|
|
 |
|
#81
10-25-2006, 04:58 PM
|
||||
|
||||
Hastert looks that way ALL the time! I'm talking about ANYONE being 'tried in in the 'courtroom of the public press'. You conveniently posted that to imply that Hastert is guilty or looks guilty. That might work on the kids but,really, not here! Of Course,some of the kids on DT believe you, so who knows?....
|
|
#82
10-25-2006, 05:04 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
Again you are putting "words in my mouth". Very bad! I never said that Hastert was guilty or looked guilty. Prove it if I did! Personally, I think he looks a bit stressed...but that's beside the point. What's with the "cheap shot" about "might work with kids"? I thought you had better debating skills besides twisting the words of others and insults. Guess not. You are very transparent.
|
|
#83
10-25-2006, 05:21 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
You crack me up! You post a political figure being fried in the press for what reason? And your words...if the photo at the top of the page doesn't say it all...that is what you said. So with that being on the page...what WERE you saying or putting out or what? You are a teacher by trade, there was no cheapshot, other than to remind you that you're not talking to kids! You're always bitching about someone slighting you, and yet you invite discourse on subjects you post....so who's being transparent now? You are damn good at innuendo,but innuendo is a 2 edged sword sometimes...
|
|
#84
10-25-2006, 05:39 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
I'm not trying to "fry anyone in the press". Did you take any time to read either of the articles that I put links to? If you didn't, do so. Then we can "discourse" about the content of the articles. I am not the topic of the debate. I AM NOT THE TOPIC OF THE DEBATE!!! I AM NOT NOW, NOR WILL I EVER ALLOW YOU TO MAKE ME THE TOPIC OF THE DEBATE!!!! Timm, Read the articles. Talk about them...ok? Nice try...I had a third grader try that tactic once and only once. It didn't work then, nor will it work now. Nice try.
|
|
#85
10-25-2006, 05:52 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
|
|
#86
10-25-2006, 05:59 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
Unless you can do better than "primal scream", and the fact that you didn't read what I said about Hastert looking stressed, there really isn't much more to "discuss". Face it...the press had no access to the hearings. I said the truth will be found. I believe that justice will be served. Deal with it.
|
|
#87
10-25-2006, 06:13 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
Last edited by timmgirvan : 10-25-2006 at 06:31 PM.
|
|
#88
10-25-2006, 06:40 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
I apologize for giving more credit to your debating "skills" than I originally surmised. Count up how many times you've used the word "you" in this quoted post. I really thought there was more to offer. Please clear up the confusion. In an earlier post you claimed that you disagreed with the articles I posted. Exactly, what is there to disgree with? Cite the statements that you disagree with and reasons for disagreement. I think you're blowing it out your hole. Please prove otherwise. Cute ain't "cute". DTS ps..dinner: steak, baked potato, broccolli.
|
|
#89
10-25-2006, 06:57 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
DTS: the person I'm directing this response to is the only person who put up a picture and captioned it..This person is confused....as I am the only other person in the conversation! Here's the thing...I don't want to talk about the articles(they're nothing new) I just wanted a simple answer...why did the poster use this picture? and for what purpose... Apparently you did enroll in the "clinton online debating class". Summ cum Laude, I'll bet! Dinner looked nice! I doubt I'll get that lucky
|
|
#90
10-25-2006, 07:07 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
I'm no longer confused. Thanks for stating that you "don't wish to talk about the articles". That speaks volumes. Why did they use that picture? Hmm...ask the editor of the NY Times. This line of "thinking" is ridiculous. I truly thought you had better. "clinton online debating class"...geesh!
|
|
#91
10-25-2006, 08:16 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
Last edited by timmgirvan : 10-25-2006 at 08:18 PM.
|
|
#92
10-26-2006, 10:12 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
I'm very clear regarding the topic that you'd like to discuss. You typed it in caps. Obviously, you do not wish to discuss the Hastert/Reynolds/Foley topic, which is what I thought this thread was really about. The links I posted deal with this topic. I posted them because they are informative. Since you couldn't cite one thing that you disagreed with in either of them and only keep asking why I posted them, my suspicion is that you don't wish to discuss the topic. The answer to your question: this topic is in the news.
|
|
#93
10-26-2006, 01:14 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
DTS: unfortunately the answer to my question is that you are disingenuous,and your agenda should be apparent to all. Other than that, you're a great guy and I wish you the best.
|
|
#94
10-26-2006, 01:26 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
Now I'm "disingenuous"? What happened to "myopic"? My agenda? Hmmm...explain whatever you think I've "implied". If you have nothing to say about the topic, just admit it. To do otherwise exposes your fraud. You're a great guy and I also wish you the best. Talk truth, not lies. Speak sense, not nonsense. Now back to your dictionary to find additional descriptors to toss at me...
|
|
#95
10-26-2006, 04:46 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
Last edited by timmgirvan : 10-26-2006 at 10:30 PM.
|
|
#96
10-26-2006, 05:13 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
This isn't a "stalemate". So, I'm a "liberal"? On some things, yes...but on fiscal responsibility and balanced budgets...hardly. Please do not box me. That play is getting very old. Ok...my move. What is your position concerning "current news"..ie: the ongoing investigation involving Hastert and his "alleged cover-up" and denial of being notified of Foley's e-mails to pages? Last edited by Downthestretch55 : 10-26-2006 at 05:27 PM.
|
|
#97
10-26-2006, 05:30 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Well....I noticed that you didn't reply to the fraud and lies part...typical you to dodge my questions. Actually,since there is an ongoing investigation,why bother? You say all the right things about wanting truth and justice, but you add your voice to the "string up the SOB's" mostly at every turn. I hardly need to box you, the sheer volume of your posts railing against that madman Bush et al. is enough. If the hammer fall on Hastert, then it should rightly fall on Democratic leaders 'in the know', don't you think? But that's awhile off,if at all.
|
|
#98
10-26-2006, 06:00 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
Fraud? Lies? Go back and reread some of the shameful things you've said regarding me. Your own words convict you. I have always been polite, gentlemanly. I never twisted your words nor insulted you. I always said "please" and "thank you". It's called "being polite. Where did I say "String up the SOB's"? Please point that out. If you are unable to, that's just another of your fabrications. As far as I know, though I'm not a democrat, reports I've read do not show any evidence that any democrat had knowledge of Foley's e-mails or IM's. Prove that assertion if possible. Here are the "players" on Hastert's staff. I'll wait until their tesimony is revealed to the public. http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/n...ationworld-hed
|
|
#99
10-26-2006, 06:21 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
What shameful things? What fabrications? Didn't you call Bush a madman? Have you posted venom about him and how dishonest and cowardly he is? God,I dont have time to go back over all the 'info' posts you put up! If the Foley scandal is so widespread...you're telling me that none of the Democratic leadership knew...or was this their October surprise? The only piece of solid info on your link says that Hasterts' chief of staff knew of the Foley situation...it makes no mention of Hastert knowing(directly or indirectly)
|
|
#100
10-27-2006, 04:08 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
DTS: in post#92 you alluded to my fraud and that I spoke lies. So you could explain to me ,as well answer my last post to you, that would be great!
|
Linear Mode
