Sigh. This is it? This is the "blast" that would make me need three days to calm down after reading? Pshaw! 'Tain't nothing a-tall! If this is the best you have, Z-dr, then you need to get a refund from your arms supplier. You got sold lady fingers instead of nuclear weaponry. And, posting it twice makes it no more accurate or intellectually truthful, though I wonder if that was your intent. I removed the earlier duplicate of this one so that you won't be twice as embarassed.

Vis a vis, Bubba the Sleaze, let me address two points. First, you admit that he was, and is, a liar. Hell, he was forced to admit it himself publicly and a federal judge he appointed said he is too.

As far as Miz Lewinsky, your statement about no one turning down a hummer from her..."How many men do you know that would turn down a hummer from a 21 year old? 0 is the correct answer for a

single man

and i dont care what she looks like!" Notice the word I emphasized here? Single? He wasn't. Also, he was on the job - a federal employee breaking his own laws he pushed through while he was on the clock and in a government office. Why is it so damned impossible for apologists to ignore that? Check out the laws he and Stupid Junior ramrodded through Congress and were in effect when he broke them.

I am truly sorry that you are animalistic in your sexual urges, Z-dr and that most men you know are too. Some of us are a bit more discriminatory that that. Looks mean little, but I want to feel that I would not indiscriminately attempt to jump the bones of any female who came within my grasp. Bubba the Slut would obviously hump a snake if he could get a good grip on its head. I place a whole lot more value on me than that or than obviously do most of the men you know. I could introduce you to thousands who would turn her down... some even single. Your argument is mindless prattle based on your own moral values, evidently. Mine are quite a bit higher, it appears. Were I Kandi, I would make damned certain she kept a leash nearby and a muzzle for when you aren't within arm's reach or pistol shot distance of her. And, before you continue your derisive sneer, I HAVE faced that temptation before. It really was not a problem to turn it down. In fact, I wonder about anyone who could not remember what he was being paid to do while at work.

Like duplicate posting of the same post several times, repeating a lie numerous times will never magically make it the truth. CLINTON NEVER ONCE GOT A MAJORITY VOTE. In both instances he won a plurality of the popular vote. You can't have it both ways, sir. If the popular vote is that on which you base your argument against the Constitutional election of George W. Bush, then you can't claim it is insignificant in the case of that scumbag from Arkansas. The MOST Clinton ever got in his two Presidential election bids was 43%! The reason he became President is that same pesky little Constitutional provision that peeves you people off when it worked against Super Stupid the Ecologically Ignorant Stone Man. Clinton got a majority of the votes in the Electoral College, proving nothing more than a lot of truly unethical people don't mind being known as such.

Bubba took office in the 1992 election because George H. W. Bush (Pop) did not deserve to be re-elected and his voter base told him that in no uncertain terms. We read his lips and they lied to us. Sadly, the only alterntives on that ballot were a womanizing, corrupt scambag from Arkansas and a miniature meglomaniac from Houston. Clinton won re-election because of two reasons, The Republicans had to be reminded by their voters that the nomination for their party's candidate is not some award given for being a mealy-mouthed appeaser in the face of power that was provided to them in 1994 and again in 1995. Boob Dole was unqualified to be President and most Republicans have too much honor, respect and dignity to vote for someone who doesn't qualify for the job, even if he is the candidate the party powerful foisted off on them.

I know those concepts are hard for most liberals and partisan Dumbocrats to understand for far too few of them possess even a modicum of those qualities... honor, respect or dignity. Most of them bragged about Bubba "getting away with it" as if that were some mantle of divine right to be sleazy and to support sleaziness.

George W. Bush WON the election CONSTITUTIONALLY and a Supreme Court stacked with several litmus test liberals by Clinton ruled in favor of the federal Constitution, not the partisan whims and extra-Constitutional perversions of a group of so-called "impartial judges" on the Florida Supreme Court.

According to Newsweek, Time, AOL/TIME WARNER/CNN/Gallup and half a dozen other polls taken since 2000, Clinton could not be re-elected even if it were legal. So save your crowing to the contrary. Your statements go in the face of factual data that proves you are totally wrong. Clinton's only remaining constituency is the SLEAZE vote.

Might I suggest you take your uneducated as to the truth, incorrect on the facts self to the archives of this forum? If they were not destroyed, you will find here several posts BY ME that took great umbrage with some of the acts and policies of the current and past Bush admisitration.

I know that dyed-in-the-wool liberal Dumbocans cannot understand it, but some of us independents and many, if not most, avowed Repooblicrats can and will actually speak out against a man who happens to be the President... even one they voted for!

If you want proof of the differences between the supporters of the two camps, contrast the actions and words of Repooblicrats in 1974 about Nixon and those of the partisan Dumbocans in 1997-98 concerning Clinton commiting essentially the same impeachable acts as Nixon had. One of those groups doesn't come off looking too ethical in that comparison and it is not the group from 1974 that falls short on possessing moral values.

What you also overlook is how many Repooblicrat Senators who did not vote to remove Clinton from office failed to get re-elected in 1998, 2000 and 2002. They sold out this nation and its people and their constituents did not forget. One of them had to switch parties in 2001 to keep from getting thrown out on his ear.

I notice how you also left out how Bubba and RoboFlop Gore sold out our nation to the Chinese for illegal campaign contributions and how they went against the advise of well informed professionals with tons of experience to sign an agreement with North Korea that THEY KNEW the North Koreans would, and were, violating even while they were signing it. Where I come from, those kinds of people are called traitors. You also forgot to mention Clinton's dismantling of the CIA and our military during his watch, the 17 innocent sailors aboard the USS Cole who died because that slimy SOB gave direct orders that military personnel standing guard duty were not to be given any ammunition for their weapons - the same stupid stunt he did to our soldiers in the fiasco he arranged in Haiti and Bosnia. If you say that is not true, I will tell you here and now that you are a liar. I know too many men who were there and had to live through his disgraceful mismanagement of his primary Constitutional duty. My own brother was in a column of US soldiers in Haiti that came under fire and who could do nothing because they were told that they could not have live ammunition. If it comes to believing my brother or Bubba and his supporters - my brother, with all his flaws, rapidly approaches sainthood status.

Do you know where the argument about the Iraq situation being over oil originated? You, my misinformed, twisted, friend are quoting - ALMOST VERBATIM -the chronicle of the WORKER'S PARTY DAILY! Can you say, ",i> the organization formerly known as the COMMUNIST PARTY USA?"

The United States purchased 15% of Iraq's oil production in order to assist the people of Iraq to purchase food and medical supplies. Saddam Hussein - not us - converted those funds into a quest for weapons he agreed to destroy! Your entire argument is flawed, my foolish friend, and it is centered upon a lie you accept simply because it sounds like a good reason to be contrary.

What PRESIDENT Bush is promising to do is to ENFORCE the cease fire agreement Hussein signed in 1991 and the SIXTEEN OTHER UN RESOLUTIONS HE HAS BROKEN OR IGNORED during the ensuing 12 years. Any action we take, with or without the idiots at the UN, is provided for under the terms of that cease fire agreement. We don't need French or German approval.

Just in case you forgot why we went there in the first place, Hussein demonstrated his willingness to invade a neighboring country in order to steal their oil supply and everything else the bastards could get their hands on. He demonstrated his willingness to attack other nations (Saudi Arabia and Israel) with weapons he agreed to give up in that cease fire. The original intent of the first inspections was to oversee the destruction of Hussein's admitted arsenal of chemical, biological and other weapons.

The inspectors left Iraq in 1998 because Hussein and his thugs refused to permit the unfettered inspections he had agreed to in 1991. Do you really believe anything Hussein and his cutthroats say about having destroyed over 8,500 liters of REPORTED ANTHRAX supplies he admitted having in 1998? Well, I guess you would. After all,you accepted Clinton's lies about everything too and still are foolish enough to publicly admit you admire the scum bag.

I cannot let go unchallenged the stupid, mindless, baseless and false accusations you make about Afghanistan and the campaign there. Just in case you missed it, Z-dr, Bin Laden, with the tacit and overt approval of the Taliban, killed 3,000+ innocent people in this country on September 11th, 2001. Yes, I have problems with the way we fought there and how we continue to prosecute those battles. This administration didn't have a whole lot of choices available. The regular military was gutted under Clinton and they have had to reorganize the miltary into two separate and distinct groups. The "regular" military is a disgrace and not capable of fulflling its function thanks to the treachery of your hero and his concubine wife. Our arsenal of weaponry was used up AND NEVER REPLACED bombing tents in deserts and baby powder plants in other countries so he could pretend a manhood he never had and a moral stance that was foreign to him. Our Special Ops people have had to carry the war in Afghanistan, forcing us to rely on indigenous people who are totally useless as fighters and as allies.

It is the mindless, unknowing but willing to mouth off and spouth lies anyway people who denigrate those who died on 9-11-2001 and everyone who ever died in service to this country.

You have a Constitutional right to say stupid, foolish, untruthful things. I celebrate that right. Unfortunately for you and those like you who dishonor those who died on 9-11 and served this nation with honor, dignity and ethical attention to duty and obligation, others of us have that same Constitutional right to call you on your misleading, knowingly or unwittingly spewed garbage facts that don't stand up to even minimal scrutiny. I also celebrate and embrace that right as well.

I know that you have recently completed law enforcement training, so you should be able to identify with what I will say to close this. With more on the job time, you will encounter many people who ought to avail themselves of their Constitutional rights to remain silent rather than say things that tend to prove they are lying or too stupid to breathe. They won't. They seem driven to prove their foolishness. You will wish they would remain silent, but they don't know any better. They think their miniscule knowledge of some minute piece of misinformed, distortedd information they heard from someone who spouted off a line they liked because it enforced their own ignorance compels them to show everyone how dumb they really are.

In this gathering place, you do have the right to remain silent and be thought a fool. It saddens me when someone speaks up and only proves he or she is. Once you have done your research and found the posts that speak out against some policies of the Bush administration, past and present, get back to the subject of blind support of Bush. When you read a unbiased study of the provable oil, gas, coal and energy resources already known to exist in this country, get back to me with more stupid statements from the Communist Party rag about Iraq's misdeeds and our need to act being about oil. That's the same argument used in 1990 by the same people. Had they been righ then, we would have seized Iraq's oil fields then. We didn't. If oil and a pipeline though Afghanistan were motivating factors in the hunt for Bin Laden and his crew of cutthroats, please explain why we, as a national policy, refused to intervene on behalf of American based firms who wished to build such a pipeline and apply a stranglehold to the former Soviet puppet states who are now free nations. We backed the free people, not some international oil cartel as you seem to falsely imply. Get your damned facts straight, sir, before you try them out here.

All that having been said, I wrote every word of this without the least bit of personal rancor. You have a right to your opinons and I do encourage you to post them here. If we are to have a chance at shooting fish in a barrel, we need someone to supply the fish. Hell, you even brought us the barrel too!

Everyone should note that I challenged his IDEAS and ARGUMENTS. Those are fair game here and if getting them shot full of holes is uncomfortable for him or anyone else, he, and they, ought to think them through before stating those ideas publicly. This IS an intellectual free fire zone.