<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Frist for Majority Leader</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.theagitator.com/2002/12/08/frist-for-majority-leader/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.theagitator.com/2002/12/08/frist-for-majority-leader/</link>
	<description>It rankles me when somebody tries to tell somebody what to do.</description>
	<pubDate>Wed, 07 Jan 2009 02:28:29 +0000</pubDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.6.3</generator>
		<item>
		<title>By: Joe Harkins</title>
		<link>http://www.theagitator.com/2002/12/08/frist-for-majority-leader/#comment-13815</link>
		<dc:creator>Joe Harkins</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 16 Dec 2002 19:35:18 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://dev.theagitator.com/?p=1424#comment-13815</guid>
		<description>Since you have a contact within Mr. Lott's circle, you might sugest that Mr. Lott take a look at "www.dumptrentlott.com". He already knows that his problem is not left wingers and democrats but his own party, especially the right wing of it, that apprehends the harm that his remarks caused to his party and realizes the damage his too late and disingeuous apologies caused to himself. For him to claim that he meant no harm while not explaining what it might have been that he *was* trying to say, is contemptuous of the intelligence of all who recognize the all too obvious meaning of his words. It's no less insulting than Clinton's disputing the meaning of the word "is" during his deposition. 
</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Since you have a contact within Mr. Lott&#8217;s circle, you might sugest that Mr. Lott take a look at &#8220;www.dumptrentlott.com&#8221;. He already knows that his problem is not left wingers and democrats but his own party, especially the right wing of it, that apprehends the harm that his remarks caused to his party and realizes the damage his too late and disingeuous apologies caused to himself. For him to claim that he meant no harm while not explaining what it might have been that he *was* trying to say, is contemptuous of the intelligence of all who recognize the all too obvious meaning of his words. It&#8217;s no less insulting than Clinton&#8217;s disputing the meaning of the word &#8220;is&#8221; during his deposition.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
