View Single Post
  #43   Report Post  
posted to rec.boats
Little John[_3_] Little John[_3_] is offline
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by BoatBanter: Aug 2009
Posts: 68
Default That damned Clinton

On Wed, 05 Aug 2009 14:46:49 -0400, NotNow wrote:

Little John wrote:
On Wed, 05 Aug 2009 10:51:54 -0400, NotNow wrote:

Little John wrote:
On Tue, 04 Aug 2009 16:56:58 -0400, NotNow wrote:

Little John wrote:
On Tue, 04 Aug 2009 16:06:58 -0400, NotNow wrote:

That no good dirty, nasty liberal ******* went to North Korea, and used
that damned namby-pamby liberal bull**** called diplomacy and got those
journalists released.
Of course, we don't know (yet) what we gave them. Forgiveness for
developing nukes? Missile development details? Promises for reduced
penalties?

Or do you think it was just 'personality'? Remember, diplomacy is a
two-way street.
--

John H
The White House is saying Clinton went on his own. I didn't know he had
the authority to do any of the above. But, I do notice that without one
shred of evidence or even hearsay, you've swept it under the carpet as a
bad thing.
I said no such thing. My, you are good at attempting to put words in
the mouths of others.

Do you believe that diplomacy is a one way street? Do you really
believe Kim did thissimply as a reflection of North Korea's
"humanitarian and peaceloving policy"?
--

John H
Okay, so I was wrong. You like the fact that Clinton is a humanitarian
on a humanitarian mission and you like the fact that he was, indeed
great enough to get the reporters released.


Yes, you were wrong.

Are you changing your line from 'diplomacy' to 'humanitarian mission'?

Do you honestly believe Kim, Jong Il will get nothing out of this but
'charitable feelings'?
--

John H

I don't know John, perhaps we should have left those asshole sissy
journalists to die at the hands of Kim? Or would you suggest 10's of
billions in war debt?


I don't know either. But why make all the negative comments because
the questions are asked.

Why would you suggest the journalists be left to die? Do you think
Kim, JI would have allowed that? If so, then he's surely not one to do
things because he gets a 'charitable feeling'.

Tens of billions in war debt? From where? Hell, we'll have *trillions*
of 'vote buying' debt very soon. Personally, I'd rather spend a couple
billion taking away the nuclear option from Kim, JI. But I can also
understand that you may hold with the liberal philosophy that the bad
guys aren't really bad.
--

John H