George W. Bush: The Pros and the Cons

[rtwngAvngr]

Geez, I thought this was a thread where we just listed our views, I didn't realize we could attack others. I've really wasted a lot of time!

 

[jones]

I get your point, but its not applicable in this situation.
We KNOW its from a whitehouse senior administration official. You know why? Because Bob Novak told everyone so he wouldnt be liable.

acceptable in court? Is that what I need? Evidence ready for court hearing? you must be kidding.. ya, so lets setup a mock court room woohoo. ORDER!

 

[jimnyc]

Originally posted by jones
I get your point, but its not applicable in this situation.
We KNOW its from a whitehouse senior administration official. Lets

acceptable in court? Is that what I need? Evidence ready for court hearing? you must be kidding.. ya, so lets setup a mock court room woohoo. ORDER!

We "KNOW" this? Please provide absolute proof.

 

[Bullypulpit]

"...<i>You don't get this far in politics without knowing how to effectively communicate with people</i>... " - Jimmync

Actually you can if you've been handed everything youv'e ever gotten as Dubbyuh has. If his last name wasn't Bush, he'd be pumping gas in some dusty little Texas hell-hole and drinking himself stupider than he already is every night.

 

[jimnyc]

Originally posted by Bullypulpit
"...<i>You don't get this far in politics without knowing how to effectively communicate with people</i>... " - Jimmync

Actually you can if you've been handed everything youv'e ever gotten as Dubbyuh has. If his last name wasn't Bush, he'd be pumping gas in some dusty little Texas hell-hole and drinking himself stupider than he already is every night.

And you can show us proof that his political career was handed to him any differently than other politicians?

And you can show us proof that he is currently drinking?

Can you do that for us, or am I asking too much?

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Originally posted by Bullypulpit
"...<i>You don't get this far in politics without knowing how to effectively communicate with people</i>... " - Jimmync

Actually you can if you've been handed everything youv'e ever gotten as Dubbyuh has. If his last name wasn't Bush, he'd be pumping gas in some dusty little Texas hell-hole and drinking himself stupider than he already is every night.

You say "pumping gas" like it's not an exciting, fulfilling career option! I'm telling loudbeagle!

 

[jones]

http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/10/10/leak.main/index.html

In his July 14 column, Novak said the information came from senior administration officials.

"We are at risk of seeing this investigation so compromised that those responsible for this national security breach will never be identified and prosecuted," the senators wrote.

 

[jimnyc]

Originally posted by jones
http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/10/10/leak.main/index.html

In his July 14 column, Novak said the information came from senior administration officials.

"We are at risk of seeing this investigation so compromised that those responsible for this national security breach will never be identified and prosecuted," the senators wrote.

And what part of this NOT BEING PROOF don't you understand? If it met the criteria of 'proof', charges would have been filed already. You have nothing, Jones, give it up!

You are making conclusions based on rumors, innuendo and hearsay - they DO NOT provide proof of anything other than peoples opinions at this point.

 

[jones]

I'm wondering what you consider proof. Do you have an example for me? Would you like a copy of the conversation between the official and Bob Novak? I dont have that.

You act like Bob Novak DIDN't say it was a top white house official.

 

[jimnyc]

Originally posted by jones
I'm wondering what you consider proof. Do you have an example for me? Would you like a copy of the conversation between the official and Bob Novak? I dont have that.

You act like Bob Novak DIDN't say it was a top white house official.

An admission. A recording. First hand evidence. Videotapes. Judgement by a court of law. Paperwork evidence.

Anything else is simply hearsay or unsubstantiated rumors. I'm not saying it's impossible, I'm just saying there is no proof as of yet.

I never said I DIDN'T shoot JFK, does that mean it was likely me hiding in the grassy knoll? Or If I say "It was Jones", does that mean it was in fact you, or would proof be necessary before a conviction?

 

[jones]

An admission. A recording. First hand evidence. Videotapes. Judgement by a court of law. Paperwork evidence.

Bob Novak admitted that it was a top white house official.
How can you expect me to produce further such evidence? Im not in the investigation. But I get your point...Please stop asking for evidence I cant provide. Im not forcing you to believe what I do.

"I'm also not very analytical. You know I don't spend a lot of time thinking about myself, about why I do things." —George W. Bush, aboard Air Force One, June 4, 2003

 

[Bullypulpit]

"<i><b>And you can show us proof that his political career was handed to him any differently than other politicians?

And you can show us proof that he is currently drinking?

Can you do that for us, or am I asking too much?</b></i>" - jimmynyc

Never said he was still drinking, he shows all the classic symptoms of being a dry drunk though. And as for his checkered carreer, its all a matter of public record.

 

[jimnyc]

Originally posted by jones
Bob Novak admitted that it was a top white house official.
How can you expect me to produce further such evidence? Im not in the investigation. But I get your point...Please stop asking for evidence I cant provide. Im not forcing you to believe what I do.

Criminals "admit" who actually performed crimes every day. The police and judges are usually smart enough to wait until they have proof before making convictions.

You ended it perfectly, it's your belief. I don't fault you for that. I just don't think your beliefs should be passed off as proof or fact.

 

[jimnyc]

Originally posted by Bullypulpit
"<i><b>And you can show us proof that his political career was handed to him any differently than other politicians?

And you can show us proof that he is currently drinking?

Can you do that for us, or am I asking too much?</b></i>" - jimmynyc

Never said he was still drinking, he shows all the classic symptoms of being a dry drunk though. And as for his checkered carreer, its all a matter of public record.

What is a dry drunk, and how does it have an effect on his ability to properly run the country?

And I have looked over his career. I see nothing handed to him, no more than any other politician before him. Feel free to offer sources to prove me wrong though.

 

[jones]

You asked for an admission, I got you one. Im not making a convinction. Yes, I "believe" Bob Novak is telling the truth, because I "believe" he would do that to save his own ass. I saw him interviewed on meet the press. He looked scared and didnt answer key questions.
I have certain FACTS that lead me to believe something.
Like what Bob Novak said. And what the administration said. And the way they are treating the investigation. like assigning Ashcroft as to investigator guy, then resigned from the position few days ago. Whoops!

 

[jimnyc]

Originally posted by jones
You asked for an admission, I got you one.

Sorry to burst your bubble, but what you have is an accusation, not an admission.

 

[jones]

Mmm, I dont think so. Basically same damn thing.

He admitted to reporters that it was a top white house official.

He accused the whitehouse of giving him the name of CIA operative.

Dont wanna drag this out again. Can we agree to disagree?

 

[jimnyc]

Mmm, I dont think so. Basically same damn thing.

An admission and an accusation are the same thing?

He admitted to reporters that it was a top white house official.

No, when questioned by reporters he accused a top white house official. The official denied it. There was no admission anywhere in there.

He accused the whitehouse of giving him the name of CIA operative.

Now we're getting somewhere! Like I said, no admission, just an unsubstantiated accusation.

Dont wanna drag this out again. Can we agree to disagree?

No problem here, just stop stating things as facts when they aren't. I know you want very badly to believe the white house administration is responsible for the leak, but at least wait for the investigation to be completed, or some proof to be shown before closing the case with a conviction.

 

[jones]

Look at my sentences, just compare them.

He admitted to reporters that it was a top white house official. This one implys truth, like a confession. Why wouldnt i write it like this.

He accused the whitehouse of giving him the name of CIA operative. This one gives the impression that he could be lying.

End result is the same.

In his July 14 column, Novak said the information came from senior administration officials.

It was in his article. You think he lied about who he got it from??

My opinion is the investigation wont be finished until after 2004 election. If its before that, Id be doin the happy dance.

 

[jimnyc]

Originally posted by jones
Look at my sentences, just compare them.

He admitted to reporters that it was a top white house official. This one implys truth, like a confession. Why wouldnt i write it like this.

He accused the whitehouse of giving him the name of CIA operative. This one gives the impression that he could be lying.

End result is the same.

When one person says another did something, and the other person denies it, you have an accusation and a denial. How do you see any type of admission as far as the leak is concerned? Write it any way you like, there's still no admission from anyone in the whitehouse.

It was in his article. You think he lied about who he got it from??

If he said the information cam from Mickey Mouse, would you be saying that Disney made an admission?

Look, he laid the blame on someone. That someone denied it. That doesn't add up to an admission. There would be a lot more people in prisons if all it took to find them guilty was to accuse them.