So Iran doesn't have a nuclear program either...

[Mr Man]

Why are you concerned? It'll be a lovefest for you regardless of who takes the reigns in the Oval Office come next year. By your own admission, you blindly support every President regardless of party or damage done to the United States. Life must be just swell...

Of course I support the elected President. Blind is your word, not mine. This does not mean I agree with every single thing the President says or does. It DOES mean that I do not plot against him if I work for him.

Can you respect that such a distinction is possible?

It seems reasonable to me.

 

[Laugh O. Grams]

Actually, we are not getting answers because there is no evidence that Pres Bush lied. EVER. It is an emotion based argument based on feeling and not fact.

Take a look back through the responses on this thread for example. Most of the responses from the opposition could only be more emotive if they put on tap shoes, grabbed a walking cane, straw hat and burst into song!

It is entertaining stuff though.

I'll give you Righties one thing, the Bush Administration has definitely perfected the art of Mafia talk:

Bush: "You do that thing"
Cheney: "What thing?"
Bush: "You know, that thing!"
Cheney: "Oh, you mean Paulie?"
Bush: "Yeah."
Cheney: "Oh, Paulie. You won't see him no more"

 

[Mr Man]

I'm starting to feel like I'm kicking a puppy.

Ok, now I know......

 

[bsnyder]

It is entertaining stuff though.

Yes it is! Those suffering from BDS never disappoint!

 

[Mr Man]

I'll give you Righties one thing, the Bush Administration has definitely perfected the art of Mafia talk:

Bush: "You do that thing"
Cheney: "What thing?"
Bush: "You know, that thing!"
Cheney: "Oh, you mean Paulie?"
Bush: "Yeah."
Cheney: "Oh, Paulie. You won't see him no more"

Fugeddaboudit <--------------what he said. I don't know nuthin' about any such nohow......

 

[bsnyder]

If you see nothing disingenuous for our President, with full knowledge that Iran has no nuclear weapons program, hasn't had one for quite some time and while we're engaged in an extremely unpopular war of our own making right next door, to bring up visions of WWIII during a press conference, then I guess that this is the part where I say that we should agree to disagree.

What I see as disingenous is your incoherent view of this subject. You fully agree that Iran is not to be trusted, yet you don't want the President of the United States to hold and voice that same view?

Would you seriously argue that he should have answered the press conference question by announcing that we have new intelligence that says Iran has suspended their program?

 

[Mr Man]

I love the Bush-doublespeak:

1) "Terrorist Finance Tracking Program" - That includes all the financial transactions in the US whether terrorist, foreign, domestic, or paying your electric bill.

2) "NSA’s program to monitor the enemy’s international communications" - That includes every email, every phonecall, and every google search made in the last few years no matter who did it.

3) "CIA’s arrangements for our allies to detain high-level Qaeda operatives" - Translated that means we sent our detainees to our ally Syria to be tortured.

You got the Bush spiel down pat. Whoa, George, is that you?

These are pretty simplistic justifications for the NYT outing legal programs (based on leaks from "those who feel" in govt) that were put into place to monitor, apprehend and kill those who want us dead.

Perhaps we should consider a "nuanced" approach.

 

[Laugh O. Grams]

What I see as disingenous is your incoherent view of this subject. You fully agree that Iran is not to be trusted, yet you don't want the President of the United States to hold and voice that same view?

Would you seriously argue that he should have answered the press conference question by announcing that we have new intelligence that says Iran has suspended their program?

No, but he should not be talking of WWIII either. There is a little wiggle room, like a mile or so, between the two statements. It's called wisely choosing your words and the art of negotiation. Why does it have to be all or nothing with you people?

 

[Fitswimmer]

These are pretty simplistic justifications for the NYT outing legal programs (based on leaks from "those who feel" in govt) that were put into place to monitor, apprehend and kill those who want us dead.

Perhaps we should consider a "nuanced" approach.

I wouldn't trust this or any administration having a representative sitting in my living room monitoring what I read, who I talk to and what we say, what internet sites I frequent or what TV shows I watch-even if the person doing it would just about die of boredom. I just don't like the government having that much power to review my life.

If it's ok with you that this administration is for all intents and purposes doing just that, then I'm sure you'll be just fine when it's a Democratic administration monitoring your phone calls, your internet surfing, your purchase history and what books you read. Think for a minute how you will feel when President Hillary uses those same powers you had no problem granting GW Bush.

 

[Fitswimmer]

No, but he should not be talking of WWIII either. There is a little wiggle room, like a mile or so, between the two statements. It's called wisely choosing your words and the art of negotiation. Why does it have to be all or nothing with you people?

That's been my question all through this conversation. Why is it so black and white??

 

[LuvDuke]

These are pretty simplistic justifications for the NYT outing legal programs (based on leaks from "those who feel" in govt) that were put into place to monitor, apprehend and kill those who want us dead.

Perhaps we should consider a "nuanced" approach.

I've tried to take this seriously several times, but sometimes only one thing fits the situation perfectly: You can't make this stuff up.

 

[Laugh O. Grams]

These are pretty simplistic justifications for the NYT outing legal programs (based on leaks from "those who feel" in govt) that were put into place to monitor, apprehend and kill those who want us dead.

Perhaps we should consider a "nuanced" approach.

How about this, put the entire country on lock-down, block every American's access to banking and foreign travel, direct all local governments to institute 24 hour curfews, and suspend the Constitution? That'll teach those pesky terrorists that we mean real business!! It's all or nothing, baby!!

 

[salmoneous]

Am I now a liar (because only liars lie-pants on fire)?

Well, we are all liars at some point in our lives aren't we? And in this case, you said something that wasn't true.

Talk about "insulting" and "over the top".......hehehehehe.... ok, I'm not actually offended, I just think you are mistaken and being purposefully disingenuous.

Your statement that the NYT never misses an opportunity to leak information damaging to the US wasn't true, was it? I didn't mean to offend - I was just asking why you said something that wasn't true.

Events throughout the current administration suggest otherwise:

Look, you said they never miss an opportunity. How would you show that to be true? Or, more to the point, would the fact that they have published some information suggest that they haven't missed any opportunities? Most of us would say, "no". What do you say?

Do a quick search - see if you can't find info on stories the NYT held….

 

[LuvDuke]

How about this, put the entire country on lock-down, block every American's access to banking and foreign travel, direct all local governments to institute 24 hour curfews, and suspend the Constitution? That'll teach those pesky terrorists that we mean real business!! It's all or nothing, baby!!

But won't they be safer.

 

[Mr Man]

I wouldn't trust this or any administration having a representative sitting in my living room monitoring what I read, who I talk to and what we say, what internet sites I frequent or what TV shows I watch-even if the person doing it would just about die of boredom. I just don't like the government having that much power to review my life.

If it's ok with you that this administration is for all intents and purposes doing just that, then I'm sure you'll be just fine when it's a Democratic administration monitoring your phone calls, your internet surfing, your purchase history and what books you read. Think for a minute how you will feel when President Hillary uses those same powers you had no problem granting GW Bush.

Why do we assume that going after those who are trying to kill us automatically conflates with us losing our personal freedoms? One does not follow from the other.....it is a logical fallacy.

The Clintons already did this. Remember those pesky FBI files? LOL Regardless, I am still here and have lots and lots of personal freedom. Granted, tempered by responsibility. This sense of responsibility is what I see lacking from the current administration's critics.

I do understand your concerns and am not interested in living in a Police State either (visit enough of those on business). I submit that we are not living in a Police State. Far from it.

JMO

 

[profdsny]

I sometimes wonder where all this hate is going to go when George W. Bush is no longer President.

Will it simply transfer to the next President (R) or are some people going to have to consider therapy........

It doesn't sound healthy.

Well, we will still have the people who supported him all along and some how continue to think he's great. So, don't worry, there will be a place for our hatred. Thanks for being concerned.
Btw, I doubt if you'll see a R president again in your life time after the mess this guy has made.

 

[Laugh O. Grams]

Why do we assume that going after those who are trying to kill us automatically conflates with us losing our personal freedoms? One does not follow from the other.....it is a logical fallacy.

The Clintons already did this. Remember those pesky FBI files? LOL Regardless, I am still here and have lots and lots of personal freedom. Granted, tempered by responsibility. This sense of responsibility is what I see lacking from the current administration's critics.

I do understand your concerns and am not interested in living in a Police State either (visit enough of those on business). I submit that we are not living in a Police State. Far from it.

JMO

Ah yes, the travel brochures practical write themselves: "Come visit America! We're not apartheid era South Africa, far from it!" Makes the toes tingle, don't it!

That's it, I'm going home early. Regardless of your political persuasion, have a good weekend.

 

[Mr Man]

Well, we will still have the people who supported him all along and some how continue to think he's great. So, don't worry, there will be a place for our hatred. Thanks for being concerned.
Btw, I doubt if you'll see a R president again in your life time after the mess this guy has made.

I think it is refreshing that you admit you hate us. Honesty is the best policy. I am certain that I do not hate you (and have the added bonus of getting to forgive you over and over again). Woohoo!

BTW, I'll take that bet.......hehehehehe.........

 

[bsnyder]

No, but he should not be talking of WWIII either. There is a little wiggle room, like a mile or so, between the two statements. It's called wisely choosing your words and the art of negotiation. Why does it have to be all or nothing with you people?

The President was asked a question about Iran's nuclear weapons ambitions, and he had an answer with approximately 150 other words, all the rest of which were about the diplomatic efforts and how we don't have a beef with the Iranian people, just their current regime. You're fixated on one phrase in his answer to support a claim that he lied to us.

I"d say it's you that has the all or nothing problem.

 

[Mr Man]

Well, we are all liars at some point in our lives aren't we? And in this case, you said something that wasn't true.



Your statement that the NYT never misses an opportunity to leak information damaging to the US wasn't true, was it? I didn't mean to offend - I was just asking why you said something that wasn't true.



Look, you said they never miss an opportunity. How would you show that to be true? Or, more to the point, would the fact that they have published some information suggest that they haven't missed any opportunities? Most of us would say, "no". What do you say?

Do a quick search - see if you can't find info on stories the NYT held….

So, you would like for me to provide more examples of things that you can studiously ignore them and then change the subject........

It appears to me that you have no issues with the NYT leaking information on secret programs, even though it puts lives (American lives) at risk, because they may have held back on some other stories......stories that you have no personal interest in finding out about.......and if found you will ignore and move on to the next grievance.

Which hand do you cherry pick with? LOL.