50.........

And you have a purdy mouth!

Fuck you woj I hijacked this thread first :(

It's been said that the 9-11 attacks had been planned for years so one could argue that if Clinton hadn't been so busy getting his dick sucked and lying about it or spent years defending his actions during the WhiteWater investigations he might have taken notice of the proliferation of terrorist organizations..

One could argue alot of things but really, what's the point?

The side that lost always bitches about the side that won. America isn't a democracy - it's a republic - the people don't make the decisions - they elect the people who make the decisions

becasue they would lose their jobs ...

Fuck you, you piece of shit. I lived 2 blocks south and my son was at his daycare 6 blocks north. I wouldn't expect you to understand, from reading your posts.

The feeling of not knowing if you were ever going to see your family again is something you could never understand. I won't even try.

Live in your little happy world, cuz i'm living in mine. I surround myself with lots of people exactly not like you.

Republicans demanded millions of dollars and govt resources focus on a blowjob, meanwhile Bin Laden was making plans to attack the country....you Republicans must be very proud of yourselves.

So young. So angry. Must be that damn rap music.
http://images.amazon.com/images/P/08...CLZZZZZZZ_.jpg

Heavy reading for you again I see.

your kidding right, to protect a secret about his affair he sent his mistress to the pentagon knowing full well she had a secret that could be used to blackmail her.

do you know how many people lives clinton put at risk just because he wanted to cover up his affair.

Some people act as if the election were like a sports championship where the team that may have only won by one point takes the trophy home and the other team goes home with nothing. Our representatives national and local are supposed to represent all us us, not just those that voted for them :2 cents:

For all the "mandate" the president may claim it's silly for anyone to suggest that 49% of the country should be ignored when discussing issues and/or passing legislations that affect all, and just as silly for anyone to think that that many people should not be vocal.

I don't support the nit-picky biting that goes on in a segment of the Democratic party but you better hope like hell that's not where a viable candidate comes from and that the Republicans can get away with using the screwy unverifiable voting machines to steal 2008 and beyond because it won't be pretty:winkwink: I think the prez & co. are losing their base primarily because of the total fuckup that is Iraq, but also because of the overall ass sideways priorities of this administration.

its sillier for the loosing party to assume that 49% are in their party. What percentage of those 49% are liberals, socialists and communists? Its just a big pot of minority, who really knows which party deserves crumbs?

Think about the big anti republican players during the election:
John Kerry, Michael Moore, and George Sorros - Not all democrats are they?

Wishful thinking there sorry the GOP is not losing thier base if anything its becoming larger and stronger. Sorry the Democrats are the ones that are in serious trouble. Look there are other great alternatives to the GOP AND Democratic party. Libertarians, Independents, etc. You moderate liberals/socialists need to distance yourselves from Teddie and Co. they are killing your cause.

I am always amazed at the compartmentalization that conservatives use to justify their thinking.

How in the world is covering up an affair anywhere near the lies that were told to take us to war. You say Clinton put people at risk, hmmm last I heard 1700 kids aren't at risk, they are fucking dead and buried. If you think that the injured that are coming back just got bb gun wounds, maybe you should take a trip to the local VA hospital with me, the next time I go.

Only Sandy Burgers underwear and socks knows if Clinton is negligently responsible for those civilians I saw jumping out of those towers because their skin was on fire.

We went to war with Iraq in 1991, Saddam violated the cease fire many times, he also violated UNITED NATIONS(used to mean something) resolutions REPEATEDLY. Long range missle parts and plans were FOUND, not yet assembled WMD but still against UN resolutions. And those -kids- you talk about you fucksock, *I* fought in Iraq in 1991 and your KIND does not represent me so stop invoking my fucking name.

You would think that the republicans have been in power for 100 years the way you are talking. Do you actually think that you will be in power forever. History shows it's a pendulum and don't get hit by the big ball on the way back.

Last I heard there was a dem in charge for with 8 great years of an amazing economy, before the current pud put us in the depression we are in.

Sorry fella - but your guy had the big chair in the round room - the buck stops there regardless of what the Republicans were or weren't doing.

But - all I'm saying is that each party has it's own skeletons and we take turns bitching about each others when really - what's the point.

Sure dumbass, thats why Bush's approval ratings are at 41% (taken BEFORE all this Rovegate), and 6 in 10 think the country is heading down the wrong track. Pull your fucking head out of Limbaughs ass.

Well then we probably know each other then, but wait you were behind me I guarantee that. Maybe I can talk for us both.

If you were really there, then you would know what the war was about. :winkwink:

If the buck stops at the big chair ...... guess who was sitting in it the day we got attacked. Oh that's right, he was sitting in a chair his size at a grade school.

Yes thats BUSHS approval ratings, of course all respondants were polled in large American cities where we KNOW the results wont be skewed.

Regardless of what people think of Bush the GOP is kicking your asses all up and down the country so suck it up, I mean thats what you are good at right? Sucking....

Hmm... interesting analogy. Refresh my memory though.

Under who's watch was NAFTA signed in under that promoted US companies moving overseas to cheaper labor?

Voyager, launched in 1977, reached Neptune in 1989

So who takes credit? The guy in charge when events began and set things in motion or the guys sitting in the chair when the final event happens?

I stopped counting at 30 while counting the years the democrats have gone in presidental elections without getting a majority of the Americans to vote their party. Thats a hell of a cycle.

If is wasn't for Ross Perot, Hillary would speaking tomorrow at the chamber luncheon trying to get relected to city council in some small town in Arkansas.

Holy christ, will republicans take responsibility for anything? Shitty economy, a recession was already starting when Bush took office.( It's been 5 years now, what's your excuse)
9-11, fuck Clinton should have done something.(He tried on several occasions to get Bin Laden, but didn't broadcast it to scare the public.Told Bush his top priority should be getting him) Well...what is Bush doing to get him now?

I truely believe they don't want to get him. He's like their ace in the whole. Anytime something goes wrong, just play a tape and scare the shit out of the sheep.
Doesn't it seem strange to anybody that the last we heard from Bin Laden was a week before the election. Not a peep since. Rove is one smart fucker, he is.

A single vial of antrax virus (1 inch) deep and a single dvd of documentation would allow sadam to turn all the medical facilities that were inspected by the UN inspectors into fully functional biological WMD facilities.


the report commissioned to investigate the war determined that there never was chemical WMD, or Nuclear WMD (because sadam did not have the facilities to produce them) but all they could say about biological WMD was that there were none at the time they searched.

If you really believe that Sadam did not have Biological WMD when the UN inspectors were trying to search his facilities, why the hell was he stopping/delaying them.

Don't you think if there was nothing to find he would have openly allowed the UN inspectors to go anywhere they wanted.

4 year later....Bob Dole :1orglaugh

Wow! A UN inspector and a chemist visiting gfy, who knew.

Cant argue with facts!!!!! LOL



Clinton had been give recomendations on what to do to stop further terrorists attacks on US soil. (Yes, 9/11 wasn't the first)

We should hear all about how he enacted those recomendations as soon as Sandy Burger finishes preparing him by looking over some classified memos.

"Whoops, they fell in my underwear" - Burger
"We were all laughing about that" - Clinton

Interesting. So basically you are saying then that Reagan and Bush Sr. are the ones ultimately responsible for both bin Laden, since he was trained and armed by the Reagan admin, and Saddam since he was given chemicals by the CIA under Bush Sr. Makes sense to me.

Here's a couple of recent Bush ideas
Sept.2003:
The White House had said anyone who leaked classified information in the case would be dismissed. Bush reiterated that promise last June, saying he would fire anyone found to have disclosed the CIA officer's name.
Today:
President Bush qualified his pledge to dismiss any White House official found to have leaked the name of a CIA operative, saying Monday that "if someone committed a crime" he would be fired.

Here's a little pic to go with it
http://cnparm.home.texas.net/911/Bac...eld-Saddam.jpg

Yo Spanky,

I know my guy ain't lilly white but it burns me a bit to sit idly by when you say things that just aren't accurate.

Most Presidents suffer the effects of the previous President's agenda - Republican or Democrat.

Finally, I totally agree with you, but how long is it before you take responsibility for what you are doing. The current administration acts like they can do no wrong. That's their biggest problem. Everything is black and white. We all know life isn't like that. Lots of shades of grey.

no just someone with enough brains to read the actual report instead of just blindly believing the spin of a democrat pundants who miss quoted the report as proof "that no WMD existed in iraq"

Keep on keeping man. If you say it enough times, you will actually start to believe it yourself.

There is one good thing to come out of this administration. They are making the Nixon admin look like fucking saints.

First line of the republican handbook: 'When in doubt mention Clintons penis'.


As far as Rove goes, Rove's betrayal of a CIA WMD expert, while the U.S. was using WMDs as a reason to invade Iraq, is virtually indistinguishable from Robert Hanssen's selling out of American spies. Both allowed America's enemies to learn the identities of covert operatives. Both are traitors. Both are eligible for the death penalty.

HANS BLIX: Well, they certainly advanced weapons of mass destruction as the decisive reason for going to war, and I think the evidence was rather weak at the time. We had heard in the autumn of 2002 that the alleged aluminum tubes, for instance, which were thought, alleged to be for making the centrifuges, were probably more likely to be for making a rocket. And in January 2003, we had performed quite a lot of inspections to sites which were given by intelligence and they had not shown any weapons of mass destruction, so we began to be doubtful.

From an interview with Jim Lehr

You got ahold of the republican handbook?? Damn, we're gonna have to stay up late tonight an rewrite it now!

A good republican:

He is with the " PROGRAM "....

exactly what about
"the report commissioned to investigate the war determined that there never was chemical WMD, or Nuclear WMD (because sadam did not have the facilities to produce them) "

do you not understand

How does quoting a response to a question about CHEMICAL and NUCLEAR WMD not existing prove your point.

Yep. Take a look at this republican board, half of them are defending him. Goes to show republicans support terrorists.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1445489/posts

An example:

'It's a shame that most pro-lifers lack the courage of Eric Rudolph.'
63 posted on 07/18/2005 1:49:08 PM PDT by Ignatz (Gravity: It's not just a good idea, it's the law.)

You have to keep repeating things to catapult the propaganda :winkwink:

No. :)

"Did you remember to buy the milk hun?", asks the wife.
"Umm.. no, they were out of milk", answers the husband, making up a lie as he did forget.



"Did you kill all these young men in the basent hun?", asks the wife.
"Ummm... no, they were there when I came in", aswers the husband, making up a lie as he did kill them.

I know this has nothing to do with anything. I just wanted to hang on to that 'A lie is a lie', part for no particular reason.

LOL, for some reason when I read this I thought of the commercial where the woman walks into the kitchen and asks her husband if her outfit makes her look fat and he says, "You betchya!" :1orglaugh

A reasonable analogy up to a point: running a democratic country is much more like keeping a pre-owned car running than trading the old model in for a new one. It is neither possible nor desirable to totally overhaul all of a country's laws and policies within - effectively - 2½ to 3 years.

When it comes to mid-east policy for example, the US has pursued a consistent line since the 1920's under a succession of presidents from both parties. You can argue it was a wise policy or not, but if you believe it was a wise policy, then the invasion of Iraq was almost a necessity at this stage of the game.

The present president cannot be held reponsible for the actions of his predecessors and could even use them to justify his own actions. But that doesn't let him off the hook in respect of specific decisions that he made. He didn't have to order the invasion of Iraq, and he made the choice to sell it to the public in the way he did.

I seriously doubt the White House is bothered by the Rove story because it is a sideshow that will fizzle away in a few weeks. It may even have been a useful diversion, drawing attention away from other recent events: the announcement at the end of June about the formation of a National Security Service under the direct control of the President; the placing under the President's authority of the 180,000 employees of Homeland Security; and the release of a document from the Pentagon that the military intends to ?expand military activity? within the United States (something which is specifically banned under the Posse Comitatus Act of 1878).

Thanks - at least in part - to all the speculation about Rove, these potentially far more serious events have barely caused a blip on the radar.

And Bill Clinton was too busy getting a blowjob instead of sending a couple people overseas to pick up Bin Laden on two seperate occassions when he was being handed to us, whats your point?

So far the consensus is Rove did not leak the name. I have heard that time and time again, the reporter investigated and found the name. So he is doing what he stated, if he finds an insider who leaked the name he would fire them, to this point maybe no one leaked the name.

The Rove story will quickly take a backseat within the next 72 hours once Bush makes his Supreme Court nomination :upsidedow