Author Topic: Why doesn't the latest White house vandalism surprise me? (Read 1197 times)

1776 · « **Reply #30 on:** January 26, 2001, 08:40:00 AM »

The money that will have to be spent to replace damaged and missing items could have been money applied to a Federal Government Program

Somewhere there is a kangaroo rat going homeless!! A child will not get healthcare and die because of the pranks of these liberal elitists!! A bunch of maggot infested, dope smoking liberals killing our children!!! Oh, well, nothing new there

Ripsnort · « **Reply #31 on:** January 26, 2001, 08:42:00 AM »

Sources:
Washington Times, check the front page today.

Edit:The original source was the Drudge report, you know, Matt Drudge who first broke the Lewinski scandal when everyone was downplaying what Drudge released to the press...

[This message has been edited by Ripsnort (edited 01-26-2001).]

Ripsnort · « **Reply #32 on:** January 26, 2001, 10:51:00 AM »

Also, the New York Times is now reporting it as well, Dinger.
http://www.nytimes.com/pages/politics/index.html

Any more questions?

Eagler · « **Reply #33 on:** January 26, 2001, 02:38:00 PM »

It made CNN ... it must be true

Eagler

Ripsnort · « **Reply #34 on:** January 26, 2001, 02:50:00 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Eagler:
It made CNN ... it must be true

Eagler

LOL, Eagler, are you suggesting that those that watch CNN and take it as Gospel are being mislead? SAY IT AIN'T TRUE...I THOUGHT IT STOOD FOR CLINTON NEWS NETWORK!!! :d

jihad · « **Reply #35 on:** January 26, 2001, 02:56:00 PM »

I read that the Bush camp is replacing the computers "supposedly" infected with viruses - I guess thats more "cost effective" than a format and reload?

Your tax dollars at work.

This news flash brought to you by the Anarchists of America.

Spread the Hate!

Toad · « **Reply #36 on:** January 26, 2001, 03:03:00 PM »

Certainly not nearly as cost effective as not having to repair anything at all is it?

Oh well, kids will be kids, right?

I guess it depends on the definition of "responsible", "accountable" and "is"?

[This message has been edited by Toad (edited 01-26-2001).]