3
   

Bush supporters' aftermath thread II

 
 
Anon-Voter
 
  1  
Reply Sat 11 Feb, 2006 03:21 pm
Stradee wrote:
ok, Laura got upset with her boyfriend and offed him at an intersection.

Ted was drunk, drove off a bridge, and probably forgot there was a passenger in the car!

Can we please stop the stupid argument cause nobody from the forum was even there!


Yea, we been there before ... at length. I actually used that Laura argument, and it sent the rightwingers into orbit!!

I frankly don't give a ****, which is the statement that I left with MM last time he interjected this "evidence". I just think it's ludicrous to make it sound like some kind of murder or such. They got in a drunken accident, she died. Happened to many kids, many people. That's why we have the much more stringent laws today. Back then, Drunk Driving didn't carry the same stigma as it does now.

Rightwingers start this **** every time Kennedy does something to piss them off, which is often!!

Anon
0 Replies
 
Stradee
 
  1  
Reply Sat 11 Feb, 2006 03:34 pm
Anon, that or Clinton n' Monica. tsk tsk

Seems right wing supporters would rather laugh all the way to the bank, then look at the administration for what it is.

Bush lied [/I]thousands died.

Hows that for a giggle...
0 Replies
 
mysteryman
 
  1  
Reply Sat 11 Feb, 2006 03:51 pm
anon,
My "right wing proof" as you call it is neither rightwing or proof.
It is simply a site that has posted the police report,along with the photo's of the accident scene.

Are you saying that the police that investigated are "right wing" also?
0 Replies
 
Anon-Voter
 
  1  
Reply Sat 11 Feb, 2006 04:01 pm
mysteryman wrote:
anon,
My "right wing proof" as you call it is neither rightwing or proof.
It is simply a site that has posted the police report,along with the photo's of the accident scene.

Are you saying that the police that investigated are "right wing" also?


Ah Yes, we can see how unbaised and even Y TED K is. Undoubtedly a mainstream news reporting agency. You can tell by it's wide coverage of all the current concerns of the day.

By the way, it has always been my observation that most Police are conservative and probably Republican. They are by in large, right of center!

Anon
0 Replies
 
mysteryman
 
  1  
Reply Sat 11 Feb, 2006 04:10 pm
Then anon,
I suggest you ask the local police.
They will give you the exact same reports and photogfraphs as are posted on the site I linked to.
And seeing as they are Mass cops,they probably voted for Kennedy anyway.

BTW,
Kevin is going to open his site so that anyone can read what is posted,but only those registered can post.

So,that means that the words you have accused me of "misquoting",will be availiable for everyone to read.
So,still wanna say I misquoted you?
0 Replies
 
Stradee
 
  1  
Reply Sat 11 Feb, 2006 04:44 pm
Anon, if its any consolation, me and a few other people here at the forum read your postings at the seattle site.

Nothing i saw or read could be construed as 'lieing' or whatever some moderators thought. Who cares.
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Sat 11 Feb, 2006 04:53 pm
Strange. Paul Pillar presents a very different view in his book. I think the writer of the piece may be representing either his words or his intentions.

http://www.debate-central.org/images/book1.gif

Terrorism and U.S. Foreign Policy
In this critical study, Paul R. Pillar insists that we still have more to fear from conventional methods of terror like hijackings than from exotic forms like biological and chemical strikes. In addition, Pillar, a career CIA officer, identifies the necessary elements of counterterrorist policy, examines why the United States is a prime terrorist target, and reveals why the counterterrorist policies that seem strongest are not always the most effective.
0 Replies
 
mysteryman
 
  1  
Reply Sat 11 Feb, 2006 04:54 pm
Stradee wrote:
Anon, if its any consolation, me and a few other people here at the forum read your postings at the seattle site.

Nothing i saw or read could be construed as 'lieing' or whatever some moderators thought. Who cares.



I never claimed he lied about what he said.
I wanted to know if he still laughs when American soldiers die,or if he still thinks its funny that Pat Tillman was killed.

As you can see,he still does.
At least he finally admitted it.That was all I wanted to know.

I do find it interesting however,that he finally admits to saying it,after he finds out that EVERYONE will be able to see that he wrote it and that I was telling the truth about what he said.
0 Replies
 
Anon-Voter
 
  1  
Reply Sat 11 Feb, 2006 04:56 pm
Notice the coward still won't post the answer I put here for him days ago Rolling Eyes

Anon
0 Replies
 
Stradee
 
  1  
Reply Sat 11 Feb, 2006 05:13 pm
mysteryman wrote:
Stradee wrote:
Anon, if its any consolation, me and a few other people here at the forum read your postings at the seattle site.

Nothing i saw or read could be construed as 'lieing' or whatever some moderators thought. Who cares.



I never claimed he lied about what he said.
I wanted to know if he still laughs when American soldiers die,or if he still thinks its funny that Pat Tillman was killed.

As you can see,he still does.
At least he finally admitted it.That was all I wanted to know.

I do find it interesting however,that he finally admits to saying it,after he finds out that EVERYONE will be able to see that he wrote it and that I was telling the truth about what he said.


So what! It was his opinion! He still has the right to say what he feels!
Why is it so important for you to discredit anon. Because he doesn't agree with your politics? Then agree to disagree and forget it!

nuff said
0 Replies
 
Ticomaya
 
  1  
Reply Sat 11 Feb, 2006 05:23 pm
Quote:
February 10, 2006, 9:18 a.m.
One Sorry Mess of a Party
The Democrats' downward spiral.


And for another week, the Democrats managed to hold themselves hostage to, well, themselves.

Item 1: Illinois Sen. Barack Obama, the wunderkind of the Democratic party who, we've been told, not only transcends race, partisanship, and personal ambition but actually sails above such concerns like the Winged Victory of Samothrace, received his first shellacking this week by Sen. John McCain (R., Ariz.).

McCain says Obama promised to join in a bipartisan lobbying reform effort but reneged in favor of backing the Democrats' more partisan effort. So McCain ?- the dashboard saint of bipartisan reform efforts ?- turned Obama into epistolary roadkill.

In an archly sarcastic letter, McCain apologized for not realizing that Obama was more interested in "self-interested partisan posturing," adding that "I'm embarrassed to admit that after all these years in politics, I failed to interpret your previous assurances as typical gloss."

Item 2: Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D., N.Y.) returned a campaign contribution from Wal-Mart while gladly pocketing cash from Paul Newman, Reese Witherspoon, and other Hollywood liberals. She even took a wad of dough from Jerry Springer, who made his fortune proving that nothing is too vile to broadcast. Clinton served on Wal-Mart's board from 1986 until 1992, and in that time the company was hardly any more "worker-friendly" ?- to borrow a liberal term ?- than it is today. It's just a bigger company now, with the same policies she oversaw. When asked if she ever fought for "progressive" policies when she was a director of the company, she replied, "Well, you know, I, that was a long time ago, I have to remember.... "

Item 3: The New York Times ran a state-of-the-art Democratic self-recrimination story, highlighting the party's inability to make political hay from such supposedly obvious Republican vulnerabilities as Hurricane Katrina and the National Security Agency wiretapping. The article was festooned like a Christmas tree with baubles of self-doubt and ornaments of denial hanging from every branch: the Democrats are "frustrated" by the party's "tangled" problems and their inability to exploit this "pivotal moment," etc.

Some Democrats are furious that their party doesn't have its own ideas. Other say they do have ideas, they're just keeping them secret for now. That sounds a lot like the high school geek who insists that his girlfriend is really hot but lives in an undisclosed location in Canada.

Others say agendas aren't that useful anyway. "People said, 'You can't beat something with nothing,' " House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D., San Francisco) told the Times, even though Democrats did exactly that on Social Security. "I feel very confident about where we are," she assured the paper.

And all this happened by Wednesday ?- and leaves out Jimmy Carter's shabby and even mildly ghoulish exploitation of Coretta Scott King's funeral.

"A man may take to drink because he feels himself to be a failure, but then fail all the more completely because he drinks," George Orwell once observed. This seems to capture nicely the dynamic of the Democrats' shame spiral. Success in politics is measured by winning elections. On this score, Democrats have been failures for a while now. In response, they're getting drunk on a brew of partisanship and Bush-hating.

It is amazing how obvious ?- OK, even trite ?- is the Democratic plight. Democrats need the money and energy of their "progressive," blog-addicted base, but in order to get it, they turn off mainstream voters. In other words, they can't get escape velocity.

Clinton's Wal-Mart refund is a perfect illustration not merely of her hypocrisy but of the quicksand she is now in. She thinks it's a winning message to say she's too good for Wal-Mart's money but not Hollywood's. That's not exactly red-state savvy.

Obama allowed himself to be seduced by the elixir of Democratic self-righteousness at the expense of making real headway on lobbying reform and hitching his wagon to the most popular politician in America.

And Pelosi has become enamored with the idea that one needn't be for anything, as long as one is opposed to Bush. No doubt that's the feedback she's getting in her echo chamber.

In the Senate, Minority Leader Harry Reid has infuriated Republican moderates such as Arlen Specter more than GOP conservatives by obstructing legislation and hurling partisan insults. This is exactly the opposite strategy required for clawing out of the hole the Democrats are in. But anti-Republicanism trumps everything. And that's a roadmap for the Democrats to go ever deeper into the wilderness.
0 Replies
 
Stradee
 
  1  
Reply Sat 11 Feb, 2006 05:33 pm
Oh dear, Democrats in the wildnerness!

Is that the reason for bushcos assault on the envriornment? Laughing
0 Replies
 
King Jay777
 
  1  
Reply Sat 11 Feb, 2006 06:05 pm
Democrats are all stupid, they need to worry more about tha country and not tha damn Party of Power
0 Replies
 
6th Sense2
 
  1  
Reply Sat 11 Feb, 2006 06:05 pm
go bush
0 Replies
 
gustavratzenhofer
 
  1  
Reply Sat 11 Feb, 2006 06:13 pm
6th sense, you hang around the rap threads and you're a Republican?

I had no idea such creatures existed.
0 Replies
 
Ticomaya
 
  1  
Reply Sat 11 Feb, 2006 06:14 pm
gustavratzenhofer wrote:
6th sense, you hang around the rap threads and you're a Republican?

I had no idea such creatures existed.


You've never heard my rap, g-man?
0 Replies
 
gustavratzenhofer
 
  1  
Reply Sat 11 Feb, 2006 06:15 pm
Yeah, Tico, I believe I saw some of your stuff over at the Rap thread, but you are an enigma.
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Sat 11 Feb, 2006 07:03 pm
Foxfyre wrote:
Strange. Paul Pillar presents a very different view in his book. I think the writer of the piece may be representing either his words or his intentions.

http://www.debate-central.org/images/book1.gif

Terrorism and U.S. Foreign Policy
In this critical study, Paul R. Pillar insists that we still have more to fear from conventional methods of terror like hijackings than from exotic forms like biological and chemical strikes. In addition, Pillar, a career CIA officer, identifies the necessary elements of counterterrorist policy, examines why the United States is a prime terrorist target, and reveals why the counterterrorist policies that seem strongest are not always the most effective.


Interesting site you've linked into there, fox.
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Sat 11 Feb, 2006 07:09 pm
blatham wrote:
Foxfyre wrote:
Strange. Paul Pillar presents a very different view in his book. I think the writer of the piece may be representing either his words or his intentions.

http://www.debate-central.org/images/book1.gif

Terrorism and U.S. Foreign Policy
In this critical study, Paul R. Pillar insists that we still have more to fear from conventional methods of terror like hijackings than from exotic forms like biological and chemical strikes. In addition, Pillar, a career CIA officer, identifies the necessary elements of counterterrorist policy, examines why the United States is a prime terrorist target, and reveals why the counterterrorist policies that seem strongest are not always the most effective.


Interesting site you've linked into there, fox.


Oops forgot to link it didn't I. I think its the NY Times or Barnes & Noble book review section. I have read some of the book but do not own it.
I agree with some of his take on it; not all. I posted it in response to another member's post that was deleted before I posted. But oh well.
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Sat 11 Feb, 2006 07:41 pm
photo source is
http://www.debate-central.org
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2026 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 03/04/2026 at 09:38:11