Rangel: An Attack on Bush is an attack on all Americans (Merged)

[trobinett]

I think Bush has mishandled everything regarding Iraq and the WOT. So how is that "selfish". You guys crack me up... you think b/c your fearless leader does something, that it mus, by definition be right. Really lame... really....

Again, you think what you guys did for 8 years, intentionally, and when Clinton wasn't a screw-up (IMO, of course, and in the opinion of most given his approval ratings when he left office) was ok.?

Hypocrisy at its finest.

Damn jillian, I think your coming around.

The Clinton years WERE hypocrisy at its finest, good of you to notice.:clap1:

 

[dilloduck]

Damn jillian, I think your coming around.

The Clinton years WERE hypocrisy at its finest, good of you to notice.:clap1:

Ya--It's getting more clear all the the time. The rage of the left over what conservatives did to Clinton has completely blinded them to what is happening now. They can't let go of thier thirst for revenge and will trash conservatives mercilessly and without reason other than to sate thier selfish emotional need for payback.

Reason
_______ = Sanity

Emotion

 

[Abbey Normal]

I know exactly who I am politically. I'm a moderate Republican. I play devil's advocate alot in order to further a debate. I ask questions, but I know what my positions are. The reason you get that "impression" from me is that my mind can be changed. I'm not so embedded in right wing ideology that I can't see where the other side comes from. Since you are analyzing me, you have probably gotten the impression that I shy away from extremism. Politically, I'm open to both sides of a debate. When it comes to litigation, I'm not.

Having a changeable mind is far different from playing devil's advocate, Fence. Personally, I think debates are much more interesting when people lay their cards on the table, so to speak, but it's your choice.

As for your comment, "Since you are analyzing me, you have probably gotten the impression that I shy away from extremism. Politically, I'm open to both sides of a debate.": Surely you know that people can have solid, core beliefs, know who they are, and not be extremist?

Regarding my law school comment, the vast majority of law schools are quite liberal, and hearing it all week from Professors you are eagerly trying to please for a good grade, works on your mind in insidious ways. It's not always apparent when you are in the thick of it, though. Of course, convincing libs of this point is difficult, as they always think they are moderates.

 

[Abbey Normal]

Nah... I really am a "reasonable liberal", I hope. Just this thread ticked me off.... lol... Comes from reading two days' worth of "unreasonable conservatives" diatribes. Plus, I knew that OFT is a right-of-center Republican. Didn't mean to lump you in.

Yes, we all get ticked at times. Well, except maybe No1toVote4, lol.

That's why we all need and so we don't do

 

[Dr Grump]

If the US were attacked like 9/11 during the blow-job years, I could have easily set Clintons' lies aside to fight those trying to destroy US.

Simply put...I don't believe you.

 

[dilloduck]

Simply put...I don't believe you.

of course not----you would then have to confront your own revenge bent irrational hatred.

 

[Dr Grump]

of course not----you would then have to confront your own revenge bent irrational hatred.

Er, no. I base it on your previous posts.....

 

[jillian]

Yes, we all get ticked at times. Well, except maybe No1toVote4, lol.

That's why we all need and so we don't do

Absotively...

Cheers!

 

[manu1959]

what message does danny glover high fiving chavez send to the terroists

what message does a non response by the us government to the cole bombing send the terrorists

what message does 50% of americans saying the US government is wrong send to the terrorist

i will tell you...it sends the message that americans do not have the stomache to defend themselves.....

because

if an al queda actor high fived george bush they would be tortured to death along with their family

if americans so much as enter a mosque the terorrist will capture and behead a dozen people on video

if 50% of iraq's oppose saddam the would be gassed

great line last night on the news when the Iranina leader was interviewed he asked the interviewer do you ask questions you are told to ask? anderson cooper said no....unlike iran we have a free press in america.

which means you can say and do whtever you like, but know when you talk shit about your country know that you are showing weakness to the enemy and when they come to kill you they will not allow you to speak ill of them.

 

[archangel]

what message does danny glover high fiving chavez send to the terroists

what message does a non response by the us government to the cole bombing send the terrorists

what message does 50% of americans saying the US government is wrong send to the terrorist

i will tell you...it sends the message that americans do not have the stomache to defend themselves.....

because

if an al queda actor high fived george bush they would be tortured to death along with their family

if americans so much as enter a mosque the terorrist will capture and behead a dozen people on video

if 50% of iraq's oppose saddam the would be gassed

great line last night on the news when the Iranina leader was interviewed he asked the interviewer do you ask questions you are told to ask? anderson cooper said no....unlike iran we have a free press in america.

which means you can say and do whtever you like, but know when you talk shit about your country know that you are showing weakness to the enemy and when they come to kill you they will not allow you to speak ill of them.

Danny did this?...I like him as a actor...and he made a mint off of Mels action movies...goes to show Hollywood actors should stick to their 'day jobs' Now I will find it extremely hard to watch the Gibson action movies he is in...***sigh*** whatever happened to the old Hollywood actors who actually took time off from their careers to serve?...I believe Korea and WWII was the last of them! Sure did not see any during my era...VN!

 

[dilloduck]

Er, no. I base it on your previous posts.....

Oh really ? Well since that situation never occurred we'll never know but I know that the Liberal revenge mind set is severely hurting our cause in the WOT. You would do anything possible to make sure Bush does not get credit for anything , especially succeeding in stomping terrorism.

Whiney Obstuctionists, all of ya.

 

[trobinett]

Oh really ? Well since that situation never occurred we'll never know but I know that the Liberal revenge mind set is severely hurting our cause in the WOT. You would do anything possible to make sure Bush does not get credit for anything , especially succeeding in stomping terrorism.

Whiney Obstuctionists, all of ya.

Ok, all you whiney obstuctionists, out behind the baseball dugout, 8:00pm, tuesday night.................:fu2:

 

[dilloduck]

Ok, all you whiney obstuctionists, out behind the baseball dugout, 8:00pm, tuesday night.................:fu2:

Amen brother--enough of this namby pamby shit. Time to kick some
Whiney Obstructionist ass !:bat:

 

[insein]

Danny did this?...I like him as a actor...and he made a mint off of Mels action movies...goes to show Hollywood actors should stick to their 'day jobs' Now I will find it extremely hard to watch the Gibson action movies he is in...***sigh*** whatever happened to the old Hollywood actors who actually took time off from their careers to serve?...I believe Korea and WWII was the last of them! Sure did not see any during my era...VN!

Go rewatch Lethal Weapon 4 and listen to some of his immigration dialogues. IT was Asian immigrants but he was saying it as a whole.

 

[CrimsonWhite]

Regarding my law school comment, the vast majority of law schools are quite liberal, and hearing it all week from Professors you are eagerly trying to please for a good grade, works on your mind in insidious ways. It's not always apparent when you are in the thick of it, though. Of course, convincing libs of this point is difficult, as they always think they are moderates.

I wouldn't say most Law Schools are liberal, but alot of professors are. Alot of plaintiffs advocates teach law, because they have a vast amount of court room experience. Also, law school is different than undergrad. You don't have to please the professor for a good grade. You simply have to show that you have thoroughly researched the material and presented a solid case. Believe it or not, politics of any kind rarely comes up in class. You have to worry more about other students views more than professors. My point is that grad school in general doesn't effect one's political beliefs. That is what your undergrad years are for(sarcasm).

My positions are solid on almost everything. If you have any questions as to what these positions are, just ask.

 

[nt250]

What a bunch of garbage. Why should I pretend I agree with anything that I don't so as to assuage your, apparently, delicate senisibilities.

If Bush does something right, I'll be happy to say so. And I've said he's good on at least one issue. But I'm not going to hold my tongue because neo-con extremists get offended. Y'all sure didn't worry about unity and the way we looked to the rest of the world when the psycho right harassed Bill Clinton for 8 years.

Read the that last sentence you wrote again.

Notice the word "pyscho". That's the key word here. Yes, the Clintons were ravaged by the most horrible accusations I've ever read about any politician in my memory (before George W. Bush). Everything from accusations of a marriage of convenience, to Hillary being a Lesbian, to accusations that Bill Clinton was a murderer. That he actually killed people. But the worst of those accusations were from the "psychos". People who didn't have access to the internet probably never heard of them. They were not reported in the mainstream press AT ALL, much less disguised as "news".

Now compare the coverage of VALID accusations against both Clintons and how those accusations WERE covered by the mainstream media, and how liberals and Democrats reacted to those VALID accusations. Starting with Gennifer Flowers, to Hillary's killing in the commodoties market, to White Water, to Bill Clinton's long history of womanizing including credible accusations of his sexual misconduct and the trashing of his accusors, to his impeachment for lying under oath.

What has George W. Bush done that is even close to anything that Clinton's may have done?

Nothing. The man voluteered for the National Guard at the height of the Vietnam War when he just as easily could have avoided service altogether. Yet not only does he get absolutely no credit at all he's called everything from a "deserter" to "AWOL" on the front page of every newspaper in the country. My local paper printed a editorial endorsing Kerry during the election and in it the writer said that Bush "didn't serve" at all. The following week the editor printed some of the letters he got correcting him and he ridiculed them.

When the memogate story broke I went to the news website I read first thing everyday and I found FOUR articles about it under their "Tops Story" banner. FOUR. All under "Top Stories", the first articles anyone who read that site would see. A couple of weeks later, when CBS retracted the story, there was ONE article. And that ONE article was under the Entertainment banner and it focused more on the dammage the story did to Dan Rather's career.

That's the big difference between how the Clinton's were treated and how George W. Bush is treated. The attacks against the Clinton's were from the fringe. The "psychos". Rarely repeated in the press and when they were, they were always qualified with the perceived motivations of those making the accusations.

The MSM did the exact same thing with the Swiftees. Look at the difference there. Bill Clinton got impeached because he lied under oath about having sex with an intern while he was being sued for sexual harrassment by a former state worker in Arkansas and even the "feminists" defended him and trashed both women involved. Bill Clinton was the second president in history to be impeached but the MSM never refers to it. But the Swiftees? I never read a single article during the entire election that didn't bring up their so-called "connections" with the "right wing" and how they were being funded by, represented by, or connected to, some Republican. As if what they said didn't matter at all.

Because what they said didn't matter. It never matters to liberals. The truth does not matter.

I'll give you one more example of the difference between the "psychos" who attacked Clinton and the mainstream who attack Bush.

A few years ago Bush's dog died. Spot. He was Millie's pup, I think. I still, to this day, cannot beleive the horrible things people said about it. Really cruel, horrible, things.

When Buddy got hit by a car? I didn't read those same kinds of things.

I'm not a Republican or a conservative. But I have a hell of a lot more respect for them and their arguments. Call it the dog lover in me.

 

[CrimsonWhite]

Read the that last sentence you wrote again.

Notice the word "pyscho". That's the key word here. Yes, the Clintons were ravaged by the most horrible accusations I've ever read about any politician in my memory (before George W. Bush). Everything from accusations of a marriage of convenience, to Hillary being a Lesbian, to accusations that Bill Clinton was a murderer. That he actually killed people. But the worst of those accusations were from the "psychos". People who didn't have access to the internet probably never heard of them. They were not reported in the mainstream press AT ALL, much less disguised as "news".

Now compare the coverage of VALID accusations against both Clintons and how those accusations WERE covered by the mainstream media, and how liberals and Democrats reacted to those VALID accusations. Starting with Gennifer Flowers, to Hillary's killing in the commodoties market, to White Water, to Bill Clinton's long history of womanizing including credible accusations of his sexual misconduct and the trashing of his accusors, to his impeachment for lying under oath.

What has George W. Bush done that is even close to anything that Clinton's may have done?

Nothing. The man voluteered for the National Guard at the height of the Vietnam War when he just as easily could have avoided service altogether. Yet not only does he get absolutely no credit at all he's called everything from a "deserter" to "AWOL" on the front page of every newspaper in the country. My local paper printed a editorial endorsing Kerry during the election and in it the writer said that Bush "didn't serve" at all. The following week the editor printed some of the letters he got correcting him and he ridiculed them.

When the memogate story broke I went to the news website I read first thing everyday and I found FOUR articles about it under their "Tops Story" banner. FOUR. All under "Top Stories", the first articles anyone who read that site would see. A couple of weeks later, when CBS retracted the story, there was ONE article. And that ONE article was under the Entertainment banner and it focused more on the dammage the story did to Dan Rather's career.

That's the big difference between how the Clinton's were treated and how George W. Bush is treated. The attacks against the Clinton's were from the fringe. The "psychos". Rarely repeated in the press and when they were, they were always qualified with the perceived motivations of those making the accusations.

The MSM did the exact same thing with the Swiftees. Look at the difference there. Bill Clinton got impeached because he lied under oath about having sex with an intern while he was being sued for sexual harrassment by a former state worker in Arkansas and even the "feminists" defended him and trashed both women involved. Bill Clinton was the second president in history to be impeached but the MSM never refers to it. But the Swiftees? I never read a single article during the entire election that didn't bring up their so-called "connections" with the "right wing" and how they were being funded by, represented by, or connected to, some Republican. As if what they said didn't matter at all.

Because what they said didn't matter. It never matters to liberals. The truth does not matter.

I'll give you one more example of the difference between the "psychos" who attacked Clinton and the mainstream who attack Bush.

A few years ago Bush's dog died. Spot. He was Millie's pup, I think. I still, to this day, cannot beleive the horrible things people said about it. Really cruel, horrible, things.

When Buddy got hit by a car? I didn't read those same kinds of things.

I'm not a Republican or a conservative. But I have a hell of a lot more respect for them and their arguments. Call it the dog lover in me.

 

[Abbey Normal]

I wouldn't say most Law Schools are liberal, but alot of professors are. Alot of plaintiffs advocates teach law, because they have a vast amount of court room experience. Also, law school is different than undergrad. You don't have to please the professor for a good grade. You simply have to show that you have thoroughly researched the material and presented a solid case. Believe it or not, politics of any kind rarely comes up in class. You have to worry more about other students views more than professors. My point is that grad school in general doesn't effect one's political beliefs. That is what your undergrad years are for(sarcasm).

My positions are solid on almost everything. If you have any questions as to what these positions are, just ask.

Fence, for all intents and purposes, the professors are the school. It's not the administration who are in the trenches agreeing, for example, with an invisible penumbra of privacy to promote a right that isn't in the Constitution.

I disgree about having to please the professors, but grades aside, it is the poisoning of young minds that concerns me more. When you have more distance from school, it may be more obvious. Judging by your statement that grad school has no effect, it is not very clear right now.

Anyway, good luck in law school. As for me, been there, done that, glad to have it over.

 

[KarlMarx]

You do realise you made the initial assertion, so really it should be yours to prove, but as you are too lazy to, I'll do YOUR research for you. I don't "decide" what links are valid - if they are right-wing blog they have an agenda. If it is Fox or Free Republic, ditto. And where have I ever said that anything that left-leaning media says IS credible.
Anyway, here's a snippet. As far as I know wikipedia has no political leanings, but they do demand citations from their contributors.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hugo_Chavez

Domestically, Chávez has launched Bolivarian Missions, whose goals are to combat disease, illiteracy, malnutrition, poverty, and other social ills.

After an extended period of popular dissatisfaction and economic decline[11] under the administration of President Carlos Andrés Pérez and the violent repression known as El Caracazo,[12] Chávez made extensive preparations for a military coup d'état.[13]


Chávez utilized his charisma and flamboyant public speaking style—noted for its abundance of colloquialisms and ribald manner—on the campaign trail to win the trust and favor of a primarily poor and working class following. By May 1998, Chávez's support had risen to 30% in polls, and by August he was registering 39%. Chávez went on to win the Carter Center-endorsed 1998 presidential election on December 6, 1998 with 56% of the vote.[13][25]

Chávez's first few months in office were dedicated primarily to dismantling what his supporters deemed puntofijismo via new legislation and constitutional reform, while his secondary focus was on immediately allocating more government funds to new social programs.

Lastly, the Venezuelan judiciary was reformed. Judges, under the new constitution, were now to be installed after passing public examinations and were not, as in the old manner, to be appointed by the National Assembly.

Elections for the new unicameral National Assembly were held on July 30, 2000. During this same election, Chávez himself stood for reelection. Chávez's coalition garnered a commanding two-thirds majority of seats in the National Assembly while Chávez was reelected with 60% of the votes. The Carter Center monitored the 2000 presidential election; their report on that election stated that, due to lack of transparency, CNE partiality, and political pressure from the Chávez government that resulted in unconstitutionally early elections, it was unable to validate the official CNE results.[32] However, they concluded that the presidential election legitimately expressed the will of the people.[33]

following Chávez's imposition of capital controls, inflation fell to 13.4% the lowest in 14 years,[35] while economic growth was steady at four percent.

The recall vote itself was held on August 15, 2004. A record number of voters turned out to defeat the recall attempt with a 59% "no" vote.[51][52] The election was overseen by the Carter Center and the Organization of American States, and was certified by them as fair and open.[

There's plenty there - both good and bad - but he is far from Hitler, and he is far from a dictator. Is there corruption in Venezuala? I'd say absolutely, but that was rife before Chavez came to power. As you can read from the whole link, he is definitely a champion of the poor, but like most socialist programmes, those who have the money don't want to give up, so a power struggle ensues. Is Chavez a good guy? Dunno - to some yes, others no, but to paint his as a dictator is not only untrue, it's kinda simplistic and lazy IMO. The situation is very complicated in that country. What you DO have is a US administration that hates socialism and the nationalising of certain assets. That is the real problem, and one way of making him a target is by demonising him.

Grump, you don't like the taste of your own medicine, do you? Me, lazy? Not at all, I know where Wikipedia is on my list of bookmarks. I merely did what you do to me and others on this board, get others to supply links, and do research while you just back and shoot them down. I rarely see you supply any back up for your claims, as others do. When you are challenged to do so, you have the same excuse, "well, YOU made the first claim, it's up to YOU to prove it". And considering that the best you could do is come up with Wikipedia, I can see who the lazy person is on this side of the argument.

Then, there's the "I decide what is a valid argument or evidence" thing you have. What's with that? Some kind of control thing that you have?

Anyway, I wasn't about to fall into that same trap with you again. Debating you is somewhat futile and I hope that others on this board see that, too.

 

[Dr Grump]

Grump, you don't like the taste of your own medicine, do you?

Um..what taste are you giving me??

Me, lazy? Not at all, I know where Wikipedia is on my list of bookmarks.

Really? Where is wikipedia? And if you are not lazy, why haven't you provided links to back up your POV? After all, you are the one who made the initial claim...

I merely did what you do to me and others on this board, get others to supply links, and do research while you just back and shoot them down.

No. If you look at my posts you will rarely see me making such asinine comments as yourself. You spout opinion and rarely, if ever, offer up facts.

I rarely see you supply any back up for your claims, as others do.

Really? What claims have I made. And of those claims, which have I never backed up? You mean like the answer to Chavez that I supplied...comprehensively, which you did not in your initial assertion?

When you are challenged to do so, you have the same excuse, "well, YOU made the first claim, it's up to YOU to prove it".

Hmmmm...here's a head's up for you Karl. When somebody makes a claim...as you did about Chavez...and you are called upon to back your claim, it is job to do so, not mine. If I made a claim about anything, and you called me on it, I'd back it up or else I wouldn't make the claim. Trying to make out that I was "challenged" is disingenuous. In order for me to be challenged, I'd have to make the initial claim. I didn't. You did. And anybody with a reading age, oh, of say...six years old..can see that...

And considering that the best you could do is come up with Wikipedia, I can see who the lazy person is on this side of the argument.

First off, at least I backed up my COUNTER-claim to your original one, which you even failed to address. Second, what is wrong with Wikipedia? Can you provide evidence that suggests that it is a bad source? In fact, if you had even bothered to read the link you would see that some of what is said about Chavez might even back up SOME of your claims. But being the lazy arse that you are, you didn't even bother did you?

Then, there's the "I decide what is a valid argument or evidence" thing you have. What's with that? Some kind of control thing that you have?

No, I do not decide what is a valid argument or evidence. Example: George Bush is president of the US. That is a fact. John Kerry is a traitor. That is not a fact. That is in the eye of the beholder. Ditto re blogs etc...capice?

Anyway, I wasn't about to fall into that same trap with you again. Debating you is somewhat futile and I hope that others on this board see that, too.

What trap is that? The one where you spout off opinion as fact, and when called upon to back up opinion, you fail to do so? Aye, I agree it is futile to debate you when you have nothing to offer. You know Karl, it is not lost on me that I spent some time on the link I provided, and gave you examples of what you wanted, and you failed to even ATTEMPT to dispute my POV. That in itself tells others on this board (well, those that are fair-minded) how lame your debating skills are. You are dismissed....