certainly in a timely manner

BlaiseDaley wrote:

Brandon9000 wrote:
BlaiseDaley wrote:
Brandon9000 wrote:
BlaiseDaley wrote:
Brandon9000 wrote:
Green Witch wrote:
All crooked roads lead to Bush.

(Hey Chai, what color toe polish do you want?)

Isn't it odd that not one single thing can be proven against him formally?

Was there a trial I didn't hear about?

If anything could have been proven against him, there would have been. In fact, though, it is all wishful thinking by the libs. Were it not, something would have been provable, if he is so corrupt.

As I recall it wasn't until Clinton's second term that his escapades fully caught up with him.

The suggestion is that if he were committing crimes left and right starting with going AWOL from the Guard, at some point, something would have been provable. Since none of the million accusations against him has ever been at a level that it could be charged legally, then it is likely that most or all of the accusations have been irresponsible nonsense.
But Bush is accused of being Satan incarnate.

And the suggestion is there is some sort of time limit for when what he's done comes to light?

0 Replies

Still no opinion re. the likelihood of Bush actually having cosy chats with Abramoff yet, eh Brandon?

C'mon....you KNOW you can do it if you really try.

1. It is almost certain that a person such as Abramoff would have aimed for the top.

2. It is pretty clear that GWB is a person of limited intelligence, who is surrounded by a cohort of people who are primarily motivated by self interest.

3. The evidence is already there, that many, many top flight politicians have taken significant "contributions" from Abramoff.

4. Most of those oily money grabbers have GWB as their boss.

Q. What is, in your opinion, the likelihood that GWB, had NO clue as to what was going on?

Q. What is the likelihood that he only knew Abramoff as someone he occasionally shook hands with at parties?

0 Replies

The stonewalling, executive privilege, a media controlled by neocons, a compliant no complicit (a better description) Congress and Supreme Court are inhibiting factors in seeking the truth.

0 Replies

Lord Ellpus wrote:

Still no opinion re. the likelihood of Bush actually having cosy chats with Abramoff yet, eh Brandon?

C'mon....you KNOW you can do it if you really try.

1. It is almost certain that a person such as Abramoff would have aimed for the top.

2. It is pretty clear that GWB is a person of limited intelligence, who is surrounded by a cohort of people who are primarily motivated by self interest.

3. The evidence is already there, that many, many top flight politicians have taken significant "contributions" from Abramoff.

4. Most of those oily money grabbers have GWB as their boss.

Q. What is, in your opinion, the likelihood that GWB, had NO clue as to what was going on?

Q. What is the likelihood that he only knew Abramoff as someone he occasionally shook hands with at parties?

If Bush were committing crimes left and right starting with going AWOL from the Guard, at some point, something would have been provable. Since none of the million accusations against him has ever been at a level that it could be charged legally, then it is likely that most or all of the accusations have been irresponsible nonsense. And that's my opinion.

0 Replies

Brandon9000 wrote:

Lord Ellpus wrote:
Still no opinion re. the likelihood of Bush actually having cosy chats with Abramoff yet, eh Brandon?

C'mon....you KNOW you can do it if you really try.

1. It is almost certain that a person such as Abramoff would have aimed for the top.

2. It is pretty clear that GWB is a person of limited intelligence, who is surrounded by a cohort of people who are primarily motivated by self interest.

3. The evidence is already there, that many, many top flight politicians have taken significant "contributions" from Abramoff.

4. Most of those oily money grabbers have GWB as their boss.

Q. What is, in your opinion, the likelihood that GWB, had NO clue as to what was going on?

Q. What is the likelihood that he only knew Abramoff as someone he occasionally shook hands with at parties?

If Bush were committing crimes left and right starting with going AWOL from the Guard, at some point, something would have been provable. Since none of the million accusations against him has ever been at a level that it could be charged legally, then it is likely that most or all of the accusations have been irresponsible nonsense. And that's my opinion.

Well, MY opinion is that if a failed businessman of limited intelligence from an overpriviledged family got to be the leader of the most powerful nation on earth, purely by his brother seeing to it that a crucial vote went his way, while his Daddy made sure that his old buddies in the supreme court found nothing wrong with the whole thing, then a minor matter of having slimy dealings with a behind the scenes palm greaser will have probably been regarded as part of his daily routine.

Someone who believes that GWB would never enter into anything dishonorable, would probably be the sort of person who also believes that women never fart.

0 Replies

<AHEM>..............(with thanks to BVT, for entering this on another thread)

http://www.wral.com/news/6192996/detail.html

White House Won't Release Details Of Abramoff Visits

POSTED: 7:43 pm EST January 17, 2006

WASHINGTON -- The White House is refusing to reveal details of lobbyist Jack Abramoff's visits with President George W. Bush's staff.

According to Press Secretary Scott McClellan, Abramoff had "a few" such meetings. But the spokesman won't say when or with whom. Nor will he say which interests Abramoff was representing -- or how he got access to the White House.

Abramoff pleaded guilty two weeks ago to mail fraud and tax evasion charges in an influence-peddling scandal that's involved a dozen-plus members of Congress.

Abramoff was also a top fundraiser for Bush's re-election campaign -- and attended two holiday receptions at the White House.

Earlier McClellan promised a "thorough" report on the lobbyist's meetings with White House staff. But now he says he won't go beyond previous comments.

0 Replies

Lord Ellpus wrote:

Brandon9000 wrote:
Lord Ellpus wrote:
Still no opinion re. the likelihood of Bush actually having cosy chats with Abramoff yet, eh Brandon?

C'mon....you KNOW you can do it if you really try.

1. It is almost certain that a person such as Abramoff would have aimed for the top.

2. It is pretty clear that GWB is a person of limited intelligence, who is surrounded by a cohort of people who are primarily motivated by self interest.

3. The evidence is already there, that many, many top flight politicians have taken significant "contributions" from Abramoff.

4. Most of those oily money grabbers have GWB as their boss.

Q. What is, in your opinion, the likelihood that GWB, had NO clue as to what was going on?

Q. What is the likelihood that he only knew Abramoff as someone he occasionally shook hands with at parties?

If Bush were committing crimes left and right starting with going AWOL from the Guard, at some point, something would have been provable. Since none of the million accusations against him has ever been at a level that it could be charged legally, then it is likely that most or all of the accusations have been irresponsible nonsense. And that's my opinion.

Well, MY opinion is that if a failed businessman of limited intelligence from an overpriviledged family got to be the leader of the most powerful nation on earth, purely by his brother seeing to it that a crucial vote went his way, while his Daddy made sure that his old buddies in the supreme court found nothing wrong with the whole thing...

There is that tiny matter of about half the people voting for him.....Incidentally, which part of the Supreme Court's written decision do you disagree with?

Lord Ellpus wrote:

...then a minor matter of having slimy dealings with a behind the scenes palm greaser will have probably been regarded as part of his daily routine.

Someone who believes that GWB would never enter into anything dishonorable, would probably be the sort of person who also believes that women never fart.

I never said he wouldn't, genius, I said that you can't be as corrupt as he is accused of being without at some point having someone at least formally charge you with something. There has never been enough evidence to charge him with any crime at all, which belies the liberal idea that he is violating laws day in and day out.

0 Replies

I've had my suspicions for quite some time, but now I truly believe that Brandon is George Bush.

There couldn't possibly be two people on the planet with the same skewed thought process.

Could there?

0 Replies

gustavratzenhofer wrote:

I've had my suspicions for quite some time, but now I truly believe that Brandon is George Bush.

There couldn't possibly be two people on the planet with the same skewed thought process.

Could there?

Well, with an airtight defense of the liberal position like this fine piece of debate, you must be right.

0 Replies

Go back to what you were doing to Cheney.

0 Replies

gustavratzenhofer wrote:

Go back to what you were doing to Cheney.

The liberals on this board never seem to be able to muster actual debating arguments to defend their positions. Their style, instead, to try and impeach the bearer of the conservative opinion.

0 Replies

Sounds like a damn fine plan to me.

0 Replies

Brandon9000 wrote:

........ I said that you can't be as corrupt as he is accused of being without at some point having someone at least formally charge you with something. There has never been enough evidence to charge him with any crime at all, which belies the liberal idea that he is violating laws day in and day out.

I am glad that you acknowledge that I cannot be as corrupt as he is accused of being.

As far as GWB is concerned, I tend to go along with the "no smoke without fire" principle. When there is a lot of smoke, chances are it's a bush fire.

I think there are a few panicking firefighters searching through the records of the White House at the moment, in an effort to sanitise the place before a potential Abramoff investigation arrives.
They are also praying that Abramoff doesn't have anything incriminating in amongst his own personal papers.

This whole thing, I believe, is going to get VERY interesting before too long.

0 Replies

Yes it is, Lord. Stay tuned.

0 Replies

Lord Ellpus wrote:

Brandon9000 wrote:
........ I said that you can't be as corrupt as he is accused of being without at some point having someone at least formally charge you with something. There has never been enough evidence to charge him with any crime at all, which belies the liberal idea that he is violating laws day in and day out.

I am glad that you acknowledge that I cannot be as corrupt as he is accused of being.

As far as GWB is concerned, I tend to go along with the "no smoke without fire" principle. When there is a lot of smoke, chances are it's a bush fire....

I'll say that the next time I sit on a jury: "Guilty, your honor. We figure, where there's smoke, there's fire."

0 Replies

Brandon can't see that the ones protecting Bush have insulated him from even being charged. Soon it will change as it unravels.

0 Replies

Brandon, doesn't even the appearance of impropriety here turn on the light bulb for you? If in fact there's nothing here, why couldn't McClellan spill his guts about why Abramoff was there, who he saw, and what was discussed. This continual secretive deception in these press conferences only begs for more questions..

0 Replies

And now Brandon is gonna say they need to keep the meetings private because of "National security".....
Then he's gonna go: 9/11!!!! Saddam!!! WMD!!! We went to war to liberate!!! HE never said that!!! etc etc etc....

0 Replies

BlaiseDaley wrote:

Brandon9000 wrote:
BlaiseDaley wrote:
Brandon9000 wrote:
Green Witch wrote:
All crooked roads lead to Bush.

(Hey Chai, what color toe polish do you want?)

Isn't it odd that not one single thing can be proven against him formally?

Was there a trial I didn't hear about?

If anything could have been proven against him, there would have been. In fact, though, it is all wishful thinking by the libs. Were it not, something would have been provable, if he is so corrupt.

As I recall it wasn't until Clinton's second term that his escapades fully caught up with him.

It is interesting that BD quotes Brandon, but Brandon's post does not match the quoted post. This suggests that even Brandon was able to see he was setting up a strawman about "libs," and edited it while BD was replying.

Personally, i've never accused the Shrub of corruption, just gross and painfully embarrassing hebetude and stupidity. I have consistently pointed out that he touts the PNAC agenda, an agenda devised by venal and corrupt politicians from the Reagan administration. That is why i constantly refer to the Shrub and his Forty Theives of Baghdad. Even by Brandon's surreal standards, my point of view seems to be getting significant corroberation, at least in so far as regards the small fish. The question now is if and when any of the big fish will be netted. That creep Cheney dodged the bullet on the "energy policy" task force--not being obliged to reveal the details as Hillary Clinton was forced to reveal the details of her Health Care task force. I put "energy policy" in quote marks because it seems an awfully ironic term to use for raping the taxpayers and giving away the whole damned candy store.

0 Replies

Brandon9000 wrote:

gustavratzenhofer wrote:
Go back to what you were doing to Cheney.

The liberals on this board never seem to be able to muster actual debating arguments to defend their positions. Their style, instead, to try and impeach the bearer of the conservative opinion.

Brandon, who never musters any facts at all, just paranoid opinion, invariably whines about being attacked.

0 Replies

certainly in a timely manner

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know