Yet another bad day for the Shrub (Cheney's dyin', Satcher a loose cannon)

[TheLoneGunman]

Is it a coincidence that Cheney is going into the hospital for heart problems (when they open him up they will find that like most Republicans he is lacking one completely) and then Bush is not able to read his Surgeon General's report on sex? Bush is however able to criticize the report.

The difference is that Satcher is a respected (although not caucasian) doctor while Bush is the punchline in many a joke.

I hope Dennis Hastert refuses the presidency and they pick Strom Thurmond :heh:

[Markel]

Excuse me...your prejudice is showing.

[TheLoneGunman]

I am not a member of the party that trots out JC Watts every two years when they need a dark face to represent the Republicans and then whenever a serious issue comes up, they ignore him.

I did not support the "President" who appointed a Condaleza Rice simply because of her race and sex and then greatly diminished her role in policy making decisions.

I am not the one that kept dragging Colin Powell to all the "community events" that would concern African Americans and then once he was Secretary of State, reworked the foreign policy meetings so his actual role was considerably smaller.

I am not the one whose dad, also a former President, referred to his Hispanic offspring as "the little brown ones"

Nope, I don't believe I am the prejudiced one here.

[topane]

Man, you're worse than the creation scientists

[Markel]

Well, at least their not the source of:
Whitewater-gate
Travel-gate
File-gate
Monica-gate
Pardon-gate

There must be more, but I'm tired.

I liked a recent Smothers Brothers joke:

Abe Lincoln (Honest Abe) said, "I can't tell a lie."
Richard Nixon said, "I can't tell the truth."
Bill Clinton said, "I can't tell the difference."

[TheLoneGunman]

Originally posted by Markel
Well, at least their not the source of:
Whitewater-gate
Travel-gate
File-gate
Monica-gate
Pardon-gate

There must be more, but I'm tired.


You are correct. These unfounded investigations that spent HUNDREDS of MILLIONS of our tax money were products of the Republican congress.

[Markel]

Originally posted by TheLoneGunman
...when they open him up they will find that like most Republicans he is lacking one completely...

Nope, I don't believe I am the prejudiced one here.


I guess it depends on which of you is speaking.

[johnnymk]

From the fine mouth of Slick Willy: Whaddya mean by the word "Is" ?

[Markel]

Originally posted by TheLoneGunman

Originally posted by Markel
Well, at least their not the source of:
Whitewater-gate
Travel-gate
File-gate
Monica-gate
Pardon-gate

There must be more, but I'm tired.


You are correct. These unfounded investigations that spent HUNDREDS of MILLIONS of our tax money were products of the Republican congress.



Yeah, you must be right:
Whitewater - it was those Republicans that were into shakey land deals. (Just ask Vince Foster.)
Travel-gate - those Republicans should have never noticed the staff being fired.
File-gate - it must have been the Republicans that snuck those boxes into the Clintons' private quarters. (Let's fire the White House Security staff, too!)
Monica-gate - it was the Republicans sticking cigars where they didn't belong and staining blue dresses.
Pardon-gate - it was the Republicans steering the rich Democratic campaign donors to the pardoning machine.

Sure. Right. The Republicans made it all up. That must be what happened. (Wanna buy a bridge? :) )

[TheLoneGunman]

Republicans should think twice before they bring up pardons again.

The Shrub just hired a FELON that his dad pardoned:

http://news.excite.com/news/ap/010629/18/bush-abrams

Not that it was a payoff or anything...


As far as cigars... where exactly DO they belong?

[Speedfreak]

Originally posted by TheLoneGunman
Nope, I don't believe I am the prejudiced one here.

There can be more than one. What was all this talk about the Republicans mentioning Clinton's mistakes to offset Bush's mistakes in an argument? You just mentioned some of Bush's mistakes to answer to someone calling you prejudiced. :disa:

[johnnymk]

People conveniently use the terms "prejudiced" and "bigoted" as a last resort against people who are not politically correct. And believe me, political correctness in America changes with the wind.
Another over used word today is "tolerant". It is usually used BY people who ARE politically correct.

[Markel]

Quoting from the article at http://news.excite.com/news/ap/010629/18/bush-abrams:
"He pleaded guilty in 1991 to two misdemeanor counts of withholding information from Congress during the Iran-Contra affair. In court, Abrams admitted that he kept information from two congressional committees in the fall of 1986 when he testified about his knowledge of the secret Contra supply network and about his role in soliciting a $10 million contribution for the Contras from the Sultan of Brunei."

Does "two misdemeanor counts" constitute a convicted felon? (I think you're the one with a legal background, so I'll let you decide.)

At least he had the decency to plead guilty when he was confronted with the facts instead of trying to redefine the english language.

[fakesurfers]

Originally posted by johnnymk
From the fine mouth of Slick Willy: Whaddya mean by the word "Is" ?

Bush has essentially admitted that he used cocaine in his Clintonesque, carefully worded partial denials. He won't deny using cocaine or marijuana, though under persistent questioning he said that he hadn't used cocaine in the last 7 years. Most newspapers report that he denies using cocaine since 1974, but that's not exactly true.

That is the most favorable interpretation of what Bush said, but since Bush and his campaign have already made Clintonesque denials on other issues, we need to look at his words carefully.

What Bush actually said was ""I could have passed the [FBI] background check on the standards applied on the most stringent conditions when my dad was president of the United States - a 15-year period," Mr. Bush said. This is ambiguous because background forms ask slightly different questions, depending on the position. Drug questions can go back one year, seven years or 10 years. Bush Jr. didn't have any formal position in his father's administration, so which one applies is unclear. And 15-years is not one of the choices.

Since Bush Sr.'s presidency began in January 1989, reporters assumed that Jr. was denying drug use for 15 years before that, to 1974. But that is not at all clear. His only direct statement was for seven years before today. He could easily have been denying drug use only for 15 years before today, based on 7 or 10 years dating back from the END of his dad's term. 10 years before 1993, the end of Bush Sr.'s term, is pretty close to 15 years before today.

The Clinton administration actually has a stricter standard than Bush did -- the FBI now asks about any drug use after age 18. But Governor Bush has refused to say whether he would pass that standard, even though that is what he will be asked if he wins. Bush also has refused to answer whether he could have passed the FBI test when his father was vice president, during the 8 years from 1981-1989.

I couldn't resist adding this. How do you Busch lovers explain this?

[fakesurfers]

I couldnt resist one more. What is the penalty in your area if you get 2 DWI's in less than a year?

http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/art/cheneydwi1.gif
http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/art/cheneydwi2.gif

He may not have a heart, but he's got one hell of liver :laugh:

[fakesurfers]

that, my friends, is how you kill a thread.
*takes bow*

[jase71]

Ah well, Fakesurfers, I had to jump in... sorry!



Originally posted by Markel
Well, at least their not the source of:
Whitewater-gate
Travel-gate
File-gate
Monica-gate
Pardon-gate



You might want to brush up on Iran-Contra, which dwarfs anything Clinton did while in office. It also happens to dwarf Nixon's Watergate scandal, for that matter. Reagan should have been impeached.

As for Pardon-gate, one only needs to examine Bush Sr.'s Pardon record to find that he (like Clinton) had a nice pardon in exchange for a sizable contribution to his library.

Or course, Bush Sr. also pardoned everyone under the sun attached to the Iran-Contra affair, so that they couldn't come back and testify against him later. How much air time did THAT get on the "liberal media"? Nothing like using pardons to cover your own ass, eh? And I thought only Democrats did that... silly me!