Originally posted by: sMiLeYz
If our current REGIME is any indication, he belongs in the whitehouse for certain!
Man it sounds like he has really gotten the Neo Cons in Office scared. Hmmm ...maybe he is worth looking into!Clark may have broken federal election law
Originally posted by: Red Dawn
Man it sounds like he has really gotten the Neo Cons in Office scared. Hmmm ...maybe he is worth looking into!Clark may have broken federal election law
Please do....he's a fairly scary character....ever wonder why he "retired" early? Do some looking into that....Originally posted by: Red Dawn
Man it sounds like he has really gotten the Neo Cons in Office scared. Hmmm ...maybe he is worth looking into!Clark may have broken federal election law
Originally posted by: shinerburke
Please do....he's a fairly scary character....ever wonder why he "retired" early? Do some looking into that....Originally posted by: Red Dawn
Man it sounds like he has really gotten the Neo Cons in Office scared. Hmmm ...maybe he is worth looking into!Clark may have broken federal election law
Oh...this had some to do with it.Originally posted by: sMiLeYz
Originally posted by: shinerburke
Please do....he's a fairly scary character....ever wonder why he "retired" early? Do some looking into that....Originally posted by: Red Dawn
Man it sounds like he has really gotten the Neo Cons in Office scared. Hmmm ...maybe he is worth looking into!Clark may have broken federal election law
Why don't you please tell us why hes retired early, huh?
All I know is you are pro-Bush and are bashing Clark the most. So that tells me that Clark is the best guy to nominate to beat Bush. That's all.Originally posted by: shinerburke
And of course you know that Clark was involved with the siege at Waco right?
Originally posted by: shinerburke
And of course you know that Clark was involved with the siege at Waco right?
Originally posted by: SuperTool
All I know is you are pro-Bush and are bashing Clark the most. So that tells me that Clark is the best guy to nominate to beat Bush. That's all.Originally posted by: shinerburke
And of course you know that Clark was involved with the siege at Waco right?
Originally posted by: shinerburke
Originally posted by: SuperTool
All I know is you are pro-Bush and are bashing Clark the most. So that tells me that Clark is the best guy to nominate to beat Bush. That's all.Originally posted by: shinerburke
And of course you know that Clark was involved with the siege at Waco right?
What you are really trying to say is "I can't be bothered to read the facts you posted so I'm going to make an assumption and attack you that way."
Originally posted by: SuperTool
All I know is you are pro-Bush and are bashing Clark the most. So that tells me that Clark is the best guy to nominate to beat Bush. That's all.Originally posted by: shinerburke
And of course you know that Clark was involved with the siege at Waco right?
Originally posted by: XZeroII
Originally posted by: SuperTool
All I know is you are pro-Bush and are bashing Clark the most. So that tells me that Clark is the best guy to nominate to beat Bush. That's all.Originally posted by: shinerburke
And of course you know that Clark was involved with the siege at Waco right?
Lol. There is a psycological names for what you have, but I can't remember what it is right now. It describes when a person ignores any evidence that contradicts what that person believes, and automatically accept and evidence that supports their position. SOOOOO many people on this board do that.
Originally posted by: XZeroII
Originally posted by: SuperTool
All I know is you are pro-Bush and are bashing Clark the most. So that tells me that Clark is the best guy to nominate to beat Bush. That's all.Originally posted by: shinerburke
And of course you know that Clark was involved with the siege at Waco right?
Lol. There is a psycological names for what you have, but I can't remember what it is right now. It describes when a person ignores any evidence that contradicts what that person believes, and automatically accept and evidence that supports their position. SOOOOO many people on this board do that.
Originally posted by: SuperTool
Originally posted by: XZeroII
Originally posted by: SuperTool
All I know is you are pro-Bush and are bashing Clark the most. So that tells me that Clark is the best guy to nominate to beat Bush. That's all.Originally posted by: shinerburke
And of course you know that Clark was involved with the siege at Waco right?
Lol. There is a psycological names for what you have, but I can't remember what it is right now. It describes when a person ignores any evidence that contradicts what that person believes, and automatically accept and evidence that supports their position. SOOOOO many people on this board do that.
I never said I didn't believe Clark was involved in Waco. So what? First of all, there is no evidence of any wrongdoing by him in Waco, and secondly, noone,aside from rightwingers who will vote for Bush anyways, cares about Waco. How many people outside of rightwing circles do you hear talking about this decade old stuff?
I'm not sure replacing a simian with another simian is what we really need.Id vote a monkey to replace him if i had too.
Acutally it's called delusional disorder . . . and it is a psychiatric term not a psychological one. A delusion is a fixed false belief. Contradictory evidence is disregarded, while null or ambivalent information is uniformly interpreted as confirmation.Lol. There is a psycological names for what you have, but I can't remember what it is right now. It describes when a person ignores any evidence that contradicts what that person believes, and automatically accept and evidence that supports their position. SOOOOO many people on this board do that.
Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
Originally posted by: SuperTool
Originally posted by: XZeroII
Originally posted by: SuperTool
All I know is you are pro-Bush and are bashing Clark the most. So that tells me that Clark is the best guy to nominate to beat Bush. That's all.Originally posted by: shinerburke
And of course you know that Clark was involved with the siege at Waco right?
Lol. There is a psycological names for what you have, but I can't remember what it is right now. It describes when a person ignores any evidence that contradicts what that person believes, and automatically accept and evidence that supports their position. SOOOOO many people on this board do that.
I never said I didn't believe Clark was involved in Waco. So what? First of all, there is no evidence of any wrongdoing by him in Waco, and secondly, noone,aside from rightwingers who will vote for Bush anyways, cares about Waco. How many people outside of rightwing circles do you hear talking about this decade old stuff?
Umm...I do believe that a few of the dwarves have dug up some of this stuff. Ofcourse they aren't going to get to the really good stuff until later. Should be an interesting next couple months with all these wanna-bes in the race.
CkG