Originally Posted by actor

to do with the fact that Clinton has used his time away from office to raise tens of millions of dollars for charities and to help victims of natural disasters. His foundation has provided millions for AIDS drugs for Africa, and many more causes. Somehow I don't think you'd give him credit for any of this.

Clinton was a poor hillbilly when he left Arkansas and when he left the White House he became rich hillbilly. Anything that idiot does is for a reason, like a tax write- off like he did with his underwear.

Originally Posted by Pats2010

Clinton was a poor hillbilly when he left Arkansas and when he left the White House he became rich hillbilly. Anything that idiot does is for a reason, like a tax write- off like he did with his underwear.

with nonsense, and you did.

Originally Posted by actor

with nonsense, and you did.

Leftist response. When intellectually bankrupt , ridicule the poster.

Originally Posted by Pats2010

Leftist response. When intellectually bankrupt , ridicule the poster.

just the childish response.

Originally Posted by actor

just the childish response.

It bears repeating:
Leftist response. When intellectually bankrupt , ridicule the poster.

Originally Posted by djplong

If you want to get into religion bashing and use selected excerpts of the Koran to back your case up, then you must be in favor, as a Christian, of killing everyone who has ever worked on a Saturday or a Sunday (depending on which you consider the sabbath) - after all, it's in the Bible (Exodus, 35:2)

Oh - you mean I'm picking something out of context?

And to the 'birthers', I'd simply say that if the State of Hawaii has certified it, the REPUBLICAN governor of Hawaii has vouched for it and the certified copy that WAS published isn't good enough, then NOTHING is good enough.

This is a prime example of the original op/ed article I posted. To be honest, I'm not even sure what you any of the first paragraph has to do with the editorial. How birthers' got into my post is beyond me.

Originally Posted by bkcunningham1

This is a prime example of the original op/ed article I posted. To be honest, I'm not even sure what you any of the first paragraph has to do with the editorial. How birthers' got into my post is beyond me.

I think they call it drive-by posting. They come on here and respond quickly to every thread and then leave for the day. It is like they are on a ten minute break at work and try to squeeze as many posts as they can.
They go so fast that they forget which thread their in?

Originally Posted by Pats2010

It bears repeating:
Leftist response. When intellectually bankrupt , ridicule the poster.

target.

Originally Posted by actor

target.

drive-by. Hit and run with no meaningful contributions.

Pats: To be honest, calling an ex-president "a rich hillbilly" (and I was no fan of Clinton) pretty much shows you as ridiculing yourself.

Originally Posted by djplong

Pats: To be honest, calling an ex-president "a rich hillbilly" (and I was no fan of Clinton) pretty much shows you as ridiculing yourself.

I might have been a little facetious in my description of our disgraced ex-president, (though by many accounts, not much) but your attempt at ridiculing a fellow poster is duly noted.

I was not attempting to ridicule you. I was pointing out what you were doing and you yourself just acknowledged you were being facetious.

Name-calling doesn't exactly score big in a debate.

I mean, I can only count 3 bills that he ever signed that I agreed with. I was no fan of Clinton. But he *did* go through law school, he *did* run a state and he *did* serve two terms as President (which says something - I'm not quite sure what - when you consider that GHWB served only one term but his son served two). This is just as when I defended Bush (the younger) when people called him an idiot. The guy DID fly jets. I don't care if they were a model or two obsolete. I've taken flying lessons and ANY kind of military jet is more than a handful.

Originally Posted by djplong

I was not attempting to ridicule you. I was pointing out what you were doing and you yourself just acknowledged you were being facetious.

Name-calling doesn't exactly score big in a debate.

I mean, I can only count 3 bills that he ever signed that I agreed with. I was no fan of Clinton. But he *did* go through law school, he *did* run a state and he *did* serve two terms as President (which says something - I'm not quite sure what - when you consider that GHWB served only one term but his son served two). This is just as when I defended Bush (the younger) when people called him an idiot. The guy DID fly jets. I don't care if they were a model or two obsolete. I've taken flying lessons and ANY kind of military jet is more than a handful.

Well, I will give Willy credit for having some executive experience, unlike the present occupier of WH who has no experience or aptitude for leadership.

That is certainly one area where I can agree with you. My first concern, beyond policies that I may have disagreed with, was the fact that Obama didn't have a lot of experience "inside the beltway" - not that it's necessarily bad but I believed it was a risk that other Hardcore Beltway Insiders would be able to exert undue influence.