To: Mo1
2nd .. What part of this is a bogus story about the State Department do you not understand?? What part of up till about post 200 something most thought it was real do you not understand. My post were directed at post I saw BEFORE I saw the update. Despite the update that does not change the fact that those post were not very bright cheering them on saying way to go girls for staying there. That is my point and I believe someone else was saying that as well.
358 posted on
11/27/2006 8:11:07 PM PST by
cva66snipe
(If it was wrong for Clinton why do some support it for Bush? Party over nation destroys the nation.)
To: cva66snipe
In time you will see that they are perfect. Can do no wrong. Resistance is futile...
360 posted on
11/27/2006 8:14:53 PM PST by
durasell
(!)
To: cva66snipe; donna
Did you read my post? We were discussing the lack of credibility of the article before post 200 and most of the comments prior to that were in response to donna's posts.
In scanning through, there were just a handful of posts 'cheering them on.' You seem to be determined to find fault where none exists. Is there a reason for that?
362 posted on
11/27/2006 8:15:54 PM PST by
ohioWfan
(President Bush - courageously and honorably protecting us in dangerous times, . Praise the Lord!)
To: cva66snipe
I realize that posts were made BEFORE the it was known about the bogus reporting ..
But after I posted a link, pointing out to you that it was a bogus report .. you still clung to the orginal story
381 posted on
11/27/2006 8:44:09 PM PST by
Mo1
(Thank You Mr & Mrs "I'm gonna teach you a lesson" Voter ... you just screwed us on so many levels)
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson