DONE - GOING TO JAIL! -- Official: Some Clinton emails 'too damaging' to release'

[JoeB131]

i can just picture Hillary complaining about her only/daily meal of Baloni sandwiches and near stale bananas

Most pervs get themselves real pornography...

So you're experienced in that area???

Well, I don't have weird fetishes about grandmothers in prison, no... that's just weird, but frankly, a lot of you sound like you have sticky keyboards thinking about it.

 

[bripat9643]

So now you are inferring what he wanted rather than supporting your claim that he actually said it.

You just lost the argument.

No, you did by lying about what I said. I never claimed Bush "actually said it." I said that's what he "agreed" to do.

I asked you where Bush said that, dumbass. The correct answer was "nowhere." Instead you tried to buffalo everyone with a torrent of bullshit and non sequiturs.

Nope, the correct answer is in that agreement he signed to withdraw all the troops.

It's the "correct answer" only for sleazy dishonest morons like you.

Nope, it's the correct answer. Putting something in writing is tantemount to saying it verbally. Just look at this forum. People say things in every post -- yet it's all in writing. You yourself have referenced posts here in the context of being said.

It might be if Bush wrote an editorial saying so. On the other hand, signing a treaty doesn't not mean you endorse all the terms. It takes a special kind of dumbass not to understand that.

Just admit you lost the argument to save yourself further embarrassment.

 

[Rexx Taylor]

i dont know how Hillary will go 7 days without those fully loaded double cheeseburgers and large Dr Pepper.

 

[Arianrhod]

On the other hand, signing a treaty doesn't not mean you endorse all the terms.

 

[Faun]

No, you did by lying about what I said. I never claimed Bush "actually said it." I said that's what he "agreed" to do.

I asked you where Bush said that, dumbass. The correct answer was "nowhere." Instead you tried to buffalo everyone with a torrent of bullshit and non sequiturs.

Nope, the correct answer is in that agreement he signed to withdraw all the troops.

It's the "correct answer" only for sleazy dishonest morons like you.

Nope, it's the correct answer. Putting something in writing is tantemount to saying it verbally. Just look at this forum. People say things in every post -- yet it's all in writing. You yourself have referenced posts here in the context of being said.

It might be if Bush wrote an editorial saying so. On the other hand, signing a treaty doesn't not mean you endorse all the terms. It takes a special kind of dumbass not to understand that.

Just admit you lost the argument to save yourself further embarrassment.

Bush was not forced to sign anything he didn't agree with.

Oh, and Bush did write an "editorial"...

Statement by the President on Agreements with Iraq

Earlier today, in another sign of progress, Iraq's Council of Representatives approved two agreements with the United States, a Strategic Framework Agreement and a Security Agreement, often called a Status of Forces Agreement or SOFA. The Strategic Framework Agreement sets the foundation for a long-term bilateral relationship between our two countries, and the Security Agreement addresses our presence, activities, and withdrawal from Iraq. Today's vote affirms the growth of Iraq's democracy and increasing ability to secure itself. We look forward to a swift approval by Iraq's Presidency Council.

Two years ago, this day seemed unlikely - but the success of the surge and the courage of the Iraqi people set the conditions for these two agreements to be negotiated and approved by the Iraqi parliament. The improved conditions on the ground and the parliamentary approval of these two agreements serve as a testament to the Iraqi, Coalition, and American men and women, both military and civilian, who paved the way for this day.

As the two agreements move to Iraq's Presidency Council for final approval, we congratulate the members of the Council of Representatives for coming together to approve these historic agreements that will serve the shared and enduring interests of both our countries and the region.​

Since you're a complete idiot, lemme break it down for you -- that was the deal Bush waited with optimist enthusiasm that Iraq's Presidency Council would accept. But according to morons like you, Bush didn't want that deal.

 

[Arianrhod]

I asked you where Bush said that, dumbass. The correct answer was "nowhere." Instead you tried to buffalo everyone with a torrent of bullshit and non sequiturs.

Nope, the correct answer is in that agreement he signed to withdraw all the troops.

It's the "correct answer" only for sleazy dishonest morons like you.

Nope, it's the correct answer. Putting something in writing is tantemount to saying it verbally. Just look at this forum. People say things in every post -- yet it's all in writing. You yourself have referenced posts here in the context of being said.

It might be if Bush wrote an editorial saying so. On the other hand, signing a treaty doesn't not mean you endorse all the terms. It takes a special kind of dumbass not to understand that.

Just admit you lost the argument to save yourself further embarrassment.

Bush was not forced to sign anything he didn't agree with.

Obviously bripat believes he signed it with his fingers crossed behind his back.

It's the Republican Way.

 

[bripat9643]

I asked you where Bush said that, dumbass. The correct answer was "nowhere." Instead you tried to buffalo everyone with a torrent of bullshit and non sequiturs.

Nope, the correct answer is in that agreement he signed to withdraw all the troops.

It's the "correct answer" only for sleazy dishonest morons like you.

Nope, it's the correct answer. Putting something in writing is tantemount to saying it verbally. Just look at this forum. People say things in every post -- yet it's all in writing. You yourself have referenced posts here in the context of being said.

It might be if Bush wrote an editorial saying so. On the other hand, signing a treaty doesn't not mean you endorse all the terms. It takes a special kind of dumbass not to understand that.

Just admit you lost the argument to save yourself further embarrassment.

Bush was not forced to sign anything he didn't agree with.

A treaty always contains some things you like and some things you don't like (that is, except for the ones Obama signs). Sign the treaty with Iraq doesn't indicate that Bush agreed with any single provision of the treaty. If you weren't such a sleazy lying dumbass, you would just admit that.

 

[bripat9643]

Nope, the correct answer is in that agreement he signed to withdraw all the troops.

It's the "correct answer" only for sleazy dishonest morons like you.

Nope, it's the correct answer. Putting something in writing is tantemount to saying it verbally. Just look at this forum. People say things in every post -- yet it's all in writing. You yourself have referenced posts here in the context of being said.

It might be if Bush wrote an editorial saying so. On the other hand, signing a treaty doesn't not mean you endorse all the terms. It takes a special kind of dumbass not to understand that.

Just admit you lost the argument to save yourself further embarrassment.

Bush was not forced to sign anything he didn't agree with.

Obviously bripat believes he signed it with his fingers crossed behind his back.

It's the Republican Way.

You're proving you're right down there with Faun in the I.Q and integrity departments.

 

[Faun]

Nope, the correct answer is in that agreement he signed to withdraw all the troops.

It's the "correct answer" only for sleazy dishonest morons like you.

Nope, it's the correct answer. Putting something in writing is tantemount to saying it verbally. Just look at this forum. People say things in every post -- yet it's all in writing. You yourself have referenced posts here in the context of being said.

It might be if Bush wrote an editorial saying so. On the other hand, signing a treaty doesn't not mean you endorse all the terms. It takes a special kind of dumbass not to understand that.

Just admit you lost the argument to save yourself further embarrassment.

Bush was not forced to sign anything he didn't agree with.

A treaty always contains some things you like and some things you don't like (that is, except for the ones Obama signs). Sign the treaty with Iraq doesn't indicate that Bush agreed with any single provision of the treaty. If you weren't such a sleazy lying dumbass, you would just admit that.

I added this to my post ... you might not have seen it ...

Oh, and Bush did write an "editorial"...

Statement by the President on Agreements with Iraq

Earlier today, in another sign of progress, Iraq's Council of Representatives approved two agreements with the United States, a Strategic Framework Agreement and a Security Agreement, often called a Status of Forces Agreement or SOFA. The Strategic Framework Agreement sets the foundation for a long-term bilateral relationship between our two countries, and the Security Agreement addresses our presence, activities, and withdrawal from Iraq. Today's vote affirms the growth of Iraq's democracy and increasing ability to secure itself. We look forward to a swift approval by Iraq's Presidency Council.

Two years ago, this day seemed unlikely - but the success of the surge and the courage of the Iraqi people set the conditions for these two agreements to be negotiated and approved by the Iraqi parliament. The improved conditions on the ground and the parliamentary approval of these two agreements serve as a testament to the Iraqi, Coalition, and American men and women, both military and civilian, who paved the way for this day.

As the two agreements move to Iraq's Presidency Council for final approval, we congratulate the members of the Council of Representatives for coming together to approve these historic agreements that will serve the shared and enduring interests of both our countries and the region.​

Since you're a complete idiot, lemme break it down for you -- that was the deal Bush waited with optimist enthusiasm that Iraq's Presidency Council would accept. But according to morons like you, Bush didn't want that deal.

 

[Faun]

Nope, the correct answer is in that agreement he signed to withdraw all the troops.

It's the "correct answer" only for sleazy dishonest morons like you.

Nope, it's the correct answer. Putting something in writing is tantemount to saying it verbally. Just look at this forum. People say things in every post -- yet it's all in writing. You yourself have referenced posts here in the context of being said.

It might be if Bush wrote an editorial saying so. On the other hand, signing a treaty doesn't not mean you endorse all the terms. It takes a special kind of dumbass not to understand that.

Just admit you lost the argument to save yourself further embarrassment.

Bush was not forced to sign anything he didn't agree with.

A treaty always contains some things you like and some things you don't like (that is, except for the ones Obama signs). Sign the treaty with Iraq doesn't indicate that Bush agreed with any single provision of the treaty. If you weren't such a sleazy lying dumbass, you would just admit that.

Bush touted the agreement, including the withdrawal of our troops, as "historic."

Tell me again how Bush didn't agree with his agreement.

 

[Arianrhod]

Nope, the correct answer is in that agreement he signed to withdraw all the troops.

It's the "correct answer" only for sleazy dishonest morons like you.

Nope, it's the correct answer. Putting something in writing is tantemount to saying it verbally. Just look at this forum. People say things in every post -- yet it's all in writing. You yourself have referenced posts here in the context of being said.

It might be if Bush wrote an editorial saying so. On the other hand, signing a treaty doesn't not mean you endorse all the terms. It takes a special kind of dumbass not to understand that.

Just admit you lost the argument to save yourself further embarrassment.

Bush was not forced to sign anything he didn't agree with.

A treaty always contains some things you like and some things you don't like.

Signed a lot of them, have you?

Perhaps you can show us the aspects of the Iraq Status of Forces agreement that GWB objected to?

 

[Care4all]

It's the "correct answer" only for sleazy dishonest morons like you.

Nope, it's the correct answer. Putting something in writing is tantemount to saying it verbally. Just look at this forum. People say things in every post -- yet it's all in writing. You yourself have referenced posts here in the context of being said.

It might be if Bush wrote an editorial saying so. On the other hand, signing a treaty doesn't not mean you endorse all the terms. It takes a special kind of dumbass not to understand that.

Just admit you lost the argument to save yourself further embarrassment.

Bush was not forced to sign anything he didn't agree with.

A treaty always contains some things you like and some things you don't like (that is, except for the ones Obama signs). Sign the treaty with Iraq doesn't indicate that Bush agreed with any single provision of the treaty. If you weren't such a sleazy lying dumbass, you would just admit that.

Bush touted the agreement, including the withdrawal of our troops, as "historic."

Tell me again how Bush didn't agree with his agreement.

he might have done it at the request of the RNC OR GOP, because they knew the citizens were most all against staying in iraq and the rnc was worried about the upcoming elections?

 

[Arianrhod]

It's the "correct answer" only for sleazy dishonest morons like you.

Nope, it's the correct answer. Putting something in writing is tantemount to saying it verbally. Just look at this forum. People say things in every post -- yet it's all in writing. You yourself have referenced posts here in the context of being said.

It might be if Bush wrote an editorial saying so. On the other hand, signing a treaty doesn't not mean you endorse all the terms. It takes a special kind of dumbass not to understand that.

Just admit you lost the argument to save yourself further embarrassment.

Bush was not forced to sign anything he didn't agree with.

Obviously bripat believes he signed it with his fingers crossed behind his back.

It's the Republican Way.

You're proving you're right down there with Faun in the I.Q and integrity departments.

Whereas you're proving you don't know what "down" means.

 

[boedicca]

Prediction: hiLIARy will withdraw from the race due to health issues once Obama promises to squash her indictment. His motivation will be to cover up his own violations of the handling of top secret information (cf. the 18 emails he sent to her private server that are being kept from the public).

 

[Faun]

Nope, the correct answer is in that agreement he signed to withdraw all the troops.

It's the "correct answer" only for sleazy dishonest morons like you.

Nope, it's the correct answer. Putting something in writing is tantemount to saying it verbally. Just look at this forum. People say things in every post -- yet it's all in writing. You yourself have referenced posts here in the context of being said.

It might be if Bush wrote an editorial saying so. On the other hand, signing a treaty doesn't not mean you endorse all the terms. It takes a special kind of dumbass not to understand that.

Just admit you lost the argument to save yourself further embarrassment.

Bush was not forced to sign anything he didn't agree with.

A treaty always contains some things you like and some things you don't like (that is, except for the ones Obama signs). Sign the treaty with Iraq doesn't indicate that Bush agreed with any single provision of the treaty. If you weren't such a sleazy lying dumbass, you would just admit that.

Stupid beyond belief. Signing an agreement means agreeing with ALL of the terms; except where explicitly noted on the agreement along with the dissenter's initials or signature.

WTF is wrong with you??

 

[bripat9643]

It's the "correct answer" only for sleazy dishonest morons like you.

Nope, it's the correct answer. Putting something in writing is tantemount to saying it verbally. Just look at this forum. People say things in every post -- yet it's all in writing. You yourself have referenced posts here in the context of being said.

It might be if Bush wrote an editorial saying so. On the other hand, signing a treaty doesn't not mean you endorse all the terms. It takes a special kind of dumbass not to understand that.

Just admit you lost the argument to save yourself further embarrassment.

Bush was not forced to sign anything he didn't agree with.

A treaty always contains some things you like and some things you don't like (that is, except for the ones Obama signs). Sign the treaty with Iraq doesn't indicate that Bush agreed with any single provision of the treaty. If you weren't such a sleazy lying dumbass, you would just admit that.

Bush touted the agreement, including the withdrawal of our troops, as "historic."

Tell me again how Bush didn't agree with his agreement.

You're too ******* stupid to continue arguing with.

 

[bripat9643]

It's the "correct answer" only for sleazy dishonest morons like you.

Nope, it's the correct answer. Putting something in writing is tantemount to saying it verbally. Just look at this forum. People say things in every post -- yet it's all in writing. You yourself have referenced posts here in the context of being said.

It might be if Bush wrote an editorial saying so. On the other hand, signing a treaty doesn't not mean you endorse all the terms. It takes a special kind of dumbass not to understand that.

Just admit you lost the argument to save yourself further embarrassment.

Bush was not forced to sign anything he didn't agree with.

A treaty always contains some things you like and some things you don't like (that is, except for the ones Obama signs). Sign the treaty with Iraq doesn't indicate that Bush agreed with any single provision of the treaty. If you weren't such a sleazy lying dumbass, you would just admit that.

I added this to my post ... you might not have seen it ...

Oh, and Bush did write an "editorial"...

Statement by the President on Agreements with Iraq

Earlier today, in another sign of progress, Iraq's Council of Representatives approved two agreements with the United States, a Strategic Framework Agreement and a Security Agreement, often called a Status of Forces Agreement or SOFA. The Strategic Framework Agreement sets the foundation for a long-term bilateral relationship between our two countries, and the Security Agreement addresses our presence, activities, and withdrawal from Iraq. Today's vote affirms the growth of Iraq's democracy and increasing ability to secure itself. We look forward to a swift approval by Iraq's Presidency Council.

Two years ago, this day seemed unlikely - but the success of the surge and the courage of the Iraqi people set the conditions for these two agreements to be negotiated and approved by the Iraqi parliament. The improved conditions on the ground and the parliamentary approval of these two agreements serve as a testament to the Iraqi, Coalition, and American men and women, both military and civilian, who paved the way for this day.

As the two agreements move to Iraq's Presidency Council for final approval, we congratulate the members of the Council of Representatives for coming together to approve these historic agreements that will serve the shared and enduring interests of both our countries and the region.​

Since you're a complete idiot, lemme break it down for you -- that was the deal Bush waited with optimist enthusiasm that Iraq's Presidency Council would accept. But according to morons like you, Bush didn't want that deal.

Unless he says "I want to withdraw 100% of our troops by 2011," Bush hasn't said he wanted it to happen.

That's the bottom line.

 

[bripat9643]

It's the "correct answer" only for sleazy dishonest morons like you.

Nope, it's the correct answer. Putting something in writing is tantemount to saying it verbally. Just look at this forum. People say things in every post -- yet it's all in writing. You yourself have referenced posts here in the context of being said.

It might be if Bush wrote an editorial saying so. On the other hand, signing a treaty doesn't not mean you endorse all the terms. It takes a special kind of dumbass not to understand that.

Just admit you lost the argument to save yourself further embarrassment.

Bush was not forced to sign anything he didn't agree with.

A treaty always contains some things you like and some things you don't like (that is, except for the ones Obama signs). Sign the treaty with Iraq doesn't indicate that Bush agreed with any single provision of the treaty. If you weren't such a sleazy lying dumbass, you would just admit that.

Stupid beyond belief. Signing an agreement means agreeing with ALL of the terms; except where explicitly noted on the agreement along with the dissenter's initials or signature.

WTF is wrong with you??

When I sign a mortgage I agree to pay interest rate 'X.' That doesn't mean I wouldn't rather pay 0. It just means I'm willing to do something I don't like in order to get something I do like.

In short, you're a major ******* idiot.

 

[Arianrhod]

Nope, it's the correct answer. Putting something in writing is tantemount to saying it verbally. Just look at this forum. People say things in every post -- yet it's all in writing. You yourself have referenced posts here in the context of being said.

It might be if Bush wrote an editorial saying so. On the other hand, signing a treaty doesn't not mean you endorse all the terms. It takes a special kind of dumbass not to understand that.

Just admit you lost the argument to save yourself further embarrassment.

Bush was not forced to sign anything he didn't agree with.

A treaty always contains some things you like and some things you don't like (that is, except for the ones Obama signs). Sign the treaty with Iraq doesn't indicate that Bush agreed with any single provision of the treaty. If you weren't such a sleazy lying dumbass, you would just admit that.

Stupid beyond belief. Signing an agreement means agreeing with ALL of the terms; except where explicitly noted on the agreement along with the dissenter's initials or signature.

WTF is wrong with you??

When I sign a mortgage I agree to pay interest rate 'X.' That doesn't mean I wouldn't rather pay 0. It just means I'm willing to do something I don't like in order to get something I do like.

When you sign a mortgage, you're also required to read it in the presence of witnesses and initial each paragraph indicating you've read it and agree with it.

 

[bripat9643]

It might be if Bush wrote an editorial saying so. On the other hand, signing a treaty doesn't not mean you endorse all the terms. It takes a special kind of dumbass not to understand that.

Just admit you lost the argument to save yourself further embarrassment.

Bush was not forced to sign anything he didn't agree with.

A treaty always contains some things you like and some things you don't like (that is, except for the ones Obama signs). Sign the treaty with Iraq doesn't indicate that Bush agreed with any single provision of the treaty. If you weren't such a sleazy lying dumbass, you would just admit that.

Stupid beyond belief. Signing an agreement means agreeing with ALL of the terms; except where explicitly noted on the agreement along with the dissenter's initials or signature.

WTF is wrong with you??

When I sign a mortgage I agree to pay interest rate 'X.' That doesn't mean I wouldn't rather pay 0. It just means I'm willing to do something I don't like in order to get something I do like.

When you sign a mortgage, you're also required to read it in the presence of witnesses and initial each paragraph indicating you've read it and agree with it.

That doesn't alter the truth of what I said, moron.