On Jul 28, 2:55*pm, jps wrote:
A
small but persistent prodding is all it takes.

Indeed, the loudest seem to be the first to cross the line.

After hearing or observing in this case, your consistantly droning
peel concerning gun control, or lack thereof, shouldn't your neighbors
be concerned that with little provocation, you may shoot them?

On Tue, 28 Jul 2009 15:58:04 -0500, wrote:

On Tue, 28 Jul 2009 12:54:41 -0700, jps wrote:

On Fri, 24 Jul 2009 16:33:04 -0500, wrote:

On Fri, 24 Jul 2009 16:28:59 -0500, wrote:

On Fri, 24 Jul 2009 13:58:39 -0700, jps wrote:

snipped for brevity

You must have supported Henry Hyde's investigation into Clinton's blow
job. The same Henry Hyde who was concurrently cheating on his wife.

Concurrently cheating on his wife? Egads! Miss Information strikes
again!

Wait! I think I understand. Hyde was cheating on his wife at the
same time he was cheating on his wife. You Leftists are so cagey!

Do you often run yourself in circles? Seems like a waste of energy
and so contrary to the run-of-the-mill straight line "conservative."
Oh well, to each his own.

Indubitably, there are some that are lacking for insight, and often
that mental impediment is set in place by political blindness. I
would recommend that you either look up the standard definition of
"concurrent," or else revisit the late Mr. Hyde's history. Unless, of
course, you are a Moore-sian revisionist and lack the courage to
subordinate yourself to intellectual honesty (that being my
prognosis).

Oh golly, the act wasn't concurrent. We found out about it concurrent
with him sitting in judgement of Clinton.

****ing hypocritical son of a bitch. Like so many other outspoken,
holier-than-thou "conservative, family values" Republicans.