|
|
| Re: Karl Rove (3900) | |
 |
|
| Home > OTChat | |
[ Post a New Response | Return to the Index ]
|
Page 2 of 4 |
||
|
| (4531) | |
Re: Karl Rove |
|
|
Posted by Train Dude on Sat Nov 27 21:42:50 2004, in response to Re: Karl Rove, posted by American Pig on Sat Nov 27 21:38:28 2004. Again, your comment is not relavent to the point I was responding to. I suggest you check back to the post I was responding to before you interject with non-relavent insight. |
|
|
| (4533) | |
Re: Karl Rove |
|
|
Posted by American Pig on Sat Nov 27 22:01:56 2004, in response to Re: Karl Rove, posted by Train Dude on Sat Nov 27 21:42:50 2004. If you want to talk about irrelevance, what relevance does your response to Olog-hai have? |
|
|
| (4540) | |
Re: Karl Rove |
|
|
Posted by Olog-hai on Sat Nov 27 22:36:30 2004, in response to Re: Karl Rove, posted by Train Dude on Sat Nov 27 18:11:38 2004. Are you saying that you can only be considered successful if you succeeed at something criminal?Actually, I was saying that you said that, extrapolating it from your statement "Success equals meeting your objectives" . . . because you neglected to mention what means are legitimate and illegitimate in regards to meeting said objectives. |
|
|
| (4541) | |
Re: Karl Rove |
|
|
Posted by Olog-hai on Sat Nov 27 22:41:39 2004, in response to Re: Karl Rove, posted by Train Dude on Sat Nov 27 18:01:35 2004. Uh, as I stated in other posts:
Please stick to the issues . . . |
|
|
| (4542) | |
Re: Karl Rove |
|
|
Posted by Olog-hai on Sat Nov 27 22:42:55 2004, in response to Re: Karl Rove, posted by Train Dude on Sat Nov 27 18:32:45 2004. |
|
|
| (4543) | |
Re: Karl Rove |
|
|
Posted by Olog-hai on Sat Nov 27 22:47:27 2004, in response to Re: Karl Rove, posted by Train Dude on Sat Nov 27 18:36:43 2004. the liberal dummcratsWhy are redundant phrases like that repeated from Bush supporters? refusal to unite behind the legitimately elected President There are extenuating circumstances. PNAC is the biggest. The fiscal and economic policies of the Bush Admin during a time of war is yet another. it gives the Fanatical Muslim Extremist followers of bin Laden reason to think they can be victorious against a divided United States How come the Bush Administration is not bothering to reach out to its opposition within the US? Unilaterilsm is not conducive to unity. And the by-proxy "war on liberals" is given legitimacy, thus. All during a time when we need more unity than ever. Bush had that unity—however, that was squandered during March of 2003. |
|
|
| (4544) | |
Re: Karl Rove |
|
|
Posted by Olog-hai on Sat Nov 27 22:58:35 2004, in response to Re: Karl Rove, posted by Dan Lawrence on Sat Nov 27 21:15:26 2004. There are significant differences between RWR and GWB notwithstanding (apologies to the Port Authority bridge that shares that particular acronym :-P ). Reagan was not engaged in a "war on terror" on our present scale; he also did not borrow heavily from foreign countries; there was no NAFTA or any other such trade agreement; outsourcing had not reached pandemic proportions; Reagan was far more adept at foreign relations, I daresay; and although Reagan claimed to be a fan of the "free market", he nonetheless did not offer the level of protectionism and corporate welfare to the super-rich that they currently enjoy. Reagan also didn't give the EU a reason to unify quite rapidly, nor to engage in a single currency . . . |
|
|
| (4545) | |
Re: Karl Rove |
|
|
Posted by BIE on Sat Nov 27 23:22:57 2004, in response to Re: Karl Rove, posted by Olog-hai on Sat Nov 27 22:58:35 2004. The idea for the euro dates back to the Maastricht treaty and predates bu$h 43. The Maastricht treaty was signed on February, 1992 (bu$h 41). According to Denmark's central bank, the implementation history of the Euro was as follows:"On 1 January 1999, 11 EU member states acquired a single currency, the euro. This was achieved by locking the exchange rates for the legacy currencies of the participating EU member states (euro area member states) vis-à-vis the euro. For the first three years, the euro existed only as electronic money, while the legacy currencies still existed as banknotes and coins. However, the fixed parities of the 11 legacy currencies vis-à-vis the euro meant that they were no longer independent currencies, and consequently they were no longer traded in the currency markets. Three years after the introduction of the euro, i.e. on 1 January 2002, euro banknotes and coins were put into circulation. The three years up to 1 January 2002 were necessary in order that all parts of society, e.g. retailers, the financial sector, companies and the public sector, could prepare for the full transition to euro. This period was also used to manufacture euro banknotes and coins." The implementation of the euro took place mostly under the Cilnton Administration. Only the final preparation for physically creating and distributing the new currency took place under bu$h 43, |
|
|
| (4548) | |
Re: Karl Rove |
|
|
Posted by Train Dude on Sun Nov 28 00:36:39 2004, in response to Re: Karl Rove, posted by Olog-hai on Sat Nov 27 22:36:30 2004. I suggest that you get a dictionary - preferably one without pictures. |
|
|
| (4549) | |
Re: Karl Rove |
|
|
Posted by Train Dude on Sun Nov 28 00:42:05 2004, in response to Re: Karl Rove, posted by Olog-hai on Sat Nov 27 22:36:30 2004. Success means meeting your objectives. I am successful because I have met my objectives and I am not a criminal. Perhaps if you feel that only criminals are successful then you might be hanging with the wrong crowd. |
|
|
| (4550) | |
Re: Karl Rove |
|
|
Posted by Train Dude on Sun Nov 28 00:45:02 2004, in response to Re: Karl Rove, posted by Olog-hai on Sat Nov 27 22:41:39 2004. The issue is that the Republicans won!The issue is that the conservatives won. The issue is that President Bush won! The issue is that you whine and kick and cry and can't get over it. The issue is your side lost. Now what's your point? |
|
|
| (4561) | |
Re: Karl Rove |
|
|
Posted by Train Dude on Sun Nov 28 08:54:09 2004, in response to Re: Karl Rove, posted by Olog-hai on Sat Nov 27 22:42:55 2004. I suppose you recently read a picture book that had the words 'neoconservative' and 'deflective' in the first few pages and they stuck, huh? Try to keep in mind that while every democratic candidate since Dukakis has tried to compare himself with John F. Kennedy, by todays standards, you'd have to classify him as somewhere to the right of Rush Limbaugh. If you really want to look at things honestly, Conservatism has migrated from the democrats to the Republicans over the last 30 - 40 years. Concervatism has just switched sides. What the democrats have morphed to is a form of neo-liberalism.BTW: What do you suppose Kerry and your neo-liberallies would have done during the Cuban Missle Crisis? |
|
|
| (4568) | |
Re: Karl Rove |
|
|
Posted by Wayne on Sun Nov 28 10:23:24 2004, in response to Re: Karl Rove, posted by Olog-hai on Sat Nov 27 22:42:55 2004. Don't forget with whom you are dealing here. He has some kind of mental problem the forces him to talk down to everyone that disagrees with him; he was probably bullied at school and sees this as soem kind of 'revenge'. Evidently he has very little contact with other humans; if he did, he would know how to adress them properly. |
|
|
| (4570) | |
Re: Karl Rove |
|
|
Posted by BIE on Sun Nov 28 10:40:01 2004, in response to Re: Karl Rove, posted by Wayne on Sun Nov 28 10:23:24 2004. wayne, Train dude is an individual with strongly held opinions. Steve and I disagree on many issues but I respect him as an intelligent person. now get going, your cocker spaniel is awful lonely. |
|
|
| (4590) | |
Re: Karl Rove |
|
|
Posted by Train Dude on Sun Nov 28 13:49:39 2004, in response to Re: Karl Rove, posted by Wayne on Sun Nov 28 10:23:24 2004. Up pops waynie the weasel again. I wonder why you find the need for multiple handle's, waynie. Afraid of being bullied, |
|
|
| (4595) | |
Re: Karl Rove |
|
|
Posted by Olog-hai on Sun Nov 28 14:33:42 2004, in response to Re: Karl Rove, posted by Train Dude on Sun Nov 28 08:54:09 2004. I suppose you recently read a picture book that had the words 'neoconservative' and 'deflective' in the first few pages and they stuck, huh?Why the evasion of discussing the Neoconservatives? They're in power now; they've been partially in power since 1993 and fully in power since 2001. And yes, your style of argument is "deflective" since you answer nothing of what I post when you reply, but instead change the subject. Try to keep in mind that while every democratic candidate since Dukakis has tried to compare himself with John F. Kennedy, by todays standards, you'd have to classify him as somewhere to the right of Rush Limbaugh See, you did it again. This thread is about Karl Rove, not Dukakis, JFK or Oxycontin-Man. If I wanted to discuss those people, I would have started a thread about them. As it stands, they (apart from OxyRush) have no effect on the current political landscape. Try not to answer me using non-sequiturs, if you can. If you really want to look at things honestly, Conservatism has migrated from the democrats to the Republicans over the last 30-40 years Then where did the Conservatives go all of a sudden? All I see running the country are Neoconservatives. No Conservative would engage in the fiscal policies that Bush is pursuing—not a single one. And how does this relate specifically to Karl Rove? BTW: What do you suppose Kerry and your neo-liberallies would have done during the Cuban Missle Crisis? Another non-sequitur. I don't own any "neo-liberallies", BTW. Remember, I'm a moderate ex-Republican? |
|
|
| (4597) | |
Re: Karl Rove |
|
|
Posted by Olog-hai on Sun Nov 28 14:44:18 2004, in response to Re: Karl Rove, posted by Train Dude on Sun Nov 28 00:45:02 2004. The issue is that the Republicans won!The issue is that the conservatives won. The issue is that President Bush won! The issue is that you whine and kick and cry and can't get over it. The issue is your side lost No, those are not the issues. Can't stick to the point, can you? And who is "my side"? Getting back to the issues:
Tell us again what you won? It'll seem like a hollow victory before long, I suspect. As it stands, you seem like a symptom of the country's illness. |
|
|
| (4599) | |
Re: Karl Rove |
|
|
Posted by Olog-hai on Sun Nov 28 14:47:59 2004, in response to Re: Karl Rove, posted by BIE on Sat Nov 27 23:22:57 2004. Hey . . . the idea of a unified Europe goes back to the Holy Roman Empire, so what. It's not the mere birth of ideas, but the timing of their execution.You may note that the Euro came into being during the time when the Neoconservatives were gaining strong political ground in the USA. |
|
|
| (4600) | |
Re: Karl Rove |
|
|
Posted by BIE on Sun Nov 28 14:52:27 2004, in response to Re: Karl Rove, posted by Olog-hai on Sun Nov 28 14:47:59 2004. True, BTW, you are not the only ex-republican around here. |
|
|
| (4602) | |
Re: Karl Rove |
|
|
Posted by Olog-hai on Sun Nov 28 15:01:54 2004, in response to Re: Karl Rove, posted by Train Dude on Sun Nov 28 00:42:05 2004. I am successful because I have met my objectives and I am not a criminal. Perhaps if you feel that only criminals are successful then you might be hanging with the wrong crowd.Dear sir, is this merely a reading comprehension problem with you? I did not say, "only criminals"—rather, I said that merely defining "success" as meeting one's objectives includes the "successful" (i.e. not yet caught) criminal in the definition. The suggestion therein is that the definition of success thereby has to be narrowed down. |
|
|
| (4603) | |
Re: Karl Rove |
|
|
Posted by Olog-hai on Sun Nov 28 15:07:18 2004, in response to Re: Karl Rove, posted by Train Dude on Sun Nov 28 00:36:39 2004. Dictionary? I possess a nice one-volume Webster's Unabridged—and that's enough for my house . . . it's certainly large enough to be used as a weapon where necessary. I can't afford, nor have room in my house for, the Oxford Dictionary.What words do you think I'm using out of context? "Success"? Here's the Dictionary.com definition of the word, and it is still as open to definition as ever. |
|
|
| (4645) | |
Re: Karl Rove |
|
|
Posted by Train Dude on Sun Nov 28 20:30:02 2004, in response to Karl Rove, posted by Olog-hai on Wed Nov 24 01:42:55 2004. You are correct. You want to discuss Karl Rove only within the very narrow limits that you see fit. Therefore, I must answer, NO! I do not wish to discuss Karl Rove with you. |
|
|
| (4666) | |
Re: Karl Rove |
|
|
Posted by #4 Sea Beach Fred on Sun Nov 28 23:25:55 2004, in response to Re: Karl Rove, posted by Olog-hai on Sat Nov 27 22:41:39 2004. Hey Olag, you can rationalize all you want but you ARE a Democrat. The diatribes you've been spouting are certainly within your perview as a part of your constitutional right of free speech, but please spare me the nonsense of your non-partisanship. If you aren't a Democrat, then you are a socialist of some kind. You are certainly anti-Republican and you should be honest enough to come out and say so. |
|
|
| (4668) | |
Re: Karl Rove |
|
|
Posted by #4 Sea Beach Fred on Sun Nov 28 23:28:29 2004, in response to Re: Karl Rove, posted by Train Dude on Sun Nov 28 00:45:02 2004. And before I read his post Dude, let me throw up a trial balloon and see what answer he could give. He could say that 1, he was moving to Canada, 2, he is contemplating suicide, or 3, he might ask Robert Redford if he will put him up in his Ireland digs until he gets over his depression. Well Olag, if you are reading this, forget number 2. I wouldn't like that. The other two. GO FOR IT!!!!! |
|
|
| (4669) | |
Re: Karl Rove |
|
|
Posted by #4 Sea Beach Fred on Sun Nov 28 23:36:39 2004, in response to Re: Karl Rove, posted by Olog-hai on Sun Nov 28 14:44:18 2004. I watched Rush Limbaugh give a speech at Claremont College on TV and he must have been thinking of you when he stated that liberals are only happy when things are bad in this country. Why are you guys so miserable? First of all, unemployment is lower now than ever during your buddy Clinton's two terms. Secondly, it is your party who wants open borders and won't hear of any law that will send the military to our borders to block illegal entry. All your side can come up with is to raise taxes on the people. Get this, a family of four with a yearly income of $80,000 is NOT rich like your party hacks believe. Taking into account buying a home, saving for their children's education and saving for that retirement down the road, most people in that range are close to living paycheck to paycheck, yet rich dilitantes like John Kerry, who has nothing in common with the working class, think they make too much money. Get a life. |
|
|
| (4670) | |
Re: Karl Rove |
|
|
Posted by #4 Sea Beach Fred on Sun Nov 28 23:36:56 2004, in response to Re: Karl Rove, posted by Olog-hai on Sun Nov 28 14:44:18 2004. I watched Rush Limbaugh give a speech at Claremont College on TV and he must have been thinking of you when he stated that liberals are only happy when things are bad in this country. Why are you guys so miserable? First of all, unemployment is lower now than ever during your buddy Clinton's two terms. Secondly, it is your party who wants open borders and won't hear of any law that will send the military to our borders to block illegal entry. All your side can come up with is to raise taxes on the people. Get this, a family of four with a yearly income of $80,000 is NOT rich like your party hacks believe. Taking into account buying a home, saving for their children's education and saving for that retirement down the road, most people in that range are close to living paycheck to paycheck, yet rich dilitantes like John Kerry, who has nothing in common with the working class, think they make too much money. Get a life. |
|
|
| (4671) | |
Re: Karl Rove |
|
|
Posted by #4 Sea Beach Fred on Sun Nov 28 23:42:02 2004, in response to Re: Karl Rove, posted by Olog-hai on Sat Nov 27 22:47:27 2004. Sorry Olag, but you guys squandered it. Witness the elections of 2002 and 2004. You think the people are than stupid? They saw right through what your party hacks were trying to do. I can easily recall the fall of 2002 when the Deomcrat Party stubbornly refused to vote to create that Home Security Department for pitiful reasons considering the danger our country could have been in. It cost you and let me tell you something else. If your boys in Washington try to continue your obstructive tactics there will be more Tom Daschle's biting the dust. |
|
|
| (4672) | |
Re: Karl Rove |
|
|
Posted by #4 Sea Beach Fred on Sun Nov 28 23:46:11 2004, in response to Re: Karl Rove, posted by Train Dude on Sun Nov 28 08:54:09 2004. I know what Kerry would have done during the Cuban Missile Crisis. It is just what Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton would have done. They would have probably surrendered because retreat, retrench and appease is all that seems left of that once great party of FDR and Harry Truman that I once was proud of being a part of. |
|
|
| (4673) | |
Re: Karl Rove |
|
|
Posted by #4 Sea Beach Fred on Sun Nov 28 23:47:28 2004, in response to Re: Karl Rove, posted by Olog-hai on Sun Nov 28 14:33:42 2004. I repeat, you are Democrat, and a very liberal one at that. What's the matter with you libs; are you ashamed to admit what you are? |
|
|
| (4674) | |
Re: Karl Rove |
|
|
Posted by #4 Sea Beach Fred on Sun Nov 28 23:49:32 2004, in response to Re: Karl Rove, posted by Wayne on Sun Nov 28 10:23:24 2004. Hey Wayne, just don't go there. I have been communicating with the Dude for over five years and though we have never met personally, if I was going down a dark alley and needed someone to watch my back he would be the one I would want along with me. Your characterization of him is way off the mark. |
|
|
| (4675) | |
Re: Karl Rove |
|
|
Posted by #4 Sea Beach Fred on Sun Nov 28 23:51:08 2004, in response to Re: Karl Rove, posted by Train Dude on Sun Nov 28 13:49:39 2004. Who is this Wayne anyway? What was his previous handle? Hopefully, he is not a friend who I have railfanned with because what he wrote did nothing to firm our friendship if in fact he was a friend. |
|
|
| (4676) | |
Re: Karl Rove |
|
|
Posted by Train Dude on Sun Nov 28 23:58:15 2004, in response to Re: Karl Rove, posted by #4 Sea Beach Fred on Sun Nov 28 23:28:29 2004. Fred, read the original posting. Olog only wants to discuss Karl Rove as a "shadowy figure". He rejects any deviation from that scenerio. Therefore you cannot deviate from that discussion - ergo - agree with him that Karl Rove is a shadowy figure or he rejects the argument. I have opted out from discussing it further with him. |
|
|
| (4677) | |
Re: Karl Rove |
|
|
Posted by Train Dude on Mon Nov 29 00:01:40 2004, in response to Re: Karl Rove, posted by #4 Sea Beach Fred on Sun Nov 28 23:36:39 2004. Penalty for mentioning Rush Limbaugh!Penalty for mentioning Clinton! Penalty for mentioning liberals! Penalty for mentioning Kerry! Penalty for mentioning family income! Play by olog's rules Fred. |
|
|
| (4679) | |
Re: Karl Rove |
|
|
Posted by BIE on Mon Nov 29 00:02:58 2004, in response to Re: Karl Rove, posted by #4 Sea Beach Fred on Sun Nov 28 23:51:08 2004. Just a pusbrain, Fred Don't worry about him. |
|
|
| (4681) | |
Re: Karl Rove |
|
|
Posted by Train Dude on Mon Nov 29 00:04:28 2004, in response to Re: Karl Rove, posted by #4 Sea Beach Fred on Sun Nov 28 23:42:02 2004. Penalty for mentioning elections!Penalty for mentioning the dumocratic party! Penalty for mentioning Home Land Security! Penalty for mentioning Tom Daschle ollie's gonna get pissed at you. |
|
|
| (4683) | |
Re: Karl Rove |
|
|
Posted by Train Dude on Mon Nov 29 00:07:38 2004, in response to Re: Karl Rove, posted by #4 Sea Beach Fred on Sun Nov 28 23:46:11 2004. I thought he might try to form a coalition of our allies to negotiate with the soviets to remove the missles. He also would have started a massive building program so that there'd be space in a bomb shelter for every American child. Finally he'd ask congress to give him money for the defense of our borders and then veto the vote in congress when they approve it. |
|
|
| (4684) | |
Re: Karl Rove |
|
|
Posted by Train Dude on Mon Nov 29 00:09:33 2004, in response to Re: Karl Rove, posted by Olog-hai on Sun Nov 28 14:33:42 2004. "BTW. Remember, I'm a moderate ex-Republican?"Are you asking me? Besides, stop diverting the issue. This thread is about Karl Rove and not your alleged political mantra. |
|
|
| (4685) | |
Re: Karl Rove |
|
|
Posted by American Pig on Mon Nov 29 00:14:07 2004, in response to Re: Karl Rove, posted by #4 Sea Beach Fred on Sun Nov 28 23:36:39 2004. unemployment is lower now than ever during your buddy Clinton's two terms.Unemployment rate October 2004: 5.5 Lowest unemployment rate during period February 1, 1993 to January 31, 2001: 3.8 in April 2000 Lowest unemployment rate during period February 1, 2001 to October 31, 2004: 4.2 in February 2001 Number of months in period 2/1/93-1/31/01 that uneployment was lower than or equal to rate in October 2004: 61 Total number of months in that period: 96 Total percentage of time in Clinton's two terms that unemployment was less than now: 63.5% So as you can see, not only is unemployment now NOT "lower now than ever during...Clinton's two terms," it is in fact higher now than during more than half of Clinton's two terms. Source: United States Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics |
|
|
| (4686) | |
Re: Karl Rove |
|
|
Posted by American Pig on Mon Nov 29 00:18:15 2004, in response to Re: Karl Rove, posted by #4 Sea Beach Fred on Sun Nov 28 23:25:55 2004. So another case of "You're either with us or against us?"Can't anyone be against neo-conservatism without being some sort of socialist? |
|
|
| (4689) | |
Re: Karl Rove |
|
|
Posted by Train Dude on Mon Nov 29 00:20:38 2004, in response to Re: Karl Rove, posted by American Pig on Mon Nov 29 00:18:15 2004. Absofuckinlutely, they can be neo-liberallies. Why are you guys so ashamed to admit that you are libbers? |
|
|
| (4690) | |
Re: Karl Rove |
|
|
Posted by American Pig on Mon Nov 29 00:24:53 2004, in response to Re: Karl Rove, posted by Train Dude on Mon Nov 29 00:20:38 2004. I am not ashamed to admit that I am a liberal, but liberal != socialist. |
|
|
| (4694) | |
Re: Karl Rove |
|
|
Posted by Train Dude on Mon Nov 29 00:33:33 2004, in response to Re: Karl Rove, posted by American Pig on Mon Nov 29 00:24:53 2004. No, liberal does not have to equal socialist. It's just that most liberals have socialist tendencies. |
|
|
| (4695) | |
Re: Karl Rove |
|
|
Posted by #4 Sea Beach Fred on Mon Nov 29 00:34:13 2004, in response to Re: Karl Rove, posted by Train Dude on Mon Nov 29 00:07:38 2004. Hey Dude, maybe the sad and sorry excuse of a politician has a reason for his fuzzy headed thinking. Just wondering, how would we react if we were married to a nut like his wife? Just wondering. |
|
|
| (4699) | |
Re: Karl Rove |
|
|
Posted by #4 Sea Beach Fred on Mon Nov 29 00:38:45 2004, in response to Re: Karl Rove, posted by Train Dude on Mon Nov 29 00:01:40 2004. How foolish of me Dude. Thanks for the reminder; must not trudge on Olag's silly domain without being politically correct about it. |
|
|
| (4700) | |
Re: Karl Rove |
|
|
Posted by #4 Sea Beach Fred on Mon Nov 29 00:40:27 2004, in response to Re: Karl Rove, posted by Train Dude on Mon Nov 29 00:04:28 2004. Well, just keep watching my back Dude. I will finally get it straight to play by Olag's rules. It just takes a little time. |
|
|
| (4701) | |
Re: Karl Rove |
|
|
Posted by Train Dude on Mon Nov 29 00:40:56 2004, in response to Re: Karl Rove, posted by #4 Sea Beach Fred on Mon Nov 29 00:34:13 2004. D-I-V-O-R-C-E . No one is totally useless. She'd likely be good for paying much alimony. Wadda you think.Ms. Kerry is very pragmatic when it comes to marriage. Her goal has always been to become the first lady. She's married a two senators who had a shot at the Whitehouse. Now that Kerry's shot his load, how long do you see the marriage lasting? Do you think she'll make another run at the Whitehouse on another 'jackass'? |
|
|
| (4702) | |
Re: Karl Rove |
|
|
Posted by American Pig on Mon Nov 29 00:41:26 2004, in response to Re: Karl Rove, posted by Train Dude on Mon Nov 29 00:33:33 2004. No, liberal does not have to equal socialist. It's just that most liberals have socialist tendencies.Yet another statement with no basis in truth. |
|
|
| (4703) | |
Re: Karl Rove |
|
|
Posted by Train Dude on Mon Nov 29 00:42:13 2004, in response to Re: Karl Rove, posted by #4 Sea Beach Fred on Mon Nov 29 00:38:45 2004. That's what I'm here for, Fred. Just glad to be of service. |
|
|
| (4704) | |
Re: Karl Rove |
|
|
Posted by Train Dude on Mon Nov 29 00:43:31 2004, in response to Re: Karl Rove, posted by American Pig on Mon Nov 29 00:41:26 2004. You are entitled to your opinion, no matter how stupid it is. |
|
|
| (4705) | |
Re: Karl Rove |
|
|
Posted by American Pig on Mon Nov 29 00:55:53 2004, in response to Re: Karl Rove, posted by Train Dude on Mon Nov 29 00:43:31 2004. You are entitled to your opinion, no matter how stupid it is.As are you. So, what evidence do you have that your statement about most liberals having socialist tendencies is nothing more than your stupid opinion? |
|
|
|
Page 2 of 4 |
||