it's me, Jim wrote:
NotNow wrote:
Little John wrote:
On Wed, 05 Aug 2009 16:33:34 -0400, NotNow wrote:

Little John wrote:
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?
Because Clinton did what he could do to get them released. And in
narrow mindedness, some here just can't except that because Oh, my
God he's a liberal........
I have never, ever heard you utter one statement here about any
liberal that wasn't negative. It's the reverse of Harry.

OK, maybe you're right.

Here goes...

"Obama can spend money faster than anyone I've ever heard of.?

How's that?
--

John H

I rest my case, antiHarry.

John is anti bull****. It doesn't matter who serves it up.
I don't think John or anyone else cares weather or not Harry lives or
dies. When Harry ceases his ranting, some other bozo will take his
place. The bull**** will continue.

Not true at all. I have never heard him make an anti-conservative
statement about anything.