$20 against the Clinton jail fund that this will be ignored....
You pretty much confirmed my belief.

Because there is nothing to it.
Zero. Zilch. Nada. Nothing.

Just the latest Obama smear created by a discredited toe-sucker, posted at a discredited far-right web site, linked by a discredited gossip writer.

And you fell for it.

Nicely done!

Sorry to interrupt your back-slapping with facts, but could you explain
exactly WHAT you thought was "well done?"

Was it a "well done" job to call the honest comments of Democrat
Congressman Sestak a "smear" of Obama? How is that a "smear?" Sestak
reported what happened. And now the White House counsel has released a
written summary that agrees that it happened. The defense seems to be that
it was not illegal since it was an "unpaid" advisory position. Whether
that is an adequate defense remains to be seen. But it is wildly mindless
to call the agreed-upon facts a "smear."

Or did you think he did a "well done" job of committing three red herring fallacies in one sentence? He attacked the messenger by launching three
salvos of shallow name-calling that had nothing to do with the facts of the matter -- facts once again that have been agreed to. Is that what you considered "well done?"

--- Platinum Xpress/Win/WINServer v3.0pr5a
* Origin: FidoTel & QWK on the Web! www.fidotel.com (1:124/311)

$20 against the Clinton jail fund that this will be
ignored.... You pretty much confirmed my belief.

Because there is nothing to it.
Zero. Zilch. Nada. Nothing.

Just the latest Obama smear created by a discredited
toe-sucker, posted at a discredited far-right web site, linked
by a discredited gossip writer.

And you fell for it.

Nicely done!

Sorry to interrupt your back-slapping with facts, but could you
explain exactly WHAT you thought was "well done?"

Was it a "well done" job to call the honest comments of Democrat EC>Congressman Sestak a "smear" of Obama? How is that a "smear?"
Sestak reported what happened. And now the White House counsel has EC>released a written summary that agrees that it happened. The defense EC>seems to be that it was not illegal since it was an "unpaid" advisory EC>position. Whether that is an adequate defense remains to be seen.
But it is wildly mindless to call the agreed-upon facts a "smear."

Or did you think he did a "well done" job of committing three red
herring fallacies in one sentence? He attacked the messenger by EC>launching three salvos of shallow name-calling that had nothing to do EC>with the facts of the matter -- facts once again that have been
agreed to. Is that what you considered "well done?"

Looks like my $20 against the Clinton jail fund was spot on... You just
can't make this stuff up...

=========================================

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/thefix/white-house/how-the-sestak-job- offer-becam.html



Jeff

CMPQwk 1.42-21 9999
Carbon Dioxide makes up just 390 parts per million of atmosphere ....

--- PCBoard (R) v15.3/M 10
* Origin: (1:226/600)

Looks like my $20 against the Clinton jail fund was spot on... You just can't make this stuff up...

=========================================

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/thefix/white-house/how-the-sestak-job- offer-becam.html

Nothing will come of it, directly. Clinton is enough of a lawyer that he
would have kept the offer vague or hypothetical rather than directly
attaching it to Sestak's actions. And unless Sestak secretly records
himself, there is no evidence and only two witnesses.

But the republicans might be able to Joe-Wilson the thing into a long investigation, threats of indictments, and maybe a perjury conviction or
two if someone gets too cute with investigators when they are questioned.

--- Platinum Xpress/Win/WINServer v3.0pr5a
* Origin: FidoTel & QWK on the Web! www.fidotel.com (1:124/311)