wait, i do not mean anyones resonse was not welcomed.
you can disagree with me as much as you like, all i
meant was that i can't be called off of a answer i
gave as to why i "hate" mrs clinton. that is all i
meant to say. i took time to tell you i did agree with
the point you made. and i do. it allowed me to make
some observations of the war on terror and the war on
drugs that i'd not have been able to make had you not
disagreed. i was though ask to give a reason for my
feelings about the clintons. i do have equal disdain
for thethings this administration is doing that i
think are not constitutional. an i appreciate your
allowing me to agree with you on your point. even when
a particular person is ask a question, everyone has
been indirectly ask the same question. did i say that?
i intended to. maybe i did not. anyway i appoligize if
you though i was saying you could not express your
views. i guess what i was saING WAS THE "WHOA", oops
as being like "hey, you can't say that".
hey, scott, i was thinking about saying something
that would make all of you get out the flame thowers
out to me. i wonder if i dare. mag and kat would
skewer me but good. i'll comtemplate if i want to do
that or not.
hang in there friend, hit me with anything you want,
i'll try to respond.
but, guys, i must quit for a little time as my
hands are giving me signals to stop for a little
while. if i respond tomorrow, it will be quick enough.
--- Scott Sands <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> I wasn't aware that my response was unwelcome.
> However, my "whoa" was
> directed towards your answering Kat's question by
> telling us what Margaret
> Thatcher DIDN'T do. What has Hillary Clinton done
> that hasn't been done by
> just about any man? THAT was my point. Think about
> it or don't, but
> implying offense that I even
> responded...well...sheesh. Calm down?
>
> I don't hate Hillary Clinton, so I won't pretend
> Kat's question was directed
> toward me...but I won't pretend I'm not allowed to
> respond--if it isn't
> something she wanted a response on, couldn't she
> e-mail you directly about
> it? If it's on the post, it's meant for everyone.
> Right?
>
> I weighed in, and I apologize if doing so was
> inappropriate, but I really
> don't think it was. I'm beginning to wonder, Ken,
> if I'm welcome on the
> list.
>
> Scott
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: ken barber <[log in to unmask]>
> To: <[log in to unmask]>
> Sent: Sunday, June 08, 2003 1:10 PM
> Subject: Re: Ironies
>
>
> > besides you can't say whoa, when kat ask us the
> why?
> > and i directly answered her question that i think
> was
> > directed to bobby and to me and i guess indirectly
> the
> > rest of the list. she did say "you boys."
> >
> > lets be honest, mr clinton lied about an
> affair,
> > but, he did it "under oath". and that is perjury
> and
> > there are men and women in jail for perjury. it is
> a
> > felony.
> > but again i agree with your point. as i have
> > already said. the government is taking too much
> > liberty with this war on terror, just as they have
> > taken too much liberty with the war on drugs. due
> > process is out the window if they catch you with
> lots
> > of cash. they can take it and do it without
> proving
> > that you did nothing wrong and even if you are
> > innocent and never convicted, they can keep the
> money
> > and/or property. jose padea (spelling may be
> wrong)
> > took into custody for supporting terrorist.
> american
> > citizen. they have not charged him, they have not
> let
> > him get legal councel. this is very wrong. people
> have
> > been killed by law enforcement that i think
> charged
> > that they were into the drug business, when in
> fact
> > the county just wanted the person's property. i am
> not
> > a fan of government run amuc.
> >
> >
> > --- Scott Sands <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> > > Whoa.
> > >
> > > First of all, let's be fair about what Bill
> Clinton
> > > did--he lied about an
> > > affair. How many men have done jail time for
> that?
> > > Second, let's be fair
> > > about what Hillary Clinton has done--she has run
> > > campaigns the way
> > > politicians have been running them in this
> country
> > > for years and years.
> > >
> > > What George W. Bush has done to the office of
> > > President and to the
> > > Constitution of this country (particularly to
> the
> > > doctrine of habeus corpus)
> > > is far more troubling to me.
> > >
> > > Scott
> > >
> > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > From: ken barber <[log in to unmask]>
> > > To: <[log in to unmask]>
> > > Sent: Sunday, June 08, 2003 12:34 PM
> > > Subject: Re: Ironies
> > >
> > >
> > > > margret thacher was a powerful woman. she did
> not
> > > > switch her opinions with every poll or every
> focus
> > > > group that met. i might add that she did not
> get
> > > her
> > > > power from a man she married. she did not run
> > > > campaigns with hand picked news personnel that
> > > would
> > > > only ask questions that she wanted ask. mrs
> > > clinton
> > > > has never been in a public forum that she has
> not
> > > > control who would be there.
> > > > powerful? not my definition of powerful.
> hate,
> > > no
> > > > lets usethe right word, despise is the word
> and
> > > > whatthese two did to the office of the
> president
> > > and
> > > > to the constitution of this country is the
> reason
> > > that
> > > > i dispise both of them.
> > > > questioned answered.
> > > >
> > > > --- "K. Salkin" <[log in to unmask]>
> wrote:
> > > > > Now com'on guys. Why do you hate her so
> much?
> > > > > She's a powerful woman but I
> > > > > fail to see where she's so evil. If you're
> > > thinking
> > > > > Whitewater remember
> > > > > that her involvement was never proved in
> that
> > > case.
> > > > > I've seen far more
> > > > > evidence of misuse in power by men and no
> one
> > > bats
> > > > > an eye.
> > > > >
> > > > > I'm beginning to think that men fear
> powerful
> > > women.
> > > > > ;-)
> > > > >
> > > > > Kat
> > > > >
> > > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > > From: "ken barber" <[log in to unmask]>
> > > > > Newsgroups: bit.listserv.c-palsy
> > > > > To: <[log in to unmask]>
> > > > > Sent: Sunday, June 08, 2003 3:07 PM
> > > > > Subject: Re: Ironies
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > > well, mag, i have been watching politics
> since
> > > i
> > > > > was
> > > > > > in middle school. back then i did not
> identify
> > > > > with
> > > > > > either party. i can say that nobody in my
> time
> > > has
> > > > > > struck me as being even a close 2nd to
> hillary
> > > > > > clinton.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --- Magenta Raine <[log in to unmask]>
> wrote:
> > > > > > > In a message dated 6/7/03 8:24:16 PM
> Pacific
> > > > > > > Daylight Time,
> > > > > > > [log in to unmask] writes:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Which 'baby Bush' are you referring
> to,
> > > Mag?
> > > > > > > There are two out there!
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > the one in 1600 Pennsylvania Ave. ;-<
>
=== message truncated ===
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Calendar - Free online calendar with sync to Outlook(TM).
http://calendar.yahoo.com
|
