PDA

View Full Version : Questions I'd like to hear Bill answer...



HighRoller
06-22-2004, 12:32 AM
Bill Clinton is getting the full access treatment this week. An hour on Oprah(because he likes fat chicks), an hour on NBC's today show, an hour on Larry"the liberal" King etc...They will all no doubt serve him up some nice softball questions in order for him to glorify himself. But wouldn't you like to hear some really honest questions? For example:
During your impeachment testimony, you repeatedly answered that you did not "recall" many specific events, yet now you have produced 957 pages of recollections. Can you explain your sudden total recall of those events?
On a scale of 1-10, where does Monica rate on the oral sex scale?
You refused to apprehend Osama Bin Laden five times when given the chance. What was your reasoning behind this?
Did you rape Juanita Broderick, as she said you did in an interview with NBC?
How do you feel about being the only standing President in American history to have ever been impeached?
Oh well, I know these questions won't be answered, but imagining the look on his face if they were is enough for me!!

roostwear
06-22-2004, 06:42 AM
No, he's just smarter than the people that SUPPORT him!

Dave C
06-22-2004, 07:52 AM
that right there is funny, I don't care who you are......
Originally posted by HighRoller
During your impeachment testimony, you repeatedly answered that you did not "recall" many specific events, yet now you have produced 957 pages of recollections. Can you explain your sudden total recall of those events?
its not that he is smarter its that he knows what evidence to destroy, being that he is a lawyer.
I wonder if they ever found those whitewater billing records?

summerlove
06-22-2004, 08:03 AM
I want to know how many soldiers died because he lied to the public about his affair?
I'd like to know how many have died because "W" lied to the public?

Dave C
06-22-2004, 08:09 AM
how could any soldiers die IF YOU NEVER COMMIT ANY?........
playing traffic cop, dropping bombs from 15,000 ft and blowing up tents and aspirin factories with cruise missles don't count.;)

Dave C
06-22-2004, 09:05 AM
thats really nice.......
so let me guess, we are all "dumber" than you...... right?
Originally posted by ShockwaveBob
Judging from your tone, I take it you're not a supporter. I hate to break this to you, but you're not smarter than me, so you've got that going for you, which is nice.

dicudmore
06-22-2004, 09:12 AM
hey, there's some verbal abusing going on here and I might want to get in on it :D
Dan <---wants to play nice, just thought it was funny......

Lake Pirate
06-22-2004, 09:21 AM
Jeez Louise! Clinton really got under y'all's skin didn't he? It's been four years and yet you still cry about the blow job. There's a pretty good chance that wasn't the first or last illicit blow job in the White House. Bill was cleared of every single question you posed sans the Lewinsky fall-out, and for all intents and purposes, it was hardly impeachable.
Let us not forget the GOP spent seventy mil and counless man hours over 8 years trying to nail slick Willy...all to no avail. Herr Bush has lied countless times. Each offence has caused American lives and more often than not devastated the national debt. His first six months in office he spent more than any other President in history.
Adolf Bushter, Cheney and Rummy have filled y'all full of doo-doo on a daily basis. Had Clinton done the same thing his ass would have been hung out to dry on Pennsylvania Avenue for all to see. The shame of it is... none of you list the Bush regimes accomplishments. You only resort to an old administration to draw attention away frome the failures and criminal behaviour of the Fourth Reich...er...I mean... the Bush administration.

Starloans
06-22-2004, 09:36 AM
If I were in trouble, I would want Slick Willie to represent. That focker can talk his way out of anything.
But to run the US, I think I prefer the republicans. Both parties **** up all the time. it's just whos turn is it next.:)
I was in the Military for 10 years. The republicans were always good to the military as far as pay raises and equipment. GW's current war may not be based on all the right facts from advisors or a popular war but I damn sure wouldn't want his job!!!!!! :confused:

SPECTRABRENT
06-22-2004, 09:57 AM
Summerlove,
I hate to say it, but if Slick Willie would have had the balls to go after Osma & his buddies after the first WTC bombing, instead if getting his knob polished in the oval office those soldiers would still be around:wink:.
Brent

OGShocker
06-22-2004, 10:00 AM
Originally posted by Lake Pirate
Jeez Louise! Clinton really got under y'all's skin didn't he? It's been four years and yet you still cry about the blow job. There's a pretty good chance that wasn't the first or last illicit blow job in the White House. Bill was cleared of every single question you posed sans the Lewinsky fall-out, and for all intents and purposes, it was hardly impeachable.
Let us not forget the GOP spent seventy mil and counless man hours over 8 years trying to nail slick Willy...all to no avail. Herr Bush has lied countless times. Each offence has caused American lives and more often than not devastated the national debt. His first six months in office he spent more than any other President in history.
Adolf Bushter, Cheney and Rummy have filled y'all full of doo-doo on a daily basis. Had Clinton done the same thing his ass would have been hung out to dry on Pennsylvania Avenue for all to see. The shame of it is... none of you list the Bush regimes accomplishments. You only resort to an old administration to draw attention away frome the failures and criminal behaviour of the Fourth Reich...er...I mean... the Bush administration.
You defend an IMPEACHED President. That's OK.
You level a bunch of charges on the President. None specific.
You compare a sitting President of the United States to Hitler.
You compare the United States to 1939 Nazi Germany.
Your life must be a sad one. To have to live under such a tyrannical government as this.:rolleyes:

Lake Pirate
06-22-2004, 10:05 AM
There was no evidence that it was Osama? He prosecuted the parties involved. Osama was speculation and instinct but...not proven. Had he prosecuted or attacked a man without proof y'all would have sreamed to high heaven about his abuse of power. You have to understand every decision he made, every word he spoke, was ground through the Starr butchery for the purpose of handing down an impeachment. No President in history, no person in history has had to deal with such an onslought of personal attacks with such tremendous financial backing. I'd like to see Herr Bush live under that microscope for one day. It'll never happen again.

Dave C
06-22-2004, 10:08 AM
you want to compare yourself to me?... get the measuring tape out bro!..... ;)
I wasn't leveling any insults at you but I can oblige if you wish.
Your really sensitive if you take criticism of slick willy to heart.
Originally posted by ShockwaveBob
No, I was specifically referring to you. I'll handle all other inquiries on an as needed basis.
You want to start slinging the insults first and then you want to cry. Sack up.

Dave C
06-22-2004, 10:11 AM
actually it was just the fine for perjury that I found most reprehensible.
also its a well established fact that Osama was linked to the bombings of the Cole, the two U.S. embassies in Africa. They have even admitted it.

HavasuDreamin'
06-22-2004, 10:13 AM
Originally posted by Lake Pirate
There was no evidence that it was Osama?
I'm not much for political arguments.........but how do you know the above for sure......100%? :confused: You don't. :yuk: :cool:

Lake Pirate
06-22-2004, 10:13 AM
You defend an IMPEACHED President. That's OK.
He was never impeached. Nice try though.
You level a bunch of charges on the President. None specific.
I specifically charge him with lying about the reason for our attack on Iraq and his misleading us about CIA obtained intelligence.
You compare a sitting President of the United States to Hitler.
He (as a puppet of the GOP) seeks to turn America into a one-party system, which to me...is treason.
You compare the United States to 1939 Nazi Germany.
The populace of germany blindly followed Hitler. Much like the citizenry of America blindly follows the GOP.
Your life must be a sad one. To have to live under such a tyrannical government as this.
Yep... I'm pretty sad. Send me some money so I can be a smart conservative. Please hurry.

Dave C
06-22-2004, 10:15 AM
You call it bashing, we call it free speech.
The innuendo here is that you wish we were silent. Correct?
Boy that's awfully unamerican of you Bob!
Originally posted by ShockwaveBob
Look, I'm not trying to abuse anyone, but I notice that under the anonymity of internet forums, people feel free to bash the political views and leaders from the "other" party. Clinton won both elections by ~200 electoral votes and a total of 15 million popular votes. The guy was hardly unpopular.

Dr. Eagle
06-22-2004, 10:15 AM
Correction Lake Pirate...
Impeachment means that formal charges are drawn against the president by Congress.
This was done. But he was not removed from office.
Most of your other arguments are just as specious, but I lack time to fully refute them now, off to a meeting.

MagicMtnDan
06-22-2004, 10:17 AM
Originally posted by summerlove
I want to know how many soldiers died because he lied to the public about his affair?
I'd like to know how many have died because "W" lied to the public?
You want numbers, I'll give 'em to you: 3,000
That's the number of AMERICANS (mostly civilians) that died mainly because Bill Clinton didn't take out Usama bin Laden on any one of the four-plus opportunities he had to kill him.
Clinton was busy celebrating an economy that was booming while he was getting blow jobs in the White House because he had an ugly, conniving, manipulative, liberal beotch upstairs. (Hint: she's the one you hope will be President in 2008 and she has bigger balls than you :D )

Dave C
06-22-2004, 10:18 AM
Technically he was impeached but not removed.
Your Nazi analogy doesn't work because the last free election was held in Nazi Germany around 1932. You are free to vote against W in 2004 if you wish.
Also READ FOR YOURSELF the CIA report and senate report. The lies you claim are not quite that cut and dry. By reading the report you can make up your own mind and don't let someone do it for you.
Originally posted by Lake Pirate
You defend an IMPEACHED President. That's OK.
He was never impeached. Nice try though.
You level a bunch of charges on the President. None specific.
I specifically charge him with lying about the reason for our attack on Iraq and his misleading us about CIA obtained intelligence.
You compare a sitting President of the United States to Hitler.
He (as a puppet of the GOP) seeks to turn America into a one-party system, which to me...is treason.
You compare the United States to 1939 Nazi Germany.
The populace of germany blindly followed Hitler. Much like the citizenry of America blindly follows the GOP.
Your life must be a sad one. To have to live under such a tyrannical government as this.
Yep... I'm pretty sad. Send me some money so I can be a smart conservative. Please hurry.

Lake Pirate
06-22-2004, 10:18 AM
I'm not much for political arguments.........but how do you know the above for sure......100%? You don't.
The same could be said of both arguments. However, (at the time) it was widely speculated that OBL was tied to several terrorist acts. It was not proven until he admitted it on tape much much later. We never were able to prove it ourselves. We were also at the time (since Reagan) tied intrinsically to OBL via funding his war with Russia. It would be similar to the Saudi situation we have now. We all know the Sauds are helping terrorist orgs and playing both ends against the middle. But, since it's not proven...it's all speculation. A Prez can do nothing for now. hence Georgie's sideline stance against the Saudi Royal family.

OGShocker
06-22-2004, 10:22 AM
Originally posted by Lake Pirate [/i]
Me.You defend an IMPEACHED President. That's OK.
You. He was never impeached. Nice try though.
Me.He was impeached but, not convicted.
Me.You level a bunch of charges on the President. None specific.
You. I specifically charge him with lying about the reason for our attack on Iraq and his misleading us about CIA obtained intelligence.
Me. Cut from AP.
"Russia gave the Bush administration intelligence after the September 11 attacks that suggested Saddam Hussein's regime in Iraq was preparing attacks in the United States, President Vladimir Putin said Friday".
Do you think the US officials owe you direct access to intel?
Me. You compare a sitting President of the United States to Hitler.
You. He (as a puppet of the GOP) seeks to turn America into a one-party system, which to me...is treason.
Me. How is this like Hitler in the least?
Me. You compare the United States to 1939 Nazi Germany.
You. The populace of germany blindly followed Hitler. Much like the citizenry of America blindly follows the GOP.
Me. You don't and they have not put your ass in an oven.
Me.Your life must be a sad one. To have to live under such a tyrannical government as this.
You. Yep... I'm pretty sad. Send me some money so I can be a smart conservative. Please hurry.
Me. Bar not doing so well? I think I need to contribute to your neighbors legal fund. As a right-winger I have those funds in my offshore accounts.
Have a nice day:rolleyes:
Me.;)

Lake Pirate
06-22-2004, 10:28 AM
We were told "it was part of the war on terror."
Then we were told, "it was weapons of mass destruction."
And then later told, "we were freeing the Iraqi citizens from a tyrant." (They happened to love. Much like the Cubans love Castro.)
And now we are told, "it was intel from Russia."
Please tell us which lie you are defending so we can laugh at the appropriate moment.

OGShocker
06-22-2004, 10:31 AM
Originally posted by Lake Pirate
We were told "it was part of the war on terror."
Then we were told, "it was weapons of mass destruction."
And then later told, "we were freeing the Iraqi citizens from a tyrant." (They happened to love. Much like the Cubans love Castro.)
And now we are told, "it was intel from Russia."
Please tell us which lie you are defending so we can laugh at the appropriate moment.
I'll let you know when I see one.

Dave C
06-22-2004, 10:32 AM
You boys need to pay closer attention to the details. Your insult here should be directed to Mr. roostwear.
plus I think Pirate is entitled to his opinion but I am also entitled to refute his opinion.
actually I meant "silence", just like Hitler did it.
BTW I think he is more "slick" than his supporters.
Originally posted by ShockwaveBob
It's only free speech when you do it. When Lake Pirate does it, he's a troll.
No, I could care less if you were silent or if you think you have something intelligent to add to the conversation. My problem is that you choose to make your first intelligent stand by saying that Clinton was smarter than his supporters, somehow insinuating that to support Clinton would make me a dumb shmuck. Essentially, you're insulting 55% of the population, because that's the popular vote breakdown of both elections that he won. Truth be told, if not for term limits, he'd still be in office. Jesus, Gore beat Bush in the popular vote and Gore's an idiot, except for inventing the internet.

Dave C
06-22-2004, 10:37 AM
OK so instead of refuting the facts your just gonna level personal attacks.
TYPICAL.
Also when did Clinton get more than 50% of the popular vote?... wasn't that the third election?
REPEAT AFTER ME. the president is elected by the electoral vote.

Dave C
06-22-2004, 10:45 AM
crying? from the laughter.
sorry you must count all the votes not disregard those inconvenient ones.
Typing? Yes, the only thing sharper is my tongue

OGShocker
06-22-2004, 10:51 AM
Hey Dave.
When the going gets tough. Dems go golfing!
Remember this?
April 21, 2003
Ex-President Bill Clinton kept a squadron of F-117 stealth fighter-bombers and B-52s waiting to launch a critical 1996 airstrike on Iraq while he finished watching a golf tournament - dithering so long that U.S. pilots lost the cover of darkness and the mission had to be scrubbed.
That's the explosive charge leveled in a brand new book by Lt. Col. Robert Patterson, a key Clinton military aide from 1996 through 1998 whose primary mission was to carry the president's copy of America's nuclear launch codes.
"We dispatched eight F-117 stealth fighter-bombers capable of carrying 2,000-pound bombs into the region and sent B-52s to Diego Garcia, in the Indian Ocean, in preparation for action," reveals Lt. Col. Patterson in his bombshell security scandal tell-all, Dereliction of Duty: The Eyewitness Account of How Bill Clinton Compromised America's National Security.
The Sept. 13, 1996, air strike was planned as the U.S.'s response to an Aug. 31 tank attack launched by Saddam Hussein on the northern Kurdish city of Irbil, a blatant violation of the 1991 Gulf War surrender accords that had an estimated 300,000 Kurdish refugees fleeing for their lives.
FOUR!

OGShocker
06-22-2004, 10:59 AM
Originally posted by ShockwaveBob
Just so there's no misunderstanding, I golf for a living. So, I'm off to work. ;)
LOL... Bankers hours too!

MagicMtnDan
06-22-2004, 11:12 AM
Originally posted by Lake Pirate
You defend an IMPEACHED President. That's OK.
He was never impeached. Nice try though.
You level a bunch of charges on the President. None specific.
I specifically charge him with lying about the reason for our attack on Iraq and his misleading us about CIA obtained intelligence.
You compare a sitting President of the United States to Hitler.
He (as a puppet of the GOP) seeks to turn America into a one-party system, which to me...is treason.
You compare the United States to 1939 Nazi Germany.
The populace of germany blindly followed Hitler. Much like the citizenry of America blindly follows the GOP.
Your life must be a sad one. To have to live under such a tyrannical government as this.
Yep... I'm pretty sad. Send me some money so I can be a smart conservative. Please hurry.
Lake Pirate, you're entitled to your opinion and I'm glad you state it here but I do ask that you refrain from drawing ANY comparisons of ANY President to Hitler or Nazi Germany. When you do things like that your ignorance screams for attention. You're trying to make a comparison between one of the most evil humans to ever walk the earth and a President who you don't like.
Listen to this please: there just is no comparison and I again ask you to stop using those references (including the "Herr Bush"). If you don't I'll have to stoop to your level and call you names and we don't want that.

Lake Pirate
06-22-2004, 11:16 AM
Oooh you scare me. Don't you think that when Hitler was jockeying for power he was doing so, in the more traditional sense? It's not like his platform was baking jews and world domination. That all came into play AFTER he seized power. it's my opinion the GOP seeks similar power. Hence the comparison. If it makes you feel any better, Georgie boy is just a puppet. Rummy and Cheney are the ones to worry about.
Zeig Heil!

MagicMtnDan
06-22-2004, 11:30 AM
Originally posted by Lake Pirate
It's not like his platform was baking jews and world domination. it's my opinion the GOP seeks similar power. Hence the comparison. Zeig Heil!
You've made your point a number of times - I'll restate it for you - you're a morally corrupt, low-life scum bag who is unable to discern the difference between the genocidal behavior of Hitler and that of President Bush.
Your lack of balance, judgement and sensitivity to a subject so vile and despicable demonstrates your inability to function as productive a member of the human race. Stay away from firearms - I'm not worried about you but innocent people could be hurt.
PS: you're a sick **** - get some psychiatric help immediately.

Lake Pirate
06-22-2004, 11:36 AM
I guess this means we won't be going to the dance together?

Ziggy
06-22-2004, 11:38 AM
Originally posted by summerlove
I want to know how many soldiers died because he lied to the public about his affair?
I'd like to know how many have died because "W" lied to the public?
How many died because he didn't take any actions against Bin Laden?

Dr. Eagle
06-22-2004, 11:38 AM
Originally posted by Lake Pirate
Oooh you scare me. Don't you think that when Hitler was jockeying for power he was doing so, in the more traditional sense? It's not like his platform was baking jews and world domination. That all came into play AFTER he seized power. it's my opinion the GOP seeks similar power. Hence the comparison. If it makes you feel any better, Georgie boy is just a puppet. Rummy and Cheney are the ones to worry about.
Zeig Heil!
I have learned to refrain from these threads, but this is just about all I can stand.
Your opinions are just exactly that, opinions... negative, ignorant, and ridiculous... but you are entitled to them!
Regardless you are all DOOOOOOOOMED (http://www.fedex.com/us/about/advertising/tvads/dramawm.html?link=4)

Ziggy
06-22-2004, 11:47 AM
Originally posted by ShockwaveBob
Clinton won both elections The guy was hardly unpopular.
Yeah, he practically had a an underground Harum going for himself until that ugly Linda Tripp got jealous:p ;)

Dr. Eagle
06-22-2004, 11:48 AM
Originally posted by Ziggy
ugly Linda Tripp
Man, she'd put the hurt on your eyeballs, wouldn't she?:confused:

Lake Pirate
06-22-2004, 12:06 PM
I s'pose the enlightened Germans that were comparing Hitler to Caesar were hissed at and ridiculed also? I bet they'd like a chance for a big fat sloppy "I told ya so?"
BTW... have you noticed I've never resorted to personal attacks or name calling. I disagree with most of the opinions here but I feel no primal urge to call you idiots. Might I recommend a valium for everyone?

Ziggy
06-22-2004, 12:08 PM
Originally posted by Dr. Eagle
Man, she'd put the hurt on your eyeballs, wouldn't she?:confused:
LOL-yeah, I was afraid to even bring up that name, it could cause nightmares that would make Freddy Kruger look tame.

mickeyfinn
06-22-2004, 12:10 PM
Lake Pirate:
One thing you will find is that people on these boards are remarkably well informed and that if you make an error in your statements they will be pointed out.
President Clinton WAS impeached and it was sent from the house to the senate for trial. At this point he had formal charges pressed against him and at that point was "impeached". The fact that you are referring to is the fact that he was not removed from office. This is true, however there is no arguing the fact that this was the first time in history that a popularly elected president has been impeached.
Personally I believe that had Billy stepped up to the plate and stated something on the order of "Yes, I made an error in judgement and let an intern give me head sitting in the oval office and it was damn good!!!" would have made a lot of difference in a lot of peoples eyes. Instead he chose to rely on loose definitions of sex and deny the charges. Hell if he would have admitted to it as above I might even have stood up and yelled "Hell yeah!!! You go Bill!!" It might have made him a hero in the average American males eyes.

Lake Pirate
06-22-2004, 12:13 PM
Whelp you got me there. I'm definitely no scholar. Does it show? "Impeached" is a word I'm not too familiar with. it came up twice in my life. Once I was very, very young. (Nixon) And the other is when Slick Willy got caught with his pants down. I don't really think it as an impeachable offence but, he WAS impeached. Everybody feel better?

Dave C
06-22-2004, 12:19 PM
Lets get back to Bush's so called "lies" for a minute.
Well Clinton/Gore/Albright/Kerry all stated before Bush took office that Saddam had WMD's. So if you say Bush is a liar then Clinton/Gore/Albright and Kerry are all liars too.
(come on don't be intellectually dishonest now!)....

Dave C
06-22-2004, 12:21 PM
he was impeached for perjury before the grand jury, not for the B.J.
I agree with Mickey on this one though.. B.J.=no problem, perjury=big problem

Lake Pirate
06-22-2004, 12:24 PM
They didn't invade either, now did they? Saddam openly admitted his WMD had been destroyed weeks before and only days before we invaded. The UN inspectors could find no evidence of WMD either. Yet... we invaded. The sooner you admit this was Daddy's war the better you'll feel.

Lake Pirate
06-22-2004, 12:27 PM
Speaking of "being informed." Y'all need to get your facts straight. Slick Willy didn't lie to the grand jury or he would have been ousted. He lied in interviews and depositions but I've never seen proof he lied before the grand jury. As a matter of fact...isn't that when the world knew he had lied, during the grand jury?

Dave C
06-22-2004, 12:28 PM
back to post whoring. He went to play golf..... oh well.
Let me clarify one thing here, I DON'T think Bob is a dumb schmuck because he is a Clinton supporter, I didn't say that.
I think Bob is a dumb schmuck because he argues like a 12 year old.
Throughout all his posts he has provided nothing substantive and did not debate but instead hurled personal attacks.
Originally posted by ShockwaveBob
My problem is that you choose to make your first intelligent stand by saying that Clinton was smarter than his supporters, somehow insinuating that to support Clinton would make me a dumb shmuck.

MagicMtnDan
06-22-2004, 12:28 PM
Originally posted by Lake Pirate
BTW... have you noticed I've never resorted to personal attacks or name calling. I disagree with most of the opinions here but I feel no primal urge to call you idiots. Might I recommend a valium for everyone?
You equate President Bush with Hitler and then tell us what a good boy you are because you didn't resort to personal attacks or name calling. That's like running someone over with a car and then defending yourself by saying, "hey, at least I didn't use a weapon."

Dr. Eagle
06-22-2004, 12:32 PM
Originally posted by Lake Pirate
They didn't invade either, now did they? Saddam openly admitted his WMD had been destroyed weeks before and only days before we invaded. The UN inspectors could find no evidence of WMD either. Yet... we invaded. The sooner you admit this was Daddy's war the better you'll feel.
Hey Guys...... sure this isn't Catmando????? What do you think?

Dave C
06-22-2004, 12:32 PM
Didn't Clinton have to bomb several times? Why? For violations of the UN security council resolutions on WMD's.
He was too much of a wussy to invade.
Originally posted by Lake Pirate
They didn't invade either, now did they? Saddam openly admitted his WMD had been destroyed weeks before and only days before we invaded. The UN inspectors could find no evidence of WMD either. Yet... we invaded. The sooner you admit this was Daddy's war the better you'll feel.

Lake Pirate
06-22-2004, 12:35 PM
I haven't heard you speak to kindly of Clinton there slick. The GOP is acting like autocrats so it's fair game to compare them to one. Your complaint of my comparison is like a guy getting hit by a car and then saying, "why was he driving on my road?"

Dave C
06-22-2004, 12:35 PM
Technically he lied under oath during a court proceeding. Depositions are part of the court proceeding, correct?
so what your saying is that its OK to lie under oath sometimes but not others? Its OK to lie to the police/investigators and under deposition but not in court?
BTW I do not suggest anyone try this you might end up paying a $90,000 fine like Clinton did for lying under oath.
Originally posted by Lake Pirate
Speaking of "being informed." Y'all need to get your facts straight. Slick Willy didn't lie to the grand jury or he would have been ousted. He lied in interviews and depositions but I've never seen proof he lied before the grand jury. As a matter of fact...isn't that when the world knew he had lied, during the grand jury?

summerlove
06-22-2004, 12:37 PM
Originally posted by SPECTRABRENT
Summerlove,
I hate to say it, but if Slick Willie would have had the balls to go after Osma & his buddies after the first WTC bombing, instead if getting his knob polished in the oval office those soldiers would still be around:wink:.
Brent
Brent, in all due respect, where's Osama now? Last I heard, we still have not foud him...

Dr. Eagle
06-22-2004, 12:38 PM
Originally posted by Lake Pirate
He lied in interviews and depositions
Just for the record...
Lying in a deposition is just as bad as before a Grand Jury, it is lying under oath and carries the same penalty of purjury...

Lake Pirate
06-22-2004, 12:41 PM
Clintons retaliation was a show of strength and appropriate for the time. Bush's all out attack was a show of arrogance and inappropriate for any time.
Bush is a bad President. His Daddy was a bad president. Nixon was a great president. Reagan was a purdy good president. (Sans the trickle down economics thing.) I even liked the Star Wars concept. Clinton was a good president. Johnson was a lunatic. Carter was a nice guy but an ineffective president. Kennedy was a lousy president 'cept he made people feel good about bein' an American. (whatever that's worth?) Those are my views. Give it your best shot. I have no partisan loyalty. I judge the man.

CA Stu
06-22-2004, 12:42 PM
"Was Vince Foster depressed the last time you saw him? "
Thanks
CA Stu

Dave C
06-22-2004, 12:42 PM
Don't they have him in a cold locker in bethesda to unveil before the general?;)
J/K
Originally posted by summerlove
Brent, in all due respect, where's Osama now? Last I heard, we still have not foud him...

Dave C
06-22-2004, 12:46 PM
See, that wasn't so hard. We just have a difference of opinion. thats all.
Some of us think that Clinton was too soft and Bush had it just right.
Difference of opinion.
Originally posted by Lake Pirate
Clintons retaliation was a show of strength and appropriate for the time. Bush's all out attack was a show of arrogance and inappropriate for any time.

Dave C
06-22-2004, 12:49 PM
true, but he could not account for tons of WMD's that he previous owned. So all of a sudden Saddam is an honest guy and you believe him?
BTW I thought they should have gotten rid of Tenet a long time ago. He fed all this so called intel to both Clinton and Bush. He is partly responsible for this mess.
Originally posted by Lake Pirate
They didn't invade either, now did they? Saddam openly admitted his WMD had been destroyed weeks before and only days before we invaded. The UN inspectors could find no evidence of WMD either. Yet... we invaded. The sooner you admit this was Daddy's war the better you'll feel.

Lake Pirate
06-22-2004, 01:02 PM
What did ever happen to him? He kinda slid behind the curtain now that shit hit the fan.

mickeyfinn
06-22-2004, 01:02 PM
Originally posted by Dr. Eagle
Hey Guys...... sure this isn't Catmando????? What do you think?
Was checking back on this thread and was thinking the exact same thing and then read your post.:D :D
Of Course the Cat was more of a hit and run. Gotta give the pirate credit for at least attempting to hang around and explain his views. I also think the level of name calling is a little higher this time than what the Cat stooped to.

Lake Pirate
06-22-2004, 01:09 PM
Those post quotes are not mine. I'm not sure who's they are but they are not mine. I'm not much on name calling. I'm more the fingernails across a chalkboard type. :D

Dr. Eagle
06-22-2004, 01:11 PM
Now Mickey, that does kinda make it tough to argue with you... you change the rules as you go...?

Lake Pirate
06-22-2004, 01:14 PM
Y'all still need to get your act together on those quotes. THEY ARE NOT MINE!
You may know how to use the function, but you sure can't use it correctly.

Dave C
06-22-2004, 01:14 PM
well according to you I'm also a dumb rube with no game.
Oh well we ain't gonna be able to settle this like "men" because my golf game is terrible and you probably cheat at golf anyway being that your 12. ;)
Besides I can't call you an idiot if you really do make a living playing golf! Beats my job.
P.S. can we debate the issues not name-call?
Originally posted by ShockwaveBob
[B]Maybe I am 12 years old. Did you ever think of that? I "hurled" personal attacks? I called you a crybaby, I'd hardly consider that hurling personal attacks.

mickeyfinn
06-22-2004, 01:16 PM
LOL....Sorry pirate....read the post wrong....will edit it out. Guess I should have listened to my mom when she told me that if I didn't stop that I would go blind.:D :D

mickeyfinn
06-22-2004, 01:18 PM
To make matters even worse I read shockwaves reply to mine 3 times and didn't see the problem.........Finally I just forgot it and figured that focker must be crazy....

Dave C
06-22-2004, 01:25 PM
I'm crying B.S....... I knew you cheated. +1.9. ;)
putting contest. no chance. what do they say? Drive for show, putt for dough. Thats a sucker bet.
Mexican golfer. who you trying to emulate? Trevino ;)
davec<----- Mexican-American republican with VERY high handicap.
Originally posted by ShockwaveBob
We could have a putting contest. :D
I don't cheat at golf, I'm a +1.9 handicap, which, as you may or may not know, is on the "other" side of 0.

mirvin
06-22-2004, 01:31 PM
I'm not super conservative. That said, why wont the left admit that Clinton disgraced the office of the President as it has never been disgraced before? I mean how hard is it to realize that while he should have been proactively protecting our country he was getting hummers from his mistress???
mirvin

Dr. Eagle
06-22-2004, 01:35 PM
Originally posted by ShockwaveBob
Why bother with something so trivial as quoting the correct person? ;)
True, but with some of the views spewed by certain parties on this thread, I'm not so sure it matters...:rolleyes:

OGShocker
06-22-2004, 01:46 PM
Originally posted by Dr. Eagle
Hey Guys...... sure this isn't Catmando????? What do you think?
THAT"S IT! That is who I was thinking of. That dude was a hoot!

summerlove
06-22-2004, 01:49 PM
Originally posted by mirvin
I'm not super conservative. That said, why wont the left admit that Clinton disgraced the office of the President as it has never been disgraced before?
mirvin
short memories......can you say "Wategate"???
Com'on Mirv....What went on with Watergate was far worse than a man trying to cover up the fact that he got caught with his pants down, regardless of the fact that he was President at the time! While I certainly don't condone the activities of Mr. Clinton and his affair with Ms. Lewinsky, I think he did the same thing every other guy would have done - deny, deny, deny till you can't deny any longer.
Now, with "W", it's a whole different story.....his lies are so niumerable we can't even track them all. In fact, there are books out there about his lies and half truths:confused:

OGShocker
06-22-2004, 02:00 PM
Originally posted by summerlove
Now, with "W", it's a whole different story.....his lies are so niumerable we can't even track them all. In fact, there are books out there about his lies and half truths:confused:
Rick? Name four, not all, just four, then document them. List the books and authors. List news stories by reputable investigative reporters.

summerlove
06-22-2004, 02:08 PM
Originally posted by OGShocker
Rick? Name four, not all, just four, then document them. List the books and authors. List news stories by reputable investigative reporters.
you asked and I shall produce....stay tuned!

summerlove
06-22-2004, 02:13 PM
http://www.bushlies.com/images/bookcover.jpg
You can buy it on Amazon if you like....
Oh, and here's what the critics had to say about the book...
THE LOS ANGELES TIMES says, "David Corn's THE LIES OF GEORGE W. BUSH is as hard-hitting an attack as has been leveled against the current president. He compares what Bush said with the known facts of a given situation and ends up making a persuasive case."
HARPER'S editor Lewis Lapham notes, "Most of what the President has to say can be so easily refuted or disproved, if not with reference to the public record then on the evidence of several recently published books (among them...THE LIES OF GEORGE W. BUSH by David Corn)."
THE NEW YORK OBSERVER says, "Corn does not believe that wit and indignation are mutually exclusive, which makes the indictment that is THE LIES OF GEORGE W. BUSH all the more searing."
THE WALL STREET JOURNAL's Al Hunt writes, "Before [Republicans] get too giddy, however, they ought to glance at a recent book, THE LIES OF GEORGE W. BUSH, by David Corn....[H]e carefully documents many charges. Some examples: the president's claim that there already were 60 separate stem-cell lines sufficient for medical research, when he'd been told there were far fewer; the false claims that his tax cuts were aimed mainly at working-class Americans; the untrue charge that government labor unions were refusing to cooperate in key homeland security measures; and the numerous misrepresentations before the Iraq war."
THE LIBRARY JOURNAL says, ""Corn (Washington editor, Nation magazine) chronicles to devastating effect the lies, falsehoods, and misrepresentations of President George W. Bush. And while clearly presenting those deceptions, he also shows that Bush committed them for a reason, engaging in "strategic lying" in an effort to cover up his past and pave his way to governance. The events of 9/11 gave the President license to do so, and "Bush and his colleagues could see that lying worked." From lies about his arrest and National Guard records, to environmental and energy concerns, to the war against Iraq, Corn has painstakingly unearthed a bill of particulars against the President that is as damaging as it is thorough. Here, one will find evidence that is not put forth by the mainstream press (which is still cowering in the midst of a war against terrorism). Calling the President a liar and a prevaricator who "has mugged the truth" will win Corn few friends, but given the weight and volume of the evidence presented, it is a case that cannot easily be ignored."
PUBLISHERS WEEKLY notes, "As Washington editor for The Nation, Corn has had his eyes and ears open for what he construes as lies from the Bush White House, and here he has assembled what many will see as an impressive body of evidence....Corn carefully documents alleged falsehoods dating back to the campaign trail covering a full range of issues-from Enron to education, global warming to stem cell research. But this is no simplistic anti-Bush rant; it also faults the media for not underlining the apparent lies and the public for not caring enough."
BOOKLIST says, "Corn's take on the topic is straightforward and chronological. No raised voices here. The longtime editor of The Nation Corn sets out to build a serious case against Bush in which the president's own words indict him. Beginning with the 2000 campaign ("I am a uniter, not a divider"), Corn examines Bush's record on many issues--the environment, health, the war on terror--all referenced to the president's words....This is a judicious and readable offering."

OutCole'd
06-22-2004, 02:19 PM
You know whats funny? I was helping my 11 year old son do a project for school where he had to list any 10 Presidents he wanted to, and give a brief paragraph of something they were involved with during their tunure as President, good or bad.
I looked up each and every President from George Washington till current on the internet from either party, more was said about being corrupt or in hot water rather than stating something important that they accomplished while they were in office that was for the good of the country, not just their party.
Does anyone here really belive that the party they believe in is spotless and without dirt???
I vote for the man, not the party because they both suck.

summerlove
06-22-2004, 02:24 PM
Here's a four for ya!;) want more????:D
4. "I first got to know Ken [Lay in 1994]." As the Enron scandal reached the White House in early 2002, Bush uttered this remark, claiming he had nothing to do with Lay until after winning the 1994 Texas gubernatorial election. It was an apparent and clumsy effort to diminish his relationship with the now-disgraced Enron chief. But in1994, Lay and Enron had been leading contributors to Bush’s campaign. And Lay—long a patron of Bush’s father—had worked with Bush in political settings prior to 1994. In a pre-scandal interview, Lay noted he had been "very close to George W." for years before1994. (In the mid-1980s, Bush’s oil venture was in a partnership with Enron.) Bush also claimed that his administration had been of absolutely no help to Enron. That might have been true during the scam-based company’s final days. But in the months preceding that, the Bush administration had assisted Enron in a variety of ways. This included appointing individuals recommended by Lay as top energy regulators and opposing wholesale price caps on electricity during the California energy crisis, a move that came after Lay (whose electricity-selling company was using manipulative tactics to gouge California) urged the White House to block price caps.
3. "Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised." And, "[Saddam Hussein is] a threat because he is dealing with al Qaeda." These two Bush remarks go hand in hand, even though the first was said on March 17, 2003, two days before Bush launched the invasion of Iraq, and the other came during a November 7, 2002, press conference. Together they represented his argument for war: Hussein possessed actual weapons of mass destruction and at any moment could hand them to his supposed partners in al Qaeda. That is why Hussein was an immediate threat to the United States and had to be taken out quickly. But neither of these assertions were truthful. There has been much media debate over all this. But the postwar statements of Richard Kerr, a former deputy director of the CIA, provide the most compelling proof. He has been conducting a review of the prewar intelligence, and he has told reporters that the intelligence on Hussein’s WMDs was full of caveats and qualifiers and based mostly on inferential or circumstantial evidence. In other words, it was not no-doubt material. He also has said that prewar intelligence reports did not contain evidence of links between Hussein and al Qaeda. The best information to date indicates that the prewar intelligence did not leave "no doubt" about WMDs and did not support Bush’s claim that Hussein was in cahoots with al Qaeda. Bush’s primary reason for war was founded on falsehoods
2. "We found the weapons of mass destruction." Bush issued this triumphant remark in late May 2003, while being interviewed by a Polish television reporter. He was referring to two tractor-trailers obtained by U.S. forces in Iraq. The CIA and the Defense Intelligence Agency had concluded these vehicles were mobile bio-weapons plants. Yet they had found not a trace of biological agents on either. (And no bio-weapon facility could be scrubbed completely clean.) In subsequent weeks, it turned out that State Department analysts and even DIA engineering experts—as well as outside experts—did not accept the CIA and DIA conclusion, and some of these doubters believed the explanation of Iraqis who claimed the trucks were built to produce hydrogen for weather balloons. Whichever side might be ultimately right about the trailers, this all-important piece of evidence was hotly contested. It was hardly solid enough to support Bush’s we-found-them declaration or to justify a war.
1. "It’s time to restore honor and dignity to the White House." Bush said that many a time during the 2000 presidential campaign, and in at least one ad pledged to "return honor and integrity" to the Oval Office. ;)

summerlove
06-22-2004, 02:26 PM
Originally posted by OutCole'd
Does anyone here really belive that the party they believe in is spotless and without dirt???
no, I do not. I, however, will at least admit it....:rolleyes:

OGShocker
06-22-2004, 02:31 PM
Originally posted by summerlove
http://www.bushlies.com/images/bookcover.jpg
Oh, and here's what the critics had to say about the book...
HARPER'S editor Lewis Lapham notes, "Most of what the President has to say can be so easily refuted or disproved, if not with reference to the public record then on the evidence of several recently published books (among them...THE LIES OF GEORGE W. BUSH by David Corn)."
Here is the only named critic and how he views the world.
http://www.independent.org/tii/forums/lapham_bio.html

Lake Pirate
06-22-2004, 02:36 PM
I think I like Summerlove! :D

OGShocker
06-22-2004, 02:43 PM
Originally posted by summerlove
Here's a four for ya!;) want more????:D
4. "I first got to know Ken [Lay in 1994]." As the Enron scandal reached the White House in early 2002, Bush uttered this remark, claiming he had nothing to do with Lay until after winning the 1994 Texas gubernatorial election. It was an apparent and clumsy effort to diminish his relationship with the now-disgraced Enron chief. But in1994, Lay and Enron had been leading contributors to Bush’s campaign. And Lay—long a patron of Bush’s father—had worked with Bush in political settings prior to 1994. In a pre-scandal interview, Lay noted he had been "very close to George W." for years before1994. (In the mid-1980s, Bush’s oil venture was in a partnership with Enron.) Bush also claimed that his administration had been of absolutely no help to Enron. That might have been true during the scam-based company’s final days. But in the months preceding that, the Bush administration had assisted Enron in a variety of ways. This included appointing individuals recommended by Lay as top energy regulators and opposing wholesale price caps on electricity during the California energy crisis, a move that came after Lay (whose electricity-selling company was using manipulative tactics to gouge California) urged the White House to block price caps.
3. "Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised." And, "[Saddam Hussein is] a threat because he is dealing with al Qaeda." These two Bush remarks go hand in hand, even though the first was said on March 17, 2003, two days before Bush launched the invasion of Iraq, and the other came during a November 7, 2002, press conference. Together they represented his argument for war: Hussein possessed actual weapons of mass destruction and at any moment could hand them to his supposed partners in al Qaeda. That is why Hussein was an immediate threat to the United States and had to be taken out quickly. But neither of these assertions were truthful. There has been much media debate over all this. But the postwar statements of Richard Kerr, a former deputy director of the CIA, provide the most compelling proof. He has been conducting a review of the prewar intelligence, and he has told reporters that the intelligence on Hussein’s WMDs was full of caveats and qualifiers and based mostly on inferential or circumstantial evidence. In other words, it was not no-doubt material. He also has said that prewar intelligence reports did not contain evidence of links between Hussein and al Qaeda. The best information to date indicates that the prewar intelligence did not leave "no doubt" about WMDs and did not support Bush’s claim that Hussein was in cahoots with al Qaeda. Bush’s primary reason for war was founded on falsehoods
2. "We found the weapons of mass destruction." Bush issued this triumphant remark in late May 2003, while being interviewed by a Polish television reporter. He was referring to two tractor-trailers obtained by U.S. forces in Iraq. The CIA and the Defense Intelligence Agency had concluded these vehicles were mobile bio-weapons plants. Yet they had found not a trace of biological agents on either. (And no bio-weapon facility could be scrubbed completely clean.) In subsequent weeks, it turned out that State Department analysts and even DIA engineering experts—as well as outside experts—did not accept the CIA and DIA conclusion, and some of these doubters believed the explanation of Iraqis who claimed the trucks were built to produce hydrogen for weather balloons. Whichever side might be ultimately right about the trailers, this all-important piece of evidence was hotly contested. It was hardly solid enough to support Bush’s we-found-them declaration or to justify a war.
1. "It’s time to restore honor and dignity to the White House." Bush said that many a time during the 2000 presidential campaign, and in at least one ad pledged to "return honor and integrity" to the Oval Office. ;)
You are better than a C&P from a website like this. I asked for REAL, REPUTABLE investgative reporters, not a website named Bushlies.com. Jeepers SL. I would have expected better from you.:p
Here are ALL ten "lies"...LOL (http://www.bushlies.com/topten.php)

summerlove
06-22-2004, 02:47 PM
Originally posted by OGShocker
You are better than a C&P from a website like this. I asked for REAL, REPUTABLE investgative reporters, not a website named [/URL]
I posted some before, but could not relocate them. I'll need to do a search and find them. tonight. back alley, no weapons. Mano Y Mano. Be there!;)

OGShocker
06-22-2004, 03:02 PM
Originally posted by summerlove
I posted some before, but could not relocate them. I'll need to do a search and find them. tonight. back alley, no weapons. Mano Y Mano. Be there!;)
I'll bring the beer!.. Have a good night you f'ing dem.;) You are alright!
LP, See you at the bar somenight:eek:

Dave C
06-22-2004, 03:10 PM
David Corn is from the Nation which is a far-left publication.
These statements have many suppositions of the authors. For example the following.
[QUOTE]Originally posted by summerlove
[B]
3. Together they represented his argument for war: Hussein possessed actual weapons of mass destruction and at any moment could hand them to his supposed partners in al Qaeda. That is why Hussein was an immediate threat to the United States and had to be taken out quickly. But neither of these assertions were truthful. There has been much media debate over all this.
I believe we can argue some of these points one way or the other if you read the senate testimony and 9/11 commission..
Does he provide any counter point?
Also I think they already ate crow on #2.
RE: #4, Enron gave tons of dought to the democrates also so lets get some perspective here.

mirvin
06-22-2004, 03:11 PM
I dont' fall for all the rhetoric and bs. I have yet to see a documented case of Bush actually lieing. I know there were holes in the "intellegence" and what not. THe fact is that he is DOING SOMETHING about it. Complain if you want, second guess if you want. THat's you're right.
I supported Clinton when he was being impeached. I supported him because it seemed unfair and politically motivated. But now that we've learned all that he DIDN"T DO while he was gettin his groove on, I'm angry at him. I blame him for everything that's happened since 2000.
At the same time I look at Bush and I see him DOING what he needs to do or what he believes is right and I have to respect that whether I agree with him or not because in my book action beats inaction.
Just like I dismissed the propaganda spread by the right about Clinton, I dismiss the attempts by the left to discredit Bush as mere whining and second guessing.
mirvin

Lake Pirate
06-22-2004, 03:11 PM
That would be great.
We have blacks to carry your bags.
Mexicans to clean your room.
Orientals to press your suit.
And muzzies to stand on so your feet don't get dirty.

summerlove
06-22-2004, 03:13 PM
Here you go.....BTW, OGS, thanks for the cold one!;)
Here are a number of documented facts! In "W"s words and statements/actions - not mine.....
1. Department of Homeland Security
BUSH OPPOSES THE DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY..."So, creating a Cabinet office doesn't solve the problem. You still will have agencies within the federal government that have to be coordinated. So the answer is that creating a Cabinet post doesn't solve anything." [White House spokesman Ari Fleischer, 3/19/02]
...BUSH SUPPORTS THE DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY "So tonight, I ask the Congress to join me in creating a single, permanent department with an overriding and urgent mission: securing the homeland of America and protecting the American people." [President Bush, Address to the Nation, 6/6/02]
2. Weapons of Mass Destruction
BUSH SAYS WE FOUND THE WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION..."We found the weapons of mass destruction. We found biological laboratories…for those who say we haven't found the banned manufacturing devices or banned weapons, they're wrong, we found them." [President Bush, Interview in Poland, 5/29/03]
...BUSH SAYS WE HAVEN'T FOUND WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION "David Kay has found the capacity to produce weapons. And when David Kay goes in and says we haven't found stockpiles yet, and there's theories as to where the weapons went. They could have been destroyed during the war. Saddam and his henchmen could have destroyed them as we entered into Iraq. They could be hidden. They could have been transported to another country, and we'll find out." [President Bush, Meet the Press, 2/7/04]
3. Free Trade
BUSH SUPPORTS FREE TRADE... "I believe strongly that if we promote trade, and when we promote trade, it will help workers on both sides of this issue." [President Bush in Peru, 3/23/02]
...BUSH SUPPORTS RESTRICTIONS ON TRADE "In a decision largely driven by his political advisers, President Bush set aside his free-trade principles last year and imposed heavy tariffs on imported steel to help out struggling mills in Pennsylvania and West Virginia, two states crucial for his reelection." [Washington Post, 9/19/03]
4. Osama Bin Laden
BUSH WANTS OSAMA DEAD OR ALIVE... "I want justice. And there's an old poster out West, I recall, that says, 'Wanted: Dead or Alive.'" [President Bush, on Osama Bin Laden, 09/17/01]
...BUSH DOESN'T CARE ABOUT OSAMA "I don't know where he is. I have no idea and I really don't care. It's not that important." [President Bush, Press Conference, 3/13/02]
5. The Environment
BUSH SUPPORTS MANDATORY CAPS ON CARBON DIOXIDE... "[If elected], Governor Bush will work to…establish mandatory reduction targets for emissions of four main pollutants: sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxide, mercury and carbon dioxide." [Bush Environmental Plan, 9/29/00]
...BUSH OPPOSES MANDATORY CAPS ON CARBON DIOXIDE "I do not believe, however, that the government should impose on power plants mandatory emissions reductions for carbon dioxide, which is not a 'pollutant' under the Clean Air Act." [President Bush, Letter to Sen. Chuck Hagel (R-NE), 3/13/03]
6. WMD Commission
BUSH RESISTS AN OUTSIDE INVESTIGATION ON WMD INTELLIGENCE FAILURE... "The White House immediately turned aside the calls from Kay and many Democrats for an immediate outside investigation, seeking to head off any new wide-ranging election-year inquiry that might go beyond reports already being assembled by congressional committees and the Central Intelligence Agency." [NY Times, 1/29/04]
...BUSH SUPPORTS AN OUTSIDE INVESTIGATION ON WMD INTELLIGENCE FAILURE "Today, by executive order, I am creating an independent commission, chaired by Governor and former Senator Chuck Robb, Judge Laurence Silberman, to look at American intelligence capabilities, especially our intelligence about weapons of mass destruction." [President Bush, 2/6/04]
7. Creation of the 9/11 Commission
BUSH OPPOSES CREATION OF INDEPENDENT 9/11 COMMISSION... "President Bush took a few minutes during his trip to Europe Thursday to voice his opposition to establishing a special commission to probe how the government dealt with terror warnings before Sept. 11." [CBS News, 5/23/02]
...BUSH SUPPORTS CREATION OF INDEPENDENT 9/11 COMMISSION "President Bush said today he now supports establishing an independent commission to investigate the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks." [ABC News, 09/20/02]
8. Time Extension for 9/11 Commission
BUSH OPPOSES TIME EXTENSION FOR 9/11 COMMISSION... "President Bush and House Speaker J. Dennis Hastert (R-Ill.) have decided to oppose granting more time to an independent commission investigating the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks." [Washington Post, 1/19/04]
...BUSH SUPPORTS TIME EXTENSION FOR 9/11 COMMISSION "The White House announced Wednesday its support for a request from the commission investigating the September 11, 2001 attacks for more time to complete its work." [CNN, 2/4/04]
9. One Hour Limit for 9/11 Commission Testimony
BUSH LIMITS TESTIMONY IN FRONT OF 9/11 COMMISSION TO ONE HOUR... "President Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney have placed strict limits on the private interviews they will grant to the federal commission investigating the Sept. 11 attacks, saying that they will meet only with the panel's top two officials and that Mr. Bush will submit to only a single hour of questioning, commission members said Wednesday." [NY Times, 2/26/04]
...BUSH SETS NO TIMELIMIT FOR TESTIMONY "The president's going to answer all of the questions they want to raise. Nobody's watching the clock." [White House spokesman Scott McClellan, 3/10/04]
10. Gay Marriage
BUSH SAYS GAY MARRIAGE IS A STATE ISSUE... "The state can do what they want to do. Don't try to trap me in this state's issue like you're trying to get me into." [Gov. George W. Bush on Gay Marriage, Larry King Live, 2/15/00]
...BUSH SUPPORTS CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT BANNING GAY MARRIAGE "Today I call upon the Congress to promptly pass, and to send to the states for ratification, an amendment to our Constitution defining and protecting marriage as a union of man and woman as husband and wife." [President Bush, 2/24/04]
11. Nation Building
BUSH OPPOSES NATION BUILDING... "If we don't stop extending our troops all around the world in nation-building missions, then we're going to have a serious problem coming down the road." [Gov. George W. Bush, 10/3/00]
...BUSH SUPPORTS NATION BUILDING "We will be changing the regime of Iraq, for the good of the Iraqi people." [President Bush, 3/6/03]
12. Saddam/al Qaeda Link
BUSH SAYS IT IS IMPOSSIBLE TO DISTINGUISH BETWEEEN AL QAEDA AND SADDAM... "You can't distinguish between al Qaeda and Saddam when you talk about the war on terror." [President Bush, 9/25/02]
...BUSH SAYS SADDAM HAD NO ROLE IN AL QAEDA PLOT "We've had no evidence that Saddam Hussein was involved in Sept. 11." [President Bush, 9/17/03]
13. U.N. Resolution
BUSH VOWS TO HAVE A UN VOTE NO MATTER WHAT... "No matter what the whip count is, we're calling for the vote. We want to see people stand up and say what their opinion is about Saddam Hussein and the utility of the United Nations Security Council. And so, you bet. It's time for people to show their cards, to let the world know where they stand when it comes to Saddam." [President Bush 3/6/03]
...BUSH WITHDRAWS REQUEST FOR VOTE "At a National Security Council meeting convened at the White House at 8:55 a.m., Bush finalized the decision to withdraw the resolution from consideration and prepared to deliver an address to the nation that had already been written." [Washington Post, 3/18/03]
14. Involvement in the Palestinian Conflict
BUSH OPPOSES SUMMITS... "Well, we've tried summits in the past, as you may remember. It wasn't all that long ago where a summit was called and nothing happened, and as a result we had significant intifada in the area." [President Bush, 04/05/02]
...BUSH SUPPORTS SUMMITS "If a meeting advances progress toward two states living side by side in peace, I will strongly consider such a meeting. I'm committed to working toward peace in the Middle East." [President Bush, 5/23/03]
15. Campaign Finance
BUSH OPPOSES MCCAIN-FEINGOLD... "George W. Bush opposes McCain-Feingold...as an infringement on free expression." [Washington Post, 3/28/2000]
...BUSH SIGNS MCCAIN-FEINGOLD INTO LAW "[T]his bill improves the current system of financing for Federal campaigns, and therefore I have signed it into law." [President Bush, at the McCain-Feingold singing ceremony, 03/27/02]

OGShocker
06-22-2004, 03:16 PM
SL, I will work on these after my return from Texas. I'll be at the lake from 6-26 to 7-5-2004.
OG<<work's getting in the way of my poll posts>>Shocker

summerlove
06-22-2004, 03:19 PM
Originally posted by OGShocker
SL, I will work on these after my return from Texas. I'll be at the lake from 6-26 to 7-5-2004.
OG<<work's getting in the way of my poll posts>>Shocker
Wow cowboy....not so fast. Read em and weep!
Texas, figures.....;)
I'll see you in Havasu the w/e of 7/4, right? New casa and all?

mirvin
06-22-2004, 03:23 PM
Summerlove, I am dissapointed. I read your whole post and can't find a single "documented" case where W lied. I see plenty of nit picky he said she said stupidity.
Here's my problem with the whole "Bush Lied" deal. It is too obvioulsy clear that the Dem;s are still mad about what the right did to CLinton are they are desperatley trying to create that atmosphere for Bush.
Problem is, and I'll say it again, there has not been a documented factual case of BUsh lieing about ANYTHING, period. If there were, we'de be in the middle of an impeachment. Simple as that.
Just like the election. If there had been an actual case of people being disenfranchised we would be hearing from those people. But those people didn't exist, it was just the Dems trying to create scenario.
The left doesn't like his methods and that's all there is to it.
mirvin

Dave C
06-22-2004, 03:24 PM
Ya lets talk about flip flops.
If we documented all Kerry's flip flops we would be here all day.!:D

HighRoller
06-22-2004, 03:28 PM
SummerLove, since you talk about Bush's relationship to Ken Lay as a bad thing, what are your feelings about Ken Lay donating huge amounts of money to the Clinton White House from 1993-2000? That was the period of time, by the way, that the dirty work of the Enron scandal was taking place. It didn't happen from 2000-2003 like you're implying.
As far as a comparison between Clinton and Nixon, well I think Clinton was worse. They both did disgraceful and dishonest things while in office and both of them dishonored and shamed the country. Both of them denied it at first. BUT....Nixon had the dignity and good taste to be a man and resign so he wouldn't do any further damage. He knew what was best for the country. Clinton brought out his left-wing bomb throwers and tried to save his own ass by sullying the reputations of his accusers. What a stand up guy! And as far as ShockWave Bob saying Clinton is "smarter" than I am...that is arguable. But I know damn well he's more devious, dishonest and underhanded than I ever will be so you got me there.
This whole thing started with some questions I wanted people to ask him, but they never will because the people he will be talking to are his friends. I bet we never hear Catie Couric asking him if he feels he should apologize to the country for the events of 9-11 because he didn't catch Osama.

Dave C
06-22-2004, 03:29 PM
This is pretty much all political B.S.
So if you say your against a bill then its changed to fit your needs then you support it, that is not a lie. But your opponent may use this against you.
thats cheap old school politics.

summerlove
06-22-2004, 03:30 PM
Originally posted by mirvin
If there had been an actual case of people being disenfranchised we would be hearing from those people. But those people didn't exist, it was just the Dems trying to create scenario.
mirvin
Guess that's why his popularity is at 46% now....I'd say that 54% of the people are disenfranchised.
I don't think the dems have created the scenario he's in, he did it by himself and htose of his closest advisors.
And, the DP isn't as organized as the RP is, or maybe there would be a little more organized crtiicism of the bush admin.
They're not all perfect guys, they all have their limitations, we just need to make sure that we see through them and not make the same mistake again....;) (sorry, had to say that:D )

mirvin
06-22-2004, 03:40 PM
Originally posted by summerlove
Guess that's why his popularity is at 46% now....I'd say that 54% of the people are disenfranchised.
I don't think the dems have created the scenario he's in, he did it by himself and htose of his closest advisors.
And, the DP isn't as organized as the RP is, or maybe there would be a little more organized crtiicism of the bush admin.
They're not all perfect guys, they all have their limitations, we just need to make sure that we see through them and not make the same mistake again....;) (sorry, had to say that:D )
SO maybe you would prefer he sat around for 4 years and did nothing and only said and did things that made everyone happy and then his approval rating would be higher?
Oh yeah, that poll is independent, just like the media, right?
Don't get me wrong SL, I'm definately not a "MY GUY" kind of person. I support Bush because he does what he says. THere's plenty of things to harp on Bush about, none of which I ever hear about, because they don't grab headlines and cause a commotion in the break room.
Remember, it's politics ;)
mirvin:D

summerlove
06-22-2004, 05:16 PM
Originally posted by HighRoller
SummerLove, since you talk about Bush's relationship to Ken Lay as a bad thing, what are your feelings about Ken Lay donating huge amounts of money to the Clinton White House from 1993-2000? That was the period of time, by the way, that the dirty work of the Enron scandal was taking place. It didn't happen from 2000-2003 like you're implying.
As far as a comparison between Clinton and Nixon, well I think Clinton was worse. They both did disgraceful and dishonest things while in office and both of them dishonored and shamed the country. Both of them denied it at first. BUT....Nixon had the dignity and good taste to be a man and resign so he wouldn't do any further damage. He knew what was best for the country. Clinton brought out his left-wing bomb throwers and tried to save his own ass by sullying the reputations of his accusers. What a stand up guy! And as far as ShockWave Bob saying Clinton is "smarter" than I am...that is arguable. But I know damn well he's more devious, dishonest and underhanded than I ever will be so you got me there.
This whole thing started with some questions I wanted people to ask him, but they never will because the people he will be talking to are his friends. I bet we never hear Catie Couric asking him if he feels he should apologize to the country for the events of 9-11 because he didn't catch Osama.
Come on, HR...you've jumped off the deep end! To say that a bj was worse than Watergate is to only bury your head in the sand a little deeper than it actually is! Clinton accepted a $100,000 contribution from enron in 1992. He didn't pick a top Lay ally to be his VP!
I have always respected your arguments. I may disagree with some or many, but come on, you've got to admit Bush is not making everyone on the republican aisle too happy these days. You just need to be more realistic in your views. If you came out and said, W has screwed this or that up, I'd have a very high opinion of your positions. But, since it's always till death do us part partisan support it makes your opinions a little less reasonable. IMHO. That said, bring it on....
Oh, and check this out.... (http://www.capitolhillblue.com/artman/publish/article_4636.shtml) Don't know if it's true, but it seems plausible....:rolleyes: