writer,

Did you even bother to read my post? Show me where I made any connection whatsoever that Scooter was involved in the crime. I only mention that he was up to his eyeballs in the mess. If you want to rip me, go ahead. Just make sure you take a minute to get your facts straight. If you really were a journalist you would have done this, unless you don't practice what you preach.

300,

Like I just told writer, please read the post before you have your knee-jerk reaction to it. I can see by your posts that you haven't lost that classic immaturity from the old site. I guess we're both guilty, aren't we?

stlouiedipalma;379046 wrote:300,

Like I just told writer, please read the post before you have your knee-jerk reaction to it. I can see by your posts that you haven't lost that classic immaturity from the old site. I guess we're both guilty, aren't we?

Politics is serious business.

http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1454&dat=19811126&id=ibcsAAAAIBAJ&sjid=HhQEAAAAIBAJ&pg=5060,5317656

cbus4life;379129 wrote:http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1454&dat=19811126&id=ibcsAAAAIBAJ&sjid=HhQEAAAAIBAJ&pg=5060,5317656

I take back everything I said. If Reagan did it, it must be ok.

I am shocked the Democrat Congresses never brought him up on impeachment charges (or at the very least the grand jury Hannity is demanding) as from what we have been told it is a serious high crime.

I'm sorry, I just can't believe anything Hannity says. Was it shady, yes. Should Rahm be gone, yes. Should Clinton not have accepted the offer to talk to him, yes. Is the President deeply involved, no. Should the President be criticized for letting his Chief of Staff do this, yes. Is it impeachable, no.

ptown_trojans_1;379156 wrote:I'm sorry, I just can't believe anything Hannity says. Was it shady, yes. Should Rahm be gone, yes. Should Clinton not have accepted the offer to talk to him, yes. Is the President deeply involved, no. Should the President be criticized for letting his Chief of Staff do this, yes. Is it impeachable, no.

We were promised by Nancy Pelosi that the DC swamp would be drained of the corruption when dems took control in 2006. Looks as though with the dems in control, the swamp is fillip up fast rather than draining.

Mr. 300;379191 wrote:We were promised by Nancy Pelosi that the DC swamp would be drained of the corruption when dems took control in 2006. Looks as though with the dems in control, the swamp is fillip up fast rather than draining.

I'd agree to that. Although, I never believed her when she said that, and still think she is an awful Madam Speaker.

I question the "madam" part of that title.

Haha. I was being technical. But yea, I agree.

ptown_trojans_1;379156 wrote:I'm sorry, I just can't believe anything Hannity says. Was it shady, yes. Should Rahm be gone, yes. Should Clinton not have accepted the offer to talk to him, yes. Is the President deeply involved, no. Should the President be criticized for letting his Chief of Staff do this, yes. Is it impeachable, no.

Pretty much sums it up for me.