Incredible how zipper problems, no matter where they occur, have a similar political response. Pope today warns Bush about Iraq and the prison situation. Reminds me of Clinton's adventurism with his zipper issues. I do believe this is more direct, public focus than the Pope showed for his personnel's zipper problems in the U.S. Bush should have invited the Pope to Boston for a community dinner with the Pope's customers. Instead, he swallows the opportunistic political slaps at America. Why?
QWAK,dawn,(This has nothing to do with Clinton or reagon) :)
It has to do with GOLD and a recent discovery of a 4th state of MATTER and SUPERCONDUCTIVITY and perhaps having a VERY long and HEALTHY life!
A much BETTER reason than MONEY to OWN GOLD!
Hope you find it interesting.
Michael, you learned a lot from Clinton's zipper travails. Including how to look and act stupid by questioning the use of the English language. Why not engage Paragon and debate your points instead of dodging when someone challenges your points? This Clinton technique is grade school era. I would think that his peers enjoyed yanking his lawyer license partly on its use.
Your reponses # 8 and 9 clearly show your self worth and ability to understand. Leadership is having the ability and disciplie to not get "sucked" in to compromising positions, ie "her goal".
Lie to cover up just echo's the point.
You are hopeless, helpless and lost morally and fundamentally.
REGARDING: "the very first one where you say it is not a cover-up ("What coverup?") then go on to say you'd cover it up ("If someone came to me with the information, I'd lock it up")? "
The example above was pointing out that keeping the dicovery of Clinton's sexual escapades quiet would not be a coverup then in the exact same sentnce you propose covering it up. That makes no sense at all. neither does the rest of your preaching and contorted thought process.
RESPONSE: What is your definition of a "cover-up"???
1) A matter of law
2) A situation/matter which the person or persons involved do not want others to know, and efforts are enlisted to maintain the secrecy.
You wrote as if describing the first, while I considered the second as descriptive.
Paragon. You have a wildly overinflated opinion of Reagan. Outside of the US, Internationally speaking, he is held in much lighter regard. Those are the simple facts.
And as with any complex event, there are often multiple factors. And in this instance, there are multiple persons stating their beliefs. So grow a bit.
As for me, I stick by my belief that the primary factor was Gorbachav. Their were conditional events, especially the war in Afghansitan, but it was his recognition that the current course of Soviet Communism, namely Central Planning and Militarism were not working and threatening bankruptcy. When Reagan became convinced of this and Gorbechov became convinced that the US was not looking for first strike superiority, Gorbachov was able to make the changes which resulted in the evolution out of Communism. And while you may not have heard of Peristoika and Glasnost, historians, scholars and the well-informed sure have.
REGARDING: I did give you one SPECIFIC comment and explained my problem...you better read SLOOOOOWWWLYY and maybe you'll catch it this time.
RESPONSE: I took your suggestion and went back and read slooooowwwly, yet still could not see where you had responded, specifically, to any single statement.