bjmarte Posted February 21, 2003 Share Posted February 21, 2003 Ashcroft is an Asshat. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cwsox Posted February 22, 2003 Share Posted February 22, 2003 Ashcroft is an Asshat. what is an asshat? that is not a phrase used in western Michigan and the picture in my mind is too bizarre for words - help me out here, please! And I will agree that Ashcroft is one, whatever it is. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LowerCaseRepublican Posted February 22, 2003 Share Posted February 22, 2003 Ashcroft is an Asshat. what is an asshat? that is not a phrase used in western Michigan and the picture in my mind is too bizarre for words - help me out here, please! And I will agree that Ashcroft is one, whatever it is. It is just a random slang term making fun of somebody. Ashcroft thinks that calico cats are harbingers of Satan....this is true. He also hailed a confederate southern magazine (that sold t-shirts celebrating the assassination of Lincoln) for "setting the record straight". The voters of Missouri were right...They were faced with the decision for Senate: John Ashcroft A 7 week old rotting maggot ridden corpse And the corpse won. That should say something. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
baggio202 Posted February 22, 2003 Share Posted February 22, 2003 Ashcroft is an Asshat. what is an asshat? that is not a phrase used in western Michigan and the picture in my mind is too bizarre for words - help me out here, please! And I will agree that Ashcroft is one, whatever it is. It is just a random slang term making fun of somebody. Ashcroft thinks that calico cats are harbingers of Satan....this is true. He also hailed a confederate southern magazine (that sold t-shirts celebrating the assassination of Lincoln) for "setting the record straight". The voters of Missouri were right...They were faced with the decision for Senate: John Ashcroft A 7 week old rotting maggot ridden corpse And the corpse won. That should say something. that is just total horses*** apu and you know it..when carahan's widow decided to run ashcroft said that out of respect for mel he refused to run any ads...the democrats then blitzed the media after they said they wouldnt with ads against ashcroft calling him a racist and all kinds of other crap..still ashcroft kept his promise and didnt run any ads...on election night the cheating dem bastards in st louis kept the polls open in democrats districts 2 hours after they were suppose to close..remember that???..how many extra votes did gore get there???...3 precincts that were in the poorer neighborhoods and were 95% democrat..ashcroft could have called for an investigation but didnt..he also could have called for a recount since the widow carnahan's victory was within the margin of error.. but he didnt...saying it wasnt the right thing to do after all that happened..this was after he personally attacked relentlessly by the democrats of missouri..and this also knowing that he was giving a 50/50 senate and the dems some power im not an ashcroft expert..im not sure about his politics...but what he did on election night 2000 earned my respect...it shouldnt be belittled like that guess al gore wasnt watching that when learning how to lose gracefully Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cwsox Posted February 22, 2003 Share Posted February 22, 2003 that is just total horses*** I love it when you rewrite history! Your versions are so much more exciting than what really happened! Could you give me the new version of what happened in Georgia in last year's Senate election when Bush went there and accused Max Cleland of being soft on protecting America and homeland security - and supported a candidate who wouldn't serve in Vietnam because of the old trick knee - while Max Cleland, the soft on homeland security Senator according to Bush, lost his limbs in Vietnam - and why was Cleland soft on security? Because he wanted civil service protection for the new cabinent department, you know, civil service, which was instituted to eliminate patronage - but I am sure the revisionist version of that election will be so much more exciting than the truth, just as the revisionist theory of the 2000 Missouri election is. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cwsox Posted February 22, 2003 Share Posted February 22, 2003 It is just a random slang term making fun of somebody. It works for me. Ashcroft is the most dangerous attorney general since - not even John Mitchell who planned criminal conspiracies in the attorney general's office - he is the most dangerous since Palmer following WW1, who I am sure is Ashcroft's role model. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
baggio202 Posted February 22, 2003 Share Posted February 22, 2003 that is just total horses*** I love it when you rewrite history! Your versions are so much more exciting than what really happened! Could you give me the new version of what happened in Georgia in last year's Senate election when Bush went there and accused Max Cleland of being soft on protecting America and homeland security - and supported a candidate who wouldn't serve in Vietnam because of the old trick knee - while Max Cleland, the soft on homeland security Senator according to Bush, lost his limbs in Vietnam - and why was Cleland soft on security? Because he wanted civil service protection for the new cabinent department, you know, civil service, which was instituted to eliminate patronage - but I am sure the revisionist version of that election will be so much more exciting than the truth, just as the revisionist theory of the 2000 Missouri election is. so where am i wrong?? did ashcroft not stop running ads?? did democrats not flood the state with ads calling ashcroft a racist because he was tied to some southern history group or whatever it was??? did the polls in st louis not stay open late in hugely democratic districts?? was ashcroft within his rights to call for a recount but choose not too??? where am i revising history??? you cant even give a republican credit when he helps one of your own...im not asking you to buy into his politics...but cant you agree that he did an honorable thing with how he treated the carnahan situation??? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.