The Drive-a-Toyota Act

Page 12 of 15  


Admittedly they did a good job of coverup and let their friends take the hit for it. The clintons are shrewd make no mistake about it.
--
"Fire up a colortini, sit back, relax, and watch the pictures, now,
as they fly through the air."
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
dbu., wrote:

Heh, see what I mean about Faux Noise? Convicted via the media. Know what happens when you mess with health care? Ask the Clintons. Ever heard of Richard Mellon Scaife and the Arkansas Project?
Shrewd? Shrewd is *preventing* investigations of crimes, like Bush/Cheney.
How much was the alleged Whitewater crime again? I forget, 300K? For "shrewd" I say they were pikers. The sign of a real pro is when you get into the neighborhood of millions.
For example, say your the CEO of a company that's about to tank and lose 23 million and you sell your stock for 848K? Then, you violate SEC law by not reporting the sale for 9 months. Whoops! *Then* forget to date the report. Talk about a "well known father", connections and shrewdness. To this day on one knows who purchased Bush's Harken stock. Heh, talk about a harbinger for things to come. Got any Haliburton stock?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
F.H. wrote:

Can't follow more than one thought at a time, eh? He didn't say what you're dishonestly trying to make it look like he said.
What does this have to do with Gore's son getting busted for drugs and getting let off for good behavior anyway?
You're folllowing some kind of Soros script (i.e., "When they say 'X', then you respond with 'Y' to divert attention away from the real presnt-day issue") I take it?
Bill Putney (To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my address with the letter 'x')
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Bill Putney wrote:

Go back and start over. Perhaps if you do it slowing you will be able to follow.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
F.H. wrote:

I don't follow your grammar.
Bill Putney (To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my address with the letter 'x')
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Bill Putney wrote:

The problem isn't sentence structure.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote in message

He can't handle the truth! ;-)
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Jeff Mayner wrote:

I think I understand what Bill is getting at. If you start a conversation about alleged special treatment for *one* son of a wealthy and well connected person, its 'dishonest' to bring up the *proven* special treatment of the son of *another* well connected person. Throwing George Soros into the discussion however, is perfectly logical and honest.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
F.H. wrote:

In spite of your intended sarcasm, you're absoutely right. I prefer to discuss things in the present day together. The Soros blogs and Gore III drug/carbon credits events are present day.
Bill Putney (To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my address with the letter 'x')
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Bill Putney wrote:

LOL, tranlation: Like most rightwingnuts you insist on making the rules, or *changing* them after the damage is tallied up.
I don't want to play in your yard, I don't like you anymore, You'll be sorry when you see me, Sliding down our cellar door, You can't holler down our rainbarrel, You can't climb our apple tree, I don't want to play in your yard, If you won't be good to me.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
"F.H." wrote:

Gosh and I thought that such outstanding people like the Gores are so much better than those damned other people. Now when they get in a jam, you just point to the people you claimed not to respect as a proper example.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

The Gores and the Clintons are politicians in the same way Joseph Stalin was. They talk like they are concerned about the little people but all they want is control.
Look at them bitching about taxes. The deficit is actually going DOWN because of tax cuts and they bitch every damn day about the Bush Tax Cuts because not only is it reducing the deficit, but it's also reducing their control of Amerika. They want Amerika, not America. Jefferson should rise up out of his grave and expel them from the Democrapic party.
Charles of Schaumburg
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
n5hsr wrote:

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
n5hsr wrote:

Dude, you're delusional. Cite please about the tax cuts making any positive difference for the average American and not just Bush's "Base",or shut your flying monkey, right wing piehole.
Thanks. ;-)
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Jeff Mayner wrote:

LOL, not on just the tax reality, the *slightest* investigation of what Jefferson believed would show that the Bush administration and today's government by corporation, faith based initiative etc., is precisely what he feared. Talking about the deficit going down is like speaking warmly about the doctor who nursed his wife back to health after he beat the crap out of her.
When Bush came into office, he inherited a surplus of $284 Billion. At that time, the Bush administration predicted a $516 billion surplus for 2006. Looks like he missed by about 800 billion.
As of the end of 2006 here are the top five deficits in US history:
1. 2004 (George W. Bush) $413 billion 2. 2003 (George W. Bush) $378 billion 3. 2005 (George W. Bush) $318 billion 4. 2006 (George W. Bush) $296 billion 5. 1992 (George H. W. Bush) $290 billion
Prior to the Neo-Conservative takeover of the Republican Party there was not much difference between the two parties debt philosophy. They both worked together to minimize it. However the debt has been on a steady incline ever since the Reagan presidency. The only exception to the steep increase over the last 25 years was during the Clinton presidency, when he brought spending under control and the debt growth down to almost zero.
Comparing the borrowing habits of the two parties since 1981, when the Neo-Conservative movement really took hold and government spending raced out of control, it is extremely obvious that the big spenders in Washington are Republicans and their partys presidents.
The only Democratic president since then, Mr. Clinton raised the national debt an average of 4.3% per year. The Republican presidents (Reagan, Bush, and Bush II) raised the debt an average of 10.8% per year. That is, for every dollar a Democratic President has raised the national debt in the past 25 years, Republican presidents have raised the debt by $2.53[6]. Any way you look at it Neo-Conservative Republican presidents cannot or will not control government spending.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Had clinton done his job, he would have spent more money on national security as GWB had to do and we wouldn't have had 3000 + innocent citizens die on 9/11.
You are a bumbling idiot for even mentioning this.
--
"Fire up a colortini, sit back, relax, and watch the pictures, now,
as they fly through the air."
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
dbu., wrote:

I wouldn't say what you pose here makes you an idiot but it certainly does not make you informed. Why is it I wonder that the misinformed are so quick to go to name calling? Have you any idea how many warnings of the intentions to attack were ignored by Bush? Do at least a *little* homework before embarrassing yourself.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

Bush was president for less than a year, less than eight months. Clinton on the other hand was president for 8 years, big difference, not to mention all the dispicable road blocks clintons gang put up after Bush won.
--
"Fire up a colortini, sit back, relax, and watch the pictures, now,
as they fly through the air."
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
dbu., wrote:

Yeah, right. So..., how many (not counting the "Bin Laden determined to strike inside U.S." that Condi tried desperately to skirt at the Senate hearings did the Bushie's miss?
Transcript: (note mention of the 1998 strikes by the Clinton administration)
"FBI information since that time indicates patterns of suspicious activity in this country consistent with preparations for hijackings or other types of attacks, including recent surveillance of federal buildings in New York."
Some people make a good case that is was worse than simple negligence. "Pearl Harbor" indeed.
http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/04/10/august6.memo /
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
dbu., wrote:

911 911 911!
Look over here...Don't look at those confusing numbers! Ahab is gonna get youuuuuuu.....
Go back to sleep, sheep.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Related Threads

    Motorsforum.com is a website by car enthusiasts for car enthusiasts. It is not affiliated with any of the car or spare part manufacturers or car dealers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.