"John H." wrote in message
...
I can't speak for other people, but I'm not justifying any actions. I'm
making a direct comparison. At the end of 8 (I'm hopeful) years, we can
compare the records more completely. For now, there are some obvious
comparisons possible.

Call it what you will. It is what it is.

"Bush screwed up, therefore Obama's screwups are OK."

Give me a break.


And, yet again, I have to disagree. No one is claiming that because Bush
screwed up, Obama's mistakes are ok.

Are you claiming that no comparisons are valid? Isn't that the basis for a
program (a Bush program) called No Child Left Behind? Comparisons are
benchmarks. They are totally valid. The issue is making justifiable
comparisons.

--
Nom=de=Plume

"John H." wrote in message
...
Bush's screwup were never OK.

Thank you! I'm not going to ask which screwup was not ok, but.... lol


--
Nom=de=Plume

"JustWait" wrote in message
...
Just think, a year ago, it was Clinton screwed up, therefore Bush's
screwups are OK.

Bull****... Just plain bull****...


Actually, that's pretty accurate. One of the main reasons for Bush getting
elected (sic) was "Clinton" fatigue.

--
Nom=de=Plume

On Sat, 29 Aug 2009 10:56:22 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

"John H." wrote in message
.. .
I can't speak for other people, but I'm not justifying any actions. I'm
making a direct comparison. At the end of 8 (I'm hopeful) years, we can
compare the records more completely. For now, there are some obvious
comparisons possible.

Call it what you will. It is what it is.

"Bush screwed up, therefore Obama's screwups are OK."

Give me a break.


And, yet again, I have to disagree. No one is claiming that because Bush
screwed up, Obama's mistakes are ok.

Horse manure! That's the biggest laugh I've had in a month.

Are you claiming that no comparisons are valid? Isn't that the basis for a
program (a Bush program) called No Child Left Behind? Comparisons are
benchmarks. They are totally valid. The issue is making justifiable
comparisons.
--
John H

"The democracy will cease to exist when you take away from those
who are willing to work and give to those who would not."
Thomas Jefferson

On Aug 29, 1:57*pm, "nom=de=plume" wrote:
"John H." wrote in message

...

Bush's screwup were never OK.

Thank you! I'm not going to ask which screwup was not ok, but.... lol

--
Nom=de=Plume

Did I make a typo? Glad it gave you a chuckle.

In article ,
says...

On Sat, 29 Aug 2009 10:56:22 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

"John H." wrote in message
.. .
I can't speak for other people, but I'm not justifying any actions. I'm
making a direct comparison. At the end of 8 (I'm hopeful) years, we can
compare the records more completely. For now, there are some obvious
comparisons possible.

Call it what you will. It is what it is.

"Bush screwed up, therefore Obama's screwups are OK."

Give me a break.


And, yet again, I have to disagree. No one is claiming that because Bush
screwed up, Obama's mistakes are ok.

Horse manure! That's the biggest laugh I've had in a month.

Are you claiming that no comparisons are valid? Isn't that the basis for a
program (a Bush program) called No Child Left Behind? Comparisons are
benchmarks. They are totally valid. The issue is making justifiable
comparisons.

So, you support NCLB? Or do we have yet another double standard...??



--
Wafa free since 2009

nom=de=plume wrote:
"John H." wrote in message
...
I can't speak for other people, but I'm not justifying any actions. I'm
making a direct comparison. At the end of 8 (I'm hopeful) years, we can
compare the records more completely. For now, there are some obvious
comparisons possible.
Call it what you will. It is what it is.

"Bush screwed up, therefore Obama's screwups are OK."

Give me a break.


And, yet again, I have to disagree. No one is claiming that because Bush
screwed up, Obama's mistakes are ok.

Are you claiming that no comparisons are valid? Isn't that the basis for a
program (a Bush program) called No Child Left Behind? Comparisons are
benchmarks. They are totally valid. The issue is making justifiable
comparisons.


Funny how No Child Left Behind winds up in Kennedy's top 10 legislative
accomplishments.

http://tinyurl.com/kns4ck

Kennedy worked closely with President George W. Bush to advance the No
Child Left Behind Act, one of Bush's earliest accomplishments and,
critics say, his last meaningful attempt at bipartisanship.

H the K wrote:
JustWait wrote:


Nope, Armitage outed the agent to Novak. At least read a little before
spewing out. You are the one who want's to assure that nobody is
called guilty until convicted, but I guess when it comes to repubs you
can call them "traitor who outed a CIA agent" because he is a
republican, even though he got convicted of providing false
information, that's all. Now if you want to convict someone of outing
CIA agents, let's have an investigation into the recent activity by
the ACLU following real covert agents home, photographing them and
their families, and showing them to prisoners and admitted AlQueda
agents at Gitmo. And before you deflect, please go to their page and
read the admission in their own words. OJ is innocent even though he
was found responsible in court, but Scooter is guilty of "treason"
even though he didn't get convicted of anything near that.. Man, your
double standard showing...



Moron.

Harry, nice refutation of the facts.

BAR wrote:
H the K wrote:
JustWait wrote:


Nope, Armitage outed the agent to Novak. At least read a little
before spewing out. You are the one who want's to assure that nobody
is called guilty until convicted, but I guess when it comes to repubs
you can call them "traitor who outed a CIA agent" because he is a
republican, even though he got convicted of providing false
information, that's all. Now if you want to convict someone of outing
CIA agents, let's have an investigation into the recent activity by
the ACLU following real covert agents home, photographing them and
their families, and showing them to prisoners and admitted AlQueda
agents at Gitmo. And before you deflect, please go to their page and
read the admission in their own words. OJ is innocent even though he
was found responsible in court, but Scooter is guilty of "treason"
even though he didn't get convicted of anything near that.. Man, your
double standard showing...



Moron.

Harry, nice refutation of the facts.

"Moron" is all the moron deserves.

H the K wrote:
BAR wrote:
H the K wrote:
JustWait wrote:


Nope, Armitage outed the agent to Novak. At least read a little
before spewing out. You are the one who want's to assure that nobody
is called guilty until convicted, but I guess when it comes to
repubs you can call them "traitor who outed a CIA agent" because he
is a republican, even though he got convicted of providing false
information, that's all. Now if you want to convict someone of
outing CIA agents, let's have an investigation into the recent
activity by the ACLU following real covert agents home,
photographing them and their families, and showing them to prisoners
and admitted AlQueda agents at Gitmo. And before you deflect, please
go to their page and read the admission in their own words. OJ is
innocent even though he was found responsible in court, but Scooter
is guilty of "treason" even though he didn't get convicted of
anything near that.. Man, your double standard showing...



Moron.

Harry, nice refutation of the facts.

"Moron" is all the moron deserves.

It means I can refute the facts presented so I'll just call you a name.

It's third grade behavior.