Bush Lowers His Ethics Bar (again)

[steven]

By JENNIFER LOVEN
Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON (AP) -- President Bush qualified his pledge to dismiss any White House official found to have leaked the name of a CIA operative, saying Monday that "if someone committed a crime" he would be fired.

In September 2003, the White House had said anyone who leaked classified information in the case would be dismissed. Bush reiterated that promise last June, saying he would fire anyone found to have disclosed the CIA officer's name.

Bush would not say whether he was displeased that Rove, the deputy chief of staff, told a reporter that the wife of administration critic Joseph Wilson worked for the CIA on weapons of mass destruction issues. A 2003 phone call with Rove was the first time that Matthew Cooper of Time magazine had heard that Wilson's wife worked at the agency, according to a first-person account by Cooper in the magazine.

Rove's involvement in the leak case has worried Republicans, already anxious about Bush's decline in opinion polls. Only a fourth of Americans believe the White House is fully cooperating with the investigation, according to an ABC News poll released Monday. That number has dropped from half in September 2003 when the probe began.

In July 2003, syndicated columnist Robert Novak, citing unnamed administration officials, wrote that Wilson's wife, Valerie Plame, worked for the CIA.

A 1982 law prohibits the deliberate exposure of the identity of an undercover CIA official. Wilson has accused the White House of trying to orchestrate a dirty-tricks campaign to discredit him after he challenged the administration's assertion that Saddam Hussein was seeking material from ***** to make nuclear weapons and said the White House had manipulated pre-war intelligence to justify an Iraq invasion.

Said Bush on Monday, "I would like this to end as quickly as possible so we know the facts, and if someone committed a crime, they will no longer work in my administration."

The phrasing was unusual for the president, who campaigned for office in 2000 on a pledge "to restore honor and dignity" to a White House he implied had been sullied by scandals of the Clinton administration.

[biker]

The press is doing everything it can to keep this story alive.

I understand they even had members of the Clinton administration on the Sunday talk shows weighing in on the ethics of the Bush administration.

The tough part was, they all had to keep a straight face.

[ERIEMAN]

Originally posted by biker
The press is doing everything it can to keep this story alive.

I understand they even had members of the Clinton administration on the Sunday talk shows weighing in on the ethics of the Bush administration.

The tough part was, they all had to keep a straight face.


Sticking a cigar into an intern is a little different than blowing a CIA agent's cover.

Why do people not see this? Why is every one of Bush's ethics violations compared to some president fu(cking an intern? Regardless of whether or not you liked Clinton, the comparisons are stupid.

[biker]

People are absolutely viewing this with preset conditions, those few that are interested in it at all.

He didn't blow the cover. And the agent wasn't covert.

This is an example of the oppostion making something out of nothing.

I do agree with a comment that I heard that the Repubs don't know how to govern. The Dems would already have had their Bolton confirmed by now and swept aside any Repub objections on judges (which those guys wouldn't have made vociferously).

Another thing that surprises me is the lack of depth on explaining the law involved. After a week of talking heads going over the finer points, no one has discussed the history of why the law exists: in the seventies, people were publishing the names of active, covert agents in the field.

Because CIA agents by definition are evil and should be exposed.

The people who are now sanctimonious about defending the identity of the "agent" involved make me want to puke.

They're out for a political strike, plain and simple.

[ERIEMAN]

Originally posted by biker
People are absolutely viewing this with preset conditions, those few that are interested in it at all.

He didn't blow the cover. And the agent wasn't covert.

This is an example of the oppostion making something out of nothing.

I do agree with a comment that I heard that the Repubs don't know how to govern. The Dems would already have had their Bolton confirmed by now and swept aside any Repub objections on judges (which those guys wouldn't have made vociferously).

Another thing that surprises me is the lack of depth on explaining the law involved. After a week of talking heads going over the finer points, no one has discussed the history of why the law exists: in the seventies, people were publishing the names of active, covert agents in the field.

Because CIA agents by definition are evil and should be exposed.

The people who are now sanctimonious about defending the identity of the "agent" involved make me want to puke.

They're out for a political strike, plain and simple.

Yeah, It's good that the agent's name was outed. They should publish the names of ALL non-covert CIA agents.

Good thinking.

[biker]

I didn't say that and you know it.

I really don't care about this.

You're torqued enough to distort what I said.

Like a I said, everyone brings their pre-conceived notions and emotions to it and analyzes it that way.

[ERIEMAN]

Originally posted by biker
I didn't say that and you know it.

I really don't care about this.

You're torqued enough to distort what I said.

Like a I said, everyone brings their pre-conceived notions and emotions to it and analyzes it that way.

I'm not torqued at all. I just find it funny how when Clinton was in office, it was okay to attack his sexual affair, and to waste millions of public dollars in trying to get him to admit he had an affair. Now, Bush's advisor is accused of doing something REALLY stupid, it's just a senseless political attack.

[biker]

Clinton lied to a jury and was held in contempt by a federal judge for it. Lost his law license.

Like Watergate, the crime wasn't the issue, but the attempt to cover it up.

Which included lying to his entire cabinet and then parading them onto the TV cameras to repeat the lies. I felt very sorry for those men and women.


But I really wish the press hadn't kept this going. Things that will affect us individually----like revamping Soc Sec----have been completely swept aside.

[steven]

Looks like Bush lied (again) to the american people since he said whoever did it would be fired immediatly if it was a memebr of his administrtation.

Hmmmm Lets see


-Losing your law license for lying about cheating on your wife
-Lose your drivers lisc for being a repeat drunken driving offender

-lying so your wife doesnt know your cheating on her
-Ratting out a CIA operative

-Lying about weapons of mass destruction and plunging the country in to war
-Lying to a grand jury and pissing your wife off

Hmmmmmmmmmmm
apples and oranges?

[Boost Buffalo]

Originally posted by steven

-Losing your law license for lying about cheating on your wife


-lying so your wife doesnt know your cheating on her


-Lying to a grand jury and pissing your wife off



yes, all bad news and bad character for sure, but the real harm was Clinton's failure to effectively react to the four or five Al-Qaida direct hits our country received, and then allowing Osama to run free as a bird when he was offered to us on a silver platter.

Clinton was all talk and all cigar. And his wife is a crook.

[ReformWNY]

but What about the Dirthouse?

[biker]

I heard the tapes today.

In 2003, he said if a member of his administration violated the law, he'd be fired.

In 2004, a reporter began by asking if he "stood by his earlier statement" and then slightly rephrased it.

This week, the President again said if someone in his administration broke the law, they're gone.

He's been consistent and this whole thing has been kept alive by the partisan press.

Part of the Washington game. As with most other things, the White House will win at this, too.

Check your playbook; isn't it time to talk about Tom DeLay (the slayer of House Democrats) again?

[atotaltotalfan2001]

Originally posted by ERIEMAN
Sticking a cigar into an intern is a little different than blowing a CIA agent's cover.

Why do people not see this? Why is every one of Bush's ethics violations compared to some president fu(cking an intern? Regardless of whether or not you liked Clinton, the comparisons are stupid.

At this juncture, the point isn't whether Rove broke the law -- only that Bush vowed to fire anyone from his Administration involved in the leaking of the information.

Bush changed the rules in mid stream. But I'm not surprised. He does it all the time. At least, this time he's not attacking a foreign country and constantly changing the reasons why....

[biker]

See above Total

The point exactly is whether he broke the law.

You're changing the basis, because you guys have lost.

Nice to hear from you again.

The other thread got tooooo silent.

[speaker]

No use, guys, when biker and boost have no good argument, they resort to Clinton's indiscretions. They could never get over that they lost those presidential elections, their party spent and wasted so much money and time trying to get Bill Clinton or Hillary Clinton in some kind of compromising position. And wasted the media's and publics time. They were so jealous of him!
Bush had to change his phrasing a LITTLE bit. At first, he said that person, the leaker, would not be working for him. He knew he had to change what he said because if Rove is indicted it would take years to get him convicted, and hopefully Bush will be gone by the time that happens.. But he would be in no danger of losing his nanny before his term is over. So it was imperative he change his wording.;)

[therising]

Erieman: 2 + 2 = 4
Biker: Clinton lied.
Erieman: I'm not saying he didn't lie; still 2 + 2 = 4, right?
Biker: I wish the liberal press would stop talking about 2+2=4, it's not good for the country. After all, I'm all for less government, but I'd still like to muzzle the media.

[biker]

Speaker:

Bush didn't change what he said or committed to.

But the Democratic guerrillas and their partisan allies the mainstream press continue to say he did.

They used to have a monopoly, but no longer do. So each time they try and reinvent the truth, they get caught.

Now, if the Dan Rather Authenticated Forged Documents Project had succeeded, maybe they would have had a shot here.

But it didn't and they don't.

[steven]

spin
spin
spin

[WestSideJohn]

Here is a transcription of an exchange made during a White House press briefing session on September 29, 2003.

McCLELLAN: If anyone in this administration was involved in it [the leaking of Plame's identity], they would no longer be in this administration.

REPORTER: You continue to talk about the severity of this and if anyone has any information they should go forward to the Justice Department. But can you tell us, since it's so severe, would someone or a group of persons, lose their job in the White House?

McCLELLAN: At a minimum.

REPORTER: At a minimum?

McCLELLAN: At a minimum.

Now, either Mr. McClellan was unauthorized to say what he did or the "promise" has indeed changed.

[atotaltotalfan2001]

Originally posted by biker
I heard the tapes today.

In 2003, he said if a member of his administration violated the law, he'd be fired.

In 2004, a reporter began by asking if he "stood by his earlier statement" and then slightly rephrased it.

This week, the President again said if someone in his administration broke the law, they're gone.

He's been consistent and this whole thing has been kept alive by the partisan press.

Part of the Washington game. As with most other things, the White House will win at this, too.

Check your playbook; isn't it time to talk about Tom DeLay (the slayer of House Democrats) again?

Hi. What tapes did you hear? How does one obtain them?

[WestSideJohn]

Honestly? I don't have the energy to get all that worked up over Plame-Gate when so much worse is going on both nationally and locally. Sure, Mr. Rove showed an uncharacteristic bad judgement but the media is trying to turn this into A Huge Deal which it just isn't with most people.

Still, it's disappointing (though not surprising) to watch the usual suspects try to rewrite history and convince us that Mr. Bush never said he'd fire anyone involved in the leak.

[WestSideJohn]

Oops. I tried to repeat myself and succeeded.

[buffknut]

Biker,

Didn't I tell you that you can't win with the liberals on this forum?

I've provided them plenty of sites where they can go and actually read some truth. But they hate Bush so much that they remain lost in the pre-9/11 world. They don't get it and never will.

They should soon be trashing the Supreme Court nominee. As soon as the liberal Dems like Kennedy (remember what happened 36 years ago yesterday), Durbin, Gore, Kerry, and Michael Moore give them their talking points. Oh wait, maybe they can get Sean Penn's opinion also.

I think I'm still a liar, ditto-head, and empty, but I'm not sure as I haven't had time to post much lately.

P.S. - Good thing that the Democrats continue to self-destruct. With their continued loss of Senate & House seats, as well as loss of Governorships, they will become more irrelevant each year.

Maybe Hillary will save them!

[atotaltotalfan2001]

Originally posted by therising
I wish the liberal press would stop talking about 2+2=4, it's not good for the country. After all, I'm all for less government, but I'd still like to muzzle the media.


Gee, if you'd muzzled the so-called liberal media, we wouldn't have had all those years of Clinton scandals!!!!

The next time you suffer a serious miscarriage of justice and your government, big or little, and/or your money-sucking lawyer let you down, remember the voice of last resort: The media. Hate it all you want, but media has a role in our country.

For instance, the NYTimes recently reported on the widespread corruption in medicaid in New York. No annonymous sources; all solid data from the state itself.

How would we have known that if The Times hadn't reported it? Who do you think would have told us? Pataki? Your local legislative "leader"?

I think we've all have always suspected/assumed corruption in Medicaid....but a member of the "liberal" media had the resources to do its job -- to give us proof.

[atotaltotalfan2001]

Originally posted by buffknut

Good thing that the Democrats continue to self-destruct. With their continued loss of Senate & House seats, as well as loss of Governorships, they will become more irrelevant each year.



That would be bad news for you. Power corrupts, and absolute power -- or one-party rule -- is even more dangerous. Bitter as you seem to be, I'd think you could at least think clearly enough to realize that. After all, we've seen it in Buffalo, where the total dominance of one political party has been a disaster. And it's not just because our "leaders" here are Dems. Dems, Republicans -- when it comes to power, they are all the same. Without checks and balances, they become remarkably abusive.

Take a look at San Diego, a GOP stronghold whose GOP leaders are being hauled off to jail for corruption, leaving behind a government so broke it makes Buffalo look healthy!!!!

[biker]

Total:

I've been on the road and haven't been able to post all the time.

I'm not sure about a site to hear the tapes replayed, but there's a lot of bright people here who would know how to find them.

I might have heard it on Rush, he's on three hours a day here and sometimes six, as they play rebroadcasts. I didn't know this: did you know he hires a firm to audit the veracity of the facts he broadcasts? I didn't know that. I guess it might be a little suspect, since he pays for it. But companies pay for the audits of their financials and, with some glaring exceptions, they provide a valid service.

It might have been Sean Hannity, as he is also on three hours a day. I've been amazed at the number of stations that provide both Rush and Sean for three hours a day. So many, that it's usually pretty easy to find a new station on the same broadcast when the on you're listening to fades out.

I'am also surprised how hard some of these guys work. Hannity is on the radio three hours a day and then does a radio show, too. That's a lot of work.

Bill O'Reilly has a radio show, too. But he's on only an hour. But, coupled with his TV show, is a lot to do.

I've also heard a guy called Michael Savage, also on three hours a day. And a guy called Michael Medved (sp?).

I don't know if Air America has weighed in on this, as the only places I've found it are So. California, Boulder, Colorado or Vermont.

But with that many shows playing the same clips, I'm sure they're available.

[avet]

An "uninformed" public is our best customer!

________________________________________________

Shhhh or else!
07\09\2005
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/theblog/archive/seth-greenland/shhh-or-else_3911.html

Buried on page ten of Saturday's New York Times is a piece that should give pause to all who live in free societies. Actually, it should do more than give pause. It should freak us out a little.

It concerns the Cleveland Plain Dealer and their decision to not publish two articles for fear of legal retribution by the government. Robert D. McFadden of the Times writes "...the newspaper, acting on the advice of its lawyers, was withholding publication of two major investigative articles because they were based on illegally leaked documents and could lead to penalties against the paper and the jailing of reporters."

Illegally leaked? Hmmm...like the Pentagon Papers?

McFadden quoted the Plain Dealer editor, Doug Clifton, as saying the articles were "profoundly important" and of "significant interest to the public".

So here is where we are now: a major American newspaper has been spooked into silence by a government that fears an informed citizenry. Meanwhle, the Plain Dealer is so jumpy about the situation in which they find themselves, no one there has even mentioned what the articles are about.

I don't want to get into a not-since-Nixon rant but this is deeply alarming. The Miller/Cooper situation is casting a very long shadow.

What are the stories the Plain Dealer has spiked? How will we find out what's going on? Why did the leaker contact the Plain Dealer instead of Robert Novak? Nothing ever seems to happen to him.
__________________________________________________

[buffknut]

totalfan,

I actually do agree with you. I do not favor one party rule at all. But the Dems must come to grips with the fact that they are alienating more and more people with their virulent anti-Bush rhetoric. A party that has leaders like Kennedy and that is increasingly beholden to Hollywood is not the party I want leading this country during these times.

The GOP is far from perfect but until the Dems grow up, the Dems will only become more irrelevant. Keep in mind that Kerry lost despite a massive propaganda effort by Hollywood and the media. What does that tell you?

By the way, on www.powerlineblog.com there is interesting discussion regarding problems in Minneapolis where they call it Murderapolis. Just kind of interesting that our perception here is that we are the worst but even in a city like Minneapolis, which is often held up as a progressive thriving place, has big problems too.

[ERIEMAN]

Originally posted by buffknut
totalfan,

I actually do agree with you. I do not favor one party rule at all. But the Dems must come to grips with the fact that they are alienating more and more people with their virulent anti-Bush rhetoric. A party that has leaders like Kennedy and that is increasingly beholden to Hollywood is not the party I want leading this country during these times.

The GOP is far from perfect but until the Dems grow up, the Dems will only become more irrelevant. Keep in mind that Kerry lost despite a massive propaganda effort by Hollywood and the media. What does that tell you?


That is VERY true of the Democratic party. The biggest problem is that there is no leadership. Democrats have nobody to stand behind and say "that's our man!". There is no guidance, only complaining and whining.

The republicans have great leaders, and a genius in Karl Rove. What I don't understand is the people's infatuation with extremes. Why pick a REALLY far right leader like Bush, when a moderate like John McCain could better serve the needs of a larger percentage of America? Why select such a far left leader like Kerry to run for office in a country that has a conservative majority?

I really wish the religious rhetoric would die down in the next election. I don't think we should be picking candidates based on their religious beliefs.

As for John Roberts, he sounds like a VERY qualified individual. I just feel that as long as a good balance is maintained in the Supreme Court, we are doing okay. There should never be a huge Conservative leaning in the SC, just like there should never be a huge Liberal leaning.

[biker]

Erie:

I agree that it seems that the US---historically a milque-toast middle of the road country---has increasingly chosen more extreme politicians to lead them at the federal level.

I think it has two reasons.

First, the two main parties have become very effective at getting their messages out, motivating their bases and villifying their opponents. After each campaign, the loser generally claims they didn't do a good enough job at these (OK, they usually say the first two.). But I think both have been good at it.

Secondly, freedom of movement is letting people stratify out. That is, it is generally accepted that cities/suburbs are now sorting out as minority/white or poor/affluent. The same thing is, IMO, happening on a national basis.

The sunbelt continues to grow, both economically and politicallly. In turn, they are attracting those who have better skill sets and who have an adventuresome, entrepreneurial spirit. Those who feel they must rely on the government for life support are staying in place. They find the blue states more welcoming.

This may sound overblown, but if you were starting out your career as a young person, would you do it in high growth Phoenix or slow growth Buffalo. And if you were older, would you be more likely to build a business or spend your retirement dollars in slow growth, high tax Buffalo?

And once we have stratified, sorted out policitcally, we no longer know or care about the concerns of the other. So there's no moderation in stances.

The sunbelt is pro-growth, anit-tax and the Northeast is the opposite.

IMO

[atotaltotalfan2001]

Originally posted by buffknut
totalfan,

I actually do agree with you. I do not favor one party rule at all. But the Dems must come to grips with the fact that they are alienating more and more people with their virulent anti-Bush rhetoric. A party that has leaders like Kennedy and that is increasingly beholden to Hollywood is not the party I want leading this country during these times.

The GOP is far from perfect but until the Dems grow up, the Dems will only become more irrelevant. Keep in mind that Kerry lost despite a massive propaganda effort by Hollywood and the media. What does that tell you?



I actually agree with you too, in some respects (who woulda' thunk???)

As someone who can't STAND Bush, and considers him a national disgrace, I can't say the anti-Bush rhetoric bothers me. I agree with most of it. And I don't mind Kennedy at all. He is who he is...has never hidden his liberal beliefs. That is his right. That is why he is re-elected time and again, and I think he does a good job of representing his constituents.

But Hollywood's role in the Dem Party bothers me too, mostly because I don't see Hollywood as credible and I certainly don't see how it could relate to the concerns of the work-a-day blue collar and middle class people that the Dems once represented.

It does seem to me that the Dem leadership has allowed itself to be hijacked by a lot of what I consider wedge issues -- same sex marriage, the abortion debate, the Ten Commandments etc. -- that alienate their old, more moderate core.

So, I agree with you (yikes!). The Dems need to grow up and start focusing on other issues, like the long slow decline in middle income wages, health care, the possiblity that NONE of us will have pensions one day and, of course, Iraq.

[WestSideJohn]

Neither party does us any favors.

And neither does the "yeah, but" way of thinking. The "yeah, but" way of thinking allows people to avoid confronting the shortcomings in their own party by answering every criticism or question with "yeah but."

Yeah, but Clinton thought Saddam had WMDs, too.
Yeah, but Bush did cocaine 30 years ago.

And so on... and so on... and so on.

[buffknut]

totalfan,

I believe we have a breakthrough! We have found some common ground after all.

May I just comment now that I wish that the next step for you would be to not so much be against Bush, but be FOR something (and I don't mean that in a mean way, just wanted to emphasize the for part). That would help the dialog.

For example, you mention pensions so I assume you have some thoughts re SocSec. But what are they? GWB has at least PROPOSED something. He didn't write it in blood. Yet the Dems automatically have a knee-jerk reaction against anything he proposes. Same with pretty much everything the President does. The Dems however, never seem to actually propose anything.

You don't have to specifically respond to my question re SS, but the point I want to make is that it makes no sense to be anti-GWB, especially to the hateful depths of many Dem leaders. Be FOR something. I still may not agree but at least by knowing the differences, we can set a course to resolve them.

Also, I still think the sites I have mentioned are excellent sources for information. Yes, you can argue they are biased if you wish to. But should you ONLY read the news from sites you agree with? After all, before the bloggers, the ONLY source of news (or by far the most predominant) was the mainstream media. So I have been barraged for years by an agenda driven media (IMHO). Couldn't you spend an equal time reading media you may not agree with?

Again, those sites are:
www.littlegreenfootballs.com
www.powerlineblog.com
www,instapundit.com
www.polipundit.com

There are many, many more. But these are some of the best. Don't just scan them once and brush them off though. The best way to really understand them, is to keep going back.

Intelligent discourse is good.

[atotaltotalfan2001]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by buffknut
[B]totalfan,

I believe we have a breakthrough! We have found some common ground after all.

May I just comment now that I wish that the next step for you would be to not so much be against Bush, but be FOR something (and I don't mean that in a mean way, just wanted to emphasize the for part). That would help the dialog.



Hi, buffknut.

I AM for a lot of things -- almost all of which Bush is not FOR. It's not a knee-jerk reaction, please believe me. I thought he did a good job in thr days and weeks after 9/11 of helping the nation (tho, I already disliked his policies) and agreed with the decision to go after Osma as best we could.

But I've always believed he betrayed out country's trust with the war on Iraq. I don't know that he lied about why he wanted to invade Iraq, as some people say. To me, it's more likely that he wanted to do it, and chose to see and hear only the information that would justify his desire. That's very human: I'm sure all of us have done it. But he needed to be better; needed to be fully informed, not just informed by those who would tell him what he wanted to hear.

So, in that regard, I'm for: devising an exit stragety in Iraq that does not keep us there for another 12 or more years.

I am more than happy to be for the war on terrorism. There's no question in my mind the threat is real, and on its way to our shores again. But I want credible information from the Administration so I know the rights we all are sacrificing are truly needed.

I am for leaving sparing Soc Sec a drastic change like private accounts, and want to see it tweaked instead. I believe private accounts will impoverish most people, who simply don't have the savvy or the inside knowledge needed to play the market and come out ahead (Hey, we can't all be as financially brillant as Biker, right!).

I hate Bush the way I suspect you hate liberals. But I am for civil discourse. I'll agree not to label everyone who hates Dems as a bunch of right-wing nutcases, if you'll agree not to label everyone who hates Bush as "liberals" who are soft on whatever the war du jour is -- war on terrorism, war on crime, war on drugs etc.

Is that a deal?

And I will take a look at your sites!

[jbinbny]

Originally posted by steven
By JENNIFER LOVEN
Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON (AP) -- President Bush qualified his pledge to dismiss any White House official found to have leaked the name of a CIA operative, saying Monday that "if someone committed a crime" he would be fired.

In September 2003, the White House had said anyone who leaked classified information in the case would be dismissed. Bush reiterated that promise last June, saying he would fire anyone found to have disclosed the CIA officer's name.

Bush would not say whether he was displeased that Rove, the deputy chief of staff, told a reporter that the wife of administration critic Joseph Wilson worked for the CIA on weapons of mass destruction issues. A 2003 phone call with Rove was the first time that Matthew Cooper of Time magazine had heard that Wilson's wife worked at the agency, according to a first-person account by Cooper in the magazine.

Rove's involvement in the leak case has worried Republicans, already anxious about Bush's decline in opinion polls. Only a fourth of Americans believe the White House is fully cooperating with the investigation, according to an ABC News poll released Monday. That number has dropped from half in September 2003 when the probe began.

In July 2003, syndicated columnist Robert Novak, citing unnamed administration officials, wrote that Wilson's wife, Valerie Plame, worked for the CIA.

A 1982 law prohibits the deliberate exposure of the identity of an undercover CIA official. Wilson has accused the White House of trying to orchestrate a dirty-tricks campaign to discredit him after he challenged the administration's assertion that Saddam Hussein was seeking material from ***** to make nuclear weapons and said the White House had manipulated pre-war intelligence to justify an Iraq invasion.

Said Bush on Monday, "I would like this to end as quickly as possible so we know the facts, and if someone committed a crime, they will no longer work in my administration."

The phrasing was unusual for the president, who campaigned for office in 2000 on a pledge "to restore honor and dignity" to a White House he implied had been sullied by scandals of the Clinton administration.


Is that better than dropping your pants in the Oval office???

[ERIEMAN]

I love it....

Question: "Why were the promised WMD's not found in Iraq?"
Republican: Umm....Clinton's penis.

Question: "Why is bush not taking his promised action against those involved in the CIA leak?"
Republican: "Duh! Clinton's penis, of course!

Question: "Why haven't we caught Bin Laden?"
Republican: "He is sneaky - like Clinton's penis"

Question: "Why did we start the war in terrorism in Iraq, as opposed to some other country that we are 100% positive harbors terrorists like Saudi Arabia or Iran?
Republican: "Clinton's penis?

The "Clinton's penis" response is stupid and old. It has NOTHING to do with ANYTHING.

From now on, I think all liberals should refer to Bush's cocaine habit and his DUI whenever a someone asks a legitimate question about him.

[ERIEMAN]

Originally posted by jbinbny
Is that better than dropping your pants in the Oval office???

Yes, but it is much worse than our current president's coke habit.

[jbinbny]

That's his legacy........like it or not! But we are referring to ethics in this thread and I do feel it is appropriate to mention a few things about our last liberal prez.

[ERIEMAN]

Originally posted by jbinbny
That's his legacy........like it or not! But we are referring to ethics in this thread and I do feel it is appropriate to mention a few things about our last liberal prez.

Good idea. Let's talk about Bush's DUI...

If you want to talk about legacies, GW will be known as the man that started fighting the war on terrorism in a country that didn't really pose much of a threat to the US, comparitively.

[jbinbny]

Originally posted by ERIEMAN
Good idea. Let's talk about Bush's DUI...

If you want to talk about legacies, GW will be known as the man that started fighting the war on terrorism in a country that didn't really pose much of a threat to the US, comparitively.


Desperation has slipped into the liberal ranks.


Utterly shocking!!!!!!!!

:eek:

[ERIEMAN]

Originally posted by jbinbny
Desperation has slipped into the liberal ranks.


Utterly shocking!!!!!!!!

:eek:

Desperation is "Clinton's penis".

[jbinbny]

Haha.sorry you have to ask Hillary!

But that's really quite funny!:D

[steven]

I dont think the die hard Bush fans get the fact that who clinton was playing hide the salami with didnt have a whole helluva a lot to do with the economy or the death of american soldiers.

Its strange times we live in when when someone can compare starting a war to cheating on your spouse.

Being strictly objective here its worth noting its a statistical fact that more spouses cheat then dont. 68% of all marriages that last beyond 10 yrs have at least one incident of spousal infidellity. So I guess that would make Clinton "the average american"

Dont blame me I didnt vote for either of them.

[jbinbny]

Originally posted by steven
I dont think the die hard Bush fans get the fact that who clinton was playing hide the salami with didnt have a whole helluva a lot to do with the economy or the death of american soldiers.

Its strange times we live in when when someone can compare starting a war to cheating on your spouse.

Being strictly objective here its worth noting its a statistical fact that more spouses cheat then dont. 68% of all marriages that last beyond 10 yrs have at least one incident of spousal infidellity. So I guess that would make Clinton "the average american"

Dont blame me I didnt vote for either of them.


I'm certain all of the Saddam supporters share your opinion. As well as our staunch european "allies" like france and germany. And let's not forget our great friend and ally spain, who when punched in the mouth by terrorism, elected a communist/fascist president and chose to run away and hide.

As far as Clinton cheating on his wife? Personally, I could care less. That's his business and if he was as you say, an "average american" when he did what he did, we wouldn't even have heard about it.

But he wasn't an "average american" at the time. He was president of the united states, the leader of the free world and the occupier of the most powerful office on the planet. Uh i dont think mainstream america wants a playboy, or even an average american, in the white house.....at least not yet.

But the truly criminal thing about Clinton is that he lied about the whole thing to every single one of us. And even worse, he lied under oath and commited perjury. He very well should have been impeached right there and then. But he wasn't, was he.

So dont talk to me about George Bush "lowering the ethics bar". The truth is that the bar was set as low as it gets when he took office in 2000.

Finally, I voted for Bush in 2000 and again in 2004. And if he were allowed to run again in 2008, he again would have my vote.

[WestSideJohn]

Originally posted by jbinbny
He very well should have been impeached right there and then. But he wasn't, was he.
Uh, actually yes he was impeached.

Originally posted by jbinbny
But the truly criminal thing about Clinton is that he lied about the whole thing to every single one of us. And even worse, he lied under oath and commited perjury.I'm glad to hear you speaking out against presidential lies.

Originally posted by jbinbny
Finally, I voted for Bush in 2000 and again in 2004. And if he were allowed to run again in 2008, he again would have my vote.
Oops. My bad. I should have said I'm glad to hear you speaking out against <i>Democratic</i> Presidential lies.

Oh well. I guess it's a start.

[therising]

Originally posted by jbinbny
Desperation has slipped into the liberal ranks.
:eek:

It is unbelievable, yet absolutely hillarious that you would at this!!!


YOU, always manage to bring up Clinton's affair, but the moment anyone mentions W's not-all-American-pie-but-still-having-fun past, you say it's "desperation"!!

Unreal.

[steven]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by jbinbny


Ummm I guess you need a history lesson. Clinton was impeached, where have you been?

[jbinbny]

Originally posted by therising
It is unbelievable, yet absolutely hillarious that you would at this!!!


YOU, always manage to bring up Clinton's affair, but the moment anyone mentions W's not-all-American-pie-but-still-having-fun past, you say it's "desperation"!!

Unreal.


Clinton's affair was just one of the many fiascos both he and Hillary found themselves in. The list is long going all the way back to their days as Ark first family.

I prefer not to go there, but will if asked!

[atotaltotalfan2001]

Originally posted by jbinbny
Clinton's affair was just one of the many fiascos both he and Hillary found themselves in. The list is long going all the way back to their days as Ark first family.

I prefer not to go there, but will if asked!

You're one of those people who just can't let Clinton go. He's gone. REALLY.

[ERIEMAN]

Originally posted by jbinbny
Clinton's affair was just one of the many fiascos both he and Hillary found themselves in. The list is long going all the way back to their days as Ark first family.

I prefer not to go there, but will if asked!

And how long is the list of bush's "fiascos" that are actually related to his job?

[atotaltotalfan2001]

Originally posted by ERIEMAN
And how long is the list of bush's "fiascos" that are actually related to his job?

Well, I don't know if this is related to Bush's job, but he is a crackhead with a DUI background having an affair with Condi.

Does that count?

[LaNdReW]

Originally posted by jbinbny
Clinton's affair was just one of the many fiascos both he and Hillary found themselves in. The list is long going all the way back to their days as Ark first family.

I prefer not to go there, but will if asked!

Ok, you got 5 yrs and 50 million with Starr, and got nothing...
What does a poster on a mb have???
Or are they just cut and pastes from that idget from lgf?

Are they better than Bush's history?

Let us know.

[LaNdReW]

Originally posted by biker
Total:

I might have heard it on Rush, he's on three hours a day here and sometimes six, as they play rebroadcasts. I didn't know this: did you know he hires a firm to audit the veracity of the facts he broadcasts? I didn't know that. I guess it might be a little suspect, since he pays for it. But companies pay for the audits of their financials and, with some glaring exceptions, they provide a valid service.
I don't know if Air America has weighed in on this, as the only places I've found it are So. California, Boulder, Colorado or Vermont

Michael Moore and Franken also do the same for their books and movies.

I wish we got air america here! We need some balance in buffalo!
(as well as another paper!)

This thread does show where many of us have common ideals.

Good Job Guys!

(its just too easy to get dragged down in the gutter)

[biker]

Originally posted by LaNdReW
Michael Moore and Franken also do the same for their books and movies.


Do what? I don't understand.

[speaker]

biker---"verify the facts":rolleyes:

[buffknut]

Add this to the "I hate Bush" threads.

Add Erieman and Steven to the "I hate Bush" clan.

jbinbny, I am with you. I voted GWB in 2000 & 2004. And I say he is one of our greatest President's ever.

Note I didn't call him "perfect" or "God-like". But he is great.

Clinton did nothing about the growing threat of terrorism, directly (yes, directly) resulting in 9-11. Shame on him. He ranks right down there with Carter.

Thankfully, his 8 years of ruin (I assume the Clinton lovers will disagree) are done. Thankfully, GWB gets 8 years to work on undoing the damage. Hopefully Hillary won't be next.

The loyal Dems can keep living in their dream world. In the meantime, the bulk of the American people will continue to send them a message by reducing their numbers in the Senate, Congress, and the Governorships. All despite the massive propaganda effort by the mainstream media and Hollywood.

[therising]

Originally posted by buffknut
I voted GWB in 2000 & 2004. And I say he is one of our greatest President's ever.

Please tell me you're kidding! :D

[LaNdReW]

What I find amazing about this whole thing is that Bush is unwilling to pull Rove's security clearance (even temporarily).

I mean, jeeze, this guy pulled the security clearance for 92 senators in 2001 when The Washington Post reported that "various lawmakers had been told there would be more terrorist attacks if the United States retaliated.”

[jbinbny]

Originally posted by buffknut
Add this to the "I hate Bush" threads.

Add Erieman and Steven to the "I hate Bush" clan.

jbinbny, I am with you. I voted GWB in 2000 & 2004. And I say he is one of our greatest President's ever.

.


I agree that this thread is all about Bush haters venting their frustrations at having lost another election. And nothing else.

Wish they would, just once, admit it!

But truth and Liberalism do not co exist very well.

[speaker]

I've often thought there is much of a misnderstanding between conservative/liberal sides of politics.
I'm always surprised when I realize conservatives expect liberals to react in the same way as they do. Nothing could be further from the truth.
these are two different ways of thinking, and so called libs couldn't be bothered with a lot of judgmental accusations. They've always been too laid back to bother. They (we) just want things to be better and are willing to work hard in that vein.
Get used to people hating Bush--the world does and more so every day. And don't tell me about the religous right who put him in the second time. They also believe in creationism, no stem cell research and guns.

[biker]

Speaker

Are you going through a Jekyll and Hyde phase?

Your last paragraph doesn't sound like it was written by the author of the first two.

Nope, hardly "laid back" at all.

[speaker]

Originally posted by speaker
....Get used to people hating Bush--the world does and more so every day. And don't tell me about the religous right who put him in the second time. They also believe in creationism, no stem cell research and guns.
THEY can believe in these things--don't try to inflict these things on the rest of the world and have it go backwards.
It took the world centuries to progress to the point of civilization it got to, however flawed that was, but I believe we're regressing now. Libs are not all uptight about matters that don't hurt people, and we aren't that obsessed with power, either.
Conservatism and liberalism make a good balance but should never be all of one or the other, biker

[jbinbny]

I'm not trying to sway you Speaker. And i can assure you i wont be swayed either!

[atotaltotalfan2001]

Originally posted by speaker
I've often thought there is much of a misnderstanding between conservative/liberal sides of politics.
I'm always surprised when I realize conservatives expect liberals to react in the same way as they do. Nothing could be further from the truth.
these are two different ways of thinking, and so called libs couldn't be bothered with a lot of judgmental accusations. They've always been too laid back to bother. They (we) just want things to be better and are willing to work hard in that vein.
Get used to people hating Bush--the world does and more so every day. And don't tell me about the religous right who put him in the second time. They also believe in creationism, no stem cell research and guns.


Hi. Interesting points. Most of the actual, real live honest-to-goodness liberals I know wouldn't bother with a web site like this because of the extreme conservatives on it.

My guess is they figure why waste their breath.

Also, it seems to me the definition o f "liberal" seems to have changed these days. Now it applies to all Democrats. Of course, that is far from the truth but convenient for people who would like to annihilate a system of more than one almighty party rule -- the GOP, in this case.

People like that have always existed, and thrived, in dictatorships.

[atotaltotalfan2001]

Originally posted by jbinbny
I agree that this thread is all about Bush haters venting their frustrations at having lost another election. And nothing else.

Wish they would, just once, admit it!

But truth and Liberalism do not co exist very well.

What makes you think all Bush haters are so-called liberals.

I'm not particularly liberal is many respects, but I can't stand Bush.

Let's not forget he won the last election with 50.78 percent of the vote and my theory is a lot of the no votes were "anyone but Bush" votes.

[speaker]

Originally posted by jbinbny
I'm not trying to sway you Speaker. And i can assure you i wont be swayed either!

jbinbny--Who is trying to sway YOU?

I have recently realized that when the conserves speak, many "lib"people really don't bother to argue back (I told you, this is the way we are, we're peaceable,--we believe everyone has his own opinion) but you guys take it as acquiescence. So I think more liberals should argue back. That's all. Because your philosophies are endangering the world, not just America, the world.

So just keep chanting the chant--"Rush says.." or

"Clinton's affair..."

When you have something original to tell us-let us know.

[biker]

"Don't want to hurt people."

"Not interested in power."

"Libs don't argue back."

"Not all Democrats are libs."

What planet are you guys living on????!!!!!

I'll just offer a few quotes from Howard Dean, chief Dem.

"I hate Republicans."

"Republicans have never put in an honest day's work in their lives."

I will agree that not all Dems are libs, or better, didn't used to be libs. But the Dem party is hostile to conservatives and these people are no longer welcome in the party. Just look at the leaders.

[biker]

I listened to both Bush and Reid characterize this week's very busy legislative agenda.

Bush: "This just goes to show you what can be done when people put aside partisan politics and work for the American people. I look forward to working with both Democrats and Republicans in the Fall"

Reid: "If you were an Exxon lobbyist, or a conservative judge or I forget which stereotype he used here) , this was a good week. But if you're an average American, you had to wonder who was looking out for you."

Now who sounds like he wants to build a concensus, to reach out to the opposition. And who sounds like he just wants to create provocative soundbites, throw a little red meat to partisans?

I hope Reid and Dean keep spouting their stuff.

I'd donate to a "Draft Kerry" fund for the 2008 race. Hopefully with Hillary on the ticket. In either spot.

Couldn't think of a better way to elect another Repub.

[speaker]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by biker
[B].

Bush: "This just goes to show you what can be done when people put aside partisan politics and work for the American people. I look forward to working with both Democrats and Republicans in the Fall"

WOW--I'm so impressed! That was really original!

Reid: "If you were an Exxon lobbyist, or a conservative judge or I forget which stereotype he used here) , this was a good week. But if you're an average American, you had to wonder who was looking out for you."

Who is looking out for the average American--tell me?

[speaker]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by biker
[B]"... But the Dem party is hostile to conservatives ...."

Oh, no! hostile? Really?

I think I can honestly say, if anybody reviews posts by any one "lib" poster, that we believe in the principles of either party, principles which aim to raise mankind to the best it can be in terms of health, happiness and spirit.
Anything of any kind, set forth by either party or no party, which helps to bring peace and prosperity to everyone, would be supported by "libs". That's the nature of the lib beast. Why can't you see that, biker?

[atotaltotalfan2001]

Originally posted by biker
[B
I will agree that not all Dems are libs, or better, didn't used to be libs. [/B]

What does that mean?

[jbinbny]

Originally posted by atotaltotalfan2001
What does that mean?


The Democratic Party used to be the Party of the big tent! But that was decades ago when they had effective leadership and truly represented the interests of their constituents. They didn't bow and cower to tyrants around the world like they do today.

Somewhere along the line they began listening to the legions of lunatic fringe groups on the liberal side and have lost all credibility.

Mainstream America is far more conservative than liberal. Far more! And the dems are paying the price for choosing the lunatics on the left and CALLING THEM MAINSTREAM AMERICA!

It would be almost laughable if it wasn't pathetic and sad!

[biker]

Thanks JB.

I've been out of touch for a few days (go ahead and touch that if you dare) and haven't been able to respond.

Couldn't have said it better myself.

[WestSideJohn]

Taken over by the extremists... a lot of people think the same is true of the Republican Party, as well, which used to be about smaller government and fiscal responsibility. <i>Neither</i> party does us any favors, and that's true on the local, state and national level. Both parties place their own interests - getting and maintaining power, mostly - above the interests of the people they claim to represent.

Wake up, people.

[atotaltotalfan2001]

Originally posted by WestSideJohn
Taken over by the extremists... a lot of people think the same is true of the Republican Party, as well, which used to be about smaller government and fiscal responsibility. <i>Neither</i> party does us any favors, and that's true on the local, state and national level. Both parties place their own interests - getting and maintaining power, mostly - above the interests of the people they claim to represent.

Wake up, people.

Excellent points!

There has been a lot of talk here about the Dem leadership embracing extremist lib views that alienate them from the mainstream of American.

But I wonder how many people who identify themselves are Republicans embrace the extremist conservative views expressed here.

To wit:

1. Support for the war in Iraq is eroding. No one wants to enlist -- and something tells me recruiters aren't just talking to Dems!

2. Bush never could get support for his Soc. Security (so-called) reforms. Neither Dems or the GOP was willing to follow his lead on what he considered a top priority for his second term.

3. Bush's approval ratings are low, low, low.

4. Bush had to resort to recess appointment for Bolton, a move that even his fellow GOP members bemoaned. Not that there's anything wrong with recess appointments. The Constitution allows them and lots of presidents have taken advantage of that right.

But it can be argued that it is a sign of weakness that Bush couldn't pull together votes needed for Bolton.

[Boost Buffalo]

Originally posted by atotaltotalfan2001
Excellent points!

There has been a lot of talk here about the Dem leadership embracing extremist lib views that alienate them from the mainstream of American.

But I wonder how many people who identify themselves are Republicans embrace the extremist conservative views expressed here.

To wit:

1. Support for the war in Iraq is eroding. No one wants to enlist -- and something tells me recruiters aren't just talking to Dems!

2. Bush never could get support for his Soc. Security (so-called) reforms. Neither Dems or the GOP was willing to follow his lead on what he considered a top priority for his second term.

3. Bush's approval ratings are low, low, low.

4. Bush had to resort to recess appointment for Bolton, a move that even his fellow GOP members bemoaned. Not that there's anything wrong with recess appointments. The Constitution allows them and lots of presidents have taken advantage of that right.

But it can be argued that it is a sign of weakness that Bush couldn't pull together votes needed for Bolton.

that above is three things...weak, weak, and weak. Lol

You're confusing true leadership with that of a popularity contest.

[buffknut]

totalfan,

I'm not sure what makes those points extremist. How is social security reform extremist? After all, Bush is only calling for some of the same measures that Democrats themselves called for just a few years ago. Naturally now that GWB proposes some form of private accounts, the long term memory of the Dems is lost. How are private accounts built into SocSec bad? Even if you really believe that's bad, how is it extremist? Don't forget, Bush PROPOSED reforms, why aren't the Dems proposing anything? All they do is rant with no solution of their own. Who's really extremist, the party that is trying to fix SS or the party with its' head in the sand?

And what about Bolton? How is it extreme that we want to get someone in the UN who actually wants to shake it up? In fact, he's probably less extreme in that sense than Pat Moynihan was! Unless you think the UN is fine as is, then you should be ecstatic at getting someone like Bolton in there. Oh, and Clinton used recess appts 140 times. Was he an extremist and does that show weakness? Be consistent here.

And the war - well you know my view here so no need to rehash it. But why am I an extremist for agreeing with the President but your view is not extremist?

Speaker,

How can you possibly make the statement "I have recently realized that when the conserves speak, many "lib"people really don't bother to argue back (I told you, this is the way we are, we're peaceable,--we believe everyone has his own opinion)" when you yourself, along with many other posters here, argue back all the time. Don't you read anything posted on this forum at all? And how anyone (can't recall which poster) can claim that this is a conservative forum when it is overwhelmingly filled with liberals is beyond me.

Wasn't it you that called me "empty"? Sounds peaceable to me......

[WestSideJohn]

Again, neither party does us any favors.

The people who put all the blame on the "other" party are the problem, not the solution. The people who refuse to acknowledge the faults of their own party are the problem, not the solution. The people who divide America into "us" and "them" are the problem, not the solution.

This applies equally to Democrats and Republicans.

And if your reply is "yeah, but they..." then you're the problem, not the solution.

[atotaltotalfan2001]

Originally posted by buffknut
totalfan,

I'm not sure what makes those points extremist. How is social security reform extremist? After all, Bush is only calling for some of the same measures that Democrats themselves called for just a few years ago. Naturally now that GWB proposes some form of private accounts, the long term memory of the Dems is lost. How are private accounts built into SocSec bad? Even if you really believe that's bad, how is it extremist? Don't forget, Bush PROPOSED reforms, why aren't the Dems proposing anything? All they do is rant with no solution of their own. Who's really extremist, the party that is trying to fix SS or the party with its' head in the sand?

And what about Bolton? How is it extreme that we want to get someone in the UN who actually wants to shake it up? In fact, he's probably less extreme in that sense than Pat Moynihan was! Unless you think the UN is fine as is, then you should be ecstatic at getting someone like Bolton in there. Oh, and Clinton used recess appts 140 times. Was he an extremist and does that show weakness? Be consistent here.

And the war - well you know my view here so no need to rehash it. But why am I an extremist for agreeing with the President but your view is not extremist?

Speaker,

How can you possibly make the statement "I have recently realized that when the conserves speak, many "lib"people really don't bother to argue back (I told you, this is the way we are, we're peaceable,--we believe everyone has his own opinion)" when you yourself, along with many other posters here, argue back all the time. Don't you read anything posted on this forum at all? And how anyone (can't recall which poster) can claim that this is a conservative forum when it is overwhelmingly filled with liberals is beyond me.

Wasn't it you that called me "empty"? Sounds peaceable to me......

Hi Buffknut.

You're basically asking me how do I define extremist? Point taken. I look at the issues Bush can't get support for from the mainstream population because those issues are regarded as too extreme a change.

So, how do you define extreme in terms of liberals? Why are citizens who oppose the Iraq war "extremist liberals?" The polls (and low recruitment rates) show droppiing support for the war, and I'm sure we're talking the mainstream here, don't you think?

"Extremism" is in the eye of the beholder, it would seem.

After all, you regard Clinton as an extremist. I never thought of him as anything more than a centrist. Could it be that is why he won re-election easily both times? (as opposed to a different president who won the first by blessing of the U.S. Supreme Court and second by 50.78 percent of the vote)

And yes, I know Clinton used recess apppointments. Presidents often have in the past. My point was that the fact that Bush couldn't pull together enough support to get Bolton past the senate means he couldn't get mainstream support -- a weakness, IMO, for any leader of a democracy.

But recess appointments have been used for even more controversial purposes in the past. In the sense that move was used as an end run around the U.S. Senate, I would regard that as a weakness too.

After all, the U.S. Senate is there to represent us. When it is skirted, we are too. Does doing an end run around the people a president supposedly represents equate strong leadership?

All presidents have to make tough choices they know the public won't necessarily support -- life and death issues.

Bolton doesn't rise to that level.

[atotaltotalfan2001]

Originally posted by Boost Buffalo
that above is three things...weak, weak, and weak. Lol

You're confusing true leadership with that of a popularity contest.


That would be the difference between us. The war and Soc. Sec. in particular are things I don't see as "LOL" funny. I thought they were major issues, rather than weak issues. But not to you, I guess.

As regards true leadership: I think you're confusing it with bullying. Of course presidents must take action sometimes that they know the public will oppose -- actions, I would think, involving life and death issues.

Somehow, circumventing OUR (yours and mine) representatives in the U.S. Senate to put Bolton in the U.N. doesn't rise to that level. Bush had the constitutional right to do it, but that doesn't make him a leader.

[biker]

Bolton won the vote by a majority of the Senate each time they tried to end the filibuster. The man had the confidence of a majority of the Senate; several times.

Republicans are not as good as the down, low and dirty extremes the Dems will go to win at politics. Sometimes that's what makes them look better, but it means they lose when they should win from time to time.

To many Republicans, the thought of a Justice Ginsberg was repugnant. They disagreed mightily with her views. But their belief was that they were to examine her fitness for service as a judge. Not what her political views were. That she was confirmed 97 to 3 was not a reflection of their support, but that they believed they had lost an election.

Not the Dems. Absolutely they will plot,question, incite, decide and vote on political lines. Anything goes in order to "win."

Bork would never have been "borked" if there had been an alternative media. People willing to speak out and match the meannes of the Dems in such fights.

With each election the Repubs build their control over the Federal govt. Each census realignment is like a tectonic shift.

From what I saw of economic activity out West this year, that pace is accelerating.

[atotaltotalfan2001]

Originally posted by biker

Republicans are not as good as the down, low and dirty extremes the Dems will go to win at politics. Sometimes that's what makes them look better, but it means they lose when they should win from time to time.



Oh please!

Does the name Swift Boat Veterans mean anything to you?

Both parties get dirty. You're a grown up; you know -- or at least you should know -- that. Stop with the santimonious blather.

On that cheerful note, I must bid you farewell for a while. I'll be out of town for a couple of days.

[speaker]

Originally posted by buffknut
...Speaker,

How can you possibly make the statement "I have recently realized that when the conserves speak, many "lib"people really don't bother to argue back (I told you, this is the way we are, we're peaceable,--we believe everyone has his own opinion)" when you yourself, along with many other posters here, argue back all the time. Don't you read anything posted on this forum at all? And how anyone (can't recall which poster) can claim that this is a conservative forum when it is overwhelmingly filled with liberals is beyond me.

Wasn't it you that called me "empty"? Sounds peaceable to me......

Just waking up? Yes, I said we don't argue back and the conservatives take it as acquiesence, AND SO I THINK WE SHOULD ARGUE BACK MORE.

Yes, you have empty arguments and so I think you, buffnut, are empty. I never meant it to sound peaceable or otherwise.
But you are not going to pull me into all of that dodging and hacking you call "debate". Just a lot of nagging.

[biker]

Originally posted by atotaltotalfan2001
Oh please!

Does the name Swift Boat Veterans mean anything to you?

Both parties get dirty. You're a grown up; you know -- or at least you should know -- that. Stop with the santimonious blather.

On that cheerful note, I must bid you farewell for a while. I'll be out of town for a couple of days.

Thank you for proving my point.

The elected Repubs don't seem to know how to fight, how to govern.

The alternative media---best exemplified by the fearless exploits of the Swifties---will carry the fight to the enemy. They subjected themselves to the slings and arrows of the Main Stream Press, agreeing to go on any talk show for any interview. Knowing full well what innuendo they would be subjected to.

Their full test would have been to sally forth against the Clinton sludge machine. How many women were tarred with the "trailer trash slut" smear campaigns. They had it in full gear when Monica produced the dress and stoppped it----for the first time---cold.

But that's old news.


Hey, isn't it great that Kerry finally released his academic records this Spring? Now I understand why he complained "I can't believe I'm losing to a f*cking idiot."

Takes one to know one.

But, undaunted, I look forward to the future. "Kerry in '08" is my fervent hope.

[buffknut]

speaker,

I have now lost all respect for you. I mean, the best insult you can offer is to still call me "empty". All because I just happen to disagree with you. Obviously you are so much more "full" than I am. Full of what is the real issue though.

When I make comments, it's "nagging". But your comments are so much better, so much wiser, so much more perfect.

Yes, you are the great one, the sage, the master of all wisdom. I am humbled by your aura.

totalfan,

Actually I believe Clinton was more a centrist, just as you do so once again we agree on something. My main complaint about Clinton is that he did nothing about the growing global threat and that 9/11 was a direct result. To me, that is a black mark on his presidency that any good he may have done is overshadowed by what he did not do. Also, I don't know if you actually have been on the SwiftBoat Vets site but if you haven't, please go there. They were an honest above-board group that was much maligned by the pro-Kerry MSM. They did offer to make their case publicly and were rebuffed. Their site is http://www.swiftvets.com/

[biker]

The topic for this thread is dated and has been discredited.

We should let it die.

[speaker]

You're right, biker. Erie county and environs, our home, needs the attention. Arguing over things that are, is futile and defeating right now. In the meantime, stuff is happening in EC and we need to band together, only I wish I knew where to start.:)

[Boost Buffalo]

Originally posted by atotaltotalfan2001
Oh please!

Does the name Swift Boat Veterans mean anything to you?

Both parties get dirty.

Swiftboat veterans dirty? You must be referring to the one named kerry.

[atotaltotalfan2001]

Originally posted by biker
.

The alternative media---best exemplified by the fearless exploits of the Swifties---will carry the fight to the enemy. They subjected themselves to the slings and arrows of the Main Stream Press, agreeing to go on any talk show for any interview.

Their full test would have been to sally forth against the Clinton sludge machine. How many women were tarred with the "trailer trash slut" smear campaigns. They had it in full gear when Monica produced the dress and stoppped it----for the first time---cold.



Wow. To think I once thought of your opinions as well thought out.

By the way, will you right-wing folks ever get over Clinton! He's gone, I tell you, gone!!!!! And who the heck cares about his women? Only the right-wing machine -- which for some weird reason even today can't STOP THINKING ABOUT CLINTON'S SEX LIFE!

How yuck is that?

He had poor judgement (not that I had any interest in his sex life, frankly)....but at least his poor judgement didn't cause the deaths of thousands of member of our miliitary, and thousands and thousands more Iraqis.

You guys really need to learn how to put things into context.

(and if you still need to think about someone else's sex life, how about Bush and Condi????)