|
|
Watergate revisited
It sure will be interesting listening to the government argue against the
Watergate rulings right before an election, huh? -- Scott Reverse name to reply |
Watergate revisited
On 28 Jun 2007 20:02:33 GMT, Scott Seidman
wrote: It sure will be interesting listening to the government argue against the Watergate rulings right before an election, huh? Lessee....Bush has his head handed to him by his own party over the immigration reform bill....Iraq is a disaster, his own party is finally growing some balls (or got clocked by the calendar) and is starting to bail on him over Iraq...He got laughed at by the G8 as a johnny-come-lately with zero credibility...He's still getting killed over Gitmo...Rice has *totally* ****ed up the Palestine thing yet won't let anyone else try to fix it...There's that dirty little bidness about the Attorney General and the State AGs that just won't go away...The gang of how many? Republicans running for 2008 only mention Bush when they need something to bash...Cheney is finding novel ways to thumb his nose at the constitution (what else is new?)...Staff are bailing out daily...No sign of anything remotely approaching a legacy in sight.... Seems to me a good court fight might be Yet Another 'Just The Distraction We Needed Right Now' deal for BushCo.... http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/06/...nas/index.html /daytripper (another 18 months of this clown act to survive through...) |
Watergate revisited
On Thu, 28 Jun 2007 19:18:35 -0400, daytripper
wrote: On 28 Jun 2007 20:02:33 GMT, Scott Seidman wrote: It sure will be interesting listening to the government argue against the Watergate rulings right before an election, huh? Lessee....Bush has his head handed to him by his own party over the immigration reform bill....Iraq is a disaster, his own party is finally growing some balls (or got clocked by the calendar) and is starting to bail on him over Iraq...He got laughed at by the G8 as a johnny-come-lately with zero credibility...He's still getting killed over Gitmo...Rice has *totally* ****ed up the Palestine thing yet won't let anyone else try to fix it...There's that dirty little bidness about the Attorney General and the State AGs that just won't go away...The gang of how many? Republicans running for 2008 only mention Bush when they need something to bash...Cheney is finding novel ways to thumb his nose at the constitution (what else is new?)...Staff are bailing out daily...No sign of anything remotely approaching a legacy in sight.... Seems to me a good court fight might be Yet Another 'Just The Distraction We Needed Right Now' deal for BushCo.... http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/06/...nas/index.html /daytripper (another 18 months of this clown act to survive through...) Change the names and a couple of words, and it'd sound like something Coulter would say about the last 18 months of Billary's clown act...that said, you're right about the rubbers... IMO, in 40 years, damned few will remember Clinton or Bush...ask the average college student about Lyndon, Tricky Dick, or Carter, and they'll likely tell you they haven't heard any of their songs...but if you IM them a link, they'll check 'em out on their iPhone... TC, R |
Watergate revisited
wrote in message ... On Thu, 28 Jun 2007 19:18:35 -0400, daytripper wrote: On 28 Jun 2007 20:02:33 GMT, Scott Seidman wrote: It sure will be interesting listening to the government argue against the Watergate rulings right before an election, huh? Lessee....Bush has his head handed to him by his own party over the immigration reform bill....Iraq is a disaster, his own party is finally growing some balls (or got clocked by the calendar) and is starting to bail on him over Iraq...He got laughed at by the G8 as a johnny-come-lately with zero credibility...He's still getting killed over Gitmo...Rice has *totally* ****ed up the Palestine thing yet won't let anyone else try to fix it...There's that dirty little bidness about the Attorney General and the State AGs that just won't go away...The gang of how many? Republicans running for 2008 only mention Bush when they need something to bash...Cheney is finding novel ways to thumb his nose at the constitution (what else is new?)...Staff are bailing out daily...No sign of anything remotely approaching a legacy in sight.... Seems to me a good court fight might be Yet Another 'Just The Distraction We Needed Right Now' deal for BushCo.... http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/06/...nas/index.html /daytripper (another 18 months of this clown act to survive through...) Change the names and a couple of words, and it'd sound like something Coulter would say about the last 18 months of Billary's clown act...that said, you're right about the rubbers... IMO, in 40 years, damned few will remember Clinton or Bush...ask the average college student about Lyndon, Tricky Dick, or Carter, and they'll likely tell you they haven't heard any of their songs...but if you IM them a link, they'll check 'em out on their iPhone... So, what you're saying is that in ten or fifteen years they'll be you. Yeah, you're probably right. Wolfgang who can't see much reason to be all proud and **** about it. |
Watergate revisited
On Thu, 28 Jun 2007 23:00:37 -0400, daytripper
wrote: On Thu, 28 Jun 2007 20:35:49 -0500, wrote: On Thu, 28 Jun 2007 19:18:35 -0400, daytripper wrote: On 28 Jun 2007 20:02:33 GMT, Scott Seidman wrote: It sure will be interesting listening to the government argue against the Watergate rulings right before an election, huh? Lessee....Bush has his head handed to him by his own party over the immigration reform bill....Iraq is a disaster, his own party is finally growing some balls (or got clocked by the calendar) and is starting to bail on him over Iraq...He got laughed at by the G8 as a johnny-come-lately with zero credibility...He's still getting killed over Gitmo...Rice has *totally* ****ed up the Palestine thing yet won't let anyone else try to fix it...There's that dirty little bidness about the Attorney General and the State AGs that just won't go away...The gang of how many? Republicans running for 2008 only mention Bush when they need something to bash...Cheney is finding novel ways to thumb his nose at the constitution (what else is new?)...Staff are bailing out daily...No sign of anything remotely approaching a legacy in sight.... Seems to me a good court fight might be Yet Another 'Just The Distraction We Needed Right Now' deal for BushCo.... http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/06/...nas/index.html /daytripper (another 18 months of this clown act to survive through...) Change the names and a couple of words, and it'd sound like something Coulter would say about the last 18 months of Billary's clown act...that said, you're right about the rubbers... IMO, in 40 years, damned few will remember Clinton or Bush...ask the average college student about Lyndon, Tricky Dick, or Carter, and they'll likely tell you they haven't heard any of their songs...but if you IM them a link, they'll check 'em out on their iPhone... TC, R http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2003/ira...es/casualties/ /daytripper (Perhaps, when you have nothing to say, you shouldn't make it so obvious...) Perhaps, when all you have to "say" is to post a link...well, it's obvious...I didn't say anything good, bad, or indifferent about those with a legacy in question, I only spoke with regard to some of those to whom that legacy may or may not be known... HTH, R ....some say that when people see 4 oz. of water in an 8 oz. glass, some say it's half full, while others say it's half empty...those observers forget that there is always gonna be the random assorted nut that claims some vast political conspiracy used alien technology to make half the water invisible... |
Watergate revisited
On 28 Jun 2007 20:02:33 GMT, Scott Seidman
wrote: It sure will be interesting listening to the government argue against the Watergate rulings right before an election, huh? But first, Yet Another Distraction! http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/07/...nce/index.html /daytripper (An administration "corrupt from top to bottom". Nice legacy.) |
Watergate revisited
daytripper wrote:
On 28 Jun 2007 20:02:33 GMT, Scott Seidman wrote: It sure will be interesting listening to the government argue against the Watergate rulings right before an election, huh? But first, Yet Another Distraction! http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/07/...nce/index.html /daytripper (An administration "corrupt from top to bottom". Nice legacy.) Bush only commuted Libby's sentence. It wasn't a pardon. Libby still has a criminal record. The real corruption started when he pardoned Clinton. How many convicted felons did Clinton pardon on his way out? |
Watergate revisited
"Cal Vanize" wrote in message ... daytripper wrote: On 28 Jun 2007 20:02:33 GMT, Scott Seidman wrote: It sure will be interesting listening to the government argue against the Watergate rulings right before an election, huh? But first, Yet Another Distraction! http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/07/...nce/index.html /daytripper (An administration "corrupt from top to bottom". Nice legacy.) Bush only commuted Libby's sentence. It wasn't a pardon. Libby still has a criminal record. The real corruption started when he pardoned Clinton. How many convicted felons did Clinton pardon on his way out? Moron. Wolfgang |
Watergate revisited
On Mon, 02 Jul 2007 22:23:36 -0500, Cal Vanize
wrote: daytripper wrote: On 28 Jun 2007 20:02:33 GMT, Scott Seidman wrote: It sure will be interesting listening to the government argue against the Watergate rulings right before an election, huh? But first, Yet Another Distraction! http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/07/...nce/index.html /daytripper (An administration "corrupt from top to bottom". Nice legacy.) Bush only commuted Libby's sentence. It wasn't a pardon. Libby still has a criminal record. The real corruption started when he pardoned Clinton. Libby pardoned Clinton? Wow. I"m surprized. How many convicted felons did Clinton pardon on his way out? -- r.bc: vixen Minnow goddess, Speaker to squirrels, willow watcher. Almost entirely harmless. Really. http://www.visi.com/~cyli |
Watergate revisited
On Mon, 02 Jul 2007 22:20:33 -0400, daytripper
wrote: /daytripper (An administration "corrupt from top to bottom". Nice legacy.) Speaking of legacies: http://www.usdoj.gov/opa/pardonchartlst.htm You **** me off, Dave. *Scott* was supposed to post to roff this horrible news on Libby. I had a lot of money on it. You were a close second, if that helps. d;o) |
Watergate revisited
Dave LaCourse wrote in
: On Mon, 02 Jul 2007 22:20:33 -0400, daytripper wrote: /daytripper (An administration "corrupt from top to bottom". Nice legacy.) Speaking of legacies: http://www.usdoj.gov/opa/pardonchartlst.htm You **** me off, Dave. *Scott* was supposed to post to roff this horrible news on Libby. I had a lot of money on it. You were a close second, if that helps. d;o) Sorry you lost your bet, Dave. I was just happy with the conviction, but I never expected him to serve a day in prison. Of course, there seem to be many who believe that the commutation was to keep Libby from opening the lid on the outright lies out of Cheney's office about the run-up to the incompetently managed war (hell, if you're going to hold an illegal war, at least go out of your way to win the damn thing). I don't share such concerns, as I think Libby would have said anything, and Cheney no longer cares if these things come to light, as we're reaching the times when him and his buddies have stolen all the money from the people that they could reasonably expect to. However, as soon as I heard the news, I immediately knew that a rousing chorus of "Clinton Too" would be coming from your side of the room, and you didn't disappoint. Dave, it's the in thing now to be a true conservative that jumps off the Bush bandwagon. The man is ruining your party. He kept telling the party leadership he knew what he was doing, when what he really meant was "bend over, here it comes". His entire strategy is to steal money, and then whip up the religious right with meaningless issues. His lying and incompetence cost you guys the Senate and the House, and unless you're party does something, the next election will really slam down the lid, not to reopen for decades. I long for the day when you say "I don't like Bush"-- it'll even be ok if you follow it up with "I don't like Clinton even more". Try it. You'll feel good. Maybe it will prep you, and you won't get quite as ill on the day you wake up and Hillary is POTUS. -- Scott Reverse name to reply |
Watergate revisited
Wow. Such a verbose reply.
It is the hypocricy I am speaking of, Scott. Remember Cisneros, Deutch, et al? I don't mind you being outraged at this decision, but where was the outrage when Clinton *pardoned* all those crooks. What, something like 25 or so drug dealers, a couple of terrorists, a few politicians, and a whole bunch of very bad criminals. Drug dealers! Terrorists! These were outragious pardons and one can only believe that he lined his own pockets with them. All I'm asking is some consistency with your outrage. Instead I get hypocricy from you and Tatosian. Remember, this is a commutation, NOT a pardon. He should never have been sentenced to prison. Clinton and Cisneros lied under oath. They are guilty of the same crime. Did they get a prison sentence? Libby is now a convicted felon who has to pay a $250,000 fine. Cisneros and Clinton paid nothing for their crimes. Consistency, Scott. It's the only fair way. And, I *am* surprised that you didn't post the news last night when it broke. Ott, have a nice day. Dave |
Watergate revisited
Dave LaCourse wrote:
Speaking of legacies: http://www.usdoj.gov/opa/pardonchartlst.htm OK, now that you've gotten that out of the way, answer us a question or two, Dave: Do you agree with Bush commuting Libby's sentence? If so, why? If not, why not? Chuck Vance (and try to answer without evoking Bill or Hillary, as neither one is president ... right now) |
Watergate revisited
On 3 Jul 2007 12:44:46 GMT, Scott Seidman
wrote: Maybe it will prep you, and you won't get quite as ill on the day you wake up and Hillary is POTUS. Forgot to add: Yeah, and ya wanna bet that she too will be impeached. Un-****in'-believable. I actually find myself cheering for her to win, however I doubt she will. Hypocricy is thy name, Scott. Dave |
Watergate revisited
On Mon, 02 Jul 2007 22:20:33 -0400, daytripper
wrote: On 28 Jun 2007 20:02:33 GMT, Scott Seidman wrote: It sure will be interesting listening to the government argue against the Watergate rulings right before an election, huh? But first, Yet Another Distraction! http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/07/...nce/index.html /daytripper (An administration "corrupt from top to bottom". Nice legacy.) Interestingly, Libby was one of the attorneys that reviewed and (unofficially) "signed off" on Clinton's pardon of Marc Rich and Pincus Green, and in doing so was called a "distinguished" and "honorable" attorney by both Clintons in various statements defending the _pardons_. Some of those statements sounded very much like Bush's official statement made regarding the _commutation_ of Libby's sentence. http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/relea...0070702-3.html Hillary may regret opening her cakehole about this one... TC, R |
Watergate revisited
Dave LaCourse wrote in
: I don't mind you being outraged at this decision, I'm not outraged by this decision. I expected it. It's Bush's right, and I'm a little surprised it wasn't an out-and-out pardon. This administration has done plenty worthy of outrage. It's a distraction, no more. To put things in perspective, I've always thought that if the witch-hunters weren't so focussed on Whitewater, filegate might have turned into something huge. This issue is like a Whitewater, and Bush is probably thankful that its getting the undue attention that it is. -- Scott Reverse name to reply |
Watergate revisited
Dave LaCourse wrote in
: Clinton and Cisneros lied under oath. Clinton lied under oath about getting a blowjob. Libby lied under oath about the Vice President's role in outing a CIA operative (maybe important, maybe not) because the VP was ****ed about a lie about the the reasons he started a war being pointed out. Push comes to shove, a shoplifter stealing a loaf of bread is committing the same crime as the bigwigs at Enron. Should they have the same penalty?? Clinton was impeached-- is that "nothing"? -- Scott Reverse name to reply |
Watergate revisited
Dave LaCourse wrote in
: Forgot to add: Yeah, and ya wanna bet that she too will be impeached. About the same likelihood that she'll end up pardoning Bush or Cheney -- Scott Reverse name to reply |
Watergate revisited
Scott Seidman wrote in
. 1.4: I'm not outraged by this decision. I expected it. It's Bush's right, and I'm a little surprised it wasn't an out-and-out pardon. This administration has done plenty worthy of outrage. It's a distraction, no more. Reflecting a little more, it's actually refreshing to watch Bush exercising a Constitutional power that he actually has, as opposed to his more standard "let's make them up as we go along" approach. -- Scott Reverse name to reply |
Watergate revisited
On Tue, 03 Jul 2007 08:20:12 -0500, Conan The Librarian
wrote: OK, now that you've gotten that out of the way, answer us a question or two, Dave: Do you agree with Bush commuting Libby's sentence? If so, why Yes, because the whole thing was politicized. The jail sentence was for political reason. Cheney didn't out Plame, nor did Libby; her job as a CIA employee was well known in the Beltway. They couldn't get him on that, so they got him on something of less import. Jail time was not necessary because of the fine, disbarment, shame, etc. Would you like also for the man to bleed for you? Would that sate your appetite for revenge for what happened to Clinton, or is your lust for revenge insatiable? You wear your hypocricy on your sleeve like a religious zealot. And, why not bring up Clinton? He is the precedent in all of this. He had more folks convicted than any president in history. His was an even more corrupt administration than this one. And, he *pardoned* some of the biggest felons imaginable including many drug dealers, *terrorists*, politicians and friends from his own administration. The pardon of Marc Rich was absolutely shameful and reeked of pay-off. Dave |
Watergate revisited
Dave LaCourse wrote:
On Tue, 03 Jul 2007 08:20:12 -0500, Conan The Librarian wrote: OK, now that you've gotten that out of the way, answer us a question or two, Dave: Do you agree with Bush commuting Libby's sentence? If so, why Yes, because the whole thing was politicized. The jail sentence was for political reason. Cheney didn't out Plame, nor did Libby; her job as a CIA employee was well known in the Beltway. They couldn't get him on that, so they got him on something of less import. Jail time was not necessary because of the fine, disbarment, shame, etc. Would you like also for the man to bleed for you? Would that sate your appetite for revenge for what happened to Clinton, or is your lust for revenge insatiable? You wear your hypocricy on your sleeve like a religious zealot. First of all, you obviously have no idea of my feelings about the whole issue. (FWIW, I am not a fan of Clinton; never have been, and never will be.) Secondly, what's up with this "bleed for you" ... "appetite for revenge" ... lust for revenge"? Sounds like you're projecting your own hatred for Klinton onto others. Third, if you are going to continually use a "big word" like that, learn how to spell it. It's "hypocrisy". And feel free to point out *exactly* what I've written that is hypocritical; not what you imagine in your fevered imagination that I *might* write, but quotes of what I have written. Chuck Vance (and fourth: you might want to wipe some of the spittle off your keyboard) |
Watergate revisited
On Jul 3, 9:18 am, Dave LaCourse wrote:
Remember, this is a commutation, NOT a pardon. He should never have been sentenced to prison. Clinton [snip] lied under oath. They are guilty of the same crime. Just a minor clarification. Clinton was acquitted in the Senate. They are not guilty of the same crime. Now back to your regularly scheduled ****ing contest. |
Watergate revisited
On Tue, 03 Jul 2007 10:36:20 -0500, Conan The Librarian
wrote: Chuck Vance (and fourth: you might want to wipe some of the spittle off your keyboard) Now who's imagining things? My poor spelling is infamous. We all have our short falls. If that is the best you can do in kritisising me, you need to try again. ott, hand. |
Watergate revisited
Dave LaCourse wrote:
On Tue, 03 Jul 2007 10:36:20 -0500, Conan The Librarian wrote: Chuck Vance (and fourth: you might want to wipe some of the spittle off your keyboard) Now who's imagining things? Want to go back and read your own words? You were practically foaming at the mouth: Would you like also for the man to bleed for you? Would that sate your appetite for revenge for what happened to Clinton, or is your lust for revenge insatiable? You wear your hypocricy on your sleeve like a religious zealot. My poor spelling is infamous. We all have our short falls. If that is the best you can do in kritisising me, you need to try again. Hilarious. You might want to try addressing the part of my post you conveniently left out: First of all, you obviously have no idea of my feelings about the whole issue. (FWIW, I am not a fan of Clinton; never have been, and never will be.) Secondly, what's up with this "bleed for you" ... "appetite for revenge" ... lust for revenge"? Sounds like you're projecting your own hatred for Klinton onto others. And feel free to point out *exactly* what I've written that is hypocritical; not what you imagine in your fevered imagination that I *might* write, but quotes of what I have written. Chuck Vance |
Watergate revisited
On Tue, 03 Jul 2007 10:59:59 -0500, Conan The Librarian
wrote: Want to go back and read your own words? You were practically foaming at the mouth: Wrong. I was sitting here gleefully typing away. I love Liberal's hypocriCy in all of its many colors. It was pure joy to see how angry you and your fellow libs (ooooops, assuming there [their, they're] ain't I {me?}). While preparing dinner last evening, I heard the news on TV. I broke into a big smile, *KNOWING* that the Liberal hypocrits on roff would soon chime in with their warped opinions How's come I can't call you on "imagination"? More hypocriCy no doubt. I really could shiv a git about my spelling, Chuck. So, I misspell a word now and then. So what? I see words spelled incorrectly on the news-feed banners all the time, poor grammar on the part of educated men, as well as my fellow roffians who are far better educated than I (me) but I don't feed on it the way you do. To phunny. So, tell me a thing or two: When did you become an anti-Clinton fan? During or after his first term? After he perjured himself? After he obstructed justice? When you realized he was a huckster? When? Dave |
Watergate revisited
On Tue, 03 Jul 2007 08:38:57 -0700, Wayne Knight
wrote: Just a minor clarification. Clinton was acquitted in the Senate. They are not guilty of the same crime. Right. Correct. But the Arkansa Bar saw fit to take away his license to practice law because he committed perjury and was guilty of obstruction of justice. That certainly is a precedent, eh? |
Watergate revisited
Dave LaCourse wrote:
On Tue, 03 Jul 2007 10:59:59 -0500, Conan The Librarian wrote: Want to go back and read your own words? You were practically foaming at the mouth: Wrong. I was sitting here gleefully typing away. I love Liberal's hypocriCy in all of its many colors. It was pure joy to see how angry you and your fellow libs (ooooops, assuming there [their, they're] ain't I {me?}). While preparing dinner last evening, I heard the news on TV. I broke into a big smile, *KNOWING* that the Liberal hypocrits on roff would soon chime in with their warped opinions Funny, but when I heard about it, I knew that some right-wing Bush apologist would throw out the "Klinton did it first". And you didn't disappoint. You never do, Dave. Whatever Dubya or his cronies get caught doing, you always try to link it back to Klinton. And when you got caught doing it, you launched into a spittle-laced tirade about some imagined "hypocricy" [sic ... sick] on my part. You're transparent, Dave. Your hatred for Klinton overwhelms you so much that you have to project it onto others. How's come I can't call you on "imagination"? More hypocriCy no doubt. I really could shiv a git about my spelling, Chuck. So, I misspell a word now and then. So what? I see words spelled incorrectly on the news-feed banners all the time, poor grammar on the part of educated men, as well as my fellow roffians who are far better educated than I (me) but I don't feed on it the way you do. To phunny. Actually, I made one offhand comment about it. You're the one who seems awfully defensive and wants to focus on it like it was the whole point of my post. IMHO, it shows laziness to not bother to learn how to spell a word that you continually throw in others' faces. Not a big deal, but I also wouldn't be proud of it if I were you. So, tell me a thing or two: When did you become an anti-Clinton fan? During or after his first term? After he perjured himself? After he obstructed justice? When you realized he was a huckster? When? Sorry, but I already asked *you* to show me comments I made that would show me to be a hypocrite in the whole matter. Chuck Vance (not that I'm gonna hold my breath) |
Watergate revisited
On Jul 3, 12:21 pm, Dave LaCourse wrote:
Right. Correct. But the Arkansa Bar saw fit to take away his license to practice law because he committed perjury and was guilty of obstruction of justice. That certainly is a precedent, eh? People get found innocent in a criminal proceeding everyday but still end up losing or settling a civil proceeding so I don't see it as a precedent. The difference between Clinton and Libby vis a vis the common man, disbarrment from your career would make you suffer significant finanical hardships. For them they get the book and lecture tour. |
Watergate revisited
On Tue, 3 Jul 2007 12:00:00 -0600, "Wolfgang"
wrote: What's REALLY funny about all this (well, actually, ALL of it is funny.....but I mean the funniest part of it) is that davie is transparent. His hatred of Bush overwhelms him so much that he has to project it onto others. :) Moron. Davie |
Watergate revisited
On Tue, 03 Jul 2007 11:48:10 -0500, Conan The Librarian
wrote: Funny, but when I heard about it, I knew that some right-wing Bush apologist would throw out the "Klinton did it first". And you didn't disappoint. You never do, Dave. Whatever Dubya or his cronies get caught doing, you always try to link it back to Klinton. That is the purpose of the whole exercise (exercice?), Chuck. Clinton set the precedent. It can all be traced back to him. Phunny, eh? And when you got caught doing it, you launched into a spittle-laced tirade about some imagined "hypocricy" [sic ... sick] on my part. Like I said, I typed then as I am now, with a smile on my face and joy in my heart knowing that you libs can not come down hard on Bush for *anything* because Clinton did it first with impunity (cheeeze, I hope I spelled *that* one correctly!). You're transparent, Dave. Your hatred for Klinton overwhelms you so much that you have to project it onto others. I don't hate Clinton. I hate you and all your fellow libs hypocriCy concerning his wrong doing. What's good for the goose and all that dontchaknow. How's come I can't call you on "imagination"? More hypocriCy no doubt. I really could shiv a git about my spelling, Chuck. So, I misspell a word now and then. So what? I see words spelled incorrectly on the news-feed banners all the time, poor grammar on the part of educated men, as well as my fellow roffians who are far better educated than I (me) but I don't feed on it the way you do. To phunny. Actually, I made one offhand comment about it. You're the one who seems awfully defensive and wants to focus on it like it was the whole point of my post. IMHO, it shows laziness to not bother to learn how to spell a word that you continually throw in others' faces. Not a big deal, but I also wouldn't be proud of it if I were you. I have a dictionary by my side and constantly look up words for spelling and meaning. Think of what it would be like if I didn't? Gads! But for you to make fun of a misspelled word shows volumes about you. Typical of a Lib. So, tell me a thing or two: When did you become an anti-Clinton fan? During or after his first term? After he perjured himself? After he obstructed justice? When you realized he was a huckster? When? Sorry, but I already asked *you* to show me comments I made that would show me to be a hypocrite in the whole matter. Ah, in other words you either don't know when or, probably more correctly, you ARE a fan of the huckster. You are a hypocrite for simply answering my post in a defensive way. After all, if you can imagine things about me (foaming at the mouth) then I can imagine things about you. Do you deny you are a Liberal too? Now, answer the questions. Chuck Vance (not that I'm gonna hold my breath) One should never hold his breath between posts. It makes you bitter than you already are, to say nothing of making your face red (sorta like your politics, wot?). Davie |
Watergate revisited
On Jul 3, 11:17 am, Dave LaCourse wrote:
Yes, because the whole thing was politicized. The jail sentence was for political reason. Cheney didn't out Plame, nor did Libby; her job as a CIA employee was well known in the Beltway. How is a prosecution by a conservative republican prosecutor (who stated Plume was a covert operative in direct contradiction to yours and others accounts that her role was known.) in front of a conservative republican appointed judge known for "throwing the book at people" and setting examples is politicized? And, why not bring up Clinton? He is the precedent in all of this. He had more folks convicted than any president in history. His was an even more corrupt administration than this one. Please post support for this, After a quick and casual google search appears that Grant, Harding, Nixon, Bush I, and maybe even Reagan had more members convicted/indicted/sentenced/fined/fired for conduct while on the government payroll then what appeared to happen in the Clinton adminstration. By and large the Clinton administration issues dealt with issues unrelated to their government activities? But getting an un-biased scorecard was not found in the search so I would use "appears". |
Watergate revisited
"Conan The Librarian" wrote in message ... ...You're transparent, Dave. Your hatred for Klinton overwhelms you so much that you have to project it onto others.... What's REALLY funny about all this (well, actually, ALL of it is funny.....but I mean the funniest part of it) is that davie is transparent. His hatred of Bush overwhelms him so much that he has to project it onto others. :) Wolfgang |
Watergate revisited
Dave LaCourse wrote:
Like I said, I typed then as I am now, with a smile on my face and joy in my heart knowing that you libs can not come down hard on Bush for *anything* because Clinton did it first with impunity And that is the difference between you and me, you sorry old sod. If it's wrong when Klinton did it, it's wrong when Bush does it. (Now go look up the meaning of hypocrite.) [snip of more silly strawmen and lies] You know for someone who constantly tries to convince folks about how great his life is, you sure come across as a bitter, hateful old man. Chuck Vance (sincerely) |
Watergate revisited
On Tue, 03 Jul 2007 13:49:22 -0500, Conan The Librarian
wrote: Dave LaCourse wrote: Like I said, I typed then as I am now, with a smile on my face and joy in my heart knowing that you libs can not come down hard on Bush for *anything* because Clinton did it first with impunity And that is the difference between you and me, you sorry old sod. If it's wrong when Klinton did it, it's wrong when Bush does it. (Now go look up the meaning of hypocrite.) Where did I say it was ok for Bush to do it? I agree whole heartedly that if it's wrong for Clinton, then it is wrong for Bush. Clinton, however, *pardoned* felons, wiped the slate clean. Bush did no such thing. He commuted the man's jail time because he and others felt it was unfair and not due the man. Libby is *still* a convicted felon facing a $250,000 fine and disbarment. Apples and oranges. [snip of more silly strawmen and lies] What lies? The only thing I know about a strawman is that it is one helluva great fly. d;o) You know for someone who constantly tries to convince folks about how great his life is, you sure come across as a bitter, hateful old man. I try to convince others how great my life is? Didn't realize I was doing that, Chuck, sincerely I didn't. I have a good life; I need not convince anyone of it. Chuck Vance (sincerely) The Old Sod Davie (sincerely) (Why are you so bitter, Chuck? Calling people names doesn't become you.) (Really!) |
Watergate revisited
On Tue, 3 Jul 2007 13:47:09 -0600, "Wolfgang"
wrote: Murderous pig. Whore master. Davie, the Old Sod |
Watergate revisited
Dave LaCourse wrote:
Where did I say it was ok for Bush to do it? I agree whole heartedly that if it's wrong for Clinton, then it is wrong for Bush. Clinton, however, *pardoned* felons, wiped the slate clean. Bush did no such thing. He commuted the man's jail time because he and others felt it was unfair and not due the man. Libby is *still* a convicted felon facing a $250,000 fine and disbarment. Apples and oranges. The cynical among us think Cheney arranged for Shrub to commute rather than pardon because accepting a pardon presumes guilt and nobody in the administration, least of all Cheney, wanted Libby to admit guilt. At this time. Libby will get his pardon in January 2009, just before Shrub leaves office. Bet on it. -- Ken Fortenberry |
Watergate revisited
"Dave LaCourse" wrote in message ... On Tue, 3 Jul 2007 12:00:00 -0600, "Wolfgang" wrote: What's REALLY funny about all this (well, actually, ALL of it is funny.....but I mean the funniest part of it) is that davie is transparent. His hatred of Bush overwhelms him so much that he has to project it onto others. :) Moron. Murderous pig. Wolfgang |
Watergate revisited
On Tue, 03 Jul 2007 14:20:12 -0500, Ken Fortenberry
wrote: Libby will get his pardon in January 2009, just before Shrub leaves office. Bet on it. Good. Hope he pulls a Clinton on him. Two words: Sandy Berger. Let's seeeee.... This former Clinton Security Adviser purloins and then *destroys* the only top secret copies of Clinton's knowledge of looming terrorism threats to the United States. He steals these from The National Archives. He does so for political purposes only, to protect Clinton. He gets a pitiful $10,000 fine and loss of his security clearance for three years. The man should be behind bars, because what he did *could* be thought of as treason. His acts were far more pernicious (how ‘bout that one, Chuck?) than *anything* Libby has done. Is fair fair, Ken? Nice trip report, btw. Would like to fish that area some day. I hesitate to give a trip report of my month on the Rapid, what with all my detractors here on roff. d;o) Dave, who hopes there are no misspelled woids or misuse of grammar in the above. |
Watergate revisited
On Tue, 3 Jul 2007 14:14:35 -0600, "Wolfgang"
wrote: "Dave LaCourse" wrote in message .. . On Tue, 3 Jul 2007 13:47:09 -0600, "Wolfgang" wrote: Murderous pig. Whore master. Davie, the Old Sod Sod? Hm........ So, a REAL welfare queen ,after all. Wolfgang well, they say confession is good for the soul. Yeah, all that money coming from your taxes. Ya gotta love it, eh? And all that free medical care and free drugs. Goodness it must hurt you. d;o) However, I interpreted Chuck's use of the word "sod" as being obnoxious or unpleasant. Don't mind being called that; just make sure the checks keep on coming in, ok, Whore Master? Davie, aka The Pirate and Old Sod (Hey, if Gehrke can do it, so can Chuck and the Whore Master) |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 09:57 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2006 FishingBanter