I wonder if Priest Holmes is gonna come back next season.
| Quote (DrGuitar @ April 27 2006,18:00) | ||||
| So it started like this, <!–QuoteBegin>
Thus the challenge, <!–QuoteBegin>
which was repeatedly met with a back down and sidestep, |
Wrong again. Your challenge was a self-serving red herring. Your response is nothing more than a deflection to make it look like “the republicans are just as bad…” (to borrow your own phrasing). Bush has nothing to do with liberals being dividers. Me giving you a list of Bush’s positives has nothing to do with liberals being dividers. Liberals are identifiable and responsible for their own actions. I pointed examples of such behavior several times in this thread. Your demand was specious.
| Quote (DrGuitar @ April 27 2006,18:00) | ||
<!–QuoteBegin>
|
And I stand by my comments.
| Quote (DrGuitar @ April 27 2006,18:00) | ||||||
| Then Kingfish chimed in… <!–QuoteBegin>
I ended up agreeing with 1 and 4 of Kingpin’s list. <!–QuoteBegin>
Not good enough cries ksdb. I guess we should all walk lockstepped in out support for all things Republican. <!–QuoteBegin>
I’m not sure what he thought I “hedged” on. |
I told you what you hedged on on page 11 and HIGHLIGHTED your own words to show it. I noticed that you have conveniently omitted that part, even though it was in the same reply you just quoted.
| Quote (DrGuitar @ April 27 2006,18:00) |
| I did not think either Harriet Myers or Bush’s immigration plan were that great. |
That’s called hedging. Thanks for proving my point AGAIN.
| Quote (DrGuitar @ April 27 2006,18:00) |
| And this is where ksdb has shown hi true colors as a divider. By finding fault with anyone who does not agree with everything the Republicans propose, he has become the “either you are with us or you are against us” guy. |
This is deliberate mischaracterization of any comments I have made in this thread. Find an exact quote instead of making up words for me.
| Quote (DrGuitar @ April 27 2006,18:00) |
| Even the head of the party, Bush himself, has said so many times. I can not think of any statement that is more divisive than that. |
Bush was specifically speaking about the war on terror. He wasn’t directing his comment at Democrats; he was directing it at countries who sponsor terror or those who ignore it and allow it to persist. It says a lot about you, if you take personal offense to that.
| Quote (DrGuitar @ April 27 2006,18:00) | ||||
|
When Kingfish mentioned… <!–QuoteBegin>
ksdb’s response was, <!–QuoteBegin>
This quote is a red flag to the mindset of a divider. You are either for or against us. |
Again, your last comment is NOT something that I said. If you’re going to argue, argue against what I actually wrote.
| Quote (DrGuitar @ April 27 2006,18:00) |
| If we really controlled the UN, they “must” do everything we say. |
If they don’t, then we OBVIOUSLY do NOT have ANY control over them.
| Quote (DrGuitar @ April 27 2006,18:00) |
| Of course this thought process does not allow for anyone disagreeing with the status quo. |
This wasn’t about simple disagreements, it was about having control. There is a huge difference. Look it up if you don’t understand the words.
| Quote (DrGuitar @ April 27 2006,18:00) |
| The fact is that the UN did disagree (along with many Americans and people from all over the world) on the Iraq war strategy. |
Which means we did NOT have CONTROL over them.
| Quote (DrGuitar @ April 27 2006,18:00) |
| This was in spite of repeated and exaggerated lies by the current administration. |
You mean divisive accusations of lies.
| Quote (DrGuitar @ April 27 2006,18:00) |
| But keep in mind the concept “divide and conquer” since that has been the strategy of the RNC all along. |
Please provide a link or a source to back up this notion. Show some proof instead of talking nonsense.
| Quote (DrGuitar @ April 27 2006,18:00) |
| And, I might add, it has worked. Also keep in mind that anytime a devout Republican is called on this strategy, they call back, “I know you are but what am I?” It is a strategy meant to confuse and frustrate. |
Show an example of this happening (other than what you do in your own posts).
| Quote (DrGuitar @ April 27 2006,18:00) |
| Take the current Republican debacle where powerful Republicans are dropping like flies. The only response you can get from republicans is “the democrats are just as bad…” Wow, what a response. First off, it is not true. |
Tell that to the four democrat campaign workers convicted this week for slashing tires on Republican vans during the 2004 election.
4 get jail in election day tire slashing
Wonder why the headline didn’t mention the party affiliation?? Hmmmmmmm.
| Quote (DrGuitar @ April 27 2006,18:00) |
| Second, if you are going to aspire to the lowest common denominator of the democratic party as your best example, get the heck out of the job. |
That’s not what I did at all, not even close.
| Quote (DrGuitar @ April 27 2006,18:00) |
| Yes ksdb has proven my contention all along. He sidesteps when asked a simple question. |
No, I told you directly that your question was pointless and proved it later by quoting your own words.
| Quote (DrGuitar @ April 27 2006,18:00) |
| He answers questions with questions. |
And the problem with that is?
?| Quote (DrGuitar @ April 27 2006,18:00) |
| And he, like Bush, can find not wrong with his own party. He will not be turned from the darkside… 
|
How nice that you finish with a little insult. Calling the Republicans the “darkside” shows that you (and other liberals like you) are indeed dividers. Thanks again for proving my point so eloquently and consistently.
| Quote (Former Member Gone @ April 27 2006,18:33) |
| I wonder if Priest Holmes is gonna come back next season. |
I have my doubts. Isn't his injury similar to the one that ended Bo Jackson's career??
| Quote (Mr Soul @ April 27 2006,18:03) | ||
<!–QuoteBegin>
Do you mean this isn’t an attack - JANE HARMAN’S BOGUS ATTACK? Michelle Malkin is a right-wing spinmeister who immediately attacked Harman. Now Malkin got caught spewing falsehoods on this one & was forced to admit that she made a mistake - Malkin Owes Jane Harman An Apology, however, this is exactly how the spin/smear starts, i.e., with someone like Malkin. Then it goes to talk radio, then to other right-wing blogs and web sites like TownHall, then it gets to the right-wing media like FOX. |
Malkin challenged the facts and corrected what she got wrong. How is that spin or smear?? Why would the right-wing attack machine bother to make a correction or apologize??? You claimed that this goes on to other right-wing media, such as Fox. Let’s see some proof.
| Quote (Mr Soul @ April 27 2006,18:03) |
| As for Kerry, they smear him all the time, so it never stops. |
Again, show something recent where Jo.Ke. is being smeared.
You know I’ve already discussed these issues with you longer than I think is worth it. I find myself tired of talking to people as biased & closed-minded as you are.
<!–QuoteBegin>
| Quote |
| Malkin challenged the facts and corrected what she got wrong. How is that spin or smear?? |
It’s smear because it challenges her integrity & intelligence. It also questions her motives. The purpose of Malkin’s existence is to raise right-wing talking points & attack. Malkin also NEVER does this to conservatives. She’s an example of one of your “ideas” kind of conservative.
<!–QuoteBegin>
| Quote |
| Why would the right-wing attack machine bother to make a correction or apologize??? |
Even the right-wing are shamed sometime.
<!–QuoteBegin>
| Quote |
| You claimed that this goes on to other right-wing media, such as Fox. Let’s see some proof. |
I didn’t say that this particular incident got to FOX - I’m explaining how the process works. Are you saying that you don’t believe that these talking points & issues spread through the right-wing media?
On AA, Franken actually showed how incorrect information has spread through the right-wing media & that was indeed funny.
Why don’t you offer some proof that Media Matters coordinates it’s message with the DNC?
| Quote (Mr Soul @ April 27 2006,22:32) |
| You know I’ve already discussed these issues with you longer than I think is worth it. I find myself tired of talking to people as biased & closed-minded as you are. |
No, you just don’t like being challenged on your own biases and close-mindedness. Earlier, I looked at something you posted about the RNC and agreed with you that it looked fishy. Was I being close-minded and biased when I did that??
| Quote (Mr Soul @ April 27 2006,22:32) | ||
<!–QuoteBegin>
It’s smear because it challenges her integrity & intelligence. |
If that’s the case, then everything you say about me or conservatives fits your definition of smear. If it’s okay for you to do these things, then you have an extremely odd double standard.
| Quote (Mr Soul @ April 27 2006,22:32) |
| It also questions her motives. |
And that’s bad because Democrats should be untouchable??
| Quote (Mr Soul @ April 27 2006,22:32) |
|
The purpose of Malkin’s existence is to raise right-wing talking points & attack. |
No, she raises reasonable questions and backs it up; and as you showed, when she’s wrong, she offers a corrrection.
| Quote (Mr Soul @ April 27 2006,22:32) |
| Malkin also NEVER does this to conservatives. |
Nonsense. Here’s she’s taking Dick Cheney to task for using the F-word.
MR. CHENEY F***ED UP
| Quote (Mr Soul @ April 27 2006,22:32) |
| She’s an example of one of your “ideas” kind of conservative. |
You’re doing your best to smear Malkin. I guess you find her threatening because she makes sense.
| Quote (Mr Soul @ April 27 2006,22:32) | ||
<!–QuoteBegin>
Even the right-wing are shamed sometime. |
It’s called being honest. You can’t feel shame if you have no heart. There are some on the left who could learn a lot from Michelle.
| Quote (Mr Soul @ April 27 2006,22:32) | ||
<!–QuoteBegin>
I didn’t say that this particular incident got to FOX - I’m explaining how the process works. |
Well of course, you’re generalizing because you have no way of backing up your assertion.
| Quote (Mr Soul @ April 27 2006,22:32) |
| Are you saying that you don’t believe that these talking points & issues spread through the right-wing media? |
The Internet and LMSM are very pervasive and introduce a lot of timely topics. Some things might be talking points, but there are plenty of right-wing media types who don’t echo the same points. The Dubai port deal, for example, had Limbaugh and Hannity opposing each other. I haven’t listened to him myself, but I understand that Michael Savage takes Rush to task for NOT being conservative enough, etc.
| Quote (Mr Soul @ April 27 2006,22:32) |
| On AA, Franken actually showed how incorrect information has spread through the right-wing media & that was indeed funny. |
Funny maybe, but probably not very accurate. Did Franken mysteriously ignore how the same thing happens in left-wing media and the mainstream media??
| Quote (Mr Soul @ April 27 2006,22:32) |
| Why don’t you offer some proof that Media Matters coordinates it’s message with the DNC? |
I did already. But if you want more, look at the new statement from the Mediamatters CEO. They’ve completely adopted the “Snow is a lying Bush crony” (my paraphrase) stance of the DNC and dropped the “Snow criticized Bush and should be questioned” (same) stance of yesterday.
Statement from Media Matters President and CEO David Brock on New White House press secretary Tony Snow
<!–QuoteBegin>
| Quote |
| Statement from Media Matters President and CEO David Brock on New White House press secretary Tony Snow April 26, 2006 (Washington, DC) – David Brock, President and CEO of Media Matters for America, released the following statement in response to the formal announcement that outgoing White House press secretary Scott McClellan will be replaced by syndicated columnist and Fox News host Tony Snow: "Tony Snow and the Bush White House seem like a match made in heaven: Snow and his colleagues at Fox News have been among the most effective spokespeople for the Bush administration. But given Snow’s long history of making false and misleading claims, his hiring will do little to change the perception that the White House is more interested in stonewalling and deception than in getting the facts out. "As we continue to witness the same pattern of misinformation and lack of transparency by the Bush administration, we urge the White House press corps to demand real answers from the new press secretary. The media have already given President Bush a free pass on too much." Complete Media Matters coverage of Tony Snow’s falsehoods is available at: http://mediamatters.org/issues_topics/people/tonysnow |
They keep changing their minds on the severity of Priest’s condition - hopefully he’ll be alright. Larry Johnson has pretty much taken over that position anyway. I hope they pick up where they left off at the end of last season.
But you know, I’m not asking to get to the Super Bowl… I’d be satisfied if we could win just one playoff game. Just one!!!
| Quote (Former Member Gone @ April 28 2006,01:21) |
| They keep changing their minds on the severity of Priest's condition - hopefully he'll be alright. Larry Johnson has pretty much taken over that position anyway. I hope they pick up where they left off at the end of last season. But you know, I'm not asking to get to the Super Bowl... I'd be satisfied if we could win just one playoff game. Just one!!! |
What do you think about Herm Edwards taking over the coaching reins?? I'm interested to see what he can do. He doesn't have quite the track records that Vermeil or Schottenheimer have had.
Have to put this in:
<!–QuoteBegin>
| Quote |
| Taking the President to Court By Congressman John Conyers The DailyKos.com Thursday 27 April 2006 As some of you may be aware, according to the President and Congressional Republicans, a bill does not have to pass both the Senate and the House to become a law. Forget your sixth grade civics lesson, forget the book they give you when you visit Congress - “How Our Laws Are Made,” and forget Schoolhouse Rock. These are checks and balances, Republican-style. As the Washington Post reported last month, as the Republican budget bill struggled to make its way through Congress at the end of last year and beginning of this year (the bill cuts critical programs such as student loans and Medicaid funding), the House and Senate passed different versions of it. House Republicans did not want to make Republicans in marginal districts vote on the bill again, so they simply certified that the Senate bill was the same as the House bill and sent it to the President. The President, despite warnings that the bill did not represent the consensus of the House and Senate, simply shrugged and signed the bill anyway. Now, the Administration is implementing it as though it was the law of the land. Several public interest groups have sought to stop some parts of the bill from being implemented, under the theory that the bill is unconstitutional. However, getting into the weeds a bit, they have lacked the ability to stop the entire bill. To seek this recourse, the person bringing the suit must have what is called “standing,” that is they must show they were injured or deprived of some right. Because the budget bill covers so many areas of the law, it is difficult for one person to show they were harmed by the entire bill. Thus, many of these groups have only sought to stop part of it. After consulting with some of the foremost constitutional experts in the nation, I determined that one group of people are injured by the entire bill: Members of the House. We were deprived of our right to vote on a bill that is now being treated as the law of the land. So, I am going to court. With many of my Democratic Colleagues (list appended at the bottom of this diary), I plan to file suit tomorrow in federal district court in Detroit against the President, members of the Cabinet and other federal officers seeking to have a simple truth confirmed: a bill not passed by the House and Senate is not a law, even if the President signs it. As such, the Budget bill cannot be treated as the law of the land. As many of you know, I have become increasingly alarmed at the erosion of our constitutional form of government. Whether through the Patriot Act, the President’s Secret Domestic Spying program, or election irregularities and disenfranchisement, our fundamental freedoms are being taken away. Nothing to me is more stark than this, however. If a President does not need one House of Congress to pass a law, what’s next? The following is a list of co-plaintiffs on this lawsuit. I would note that I did not invite every Member of the House to join in the suit, and I am certain many, many more Members would have joined if asked. However, this was not possible for various arcane legal reasons. The other plaintiffs include Rep. John Dingell, Ranking Member on the Energy and Commerce Committee; Rep. Charles B. Rangel, Ranking Member on the Ways and Means Committee; Rep. George Miller, Ranking Member on the Education and Workforce Committee; Rep. James L. Oberstar, Ranking Member on the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee; Rep. Barney Frank, Ranking Member on the Financial Services Committee; Rep. Collin C. Peterson, Ranking Member on the Agriculture Committee; Rep. Bennie Thompson, Ranking Member on the Homeland Security Committee; Rep. Louise M. Slaughter, Ranking Member on the Rules Committee; Rep. Fortney “Pete” Stark, Ranking Member on the Ways and Means Health Subcommittee; Rep. Sherrod Brown, Representing Ohio’s 13th District. |
| Quote (TomS @ April 28 2006,07:45) |
| Have to put this in: Taking the President to Court By Congressman John Conyers The DailyKos.com Thursday 27 April 2006 As some of you may be aware, according to the President and Congressional Republicans, a bill does not have to pass both the Senate and the House to become a law. Forget your sixth grade civics lesson, forget the book they give you when you visit Congress - "How Our Laws Are Made," and forget Schoolhouse Rock. These are checks and balances, Republican-style. As the Washington Post reported last month, as the Republican budget bill struggled to make its way through Congress at the end of last year and beginning of this year (the bill cuts critical programs such as student loans and Medicaid funding), the House and Senate passed different versions of it. House Republicans did not want to make Republicans in marginal districts vote on the bill again, so they simply certified that the Senate bill was the same as the House bill and sent it to the President. The President, despite warnings that the bill did not represent the consensus of the House and Senate, simply shrugged and signed the bill anyway. Now, the Administration is implementing it as though it was the law of the land. ........ |
A President that is willing to lie about anything is a President that is willing to lie about everything. This one includes a lie to uphold the Constitution of the United States.
Impeach Bush
Impeach Bush — Make Cheney President!!
<!–QuoteBegin>
| Quote |
| A President that is willing to lie about anything is a President that is willing to lie about everything. |
But it was OK when Slick Willie lied…
D
EDIT: 20 pages… ugh.
| Quote (Diogenes @ April 28 2006,11:53) |
| A President that is willing to lie about anything is a President that is willing to lie about everything. |
But it was OK when Slick Willie lied...
D
EDIT: 20 pages... ugh.
No, it wasn't ok and he was impeached. Try to remember, when Clinton lied, no one died.
It was not OK when Clinton lied! He got impeached & was dis-barred. What more do you want - cruxification perhaps?
<!–QuoteBegin>
| Quote |
| No, you just don’t like being challenged on your own biases and close-mindedness. |
That’s BS. I’ll have a debate with anyone who is fair and open minded. I’ll also admit when I’m wrong. I can present hard facts to you & you’ll spin your own way, witness what you said about Robert Novak’s article on Valerie Plame/Wilson. There are other examples.
<!–QuoteBegin>
| Quote |
| Earlier, I looked at something you posted about the RNC and agreed with you that it looked fishy. Was I being close-minded and biased when I did that? |
No you were not, but you never really agreed with me that the Republicans do the same thing as the Democrat’s.
<!–QuoteBegin>
| Quote |
| Malkin challenged the facts and corrected what she got wrong. How is that spin or smear?? |
It was the derogatory way that she did it that was smear.
<!–QuoteBegin>
| Quote |
| If that’s the case, then everything you say about me or conservatives fits your definition of smear. |
I only say that about right-wing Wacko conservatives (like you). There are lot’s of conservatives that aren’t right-wing Wacko’s.
<!–QuoteBegin>
| Quote |
| And that’s bad because Democrats should be untouchable?? |
Of course not, but the right-wing will attack Democrat’s on anything they do. Malkin never really admitted that she was wrong either.
[quoteNonsense. Here’s she’s taking Dick Cheney to task for using the F-word.[/quote]
Oh yeah - this is taking Cheney to task.
<!–QuoteBegin>
| Quote |
| He shouldn’t have said it. He had a bad day. He lost his cool… |
Malkin was very forgiving of Cheney. She’s not forgiving at all to Democrat’s.
Where are Malkin’s articles about Duke Cunningham, Abramoff, James Tobin, etc.?
You’re doing your best to smear Malkin. I guess you find her threatening because she makes sense.
<!–QuoteBegin>
| Quote |
| Are you saying that you don’t believe that these talking points & issues spread through the right-wing media? |
No - I think I already said that they do, but that doesn’t mean all of them do. If the Harmon stuck, it would have been all over talk radio & it would have made it to FOX.
Franken doesn’t look at mainstream media (as much) - that’s not his mission. His mission is to expose right-wing lies which he usually does quite effectively, although not always.
<!–QuoteBegin>
| Quote |
| I did already. But if you want more, look at the new statement from the Mediamatters CEO. They’ve completely adopted the “Snow is a lying Bush crony” (my paraphrase) stance of the DNC and dropped the “Snow criticized Bush and should be questioned” (same) stance of yesterday. |
So if 2 sources come to the same conclusion, then that’s prove they are in coordination with each other? Maybe but maybe not.
Having said that, I do believe that liberals & Democrat’s have adopted the talking points strategy of the Republicans. Witness www.TalkingPointsMemo.com.
<!–QuoteBegin>
| Quote |
| But it was OK when Slick Willie lied… |
JEEZ!!! How can anyone with any kind of brain compare this administration’s constant and consistent actions with with someone that got a blowjob in the oval office and lied about it, then was impeached and disbarred for lying about it. Get a grip folks. If THAT is grounds for impeachment then this president and many in his administration should be in DEEP DEEP doodoo…long ago.
| Quote (phoo @ April 28 2006,14:05) |
| But it was OK when Slick Willie lied... |
JEEZ!!!!!!!!!!!!!! How can anyone with any kind of brain compare this administration's constant and consistent actions with with someone that got a blowjob in the oval office and lied about it, then was impeached and disbarred for lying about it. Get a grip folks. If THAT is grounds for impeachment then this president and many in his administration should be in DEEP DEEP doodoo.....long ago.
agreed...
yeah I’d actually like to see the current mob held to a higher standard than Clinton got held to. It would be fine with me for all elected officials to be held to the ‘100% honesty’ test.
But, to be fair, just holding them to the same standard as Clinton would suffice. At least then it would be consistent. Of course, it won’t happen with the GOP controlling both houses. If the same standard did apply, the current crop could only hope it stopped at impeachment. Cheney knows it too, and that’s why he’ll start a war this year, to make sure the GOP retains both houses.
to: ksdb and anybody else still inclined to defend the Bush mob:
Y’know it’s fine to have a conservative personal philosophy and all that. It balances out nicely with all the people who have a liberal personal philosophy. The balance is best for everybody. But, for everybodys sake, including your own, stop trying to defend the Bush gang. Free yourself of the burden. They’re actually not even pretending to defend YOUR interests anymore. The lies have been exposed beyond a doubt and you don’t need an impeachment to see it. Just because you stop defending the Bush gang doesn’t mean you have to abandon your conservative philosophy.
I guess a lot of people just can’t bear to admit they made an error of judgement in the past. Last I heard, 32% of Americans are still not able to do it.
phoo - the Clinton impeachment was more than just a blowjob in the oval office. It’s been a while since I looked at it, and I’m simplifying here, but basically they impeached him because his alledged lying obstructed justice, i.e., Paula Jone’s justice.
IMO this was not an impeachable offense because Clinton didn’t lied to subvert government or the functioning of government, like Nixon did. However, the Republican’s held Clinton to the highest standard, i.e., if you commit perjury then you are not fit to be President. The appropriate course would have been to censure him & let him be disbarred.
Now of course, Bush originally said he would hold his staff to the highest standard in the Valerie Plame case, i.e., if they were involved they would be gone. Then he changed that to: if they committed a crime then they would be gone.
Holy cow. Lighten up fellers. How many times do I have to point out…
a. Yes, I voted for Dubya. The other choice sucked slightly worse so there you go.
b. I’m not defending any a$$hole politician. That description fits them all in my view.
If you go back a couple pages, I posted my political views and opinions very clearly.
D – stick a fork in me. I knew I shoulda stayed out and kept my pie hole shut.
This must be the most stupid thread ever, which is quite an achievement, even for the n-Track forum…