~> ->  JB> $20 against the Clinton jail fund that this will be ignored.... 
~> ->  JB> You pretty much confirmed my belief.
 
~> -> Because there is nothing to it.
~> -> Zero. Zilch. Nada. Nothing.

~> -> Just the latest Obama smear created by a discredited toe-sucker, posted
~> -> at a discredited far-right web site, linked by a discredited gossip
~> -> writer.
 
~> -> And you fell for it.
 
~> Nicely done!

Sorry to interrupt your back-slapping with facts, but could you explain
exactly WHAT you thought was "well done?"

Was it a "well done" job to call the honest comments of Democrat
Congressman Sestak a "smear" of Obama?  How is that a
"smear?"  Sestak
reported what happened.  And now the White House counsel has released a
written summary that agrees that it happened.  The defense seems to be that
it was not illegal since it was an "unpaid" advisory position.  Whether
that is an adequate defense remains to be seen.  But it is wildly mindless
to call the agreed-upon facts a "smear."

Or did you think he did a "well done" job of committing three red herring
fallacies in one sentence?  He attacked the messenger by launching three
salvos of shallow name-calling that had nothing to do with the facts of the
matter -- facts once again that have been agreed to.  Is that what you
considered "well done?"
 
--- Platinum Xpress/Win/WINServer v3.0pr5a