The difference is accountability. There is no he said she said...
Posted By: sam on 2008-09-29
In Reply to: The problem is everyone's guilty, - see past the labels please.
in this. The Republicans tried to get them to act before it happened and they refused. That is the bottom line.
Bush DID press it. But who has the majority in congress? You know, Congress, who has to pass any bill? That would be democrats. Look it up...John McCain tried in 2005, this is what he said:
join as a cosponsor of the Federal Housing Enterprise Regulatory Reform Act of 2005, S. 190, to underscore my support for quick passage of GSE regulatory reform legislation. If Congress does not act, American taxpayers will continue to be exposed to the enormous risk that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac pose to the housing market, the overall financial system, and the economy as a whole.
He named the problem, said what would happen, Democrats killed the bill...and here we are. Bush admin tried 17 times:
http://gatewaypundit.blogspot.com/2008/09/bush-called-for-reform-of-fannie-mae.html
It was the dems who did not listen to the Bush admin. None of them deserve to retain their seats. NONE of them.
Complete Discussion Below:  marks the location of current message within thread
The messages you are viewing
are archived/old.
To view latest messages and participate in discussions, select
the boards given in left menu
Other related messages found in our database
It's called accountability...(sm)
That's something we never saw out of the last administration. Instead of trying to bully Europe, he listens, owns up to the mistakes of the US, and comes out with some pretty impressive results.
Examples: When was the last time you heard the French president say that he TRUSTS our president? Yep...that's what he said. A very important result is the fact that France is now willing to help with Afghanistan as well as willing to take select prisoners from Gitmo. 
Russia is now more willing to work with us on reducing nukes (You do know that those treaties were about to expire in the fall?). 
We have a consensus when it comes to dealing with North Korea (I think Hillary gets a big kudos for that one -- working with the 6 party talks). 
20 countries have now come to an agreement about how to work on the world economic crisis (including more effective regulation). 
These are only a few things that he has accomplished on this trip. All I can say is  Obama!!!!!
Speaking of truth and accountability....
or lack of it........good grief.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/08/08/AR2006080801276_pf.html
War Crimes Act Changes Would Reduce Threat Of Prosecution
By R. Jeffrey Smith
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, August 9, 2006; A01
The Bush administration has drafted amendments to a war crimes law that would eliminate the risk of prosecution for political appointees, CIA officers and former military personnel for humiliating or degrading war prisoners, according to U.S. officials and a copy of the amendments.
Officials say the amendments would alter a U.S. law passed in the mid-1990s that criminalized violations of the Geneva Conventions, a set of international treaties governing military conduct in wartime. The conventions generally bar the cruel, humiliating and degrading treatment of wartime prisoners without spelling out what all those terms mean.
The draft U.S. amendments to the War Crimes Act would narrow the scope of potential criminal prosecutions to 10 specific categories of illegal acts against detainees during a war, including torture, murder, rape and hostage-taking.
Left off the list would be what the Geneva Conventions refer to as outrages upon [the] personal dignity of a prisoner and deliberately humiliating acts -- such as the forced nakedness, use of dog leashes and wearing of women's underwear seen at the U.S.-run Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq -- that fall short of torture.
People have gotten worried, thinking that it's quite likely they might be under a microscope, said a U.S. official. Foreigners are using accusations of unlawful U.S. behavior as a way to rein in American power, the official said, and the amendments are partly meant to fend this off.
The plan has provoked concern at the International Committee of the Red Cross, the entity responsible for safeguarding the Geneva Conventions. A U.S official confirmed that the group's lawyers visited the Pentagon and the State Department last week to discuss the issue but left without any expectation that their objections would be heeded.
The administration has not officially released the draft amendments. Although they are part of broader legislation on military courts still being discussed within the government, their substance has already been embraced by key officials and will not change, two government sources said.
No criminal prosecutions have been brought under the War Crimes Act, which Congress passed in 1996 and expanded in 1997. But 10 experts on the laws of war, who reviewed a draft of the amendments at the request of The Washington Post, said the changes could affect how those involved in detainee matters act and how other nations view Washington's respect for its treaty obligations.
This removal of [any] reference to humiliating and degrading treatment will be perceived by experts and probably allies as 'rewriting' the Geneva Conventions, said retired Army Lt. Col. Geoffrey S. Corn, who was recently chief of the war law branch of the Army's Office of the Judge Advocate General. Others said the changes could affect how foreigners treat U.S. soldiers.
The amendments would narrow the reach of the War Crimes Act, which now states in general terms that Americans can be prosecuted in federal criminal courts for violations of Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions, which the United States ratified in 1949.
U.S. officials have long interpreted the War Crimes Act as applying to civilians, including CIA officers, and former U.S. military personnel. Misconduct by serving military personnel is handled by military courts, which enforce a prohibition on cruelty and mistreatment. The Army Field Manual, which is being revised, separately bars cruel and degrading treatment, corporal punishment, assault, and sensory deprivation.
Common Article 3 is considered the universal minimum standard of treatment for civilian detainees in wartime. It requires that they be treated humanely and bars violence to life and person, including murder, mutilation, cruel treatment and torture. It further prohibits outrages upon personal dignity such as humiliating and degrading treatment. And it prohibits sentencing or execution by courts that fail to provide all the judicial guarantees . . . recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples.
The risk of possible prosecution of officials, CIA officers and former service personnel over alleged rough treatment of prisoners arises because the Bush administration, from January 2002 until June, maintained that the Geneva Conventions' protections did not apply to prisoners captured in Afghanistan.
As a result, the government authorized interrogations using methods that U.S. military lawyers have testified were in violation of Common Article 3; it also created a system of military courts not specifically authorized by Congress, which denied defendants many routine due process rights.
The Supreme Court decided in Hamdan v. Rumsfeld on June 29, however, that the administration's policy of not honoring the Geneva Conventions was illegal, and that prisoners in the fight against al-Qaeda are entitled to such protections.
U.S. officials have since responded in three ways: They have asked Congress to pass legislation blocking the prisoners' right to sue for the enforcement of those protections. They have drafted legislation allowing the consideration of intelligence-gathering needs during interrogations, in place of an absolute human rights standard.
They also formulated the War Crimes Act amendments spelling out some serious crimes and omitting altogether some that U.S. officials describe as less serious. For example, two acts considered under international law as constituting outrages -- rape and sexual abuse -- are listed as prosecutable.
But humiliations, degrading treatment and other acts specifically deemed as outrages by the international tribunal prosecuting war crimes in the former Yugoslavia -- such as placing prisoners in inappropriate conditions of confinement, forcing them to urinate or defecate in their clothes, and merely threatening prisoners with physical, mental, or sexual violence -- would not be among the listed U.S. crimes, officials said.
It's plain that this proposal would abrogate portions of Common Article 3, said Derek P. Jinks, a University of Texas assistant professor of law and author of a forthcoming book on the Geneva Conventions. The entire family of techniques that military interrogators used to deliberately degrade and humiliate, and thus coerce, detainees at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, and at Abu Ghraib is not addressed in any way, shape or form in the new language authorizing prosecutions, he said.
At a Senate Armed Services Committee hearing last Wednesday, however, Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales complained repeatedly about the ambiguity and broad reach of the phrase outrages upon personal dignity. He said that, if left undefined, this provision will create an unacceptable degree of uncertainty for those who fight to defend us from terrorist attack.
Lawmakers from both parties expressed skepticism at the hearing. Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) said the military's top uniformed lawyers had told him they are training to comply with Common Article 3 and that complying would not impede operations.
If the underlying treaty provision is too vague, asked Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine), then how could the Defense Department instruct its personnel in a July 7 memorandum to certify their compliance with it? Deputy Defense Secretary Gordon England, who had signed the memo, responded at the hearing that he was concerned that degrading and humiliating are relative terms.
I mean, what is degrading in one society may not be degrading in another, or may be degrading in one religion, not in another religion, England said. And since it does have an international interpretation, which is generally, frankly, different than our own, it becomes very, very relevant to define the meaning in new legislation.
This viewpoint appears to have won over the top uniformed military lawyers, who have criticized other aspects of the administration's detainee policy but said that they support the thrust of these amendments. Maj. Gen. Scott C. Black, the Army's judge advocate general, said in testimony that the changes can elevate the War Crimes Act from an aspiration to an instrument by defining offenses that can be prosecuted instead of endorsing the ideals of the laws of war.
Lawyer David Rivkin, formerly on the staff of the Justice Department and the White House counsel's office, said it's not a question of being stingy but coming up with a well-defined statutory scheme that would withstand constitutional challenges and would lead to successful prosecutions. Former Justice Department lawyer John C. Yoo similarly said that U.S. soldiers and agents should not be beholden to the definition of vague words by international or foreign courts, who often pursue nakedly political agendas at odds with the United States.
But Corn, the Army's former legal expert, said that Common Article 3 was, according to its written history, left deliberately vague because efforts to define it would invariably lead to wrongdoers identifying 'exceptions,' and because the meaning was plain -- treat people like humans and not animals or objects. Eugene R. Fidell, president of the nonprofit National Institute of Military Justice, said that laws governing military conduct are filled with broadly described prohibitions that are nonetheless enforceable, including dereliction of duty, maltreatment and conduct unbecoming an officer.
Retired Rear Adm. John D. Hutson, the Navy's top uniformed lawyer from 1997 to 2000 and now dean of the Franklin Pierce Law Center, said his view is don't trust the motives of any lawyer who changes a statutory provision that is short, clear, and to the point and replaces it with something that is much longer, more complicated, and includes exceptions within exceptions.
© 2006 The Washington Post Company
Take responsibility. Demand accountability.
Why do you cut Republicans to ribbons the largest financial disaster we have faced in decades can be laid at the feet of Democrats in Congress and all of a sudden you guys are saying stop blaming. You want to stop blaming Bush for the war?
yeah demand accountability -- keep
I love watching the stocks plummet, since my money isn't there.
Lest we forget accountability, how-dare you ask?
x
Now wouldn't that bring accountability to the government?sm
If people could choose which programs they want to fund. I think we should all be given a form with our tax form and we get to choose where we which programs to fund. That way if no one supported a program it wouldn't happen.
The government should really do this.
Wanting truth and accountability = hatred?sm
Dissent, not loyalty to the almighty State is patriotic.
If we give up all this money now and do NOT demand full disclosure/accountability to these foul thie
despite all the duplicity in the banking crisis, are STILL in corporate positions, then we have just thrown good money after bad and our whole system will go down faster. These guys do not even know what accountability means, and someone has to TEACH THEM, if not, be replaced, no more hand-outs, and face stiff fines for misappropriation of tax payer's money/government funds. We need to act fast, but not BLINDLY AND RASHLY!!
The only difference between
Rudolph and Osama bin Laden is that one is Christian and one is Muslim. Other than that, there is no limit to their hatred.
To say that clinic workers at an abortion clinic are just as guilty as Rudolph is, at its best, INSANE. Those clinic workers broke no laws. Rudolph not only broke the law, he violated the "Thall shalt not kill" commandment that you all claim to believe in.
But, as with Bush in Iraq, it's okay if people kill, as long as they're the people you worship. I truly don't understand people like you, and I don't wish to. Frankly, you all frighten me, and I won't be reading your posts any more because I find them too disturbing.
Difference
I think it is a little bit different when it is coming from the president of the USA than someone driving on a freeway. At least, that is my opinion. Maybe you dont have high expectations for the leaders, I do.
big difference
The attorney is helping the person wronged by the corporation. The corporation is paying lobbyists to change laws so the little hurt guy cant get any satisfaction in court for being hurt. That is the difference. Big difference, if you ask me. Do you think Kenneth Lay lost sleep over all of his employess who lost jobs because of his criminal activity? He says he did but I doubt it.
I see the difference
The government is corrupt. The people are good. I'm so glad that you are posting here. I'm sure the people of Iran only want peace and freedom and to be out from under the rule of mean, evil people. Some people in the United States cannot comprehend what being under a tyrannical leader is all about. They have not experienced it like many countries in the Middle East have. We have a good leader, but many have been led to believe that he is not good. They don't understand that people around the world are being brutally killed and terorized by their own leaders who are supposed to have their best interests in mind. They are the truly oppressed and I pray for them daily. I pray that a peaceful solution will happen in Iran, and that the president will come to understand that he cannot win a war with the rest of the free world who will not let him have nuclear weapons because he has proven to be a man most untrustworthy and threatening to many countries including Israel and the U.S.
I believe the difference...
is between free speech and slander/libel. Everyone has a right to an opinion and to voicing that opinion as long as one does not libel and/or slander a particular individual(s). Since the widows were named and The ***WTC victims*** were not, one is free speech, albeit lunatic fringe free speech, and one is not.
To weigh in on the subject of Coulter; she makes her living saying and writing outrageous stuff. She is a shock jock. If she started writing books like William Safire does, no one would read them and she would not be on every talk show on the airwaves. It is her job to be repugnant and she does it quite well. I don't listen to her, don't read her books. I don't listen to Howard Stern either; nor Rush, nor Grover, nor anyone who makes my blood boil. It is an exercise in futility to try to change anyone's mind on the stuff these people say. You love them or hate them and so I just avoid them.
Same difference
Within 24 hours of taping? I reiterate the point I made above. And when you buy things from a private company unless they state it outright they might turn around sell your information to other advertisers. Unless you can produce where you signed a waiver of privacy, like you do at a doctor's office, you are not guaranteed that your information will be kept private.
I guess any good consumer could elect not to have phone service. That's one way to keep your conversations private. It's a bummer when it comes to communcation, but unless your plotting something illegal you really shouldn't have a problem should you?
Here's the difference between you and I.
I don't expect an apology. I do wonder though, why you rail so against Ann and had not a word to say about Ward Churchill. I would have liked some liberal input on that post and got none. I think what he said was a lot worse.
What's the difference?
It's okay for President Bush to get political but it's not okay for his employers (the American citizens) to do the same thing? That would be the norm in a fascist government ruled by a dictator like Iran. Is that where we're heading in America today?
Grandma's comment regarding the number of American troops killed in Iraq approaching the number of civilians killed on 9/11 was a very relevant comment, considering Bush himself exploited 9/11 in order to justify invading and occupying Iraq when it turns out Iraq had nothing whatsoever to do with it.
there IS a difference
i just stated in my above reply that yes I should have clearly stated I meant the people that use it as a form of birth control, who does THAT? not for medical reasons. I see there is a reason for it sometimes, of course.
the difference is
UAW workers were offered the same as workers in the U.S. who work for Honda, Toyota, etc. (not what they are paid working in foreign countries)
Yes, but there's a big difference between - sm
working in the government while concurrently believing in and practicing one's religion for their OWN USE.
What I have a huge problem with is when people use it to try to CONTROL OTHER PEOPLE.
Unfortunately, too many overzealous religious groups worldwide are doing just that.
key difference
Obama has proven himself over and over as thoughtful, knowledgible, and decent. SP has shown she has been heavily coached and has no real understanding or knowledge about foreign affairs. She has to have a teleprompter or a speech written for her. You in fact stated she kept the money from the Bridge to Alaska, confirming she has been repeating a lie about rejecting it on the campaign trail everyday..As far as Obama on O'Reilly. Of course I did not watch. The last thing I watched about Bill O'Reilly was where he threw the temper tantrum and ripped off the mike and threw on the counter and shouted obscenities at the staff because he did not understand the cue card.
I do believe him. What is the difference in....
believing him and believing what Obama says? Obama had lobbyists working for him; until just a month ago Joe biden's son was a professional lobbyist. Indeed, let's try to be objective here.
What's the difference?
xx
difference
One of the big differences between Palin and Clinton was their educations and years of experiences. How many years and how many colleges did it take Palin to get a journalism degree? Shows me that she really isn't that bright.
The difference is......
If it's not being put on this country's balance sheet as a HUGE debt, which is proper protocol for any business, that means they are saying it doesn't exist, it will just go away, and it will not be counted as liability. Who in the heck does that? You take your books to your local CPA and tell him you want him to do that and watch the look he gives you....... the look will be "fraud", and his response will be, "Uh, no, that is illegal", I don't do that".
If they want to pretend it is not our country's debt, then ask yourself who is overlooking the debt and what are they really doing with it......or better question, ask what they are really doing with your money? Without it being on the top line of the balance sheet, there is nothing that regulates they have to pay anything off. Get it?
There is a difference between the two
The consertatives you list are political commentators. They can have their own shows and columns, etc. Many liberals do.
Huffington Post puts itself out there as a newspaper, a NEWS source if you will. Problem is, they are all biased to the left so it's not being fair. Should not be called a newspaper if they can't be fair on both sides.
JMHO.
The difference is you believe her, I don't. S/M
And please, Sam, spare me the "sheeshes" and "good griefs." I don't belittle YOU because YOU don't agree with me. I never said anything about throwing her under the bus. She is looking out for herself and I feel sure her eyeballs are on the nomination for the 2012 election. If they are elected and I am wrong about them, you'll see me here fessing up.
What's the difference?
Investigating voter fraud and/or fraudulent candidate is one way to fix the economy. Do you really want someone in charge of your money that has paid a corrupt organization to pay people to go out and enlist voters, the same voter over and over, which by the way is illegal, as well as doctor documents and fraudulently sign people up that do not exist, including those already deceased, just to get the job? Anyone who would want that deserves whatever economy they get I suppose.
Obama's taxing us more to pay for all his social programs sure as heck isn't a way to fix the economy or have you overlooked that very significant point?
I think even you know the difference between the
xx
For those of you who don't know the difference...
between American news and real world news, here's a suggestion:
http://www.linktv.org/
Before you start in by saying, well that's just more liberal media, look who contributing authors are and where they are from. This is just one example of real world news. Step outside of the box for a while.
Big difference there
You are talking about a city of rapists, they raped men and women. This is not a story about a gay couple living as a married couple.
There's a difference...(sm)
Electing a president -- constitutional
Taking away civil rights -- unconstitutional.
If the majority were to rule in all instances, you would not have had the right to vote.
Big difference in an HMO and the
provision in this bill. Don't like the HMO, you can go somewhere else. With total government control, where will you go? No where, just kow tow. I don't know anyone who could think it is right to withhold medical care from the infirm, the elderly, and children with devastatinly incurable diseases, anyone not deemed by government as being a productive citizen worthy of having medical care, those who will be a drain on the healthcare system. I don't want to know anyone who could support withholding medical care from the most vulnerable in our country.
See, maybe that's the difference.
Mom made it without any meat in it, which I guess really shouldn't be considered chili, but that's what she called it. It was more tomato base and chili powder with beans and macaroni. Not really tasty at all and I still can't pass chili at the store or at a restaurant without cringing.
But the difference is..
He had, what? 8 years to put us in this mess?
You people are so excited about seeing PRESIDENT Obama fail, that you practically shout with glee when you think he is over his head.
He is very intelligent, unlike the past president, and will get us out of this mess.
The difference between me and you...(sm)
is that you think it's the end of the world if you have to help someone else, while I consider it a privilige to be in the position to do so. Greed isn't going to make all our problems go away. It didn't help anything over the last 8 years and it won't help in the future. The sooner people figure that out, the sooner we have a chance at actually restoring this country to what it should be.
What would be the difference ?
She said she was trying to end her pregnancy..........
but if she had been trying to commit suicide, the baby would have died as well. So where are the boundaries? The mother may have lived but the baby die or still end up born and in critical condition. What's the difference? They would no doubt go after her anyway for injury to her now born child but abortion is still perfectly okay because our government has no problem with the mother ending her pregnancy with the help of a physician but they do have a problem with a mother trying to end her pregnancy herself WITHOUT the aid of a doctor.
Go figure!!
How sorry for you that you don't know the difference!!!
nm
One big difference.
I am not telling this person what to do like you are. I am defending this person's right to choose. What she chooses to do is her business, not your business, my business, or anyone else's business.
There's no difference in what was in there before
And what is in there now. The same people running the country before are still running the country now.
Your point on foreign policy...let's see...the annointed one still is sending troops in an unjustified war. Since you think he's so much better than Bush was and it was all Bush's fault that 911 happened, then the O should pull our troops back because now that he's president nothing like that will ever happen again. Therefore we don't need to be at war anymore. The annointed one's plan for being at war, sending more troops to war, not having a timeline to bring our troops home, etc, etc, really shows the lack of experience and knowledge he has in foreign affairs. And so much for being the savior of the world as he was told at the G20 that "not no, but he!! no are we going to send our troops to a war you insist on continuing with".
I would not dismiss the whole torture thing yet, but am sure if it continues on you'll be fine with it because it's being done under the O's watch and that's just fine with you.
Then there is trippling the deficit, continued layoffs, the "hope" campaign tactic totally forgotten now that he's in. Americans have nothing to hope for or plan for. And this goes to show how little knowledge and experience he has in domestic affairs.
The time for "I feel your pain" is over. The time for him to keep his campaign promises is here. I often wonder if the girl (who boasted on TV that she doesn't have to worry about paying her rent, gas, or bills anymore). I wonder if she's gotten her checks from the O yet. I doubt it.
Growing government twice the size or more of what we had. Not honoring his promise to do away with the patriot act, but instead he's signed it and it's worse than it ever was under the Bush administration. Forcing young adults 18-24 to be drafted (but calling it volunteer mandatory - an oxymoron), not taxing people under 250K, oops I mean 225K, oops I mean 200K, oops I mean 150K. Any hopes I had for a decent person to hold the office, decent people in congress to work for the people and not for themselves, and any hopes for a future have fast dwindled.
And you posted an MSLSD article? Pleeeeaase. They lost any credibility a long time ago. Now they are just a bunch of whiny children because they are losing so many viewers.
The difference is............ sm
that "teabagging" or "teabaggers" is considered an offensive sexual term whereas Kool-aid drinkers and Obamatrons is not. I know you know the difference based on the last paragraph of you post.
Do you not know the difference...(sm)
between speech that incites violence versus voicing one's opinion? On Hannity's website he listed 3 types of revolutions (all of which would be violent -- as in no option for a peaceful revolution) and asked which one would you choose. That would be the same as asking someone would you like to stab, drown or suffocate this person? What do you honestly think the implication is with this type of rhetoric? Get a clue.
there is a big difference
A business is there to make money; a church or religious gathering is there to worship. Congregations of people do not form the basis of a business, the intent to make a profit does.
Here's the difference...(sm)
Yeah, there are far left nut jobs just like on the right. However, we (the left) recognize those nut jobs and don't defend them. You guys do defend your nuts.
The homeland security report that came out specifically pointed out threats by extremist right-wingers. So what did you guys do? You defended them by demanding an apology. So, what I see is that you self identified with what was pointed out to be extremists. Why? I believe it's because that's where the base of the pub party is right now.
exactly right. Not much difference regarding
foreign policy, had Mousavi won, but still a better negotiator for Obama.
The difference is.....
An independent has "independent thought". An independent sees the good and bad of both sides, and makes their decisions and thought processes based on the substance of the material being discussed and uses their own reasoning to come to conclusions.
A liberal is much much different (as are the uber-conservatives). Both parties are tied to the parties (even though they say they vote based on the person - they do not). They like to hide and pronounce they are independent when they know are not. They don't think for themselves, they will always blame the other side for everything and never take responsibility in their own party. They cannot think on their own and they believe word for word what people like Olberman, Matthews, Maddow, Hannity, and other propagandists for their party spew (yes I can name some others but you get the point). Liberals and uber-conservatives do not meet anyone down the middle. It's their way or the highway and they are arrogant.
So - an idependent is a free thinker. A liberal and uber-conservative does not think on their own and they just spew what they are told is the way it should be. And they don't think and realize something is wrong with the picture because "Olberman/Matthews or Hannity said it is".
Also an independent does not resort to calling people names and does not have the elitist attitude that they are "better than thou" and they don't say to right to your face like the libs do.
The only difference is...
so far OUR government hasn't responded by beating some of us to death or shooting some of us...though the way Barry is giving more and more control to the government (him) and less and less to the people (us)....who knows where we will be by the time his term is over. Heck, by then, he may just declare himself President again and dispense with the voting...sigh.
Definitely a fundamental difference in the two.sm
x
When does a difference become a distortion?
These are the facts: MT stated she was going to Iraq. She said it, you defended her for whatever reason. If you cannot see that what she said was an untruth then you appear to have a distorted view of reality.
Yes, but the difference is, no one corrected YOU.
x
What is the difference between the two judgements?...sm
You have judged that he has not made any mistakes and *even if he did, they won't keep him out of Heaven.
Others judge that he has not repented and *will not make it to Heaven* (even though I have not read that here).
Really, and I am thinking this is the point you are trying to make (though I can't tell from what I'm reading), is that no one knows his outcome. Just the same one can not assume that he is right with God. What I hate to see is people use God as a front for their wrongdoings.
Horsey....what possible difference
could that make to you? Kind of makes you wonder....?
Also, both posts were in direct answer to those who would suggest that Republicans have the corner on perversion...just pointing out that Clinton still wins the prize.
You seem to have an obsession for searching me out to make rather goofy comments about my posts.
Now that REALLY makes one wonder.......
|
