Carl Bernstein: Senate Hearings on Bush, Now

Brandon, you have to be one of the laziest posters on A2K. First, you didn't read the article and only skimmed it, whining that it is too long to meet the restrictions of your attention span. Because you are so lazy, you then demand that others do your work for you, insisting that they present facts that you can then focus on to rebut the content. Then you use the excuse that you are posting from work and don't have time to read long articles, but it doesn't stop you from posting a lot of your usual critiques of other's posts.

Shame on you for being so lazy.

BBB

blacksmithn wrote:

It'd be funny, if it weren't for all the corruption, needless death and waste.

they've desensitised me....

BumbleBeeBoogie wrote:

Brandon, you have to be one of the laziest posters on A2K. First, you didn't read the article and only skimmed it, whining that it is too long to meet the restrictions of your attention span. Because you are so lazy, you then demand that others do your work for you, insisting that they present facts that you can then focus on to rebut the content. Then you use the excuse that you are posting from work and don't have time to read long articles, but it doesn't stop you from posting a lot of your usual critiques of other's posts.

Shame on you for being so lazy.

BBB

You're the lazy one, always posting other peoples' words, and never your own. Being at work is a valid excuse for only skimming a long article. I merely asked for someone to state 1 or 2 specific allegations of impeachable offenses, which you seem unable to do. Either you have something specific to accuse him of, or it's just wishful thinking.

Brandon9000 wrote:

BumbleBeeBoogie wrote:

Brandon, you have to be one of the laziest posters on A2K. First, you didn't read the article and only skimmed it, whining that it is too long to meet the restrictions of your attention span. Because you are so lazy, you then demand that others do your work for you, insisting that they present facts that you can then focus on to rebut the content. Then you use the excuse that you are posting from work and don't have time to read long articles, but it doesn't stop you from posting a lot of your usual critiques of other's posts.

Shame on you for being so lazy.

BBB

You're the lazy one, always posting other peoples' words, and never your own. Being at work is a valid excuse for only skimming a long article. I merely asked for someone to state 1 or 2 specific allegations of impeachable offenses, which you seem unable to do. Either you have something specific to accuse him of, or it's just wishful thinking.

Indictments aren't written in soundbites. Only a true moron would try to rebut soemthing he hasn't even read. Guess what, genius? Bernstein's conclusion is not that Articles of Impeachment should be drawn up. Read the article or shut the **** up.

On the whole, I'd prefer your crowd living in a fantasy world of wishful thinking.

Roxxxanne wrote:

Brandon9000 wrote:

BumbleBeeBoogie wrote:

Brandon, you have to be one of the laziest posters on A2K. First, you didn't read the article and only skimmed it, whining that it is too long to meet the restrictions of your attention span. Because you are so lazy, you then demand that others do your work for you, insisting that they present facts that you can then focus on to rebut the content. Then you use the excuse that you are posting from work and don't have time to read long articles, but it doesn't stop you from posting a lot of your usual critiques of other's posts.

Shame on you for being so lazy.

BBB

You're the lazy one, always posting other peoples' words, and never your own. Being at work is a valid excuse for only skimming a long article. I merely asked for someone to state 1 or 2 specific allegations of impeachable offenses, which you seem unable to do. Either you have something specific to accuse him of, or it's just wishful thinking.

Indictments aren't written in soundbites. Only a true moron would try to rebut soemthing he hasn't even read. Guess what, genius? Bernstein's conclusion is not that Articles of Impeachment should be drawn up. Read the article or shut the **** up.

I didn't try to rebut it. I asked for one or two concise examples of impeachable offenses by the president, something which apparently none of you is able to provide. Your normal practice is to claim that the president commits several impeachable offenses every day, and then to post an ad hominem attack against anyone who asks for a specific example.

You're the lazy one...

I'm rubber
You're glue

Brandon9000 wrote:

You're the lazy one...

Here's an alternate version of what Brandon9000 wrote:

I'm rubber
You're glue

Brandon proves the adage "There is none so blind as he who will not see".

Tell him to prove the accusation or retract the statement. That's always good for a few laughs.

Brandon9000 wrote:

Roxxxanne wrote:

Brandon9000 wrote:

BumbleBeeBoogie wrote:

Brandon, you have to be one of the laziest posters on A2K. First, you didn't read the article and only skimmed it, whining that it is too long to meet the restrictions of your attention span. Because you are so lazy, you then demand that others do your work for you, insisting that they present facts that you can then focus on to rebut the content. Then you use the excuse that you are posting from work and don't have time to read long articles, but it doesn't stop you from posting a lot of your usual critiques of other's posts.

Shame on you for being so lazy.

BBB

You're the lazy one, always posting other peoples' words, and never your own. Being at work is a valid excuse for only skimming a long article. I merely asked for someone to state 1 or 2 specific allegations of impeachable offenses, which you seem unable to do. Either you have something specific to accuse him of, or it's just wishful thinking.

Indictments aren't written in soundbites. Only a true moron would try to rebut soemthing he hasn't even read. Guess what, genius? Bernstein's conclusion is not that Articles of Impeachment should be drawn up. Read the article or shut the **** up.

I didn't try to rebut it. I asked for one or two concise examples of impeachable offenses by the president, something which apparently none of you is able to provide. Your normal practice is to claim that the president commits several impeachable offenses every day, and then to post an ad hominem attack against anyone who asks for a specific example.

Now you are just flat out lying (or delusional). I don't even post here several times a day, much less accuse Bush of impeachable offenses several times a day. If you want to respond to those accusations, feel free to respond to them if and when they are made. On those threads on which they are made.

This thread is about Bernstein's piece, it requires one to read the article in order to discuss it. So when you have the time to not only read but fully digest the piece, feel free to respond. However, it's obvious to me that you are avoding the issue because you know Bernstein has Bush dead on.

DrewDad wrote:

Tell him to prove the accusation or retract the statement. That's always good for a few laughs.

Congratulation on putting yourself in the position of mocking the idea that assertions should be supported by evidence or logic.

DrewDad wrote:

Brandon9000 wrote:

You're the lazy one...

Here's an alternate version of what Brandon9000 wrote:

I'm rubber
You're glue

Typical bad logic. This would only be true had I not given a supporting argument, e.g. that she usually posts other peoples' ideas rather than her own. Contrary to your statement, defending oneself against an accusation is perfectly rational.

Roxxxanne wrote:

Brandon9000 wrote:

Roxxxanne wrote:

Brandon9000 wrote:

BumbleBeeBoogie wrote:

Brandon, you have to be one of the laziest posters on A2K. First, you didn't read the article and only skimmed it, whining that it is too long to meet the restrictions of your attention span. Because you are so lazy, you then demand that others do your work for you, insisting that they present facts that you can then focus on to rebut the content. Then you use the excuse that you are posting from work and don't have time to read long articles, but it doesn't stop you from posting a lot of your usual critiques of other's posts.

Shame on you for being so lazy.

BBB

You're the lazy one, always posting other peoples' words, and never your own. Being at work is a valid excuse for only skimming a long article. I merely asked for someone to state 1 or 2 specific allegations of impeachable offenses, which you seem unable to do. Either you have something specific to accuse him of, or it's just wishful thinking.

Indictments aren't written in soundbites. Only a true moron would try to rebut soemthing he hasn't even read. Guess what, genius? Bernstein's conclusion is not that Articles of Impeachment should be drawn up. Read the article or shut the **** up.

I didn't try to rebut it. I asked for one or two concise examples of impeachable offenses by the president, something which apparently none of you is able to provide. Your normal practice is to claim that the president commits several impeachable offenses every day, and then to post an ad hominem attack against anyone who asks for a specific example.

Now you are just flat out lying (or delusional). I don't even post here several times a day, much less accuse Bush of impeachable offenses several times a day. If you want to respond to those accusations, feel free to respond to them if and when they are made. On those threads on which they are made.

This thread is about Bernstein's piece, it requires one to read the article in order to discuss it. So when you have the time to not only read but fully digest the piece, feel free to respond. However, it's obvious to me that you are avoding the issue because you know Bernstein has Bush dead on.

The fact is that you cannot and will not state in simple terms anything that Bush has done which qualifies as an impeachable offense. You can post ad hominems ad nauseum, and it won't advance your assertions at all.