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

[Mr Man]

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.

LOL Just the ones who want to kill us........dead that is. The rest? C'mon in (legally of course) and let's have a shindig.

Have a great weekend.

 

[salmoneous]

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

No, because that wouldn't back up your point, would it. You said the never miss an opportuity. That statement was false. Showing that they published 5 leaked stories rather than 3 wouldn't prove your point, would it?

It appears to me that you have no issues with the NYT leaking information on secret programs,

I've said absolutely nothing that could lead you to that conclusion, have I?

I asked a simple question - why did you say something that wasn't true?

 

[Mugg Mann]

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.

There are hundreds of documented lies spoken by the President of the United States. You and others (JoeEpcotRocks, for example) simply can't bring yourself to admit that he has done so.

For example, In 1998, Dallas Morning News reporter Wayne Slater specifically asked Bush about his arrest record after information surfaced that he was arrested for disorderly conduct in 1966 when, as a student at Yale, he was busted for snatching a Christmas wreath in New Haven, Conn. "Asked whether he had been arrested on anything 'after 1968,'" Slater wrote, "the governor replied, 'No.'"
http://www.bushwatch.com/dwi2.htm

And here are the actual hard copies of Bush's 1976 arrest for drunk driving;
http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/bushdui1.html

Based on statements like yours above, I find absolutely no reason to take you the least bit seriously in debates, and I would advise others to do the same. As a reasonable person, if you are ever willing to concede that your words are factually incorrect, we can then look at the myriad of false statements uttered by this particular president and I'll give you the opportunity to revise some of your other opinions as well, since they are built on a false foundation of trust.

Remember, after 9/11, this president had the support of 90% of the country, and he's since lost well over half of that because in part people realized he couldn't be trusted.

Consider this an invitation to welcome you back into reality. Be aware, however, that it is a limited time offer.

 

[LuvDuke]

There are hundreds of documented lies spoken by the President of the United States. You and others (JoeEpcotRocks, for example) simply can't bring yourself to admit that he has done so.

For example, In 1998, Dallas Morning News reporter Wayne Slater specifically asked Bush about his arrest record after information surfaced that he was arrested for disorderly conduct in 1966 when, as a student at Yale, he was busted for snatching a Christmas wreath in New Haven, Conn. "Asked whether he had been arrested on anything 'after 1968,'" Slater wrote, "the governor replied, 'No.'"
http://www.bushwatch.com/dwi2.htm

And here are the actual hard copies of Bush's 1976 arrest for drunk driving;
http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/bushdui1.html

Based on statements like yours above, I find absolutely no reason to take you the least bit seriously in debates, and I would advise others to do the same. As a reasonable person, if you are ever willing to concede that your words are factually incorrect, we can then look at the myriad of false statements uttered by this particular president and I'll give you the opportunity to revise some of your other opinions as well, since they are built on a false foundation of trust.

Remember, after 9/11, this president had the support of 90% of the country, and he's since lost well over half of that because in part people realized he couldn't be trusted.

Consider this an invitation to welcome you back into reality. Be aware, however, that it is a limited time offer.

Part of the same group thinks this administration never lied about Iraq.

In August 2002 this is what Cheney said at the 103rd VFW Convention:

Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/08/20020826.html

We now know there was plent of doubt within the DIA, the CIA, the state department's intelligence group, the IAEA, etc. Cheney lied and Bush let him get away with it.

But when you ask Planet Bush "Yes or No: Did Cheney lie that day?", you get no answer. However, give it a little time and a Planet Bush resident will once again say Bush didn't lie about Saddam Hussein and WMD's.

It makes you wonder if it's delusion on Planet Bush or fear to admit their president is a lying sack of crap because then they'd have to admit they were wrong about everything and we were right.

 

[LakeAriel]

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

Well, I am uncertain whether or not YOU are Not living in a police State.
You thought it was fine when a man "Deep in the heart..." and all that..killed 2 thieves, shooting them in the back, with the police in the front yard. I have concluded from that and other posts you have made that you think you are (or insert any American or just white males, not sure about that) the judge, jury and executioner of whomever you deem is the enemy at the moment.

 

[Duckfan-in-Chicago]

Well, I am uncertain whether or not YOU are Not living in a police State.
You thought it was fine when a man "Deep in the heart..." and all that..killed 2 thieves, shooting them in the back, with the police in the front yard. I have concluded from that and other posts you have made that you think you are (or insert any American or just white males, not sure about that) the judge, jury and executioner of whomever you deem is the enemy at the moment.

Do you understand the difference between a police state and vigilante justice?

I did enjoy your first sentence, though. It brought back fond memories.

 

[Mr Man]

Well, I am uncertain whether or not YOU are Not living in a police State.
You thought it was fine when a man "Deep in the heart..." and all that..killed 2 thieves, shooting them in the back, with the police in the front yard. I have concluded from that and other posts you have made that you think you are (or insert any American or just white males, not sure about that) the judge, jury and executioner of whomever you deem is the enemy at the moment.

I am not a fan of "crossing threads" so will keep my comments on the other thread where it belongs. Suffice to say, my approach is consistent and is on the side of the private citizen acting within the law (which is slowly working it's way through this case). I do not weep for criminals.

I do find it "illuminating" that you appear to have issues with the following:

Me
White males
Americans (huh?)

Is this just a badly expressed thought on your end or is there some deeper animus against white americans (especially males)?

Diversity and tolerance are just spiffy in all things except opinion and anything to do with those "ogres" the white guy?

BTW, As you can tell from my avatar.....I'm just a simple Bear.......on the internet.

Regards,

 

[Mr Man]

There are hundreds of documented lies spoken by the President of the United States. You and others (JoeEpcotRocks, for example) simply can't bring yourself to admit that he has done so.

For example, In 1998, Dallas Morning News reporter Wayne Slater specifically asked Bush about his arrest record after information surfaced that he was arrested for disorderly conduct in 1966 when, as a student at Yale, he was busted for snatching a Christmas wreath in New Haven, Conn. "Asked whether he had been arrested on anything 'after 1968,'" Slater wrote, "the governor replied, 'No.'"
http://www.bushwatch.com/dwi2.htm

And here are the actual hard copies of Bush's 1976 arrest for drunk driving;
http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/bushdui1.html

Based on statements like yours above, I find absolutely no reason to take you the least bit seriously in debates, and I would advise others to do the same. As a reasonable person, if you are ever willing to concede that your words are factually incorrect, we can then look at the myriad of false statements uttered by this particular president and I'll give you the opportunity to revise some of your other opinions as well, since they are built on a false foundation of trust.

Remember, after 9/11, this president had the support of 90% of the country, and he's since lost well over half of that because in part people realized he couldn't be trusted.

Consider this an invitation to welcome you back into reality. Be aware, however, that it is a limited time offer.

I haven't been on this board for very long, but the few times I have seen posts from you they have involved ultimatums (I seem to recall "troll" being thrown at me before you said goodbye once).........am I missing something here? Why the limited time offer? If I accept this invitation, is there something of substance that can come from it beyond a recitation of Pres Bush's evil evil lies and a back-handed offer to "help" me see the error of my ways?

I am in reality. The reality is, the Democrats in Govt and their allies on the outside are playing a dangerous game with partisan politics that could open us up to calamity and perhaps even destroy the USA as we know it. That IMO is what this thread is about.

By all means, let us also discuss the disputed lies of Pres. Bush but do not presume to condescend to me in these discussions (unless we just HAVE to do it the "smash-mouth" way. You do yourself a great disrespect and deny the opportunity for honest exchange of ideas. JMO.

I assure you that I will do my best to keep things on the highest plane possible. If I stray (and inevitably I will at time hehe), you can always ask me to "tone it up".......

Regards,

 

[Mr Man]

No, because that wouldn't back up your point, would it. You said the never miss an opportuity. That statement was false. Showing that they published 5 leaked stories rather than 3 wouldn't prove your point, would it?

I've said absolutely nothing that could lead you to that conclusion, have I?

I asked a simple question - why did you say something that wasn't true?

Ok, permit me my hyperbolic statement (because such things are just not done on the CB lol).......for the record, the NYT does not "never miss an opportunity" to leak secret information pertaining to National Security that puts American lives at risk. I sincerely hope the secrets they do keep benefit all of us (and not just Democrats).

I seem to recall the NYT did their best to keep Judith Miller from giving up her "CI" in the Plame Affair after all. The NYT was so impressed by Judith's performance, they severed her as fast as they could when it was all done.........

Of course, the IP was a Democrat in this case (and the target was a Republican), which brings us back to where I started.......

Regards,

 

[Mr Man]

Dallas Morning News reporter Wayne Slater

Yes, Wayne Slater. He's the guy who started the "Rathergate" phony scandal (found Bill Burkett etc). That did not go too well as I recall for your side. Where is he now?

He had been trying to "get" GWB for years (Bush's Brain et al)

Never did.

Regards,

 

[Duckfan-in-Chicago]

I am in reality. The reality is, the Democrats in Govt and their allies on the outside are playing a dangerous game with partisan politics that could open us up to calamity and perhaps even destroy the USA as we know it. That IMO is what this thread is about.

To me both parties seem pretty equal when it comes to putting the good of the party over the good of the country. They all do whatever it takes to stay in power and keep their party in power.
Washington nailed it over 200 years ago:

They [political parties] serve to organize faction, to give it an artificial and extraordinary force; to put, in the place of the delegated will of the nation, the will of a party, often a small but artful and enterprising minority of the community

 

[profdsny]

Ok, permit me my hyperbolic statement (because such things are just not done on the CB lol).......for the record, the NYT does not "never miss an opportunity" to leak secret information pertaining to National Security that puts American lives at risk. I sincerely hope the secrets they do keep benefit all of us (and not just Democrats).

I seem to recall the NYT did their best to keep Judith Miller from giving up her "CI" in the Plame Affair after all. The NYT was so impressed by Judith's performance, they severed her as fast as they could when it was all done.........

Of course, the IP was a Democrat in this case (and the target was a Republican), which brings us back to where I started.......

Regards,

? This makes no sense. And, at best is ridiculous. The NYT only leaks secrets when it can put American lives at risk? Please.

 

[Mugg Mann]

I haven't been on this board for very long,

in this particular incarnation...

but the few times I have seen posts from you they have involved ultimatums (I seem to recall "troll" being thrown at me before you said goodbye once).........am I missing something here? Why the limited time offer? If I accept this invitation, is there something of substance that can come from it beyond a recitation of Pres Bush's evil evil lies and a back-handed offer to "help" me see the error of my ways?

I am in reality. The reality is, the Democrats in Govt and their allies on the outside are playing a dangerous game with partisan politics that could open us up to calamity and perhaps even destroy the USA as we know it. That IMO is what this thread is about.

By all means, let us also discuss the disputed lies of Pres. Bush but do not presume to condescend to me in these discussions (unless we just HAVE to do it the "smash-mouth" way. You do yourself a great disrespect and deny the opportunity for honest exchange of ideas. JMO.

I assure you that I will do my best to keep things on the highest plane possible. If I stray (and inevitably I will at time hehe), you can always ask me to "tone it up".......

Regards,

Let's sum up. You said the following;

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.

You've now been presented several times both here and on other political threads with cited direct lies uttered by this President, and each time you've tried somehow to dismiss or ignore them. I'd welcome an "honest exchange of ideas", but as long as you have a political belief system that has been proven immovable by fact, you keep disqualifying yourself from that particular discussion.

I will freely admit when I'm wrong, and have done so in the past when the situation warrants. In the interest of the "honest exchange of ideas", I heartily encourage you to do so here. If you are indeed incapable of doing that, then I stand by my post.

 

[Charade]

? This makes no sense. And, at best is ridiculous. The NYT only leaks secrets when it can put American lives at risk? Please.

No, when it provides the most political damage to the administration. The threat to US lives is just "collateral damage" and is unfortunate.

 

[LuvDuke]

No, when it provides the most political damage to the administration. The threat to US lives is just "collateral damage" and is unfortunate.

This could almost be laughable if people didn't actually believe it.

 

[Charade]

This could almost be laughable if people didn't actually believe it.

Well, if they (the NYT) consistently leaks info that can potentially harm US citizens, what are we supposed to think? That they thought long and hard about exposing something that may (or may not) be unconsititional is more important that the threat of danger to people if that information is exposed? Seems like their track record makes answering that question quite easy.

all you want. That's what I, and others, believe to be true. Can you prove me wrong?

 

[profdsny]

Well, if they (the NYT) consistently leaks info that can potentially harm US citizens, what are we supposed to think? That they thought long and hard about exposing something that may (or may not) be unconsititional is more important that the threat of danger to people if that information is exposed? Seems like their track record makes answering that question quite easy.

all you want. That's what I, and others, believe to be true. Can you prove me wrong?

Never mind proving you wrong. YOU prove your point. This nonsense about the NYT goes back as far as LBJ that I can recall. It was ridiculous then, as it is now. You are making the allegation, you back it up.

 

[LuvDuke]

Well, if they (the NYT) consistently leaks info that can potentially harm US citizens, what are we supposed to think? That they thought long and hard about exposing something that may (or may not) be unconsititional is more important that the threat of danger to people if that information is exposed? Seems like their track record makes answering that question quite easy.

all you want. That's what I, and others, believe to be true. Can you prove me wrong?

No one has to prove you wrong because the basis for your argument is wrong. Your entire premise is based on the idea that the Constitution, transparency in government, civil rights, open trials, warrants, privacy rights, bans on torture, etc. are a threat to your security. In other words, everything that makes the US, the US, threatens your sense of security.

There's where you people just don't get it. The greatest danger to the American people is not some religious nutjob holed up in the mountains of Pakistan. The greatest danger to the American people is the secret removal of our Constitutional rights. You may be all right with that, but most of us are not.

Yanno, I'm starting to believe there's a sizable group in this country who do not deserve this country and the Constitution it was built on.

 

[spima3]

Best response I have ever seen regarding the President lying.

In a movie, a drill sergeant talking to a recruit who didn't support the war because the President lied.

Drill Sergeant: "they all lie, and if you ever expect one to tell the truth, then you're a bigger fool than I thought you were."

Something to keep in mind.....

lori

 

[Charade]

No one has to prove you wrong because the basis for your argument is wrong. Your entire premise is based on the idea that the Constitution, transparency in government, civil rights, open trials, warrants, privacy rights, bans on torture, etc. are a threat to your security. In other words, everything that makes the US, the US, threatens your sense of security.

There's where you people just don't get it. The greatest danger to the American people is not some religious nutjob holed up in the mountains of Pakistan. The greatest danger to the American people is the secret removal of our Constitutional rights. You may be all right with that, but most of us are not.

Yanno, I'm starting to believe there's a sizable group in this country who do not deserve this country and the Constitution it was built on.

Actually, I think it's you that's got it wrong. I didn't say those were the threat, it is that nutjob holed up in Pakistan and all like him. You just can't (or refuse to) see it.

While I'm certain there are some Democrat leaders that will stop at nothing to gain more political power and couldn't really care who they crush along the way, I don't believe the majority of them do. Those are just misguided.

Yanno, if the US ever gets attacked like we did on 9/11 (or God forbid, worse), it will be real interesting to see the investigations on how it could have been prevented and/or who dropped the ball.

I really do believe that the actions by some politicians, people within the government and places like the NYT's do undermine our ability to keep us as safe as possible.

But they meant well...