|
|
Post by AztecWilliam on Jun 14, 2011 17:36:23 GMT -8
The first two names are no doubt familiar to you. The last one is probably not. I encountered it for the first time in this piece. You must read the responses to find out who DeLacy was. Decide for yourselves whether who he was matters now . www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=44172AzWm |
|
|
|
Post by Bob Forsythe on Jun 14, 2011 17:57:16 GMT -8
The first two names are no doubt familiar to you. The last one is probably not. I encountered it for the first time in this piece. You must read the responses to find out who DeLacy was. AzWm Um, "we must read"? Don't think so. =Bob |
|
|
|
Post by AztecWilliam on Jun 14, 2011 21:30:40 GMT -8
The first two names are no doubt familiar to you. The last one is probably not. I encountered it for the first time in this piece. You must read the responses to find out who DeLacy was. AzWm Um, "we must read"? Don't think so. =Bob Well, Bob, you may already have known who Hugh DeLacy was. I did not, and only encountered the name when I read the comments. By the way, I am in no way endorsing the views of the fellow who posted about DeLacy. My general opinion of Panetta is pretty positive. (Which puts me at odds with the respondent, as well as Glenn Beck!) AzWm |
|
|
|
Post by AlwaysAnAztec on Jun 15, 2011 8:35:10 GMT -8
The first two names are no doubt familiar to you. The last one is probably not. I encountered it for the first time in this piece. You must read the responses to find out who DeLacy was. Decide for yourselves whether who he was matters now . www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=44172AzWm This is the kind of drivel that Win usually posts. Calling Panetta and the President communists.... Nice post by a Joe McCarthy wannabe. |
|
|
|
Post by AztecWilliam on Jun 15, 2011 11:32:13 GMT -8
The first two names are no doubt familiar to you. The last one is probably not. I encountered it for the first time in this piece. You must read the responses to find out who DeLacy was. Decide for yourselves whether who he was matters now . www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=44172AzWm This is the kind of drivel that Win usually posts. Calling Panetta and the President communists.... Nice post by a Joe McCarthy wannabe. Yeah, you have a point there. As I said in a previous post, my opinion of Panetta is generally favorable. On the other hand, it should not be considered unacceptable to ask about his relationship with this guy DeLacy. What I would like to learn is just what justification there is to call the latter a communist. He may have been, for all I know. And even if he were, that might be pretty much irrelevant to the issue of Panetta's government service. Keep in mind also the writer's main focus, which was a review of Michelle Bachmann. That should be of some interest because she is an important political figure, a woman who could well be the GOP candidate for VP. (And plenty of women would like to know how she looks so damned good at age 55. But that's nothing; heck, my wife. . . oh well, let's not go there.  ) AzWm |
|
|
|
Post by aztecwin on Jun 15, 2011 12:52:16 GMT -8
Um, "we must read"? Don't think so. =Bob Well, Bob, you may already have known who Hugh DeLacy was. I did not, and only encountered the name when I read the comments. By the way, I am in no way endorsing the views of the fellow who posted about DeLacy. My general opinion of Panetta is pretty positive. (Which puts me at odds with the respondent, as well as Glenn Beck!) AzWm I suggest that =Bob does not know who DeLacy is and just won't read the link because of the source. You have to remember that =Bob really knows very little during the day and nothing after 1800.  |
|
|
|
Post by aztecwin on Jun 15, 2011 12:57:29 GMT -8
Many of the comments are stupid to the point of being bizarre.
|
|
|
|
Post by AztecWilliam on Jun 15, 2011 13:54:03 GMT -8
Many of the comments are stupid to the point of being bizarre. I won't argue the point. I posted this thread mostly because it dealt with Bachmann. The DeLacy thing just seemed like an interesting footnote. AzWm |
|
)
