppose that Pat Robertson realized that the recall campaign was serving to prove exactly what McCain had said about him and so bailed when the opportunity presented itself. A favor which McCain did not return A blatant lie. McCain 'buried the hatchet' and has been a strong Bush supporter since then. -- FF |
|
Mark & Juanita wrote: On Wed, 28 Sep 2005 03:08:48 +0000 (UTC), Andrew Barss wrote: Mark & Juanita wrote: : Not so much switch parties as acknowledge reality. He hasn't been a : Republican for years. :-( He's been an old-style, fiscal conservative, pro-military, anti-interventionist Republican. What he hasn't been is the new style of spend like money is free, interfere anywhere and all the time, anti-soldier-respect, screw the Constitution neo-con. McCain-Feingold meets those criteria? The most egregious attack on the first amendment in recent times? Hardly. McCain-Feingold reminds me of the necessity to destroy a villiage in order to save it. Even so, it is not as bad as denying habeas corpus in order to preserve freedom. But of course, McCain is not the subject of this thread. A couple of months ago I came home from work, flipped on the tube and discovered that George W Bush was holding a press conference. I hadn't realized noe was scheduled. As I watched, I was impressed that this one did not seem to be a sham, scripted in advance. He responed to the questions, for the most part addressing the substance of the query. When he was evasive, he was skillfully evasive. Unlike other press conferenes, even the scripted ones, and the debates he did not repeat the same phrases like "we were attacked" and "it's hard work" over and over again. I'v enot made habit of listenign to him speak at every opportunity but hav eheard him a dozen or so times. Unlike any other situation in which he had to compose what he said on the fly or even in many when he was simply reading from a teleprompter this time his anunciation was good, there was little indication of the aphasia (or whatever) that is responsible for so many of his humours misstatements. He acted and sounded like an experienced polititican, a man of above average intelligence, with a college education and experience with public speaking. He sounded Presidential. A few hours later it finally dawned on me that he probably was sober. -- FF |
Charlie Self wrote: The person who believes mankind is the result of "intelligent design", or that the earth in general is, needs to take a better look at both mankind and the world. Both are plenty screwed up, in ways that almost any kind of sentience could have avoided. You would seem to be presuming a benevolent intelligence. Ever see _At Play in the Fields of the Lord_? -- FF |
|
"Charlie Self" wrote in message The person who believes mankind is the result of "intelligent design", or that the earth in general is, needs to take a better look at both mankind and the world. Both are plenty screwed up, in ways that almost any kind of sentience could have avoided. With all due respect, you have described the results of the devils influence on the world. When you were young did you not once ever think that your parents were way off kilter a time or two. Did they not seem way more intelligent than you at one time? What better way to really learn right from wrong than to live in a world that shows both. I am not so arrogant to think that I know which way to learn is best, I leave that to the more intelligent designer. Something to think about. The entire universe did not just happen, it had to be created. |
In article ,
"Leon" wrote: "Charlie Self" wrote in message The person who believes mankind is the result of "intelligent design", or that the earth in general is, needs to take a better look at both mankind and the world. Both are plenty screwed up, in ways that almost any kind of sentience could have avoided. With all due respect, you have described the results of the devils influence on the world. When you were young did you not once ever think that your parents were way off kilter a time or two. Did they not seem way more intelligent than you at one time? What better way to really learn right from wrong than to live in a world that shows both. I am not so arrogant to think that I know which way to learn is best, I leave that to the more intelligent designer. Something to think about. The entire universe did not just happen, it had to be created. We have the answer, it's 42. All we need now is the question. WTF are we doing here and why?....and I'm not talking about UseNet. On one end of the scale is the absolute smallest our little, horribly inadequate, brain can comprehend, and at the other end of the scale is the absolute humongestly huge thing we can get out feeble little brain around. And here we are...at the exact middle of that scale. We are, in fact, nothing more than an equal sign in the equation of knowledge. Hydroponically grown, you say....*bursts out laughing* |
Robatoy wrote: In article , "Leon" wrote: "Charlie Self" wrote in message The person who believes mankind is the result of "intelligent design", or that the earth in general is, needs to take a better look at both mankind and the world. Both are plenty screwed up, in ways that almost any kind of sentience could have avoided. With all due respect, you have described the results of the devils influence on the world. When you were young did you not once ever think that your parents were way off kilter a time or two. Did they not seem way more intelligent than you at one time? What better way to really learn right from wrong than to live in a world that shows both. I am not so arrogant to think that I know which way to learn is best, I leave that to the more intelligent designer. Something to think about. The entire universe did not just happen, it had to be created. We have the answer, it's 42. All we need now is the question. WTF are we doing here and why?....and I'm not talking about UseNet. On one end of the scale is the absolute smallest our little, horribly inadequate, brain can comprehend, and at the other end of the scale is the absolute humongestly huge thing we can get out feeble little brain around. And here we are...at the exact middle of that scale. We are, in fact, nothing more than an equal sign in the equation of knowledge. Hydroponically grown, you say....*bursts out laughing* Leon isn't arrogant enough to think that he knows which way to learn is best. I'm not arrogant enough to believe that God is made in my image--or me, in his. Nor am I arrogant enough to think I know God's will. |
In article .com,
"Charlie Self" wrote: Leon isn't arrogant enough to think that he knows which way to learn is best. I'm not arrogant enough to believe that God is made in my image--or me, in his. Nor am I arrogant enough to think I know God's will. ....and I'm not arrogant enough to question anyone's faith. |
"Charlie Self" wrote in message oups.com... Leon isn't arrogant enough to think that he knows which way to learn is best. I'm not arrogant enough to believe that God is made in my image--or me, in his. Nor am I arrogant enough to think I know God's will. What some may perceive to be the break down of an intelligent design created in his own image started when we all began to sin. |
|
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 12:46 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 DIYbanter