Re: As I said...

On Oct 20, 1:45 pm, who'sthat <whost...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Sat, 20 Oct 2007 10:02:22 -0700, CalC <calcarpent...@xxxxxxxxx>
wrote:

On Oct 20, 11:43 am, who'sthat <whost...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Sat, 20 Oct 2007 08:35:20 -0700, CalC <calcarpent...@xxxxxxxxx>
wrote:

On Oct 20, 7:47 am, who'sthat <whost...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Sat, 20 Oct 2007 04:39:39 -0700, CalC <calcarpent...@xxxxxxxxx>
wrote:

On Oct 19, 5:05 pm, who'sthat <whost...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Fri, 19 Oct 2007 13:53:19 -0700, CalC <calcarpent...@xxxxxxxxx>
wrote:

On Oct 19, 4:49 pm, CalC <calcarpent...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Oct 19, 3:14 pm, who'sthat <whost...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On 19 Oct 2007 11:29:39 -0700, CalC <calcarpent...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Oct 18, 10:13 pm, who'sthat <whost...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On 18 Oct 2007 18:48:14 -0700, CalC <calcarpent...@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Oct 18, 12:42 pm, who'sthat <whost...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Thu, 18 Oct 2007 09:17:27 -0700, CalC <calcarpent....@xxxxxxxxx>
wrote:

On Oct 18, 11:52 am, "AllYou!" <ida...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
"who'sthat" <whost...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message

news:g3veh3pksp8s2l4melohgkbu37s3a9n5du@xxxxxxxxxx

On Thu, 18 Oct 2007 07:20:42 -0700, CalC <calcarpent...@xxxxxxxxx>
wrote:

On Oct 18, 8:12 am, "AllYou!" <ida...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
"who'sthat" <whost...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message

news:m2ddh35ju8bf8kbi6v226e658sj8j12rfq@xxxxxxxxxxx

On Wed, 17 Oct 2007 17:25:23 -0700, CalC
<calcarpent...@xxxxxxxxx>
wrote:

On Oct 17, 11:26 am, who'sthat <whost...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Wed, 17 Oct 2007 08:00:49 -0700, CalC
<calcarpent...@xxxxxxxxx>
wrote:

On Oct 17, 10:34 am, "AllYou!" <ida...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
"CalC" <calcarpent...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message

news:1192631188.966647.278510@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
On Oct 17, 9:39 am, who'sthat <whost...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

It was not all over the news provide one link referring
to
anything
of
the sort or quit lying.

Well, to be fair, we don't know if he's lying. In his
world,
that may
have been his reality, and so he may not know that he's got
his
facts
wrong.

Well that's wicked polite I'd say. I like the lying
description
having
argued up and down with him and having seen this same MO in
all
of
them. He says something...you refute it providing independant
(non fox
or newsmax type) links and he says you still haven't proven
anything.
He'll claim it was common knowledge and when asked for one
link
to
this common knowledge that was "all over the news" he can't.
I
had to
provide a video of Al Gore debating Perot on NAFTA before he
stopped
implying Clinton was forced to sign it.

As for impeachment ......is is and was was or is and never
was or
will
be??? You can't win with these guys. Any sane minded person
knows
he
lied unde oath and a judge and the bar association said so,
when
he
lost his license and was held in contempt.. If Paula Jones
were
this
shmoes sister he'd expect a pejurer to be held to account. I
was
against impeachment because we all knew where it would end. I
thought
he should have been tried in civilian court after leaving
office,
where he would have none of the protections he tried to
claim. He
should've been convicted of it and sentenced accordingly but
with
impeachment he was viewed in the end as a victim of a "vast
right
wing
conspiricy" which is at bst revisionist. I still think this
whole
anti Bush thing is the far left getting even for impeachment
by
opposing Bush at every turn just to do so.

I said from the very beginning that Clinton supported it.
Why do you lie?

I also said he had to sign it. I didn't say why at first
because I
thought you understood that he had agreed to sign it. It's my
fault
for thinking you are better informed.

And the rest is whining. You lost that one.. But hey..you won
when
bush
II got in and look where that got us! Your idea of winning
sucks....and kills.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Your link to this agreement that was all over the news is where
liar?

8th grade Civics and American History. If you had paid attention
you
would have learned how treaties and agreements are created.
I could never find the articles now nor am I inclined to.
This is the one point you're going to claim victory on?
HAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHHAHA

You poor sap. You poor ignorant sap. The republicans deserve you
as
much as you deserve them.

Nope, that doesn't cut it. You said that there was a specific and
irrevocable commitment that Clinton made to Bush that Clinton
would
sign NAFTA into law if the Congress presented it to him, and
you've
never been able to show where any such commitment exists.

But then again, you didn't know that Clinton got convicted of
lying to
a grand jury either, and so I'm not surprised that you can't get
your
facts straight.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

He's trying to spin pretending to not understand what question was
posed to him and making silly comments about 8th grade civics. Do I
need to speak in Alabamanese to him so junior can understand simple
questions I wonder? First off I had to correct HIS silly ass as to
Clinton actually signing into law, a point he clearly inferred was
not
the case, then claimned he had no other choice to sign it because it
would throw the legal process into chaos, and finally now claims he
had a deal with Bush and thats really why he signed it. But oh it
doesn't matter anyway because junior didn't support it. Wow that's
taking a hard line on Clinton don't you think? I'm still waiting
for
anyone of your links referencing any of your bull*** reasons why
Clinton had to sign it. You have as usual provided nothing
who'sthat,
most probably because you are a blowhard empty suit.

Actually I've got AllYou in my filter so I don't see his silly ***
anymore.

I find it strange that you'd conclude that the actual proof you asked
me to provide of where your assertions are wrong is "silly ***",
especially where you asked me to supply that proof in the first place,
but there's a whole lot about your posts that I find strange (except
maybe, why you don't want to see that proof in the first place)

I'm not from Alabama dumbass so speaking in tongues does no good.

I never said that Clinton didn't sign it...go back and show me where
I
said it.

Why should he go back to prove that you ever said what no one ever
said you said. He didn't say that you said Clinton didn't sign it.
He said that you said that Clinton *had* to sign it.

I simply said that Bush signed it first and that's the truth
and I provided the link. It takes THREE signatures to do a treaty.
One
to ok our version to send to the other side...one when it get's back
from the other side completed to go to Congress and one after
Congress
votes on it. You just can't accept that...that which we learned in
8th
grade civics and US history classes...in Massachusetts. I guess I
just
learned more than you did or went to a better school.

But you also said that Clinton made a commitment to Bush that he'd
sign it, and you've never provided proof of that.

If you don't understand the treaty process look it up yourself. As I
told your buddy I can't start teaching you the basics here.

But we all understand how it works. For you to continue to repeat how
it works leads me to conclude that you either do not understand what's
being asked of you, or that you're so proud that you understand at
least one thing about the workings of the treaty process that you keep
reposting it to almost any question, whether it applies or not.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

He wants to use the Bush signed "FIRST" now. The word "FIRST" was
NEVER used at any point in this discussion until his present
backtracking.Had he said FIRST we may never have had this discussion.
I NEVER said word one about Bush I negotiatiing or signing it and on
the contrary pointed out ONLY Ross Perot Campaigned against it in the
92 election. In the Congress to my knowledge his main ally was ***
Gephardt who was also shunned by his party for this view. This is a
classic case of

...

read more »- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Comedy wont cover your stupidity. Bush was in office for the fall of
the wall. You claimed Reagan was but you are such a history buff and
expert of that time. One more example of you innaccuraies because you
don't know ***. How about Ike was he President during the Cuban
Missle Crisis too?

LOL at whosthat. This clown has double talked and posted innacurate
bull*** through the whole thread, you really bring up the test scores
down there in Alabama bozo.

And this time you responded to your own post.
Why?

You lose and I win again.

You don't win *** you stupid ignorant hillbilly ***. You claimed
Reagan was in office when the wall fell. It's a blasted friggen usenet
group stupid I certainly didn;t delete anything. Anyone can go look
and see what got said. You said Reagan get's credit only because he
was in office when it fell and ytou're too fucken stupid to know Bush
was in office...But whosthat is the friggen history expert. You
friggen dolt you don't know *** and are exposed for it again for all
to see. You post nothing but lies and historical innaccuracies. At
least mrdude admits he trolls and makes *** up, you are just a liar
and a pathetic one at that.

HAHAHAAHHA
Reagan was an idiot and so are you!

Touch on the historical ignorance asswipe why don't you? Don't want
admit you don't know *** when you look like an idiot you tend to not
want to stay on subject. Reagan wasn't PResidentr numbnut...don't want
to go there huh. Just say it and lot's of people won't catch your lies
anyway. Youpicked the wrong person though junior I'll catch and
correct your foolish lying ass every time. Most losers would just shut
up and figure it out that every other person who's posted thinks
you're an idiot and even anyone who may agree with you politically
hasn't stepped up because you're too foolish to even put forth a
relelvent argument and they don't want to join your fools brigade.

You're the one who claimed his policies had something to do with it. I
asked for proof and you can't do ***.
All you can do is pick on the fact that bush was actually in when it
fell...but it was YOU who claimed Reagan had something to do with it.

We're still waiting for that proof.

And we'll keep waiting because you're wrong. Again.

I've provided links dickweed from sources you say prove nothing
because they're "NeoCON" and more importantly from Czech disadents who
had more to do with it than any of your commie loving heroes and they
all credited Reagan and his resolve for giving them faith to keep
pushing for their freedom. You discredit and and SAY I've provided no
proof. When asked for proof it is you again and again who comes up
empty. You are a lying piece of garbage and now want to brush aside
your historical inaccuracies again and again. You know good and damned
well you had no earthly fucken idea it was Clinton that signed it into
law, you then tried to pin him as a poor victim that had to do it. Now
you show again not only don't you know WHO's responsible for the
Berlin Wall falling your stupid ass didn't even know WHEN it fell.
What a friggen assclown you are. Here's another nice link too from
Lech Walesa the father of Polish Democracy. But again waht thye ***
does he know about the fall of Communism in Eastern Europe right?

http://www.tommyduggan.com/VP070204lech.html

Read the whole thing too it's ironic he touches a few nice points I've
til this point obviously wasted on you.

Uhh..are we talking about the Berlin Wall or NAFTA? You've gone back
and forth several times.

You still haven't proved Reagan had anything to do with the wall in
Germany coming down. All you can show is links to editorials and
opinion pieces. I believe Solidarity had a lot to do with it which is
exactly what I've been saying..the USSR was rotting from WITHIN long
before Reagan danced into the White House and made a little speech.

I've already made you look silly on NAFTA and it was your ignorant as
that switched gears after looking silly so don't try too pin that one
on anyone else.

.

Loading