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.

Little John wrote:
On Wed, 05 Aug 2009 16:42:55 -0400, 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?

Oh, I guess I could have said Pelosi's a cute little thing.

But being called the reverse of Harry is quite an honor. Thank you.
--

John H
If you think so.

BAR wrote:
H the K wrote:
BAR wrote:
H the K wrote:
BAR wrote:
H the K wrote:
BAR wrote:
H the K wrote:
BAR wrote:
H the K wrote:
BAR wrote:
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.

Clinton was used.



Clinton got the young ladies out of North Korea. That's what
matters.

Where was your president, you know...Dubya...drunk?

What did Obama do to get them out? Absolutely nothing!



How would you know that?

Enlighten me.



Enlightening you would be a Sisyphean task.

Your grasp of politics as played, yes played, on the world stage is
staggeringly light.


This from a dummy who joined the marines instead of going to college?

It sucks when a guy you believe is dumber than you actually knows
more about the world than you do, isn't it Harry?

And it is Marines with a capital M.



A. If you are referring to yourself, I've not seen anything to
substantiate your claim.
'
B. Sorry, but "capital M" doesn't pass my who gives a **** test.
It is marines.

That's what people find so dis-likable about you.

Amazing that someone who's done NOTHING for his country, let's others
keep his fat nasty ass safe and cozy comes up with **** like that. It
seems there are very few here that are truly open minded and middle of
the road. Some can say nothing good about anybody or anything with a
hint of conservative in it, and some can say nothing about anybody or
anyone with a hint of liberal in it.

it's me, Jim wrote:
H the K wrote:
BAR wrote:
H the K wrote:
BAR wrote:
H the K wrote:
BAR wrote:
H the K wrote:
BAR wrote:
H the K wrote:
BAR wrote:
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.

Clinton was used.



Clinton got the young ladies out of North Korea. That's what
matters.

Where was your president, you know...Dubya...drunk?

What did Obama do to get them out? Absolutely nothing!



How would you know that?

Enlighten me.



Enlightening you would be a Sisyphean task.

Your grasp of politics as played, yes played, on the world stage is
staggeringly light.


This from a dummy who joined the marines instead of going to college?

It sucks when a guy you believe is dumber than you actually knows
more about the world than you do, isn't it Harry?

And it is Marines with a capital M.



A. If you are referring to yourself, I've not seen anything to
substantiate your claim.
'
B. Sorry, but "capital M" doesn't pass my who gives a **** test.
It is marines.

Well then Krausie, I guess that makes you a capital t Turd capital b
Blossom of the highest magnitude. I'll bet you don't talk like this down
at the union hall. The boys would lay you out cold. Id also bet that if
they knew you were a pussy draft dodger, they'd lay you out for that too.

Hmmmm, perhaps we should let his union buddies know?

Little John wrote:
On Wed, 05 Aug 2009 15:55:00 -0700, jps wrote:

On Wed, 05 Aug 2009 14:41:31 -0400, wrote:

On Wed, 05 Aug 2009 11:00:54 -0700, jps wrote:

We are not really sure what was in the bag, we just know who the bag
man was. I imagine we gave them a fat foreign aid package.
The lesson reaffirmed was, take hostages or threaten us and the US
will pay up.
That has been true at least since the Kennedy administration when JFK
gave Kruschev everything he wanted to get the missiles out of Cuba, in
spite of a lot of gothic theater and saber rattling.
We gave them a photo op. KJI made it into a state visit to bolster
his own image within the country. He's trying to manipulate handing
power to his son and he's not doing as well as he'd like in the being
worshipped department.

This was purely KJI proving that he had the stones and the leverage to
get a former president to come to NK.

If we gave them anything, it'd have come through the State Department
and official channels.
I am sure the concessions did come through the State Department. The
former president does speak to the SoS occasionally ... I imagine.
The deal was that Clinton's appearance would reflect well on dear
leader. That was payment enough.

That's what the right wing talk show guys were saying. That is the
minimum payment he got.
--

John H

John, did you happen to catch the home coming of the reporters? Maybe
you should try to tell them it was all a staged event to make Obama look
better, and that you think Clinton should not have gone there to get
them even though Kim asked that he do so to gain their release.

On Thu, 06 Aug 2009 08:37:49 -0400, NotNow wrote:

BAR wrote:
H the K wrote:
BAR wrote:
H the K wrote:
BAR wrote:
H the K wrote:
BAR wrote:
H the K wrote:
BAR wrote:
H the K wrote:
BAR wrote:
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.

Clinton was used.



Clinton got the young ladies out of North Korea. That's what
matters.

Where was your president, you know...Dubya...drunk?

What did Obama do to get them out? Absolutely nothing!



How would you know that?

Enlighten me.



Enlightening you would be a Sisyphean task.

Your grasp of politics as played, yes played, on the world stage is
staggeringly light.


This from a dummy who joined the marines instead of going to college?

It sucks when a guy you believe is dumber than you actually knows
more about the world than you do, isn't it Harry?

And it is Marines with a capital M.



A. If you are referring to yourself, I've not seen anything to
substantiate your claim.
'
B. Sorry, but "capital M" doesn't pass my who gives a **** test.
It is marines.

That's what people find so dis-likable about you.

Amazing that someone who's done NOTHING for his country, let's others
keep his fat nasty ass safe and cozy comes up with **** like that. It
seems there are very few here that are truly open minded and middle of
the road. Some can say nothing good about anybody or anything with a
hint of conservative in it, and some can say nothing about anybody or
anyone with a hint of liberal in it.

Not true at all. I give a lot of credit to the Blue Dog Democrats who
had the integrity and balls to stand up to Pelosi. They are willing to
acknowledge there were some big problems with the health care bill,
even though they were well hidden.

There are actually a few Democrats who have the future of our country
as a priority. They're not quite ready for a socialistic state.
--
John H

All decisions, even those made by liberals, are the result of binary thinking.

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.

On Thu, 06 Aug 2009 08:41:44 -0400, NotNow wrote:

Little John wrote:
On Wed, 05 Aug 2009 15:55:00 -0700, jps wrote:

On Wed, 05 Aug 2009 14:41:31 -0400, wrote:

On Wed, 05 Aug 2009 11:00:54 -0700, jps wrote:

We are not really sure what was in the bag, we just know who the bag
man was. I imagine we gave them a fat foreign aid package.
The lesson reaffirmed was, take hostages or threaten us and the US
will pay up.
That has been true at least since the Kennedy administration when JFK
gave Kruschev everything he wanted to get the missiles out of Cuba, in
spite of a lot of gothic theater and saber rattling.
We gave them a photo op. KJI made it into a state visit to bolster
his own image within the country. He's trying to manipulate handing
power to his son and he's not doing as well as he'd like in the being
worshipped department.

This was purely KJI proving that he had the stones and the leverage to
get a former president to come to NK.

If we gave them anything, it'd have come through the State Department
and official channels.
I am sure the concessions did come through the State Department. The
former president does speak to the SoS occasionally ... I imagine.
The deal was that Clinton's appearance would reflect well on dear
leader. That was payment enough.

That's what the right wing talk show guys were saying. That is the
minimum payment he got.
--

John H

John, did you happen to catch the home coming of the reporters? Maybe
you should try to tell them it was all a staged event to make Obama look
better, and that you think Clinton should not have gone there to get
them even though Kim asked that he do so to gain their release.

Now that you mention it, the news this morning presented the fact that
telephone negotiations about who, what, when, where, have been
underway for some time.

Was it a staged event? It sure as hell wasn't a 'spur of the moment'
thing!
--
John H

All decisions, even those made by liberals, are the result of binary thinking.

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.

Another John wrote:
On Thu, 06 Aug 2009 08:41:44 -0400, NotNow wrote:

Little John wrote:
On Wed, 05 Aug 2009 15:55:00 -0700, jps wrote:

On Wed, 05 Aug 2009 14:41:31 -0400, wrote:

On Wed, 05 Aug 2009 11:00:54 -0700, jps wrote:

We are not really sure what was in the bag, we just know who the bag
man was. I imagine we gave them a fat foreign aid package.
The lesson reaffirmed was, take hostages or threaten us and the US
will pay up.
That has been true at least since the Kennedy administration when JFK
gave Kruschev everything he wanted to get the missiles out of Cuba, in
spite of a lot of gothic theater and saber rattling.
We gave them a photo op. KJI made it into a state visit to bolster
his own image within the country. He's trying to manipulate handing
power to his son and he's not doing as well as he'd like in the being
worshipped department.

This was purely KJI proving that he had the stones and the leverage to
get a former president to come to NK.

If we gave them anything, it'd have come through the State Department
and official channels.
I am sure the concessions did come through the State Department. The
former president does speak to the SoS occasionally ... I imagine.
The deal was that Clinton's appearance would reflect well on dear
leader. That was payment enough.
That's what the right wing talk show guys were saying. That is the
minimum payment he got.
--

John H
John, did you happen to catch the home coming of the reporters? Maybe
you should try to tell them it was all a staged event to make Obama look
better, and that you think Clinton should not have gone there to get
them even though Kim asked that he do so to gain their release.

Now that you mention it, the news this morning presented the fact that
telephone negotiations about who, what, when, where, have been
underway for some time.

Was it a staged event? It sure as hell wasn't a 'spur of the moment'
thing!
--
John H

All decisions, even those made by liberals, are the result of binary thinking.

Go tell the reporters and their families and children that they should
go back and turn themselves back to Kim to begin their 15 years of hard
labor because you think the only reason the admin. did it was to look
good. Now, I'm sure that if it were a republican that did this exact
same thing, in your eyes that would have been the greatest humanitarian
effort ever. Hell, you totally agreed with Bush about Iraq. A war that
was several years long, thousands of innocent people killed, loss of
U.S. military servicemen, because of humanitarian reasons. A liberal
goes and has talks with someone, get's two U.S. reporters freed and it's
all bull**** to you. Pure reverse Harry.