Tweety 'on' Foley (he wishes)
PCIntern
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Sep-29-06 06:07 PM
Original message |
Tweety 'on' Foley (he wishes) |
|
"He seems level-headed"
"I like the guy."
Bet you do...funny that on Hardball (!) the e-mails read on the air were much more benign than those ABC released.
|
Pirate Smile
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Sep-29-06 06:10 PM
Response to Original message |
1. This was on live at 5:00 pm ET. It repeats again now. It was before |
|
the more explicit IM's showed up.
An hour can make a show old news during a breaking story.
|
razors edge
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Sep-29-06 06:11 PM
Response to Original message |
|
Edited on Fri Sep-29-06 06:12 PM by DiktatrW
of a level head is entirely different from a streamlined one, maybe thats what tweety likes.
edit:sp
|
The_Casual_Observer
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Sep-29-06 06:15 PM
Original message |
|
John Wayne Gacy: "I like the guy"
|
johnfunk
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Sep-29-06 06:15 PM
Response to Original message |
3. Or is it Foley on Tweety? Man on bird!! Oh, the humanity! |
|
Where's Santorum when you need him?
|
PCIntern
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Sep-29-06 06:16 PM
Response to Reply #3 |
gatorboy
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Sep-29-06 06:17 PM
Response to Original message |
5. And did you notice that Tweety said this isn't just a Republican problem. |
|
It's a Congress problem! Because you always have to blame the Democrats, regardless! :eyes:
|
Cha
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Sep-29-06 06:21 PM
Response to Reply #5 |
6. WTF!? Are there any Dems at all who |
|
are sending sexually explicit emails to underage boys?
Wrong again, you screeching parakeet.
|
dicknbush
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Sep-29-06 06:39 PM
Response to Reply #5 |
7. It is true that the repugs would not give nod to Foley.... |
|
For a run at Florida Senate seat (currently being pursued by the witch) because they knew he was a bit randy for the boys. So how is it if they knew he was randy for the boys and wouldn't be a good bet for Senator why would thye put him in charge of the House caucus on exploited children.
WHY DID THE REPUBLICAN LEADERSHIP PUT A PEODOPHILE IN CHARGE OF HOUSE CAUCUS ON ABUSED AND EXPLOITED CHILDREN?
Just wondering!
|
DU
AdBot (1000+ posts) |
Thu Dec 26th 2024, 08:34 AM
Response to Original message |
Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators
Important Notices: By participating on this discussion
board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules
page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the
opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent
the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.