I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view

Learn from yesterday, live for today, hope for tomorrow.

I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view

I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view

I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view

I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view

I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view

I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view

Comment by JoefriED

Don’t know Joe. What’s a Presnit?

Ooops. You are right about that. My bad. It’s an understandable mistake though considering how well Clinton took to persecuting anyone not firmly established on the Filthy Left and considering his list of other crimes not the least of which was sicking that psychotic lesbo bitch on those poor people in Texas.

Nope. It’s an unsurprising (note I didn’t say “understandable”) mistake considering you’re a far RW parrynoyd freakaziod kind of guy that prolly thinks that KKKlinton (as your type likes to term him unless he’s being trotted out as the excuse for Dubya or as an example of all that is good and moral so that Dubya doens’t look like the crook he is) is responsible for the 57 or so murders that folks like the Western Media Center claimed. You guys are just nutz, in a word, and thought that Clinton’s the one into “persecution”, and not your Bubble Boy who wants all the questions pre-screened, and gets people booted from his vicinity because Dubya just can’t take the heat. Clinton was far from the persecutorial vindictiveness of your present maladministration. Here’s a question fer ya: How many times did Clinton or any Dems call DeLay a “traitor”, “al Qaeda lover” or whatever, for syaing things like “he’s not my president” and for attacking Clinton’s military campaigns in the Balkans? Simple answer: Just tell me how many times that happened.

Cheers,

Cheers,

Comment by Arne Langsetmo

Ooops. You are right about that. My bad. It’s an understandable mistake though considering how well Clinton took to persecuting anyone not firmly established on the Filthy Left and considering his list of other crimes not the least of which was sicking that psychotic lesbo bitch on those poor people in Texas.

Comment by Ryan Neat

Ryan Neat #84,

Be gentle, crossdressing is a “conflicted” lifestyle.

Comment by I-RIGHT-I

I-Trite-I #99

Sieg heil! You naziracistratbastardfacistmofo

Ummm, so “inherent” = “inherit” [or perhaps the new addition to the English language: "inheret"]? No wonder you have such serious difficulties understanding this stuff….

Cheers,

http://niquel757.blogspot.com

called “You are losing your privacy fast”

There are also other articles you may find interesting, together with pictures, paitings and other things

Best regards

So is she saying here as a big-time lawyer that the Constitution means nothing, that the president only has power if Congress gives it to him? Yes, that’s what she said yesterday, because she wants to join the forces of those who say Clinton didn’t break the law, but Bush did. She’s trying to protect her sugar daddy, Bill Clinton, and trying to join the forces that want to get Bush in deep trouble over this. But as the Newsweek story mentioned, it isn’t working, the mainstream media pulling their hair out. “Why is there no outrage, why aren’t people mad?” Because maybe the people appreciate what the president is trying to do. And Ms. Gorelick, answer this. How is it that your boy, Bill Clinton, had inherent power, but George Bush does not? How is it that your boy, Bill Clinton, has inherent power coming from the Constitution, but when it comes to George W. Bush, a bunch of hick, hayseed liberals in the House and the Senate can trump his inherent authority? Care to try to explain this?

How well I remember the illegal wire taps, confiscation of private property, the mass slaughter at Waco as well as the murders at Ruby Ridge all accomplished via extra-constitutional measures…

Ummmm, Ruby Ridge happened while Bush I was prez….

I know, I-Right-I, I hate to burst your bubble of the tyranny of Clinton (even while your buddies all hold him up now as an exemplar of all that is good, noral, and legal), but couldn’t you at least attribute the right supposed “crimes” to the right party?

Cheers,