| 3rd October 2006 03:19 PM |
|
|
| sirmoonie |
quote:
Brainbell Jangler wrote:
If only it were that obvious. The Republican Congress has abdicated its constitutional role as a separate branch of government and become a mere adjunct of the executive.
Thats by far my biggest beef with them. The Journal smacked them hard yesterday, but never said one word about how Congress have allowed this idiotic president to run around like a spastic throwing green all over the place. They should have bitchslapped him hard starting around mid-2003 when George Walker Bush III's incompetence as an administrator and commander-in-chief really started to become more than obvious even to his supporters. Now they have to live with this garbage and actually run campaigns walling off their own Pres. |
| 3rd October 2006 03:20 PM |
|
|
| telecaster |
quote:
pdog wrote:
Conjecture and speculation based on the info. at hand...
You need to answer my question, what was Clinton convicted of?
Speculation? Speculation? Great...thanks
I never said he was convicted. I said "he got nailed"
Disbarrment, fines, settlements, revocations of law licenese
On and on
|
| 3rd October 2006 03:23 PM |
|
|
| sirmoonie |
quote:
Dan wrote:
There's one on every board.
There are approx 4-5 Bush apologists here. Its a very popular place for them to frolic and dream about stuff and things. And be. Just be. |
| 3rd October 2006 03:24 PM |
|
|
| Dan |
quote:
sirmoonie wrote:
There are approx 4-5 Bush apologists here. Its a very popular place for them to frolic and dream about stuff and things. And be. Just be.
Did Rumsfeld coin the term "dead enders" or was he quoting someone else? |
| 3rd October 2006 03:25 PM |
|
|
| telecaster |
quote:
jb wrote:
Will you be at the meet and greet in Ill????
Yes, the Couch one
Don't know the Shidoobee people |
| 3rd October 2006 03:25 PM |
|
|
| rasputin56 |
quote:
telecaster wrote:
You losers told us that in 2000 and 2004
Pres Gore and Pres Kerry anyone? Ooops, they lost
What about that Dem majority you clowns promised the last two elections
Never happened
I know, I know, this time it will be different
Excellent point! Frankly, I believe there will be gains but come up short. Why do you blindly support a party that has lied us into war, endagered our citizens, driven the country into record debt, weakened the Constitution and defends and covers up for a pedophile? Eagerly awaiting your reply. |
| 3rd October 2006 03:30 PM |
|
|
| sirmoonie |
quote:
Dan wrote:
Did Rumsfeld coin the term "dead enders" or was he quoting someone else?
I don't know. I know he coined "rhetorical rutabaga" which I've used often against the neo-liberals.
Gotta hand it to the Rum (Rum o' feld), he is the most tenacious motherhubbard that ever lived. Is there any milito who hasn't said he should resign? I bet his wife wants him to resign. Its only George Walker Bush III, Laura, and Barney that don't. |
| 3rd October 2006 03:31 PM |
|
|
| rasputin56 |
I've always had a penchant for unknown unknowables. |
| 3rd October 2006 03:40 PM |
|
|
| telecaster |
quote:
rasputin56 wrote:
Excellent point! Frankly, I believe there will be gains but come up short. Why do you blindly support a party that has lied us into war, endagered our citizens, driven the country into record debt, weakened the Constitution and defends and covers up for a pedophile? Eagerly awaiting your reply.
Why do you blindly support a party that has the same position on Bush as Bin Laden, Chavez and Iran? The statements from those listed and the Dems are interchangable, and that is where you lefties can't figure out why the country rejects you every time
Give examples for your hype-emotional lefties talking points. You listed none. Zero. Why?
Record debt? You forgot record revenues also. Debt is actually lower than it has been for the average of the last 60yrs. Record debt? Sure.
You lefties forget to mention record revenues. Ooops!
Howe are you more endangered? Tell us
Hey! Look what these lefties said!!!!:
"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line."
--President Bill Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998
"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."
--President Bill Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998
"Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face."
--Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998
"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983."
--Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998
"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."
Letter to President Clinton, signed by:
-- Democratic Senators Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others, Oct. 9, 1998
"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
-Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998
"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies."
-- Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999
"There is no doubt that ... Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies."
Letter to President Bush, Signed by:
-- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), and others, Dec 5, 2001
"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and th! e means of delivering them."
-- Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002
"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."
-- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002
"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power."
-- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002
"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction."
-- Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002
"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..."
-- Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002
"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force -- if necessary -- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security."
-- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002
"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years ... We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction."
-- Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002
"He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do"
-- Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002
"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members ... It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."
-- Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002
"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction."
-- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002
"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real..."
-- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003
|
| 3rd October 2006 03:49 PM |
|
|
| Saint Sway |
quote:
rasputin56 wrote:
Why do you blindly support a party that has lied us into war, endagered our citizens, driven the country into record debt, weakened the Constitution and defends and covers up for a pedophile?
when the Titanic was sinking, Tele was the guy still on the boat bragging about how he won a game of shuffle board. |
| 3rd October 2006 03:49 PM |
|
|
| rasputin56 |
Do all of your kind have that page bookmarked or something? That's actually kind of sad. I'd be happy to take most of those "quotes" and put them in the proper context and then allow you to show me which one of those people thought he was so much of a "threat" to us that it was worth over 2600 and quickly counting American lives. Not to mention all the rest of the debunked crap you spewed. I won't even dignify that Chavez/Iran/bin Laden crap with an answer. I realize you are only capable of regurgitating what your morally bankrupt leaders feed you. But that's OK, time's are growing tough for your kind and that's all you have left.
Why do you blindly support a party that allowed a pedophile to prey on children for the past 5 years? |
| 3rd October 2006 03:50 PM |
|
|
| Brainbell Jangler |
quote:
telecaster wrote:
Sure...............
Someone cue the "Twilight Zone" theme for BJ
http://www.boston.com/news/globe/ideas/articles/2006/01/15/can_congress_matter/?page=full
The United States Constitution: Pre-9/11 thinking.
 |
| 3rd October 2006 03:50 PM |
|
|
| sirmoonie |
I am not quite ready to issue denouncements of individuals in all the scandals associated and tangential to Page Pigeon-gate (e.g., Hastert, south Florida voters, John Ellis Bush, John Boener, etc.). I will render my decision in accordance with comprehensive and excellent analytical skills I have always demonstrated. |
| 3rd October 2006 04:00 PM |
|
|
| telecaster |
quote:
rasputin56 wrote:
Do all of your kind have that page bookmarked or something? That's actually kind of sad. I'd be happy to take most of those "quotes" and put them in the proper context and then allow you to show me which one of those people thought he was so much of a "threat" to us that it was worth over 2600 and quickly counting American lives. Not to mention all the rest of the debunked crap you spewed. I won't even dignify that Chavez/Iran/bin Laden crap with an answer. I realize you are only capable of regurgitating what your morally bankrupt leaders feed you. But that's OK, time's are growing tough for your kind and that's all you have left.
Why do you blindly support a party that allowed a pedophile to prey on children for the past 5 years?
Just say "I have no facts to back up my 6th grade schoolgirl-like emotion"
It is that simple
You really are a thick one, no wonder you are rock-solid Dem
You would be happy to put them in context but you won't. You would be happy to tell us all what the Dem plan if they win is but you won't
You would but you won't. Wow, that settles it
Here is some context. The majority of Dems in both the Senate and Congress voted the attack Iraq. That is all the context you need
The Republicans allowed a pedophile to prey on kids for 5yrs? Wow!
Who? What is your evidence? Link it! Or is this like the Rove thing where you "feel" and "just know" something went on but it turned out wrong?
Tell us howe you are more "endangered" again?
Oh I know, you would but you won't
You remind me of one of the Saddam apologists on this board who was for the war before they were against it
|
| 3rd October 2006 04:14 PM |
|
|
| pdog |
quote:
telecaster wrote:
Why do you blindly support a party that has the same position on Bush as Bin Laden, Chavez and Iran? The statements from those listed and the Dems are interchangable, and that is where you lefties can't figure out why the country rejects you every time
What's missing is you seem to miss that the country is almost evenly split... And it's been hate filled wedge issues like Homos, baby killers and the fear of being killed b/c the other guy is weak that have made the difference... I'm more conservative than The republican Party's platforms. That is sad... I loved being called a liberal, especially since there's not many things I'm liberal about!
BUT, I digress, you description above, just described The Rolling Stones! Those are the Lefties...
I've said it before, a blanket statement accusing anyone who disagrees with Bush as supporting teror and evil dictaors is bullshit! Absolute crap! Unamerican on its face. It's more degrading to US security, than if the statement was true, which it isn't.
Let's say for the sake of argument that all things Bush and Republican and supported by the majority of Americans. It's pretty safe for me to say, Americans are idiots, look at what sells and what is popular. Americans love crap and hype and tabloid shit!
Let's talk Iraq war, dead people, no plan to win or lose and 3,000 dead Iraqi's a month... So they voted, besides that everything is worse for them. As much as I love to vote, it's not what makes me free or safe! |
| 3rd October 2006 04:19 PM |
|
|
| jb |
All I can say is that if we(dems) do not win now, we are done as a party. If we had one credible leader, and our party was not hijacked by the extreme elements, this would/should be a landslide.... |
| 3rd October 2006 04:27 PM |
|
|
| Riffhard |
You libs are so funny that I'm literally having a tough time from spewing my coffee all over my monitor!! Stop! Please stop!!
Gee let's not let a little thing like facts get in the way! Wouldn't want to spoil a good smear campaign by resorting to facts or anything. But just for shits and giggles let's take a look at a few.
Fact #1-When the sheer audacity and perversion of these IM's were made public Foley was forced to resign by Hasstert.
Fact #2-Nobody has stated that Hasstert knew of these IMs. He admitted to knowing of e-mails that have since been examined by every liberal rag out there,and not one of them was of a sexual nature. Weird? Yes,but nowhere near as perverse as these recently leaked IMs.
Fact #3-When Gerry Studd was caught,not IMing perverse words,but actually fucking a 17 year old male page he was never asked to resign. In fact he was only censured,and then reelected two more times! He was also given three standing ovations at a Democrat fundraiser after he told the whole country to butt out of his,and his young lover's,business so he could get back to the business of getting back to the butt of said page!
Fact #4-Someone did indeed know about this whole sorid affair for at least a couple of years. Who? Well it's a safe bet that the Republican party did not leak these IMs! So who did? It does not take a genius to figure that out! That's right. I'd say that this pervert was set up. His own fault for sure,but... How many seventeen year old kids save IMs from three years ago? Especially IMs that are so embarrassing? Again this gets leaked 37 days out of an election. Gee whatever you libs do don't try and connect the obvious dots here! Ya think that maybe a few Dems sat on this info for political gain? Ya think? Maybe? LOL!
Fact #5-Democrats are the most hypocritical fucks on the face of the planet! Let's see Barney Frank has his own young gay lover running a fucking male prostitution ring out of his appartment yet he's still in the Senate! He was never asked to resign. Still there! Clinton was accused of rape on at least four seperate occassions,and has a long undeniable reputation as a sexual predator. He is embraced by femminsts and every other kook liberal group out there. He get's elected twice,impeached once,and somehow someway libs find a way to blame Republicans! JFK was fucking every hot chick he could smuggle into the WH! Gerry Studd! Enough said. None,not one single one of these lib heroes,resigned or was smeared by Dems. They were,infact,embraced! Hypocritical fucks!
At least the Republicnas clean house when these issues happen. The list is long,Trent Lott resigned his leadership position because of a joke at 100 year old's birthday. He resigned though. Dems grand old man in Senate is a goddamned former Grand Dragon of the KKK. He is loved by you hypocrtical a-holes!
Perhaps a little honesty about what really is afoot here is in order. This is nothing more than a campaign year smear campaign. To deny that and try and turn this into a political sledghammer is pretty goddamned funny given the Democrat's history with sexual scandels.
Riffy |
| 3rd October 2006 04:27 PM |
|
|
| pdog |
quote:
telecaster wrote:
You would be happy to put them in context but you won't. You would be happy to tell us all what the Dem plan if they win is but you won't
You would but you won't. Wow, that settles it
Here is some context. The majority of Dems in both the Senate and Congress voted the attack Iraq. That is all the context you need
Is he running for an office? I've heard The Dems plans... Maybe you haven't except from Right Wing Blogs...
It's fals to say anyone in The house or senate voted for an Iraq attack. They gave the president too much authority, under the premise diplomacy would be fully used.... You will counter, with all of Saddams resoltion breaking actions, duh! Still not a just cause to invade and occupy a sovereign nation... Hey we did it.... you want a plan, maybe the people who invaded Iraq should produce a plan, and listen to The generals they say they listen to... The results on the ground don't jive with stay the course! to say oops we made a few mistakes... Wrong, there have been major erros which have caused many deaths. This war, will not end for at least 8 to 10 years, Rummy's words... This could've been prevented... How do the dems take the blame, or better yet, Bill Clinton...? |
| 3rd October 2006 04:28 PM |
|
|
| jb |
Hello Riffhard-did you get to meet the band? Please tell. |
| 3rd October 2006 04:37 PM |
|
|
| rasputin56 |
quote:
telecaster wrote:
Just say "I have no facts to back up my 6th grade schoolgirl-like emotion"
blah, blah, blah, moronic drivel...
I haven't read past your first "paragraph" because I'll just assume its been retardedly cut and pasted from any one of the lunatic right-wing sites you use to enlighten your perverse view of the world. Another question for you, though. As I don't frequent those hate spewing sites that you call home, is "emotion" the word of the day over there? You've used it quite a few times today. Are you going to add that to your repertoire of your 4 stock responses?
Why do you blindly support a party that allowed a pedophile to prey on children for the past 5 years?
[Edited by rasputin56] |
| 3rd October 2006 04:41 PM |
|
|
| sirmoonie |
Pigeon-gate is really going to come down to who set up who to look like they didn't get set up. I find it not the least bit ironical that those who haven't condemned the most have failed to condemn those who have denounced this for what it is - a sub rosa set-up before the fact. Fact! |
| 3rd October 2006 04:51 PM |
|
|
| pdog |
quote:
Riffhard wrote:
Fact #1-When the sheer audacity and perversion of these IM's were made public Foley was forced to resign by Hasstert.
Fact #2-Nobody has stated that Hasstert knew of these IMs. He admitted to knowing of e-mails that have since been examined by every liberal rag out there,and not one of them was of a sexual nature. Weird? Yes,but nowhere near as perverse as these recently leaked IMs.
Fact #3-When Gerry Studd was caught,not IMing perverse words,but actually fucking a 17 year old male page he was never asked to resign. In fact he was only censured,and then reelected two more times! He was also given three standing ovations at a Democrat fundraiser after he told the whole country to butt out of his,and his young lover's,business so he could get back to the business of getting back to the butt of said page!
How does a past bad act, have anything to do with this? Not only that, but something that is old news! Wrong, but old! Foley's(R) shit is a few days old, and it looks bad, and it's not just about him or his crimes, alleged crime! Agree or disagree with Studds(D) outcome, but jesus, at least when Clinton is brought up it's at least under 10 years old...
I do know that under FL law, using the internet to solicit sex from a minor is a felony! covering up a felony is also a felony... i hope Hastert didn't do this, but it seems he may have b/c The Republicans are already tossing him out. Unlike The dEmocrats who would protect him. I see patterns, and I'm not on acid...
When did I become a liberal? I'm more conservative than Bush, who is actually less conservative than Bill Clinton.... Maybe I am tripping!
[Edited by pdog] |
| 3rd October 2006 04:53 PM |
|
|
| pdog |
quote:
sirmoonie wrote:
Pigeon-gate is really going to come down to who set up who to look like they didn't get set up. I find it not the least bit ironical that those who haven't condemned the most have failed to condemn those who have denounced this for what it is - a sub rosa set-up before the fact. Fact!
How can we make this all go away? |
| 3rd October 2006 04:54 PM |
|
|
| rasputin56 |
Who wants to put money that the Republicans pull some Dem. name out of hat and point the finger at him before the end of the week? Let the witch hunt begin. Why can't Republicans ever just face their failings and accept responsibility instead of covering up everything and finding someone else to blame? |
| 3rd October 2006 04:57 PM |
|
|
| pdog |
quote:
rasputin56 wrote:
Who wants to put money that the Republicans pull some Dem. name out of hat and point the finger at him before the end of the week? Let the witch hunt begin. Why can't Republicans ever just face their failings and accept responsibility instead of covering up everything and finding someone else to blame?
They already did, Murtha is being blasted for an unidicted video of Abscam shit... He turned down the money, but b/c he was targeted I guess it makes him look bad... |
| 3rd October 2006 05:00 PM |
|
|
| rasputin56 |
quote:
pdog wrote:
They already did, Murtha is being blasted for an unidicted video of Abscam shit... He turned down the money, but b/c he was targeted I guess it makes him look bad...
I was flipping through the channels last night and saw that cretin Hannity talking about it and burst out laughing. That is all they've got to respond to pedophilia? Murtha showing that he wasn't crooked? This gang has become a mere shadow of what they were. |
| 3rd October 2006 05:04 PM |
|
|
| pdog |
quote:
rasputin56 wrote:
I was flipping through the channels last night and saw that cretin Hannity talking about it and burst out laughing. That is all they've got to respond to pedophilia? Murtha showing that he wasn't crooked? This gang has become a mere shadow of what they were.
Have you read the actual transcripts. Only an idiot would believe he was doing anything wrong!
They cane to him, to talk business offer a bribe, he turned it down, he even said, if they do something legitimit then he'd talk to them...
He's a war hero, and against Iraq, and Gen. Abizad agree almost fully with him on his position about Iraq...
Iraq is Bill Clintons fault, I'm convinced! |
| 3rd October 2006 05:06 PM |
|
|
| rasputin56 |
quote:
pdog wrote:
Have you read the actual transcripts. Only an idiot would believe he was doing anything wrong!
Which is why they're running with it.
BTW, you forgot Carter. |
| 3rd October 2006 05:09 PM |
|
|
| telecaster |
quote:
rasputin56 wrote:
I haven't read past your first "paragraph" because I'll just assume its been retardedly cut and pasted from any one of the lunatic right-wing sites you use to enlighten your perverse view of the world. Another question for you, though. As I don't frequent those hate spewing sites that you call home, is "emotion" the word of the day over there? You've used it quite a few times today. Are you going to add that to your repertoire of your 4 stock responses?
Why do you blindly support a party that allowed a pedophile to prey on children for the past 5 years?
[Edited by rasputin56]
Nice dodge. Is this #295 for you?
Emotion. Sure. I list it because not one Dem on this thread will post a fact, statistic, link or any other evidence to back up your hyper-emotional claimsand accusations.
Nothing. Zero. Not even one poster attempted to back up one thing they said
Emotion? It is all you clowns offer. An empty party
You won't even attempt to back up not even one of your own hyper-emotional accusations
Weak, like your party
And you wonder why the country rejects you across the board |
| 3rd October 2006 05:11 PM |
|
|
| sirmoonie |
quote:
pdog wrote:
How can we make this all go away?
Start talking about the newly disclosed July 2001 meeting between Rice and Tenet regarding impending Al Quada attack. Those guys are flat ass biffed on that one - defenseless, like poodles. I can PROVE Clinton was not at the meeting - he wasn't even in the White House. |
|
