To: chalu2 who wrote (317 ) 2/20/2000 3:48:00 AM From: Zoltan! Read Replies (3) | Respond to of 6579
>>I accept your apology for your ungentlemanly manner. Said the most disingenuous rogue. I doubt Clinton would be so brazen. >>Errors do occur during cutting and pasting, especially at the end of a long day. Sure, especially if your guy loses big. But you're still are a liar if you maintain that I altered your words other than cropping them for a cut and paste. There was no error in my cutting and pasting. Too many words would have had to have been altered for that to have occurred, and most amazingly, in the middle of a sentence and some well after it ended! You altered: ...only incumbent President to win a second term during the past 25 years is Clinton! to:....only incumbent Presidents to win second terms during the past 25 years are Clinton and Reagan, neither one a hard core conservative in the minds of most Americans. after I documented your stupidity, late hour or not. Your newest version now undoes your original point, because fully half the Presidents of the last 25 years that ran for re-election have indeed won re-election. That doesn't merit an "only" and shows that you did indeed do a hasty alteration cum lie. Next time I'll wait for your 15 minutes to be up since your honestly is at least as elusive as your grasp of issues. >>I also see no reply to the substance of my message, which is that the Ford and Bush analogies are poor because of the many Presidents refused second terms in the past 30 years or so ( 31 years, 9 months, if I'm recalling Johnson's withdrawal date correctly--I'm sure you'll be looking it up). As we can see, there is no substance to that mess. Bush and Ford are apt and illustrative of "moderate" impotence.