Sounds familiar..


Adolf Hitler - January 30, 1939

Last I checked, the Dems were significantly ahead in the polls, on all the three issues you mentioned.

You can thank the bonehead-in-chief for that one.

Historically, 30% approval ratings have spelled disaster for the party in question.

All arrows point the same way on this one.

Which I personally wouldn't mind, 'cause then these current weasels will probably be investigated. As it stands right now, the obstructionist Republican Senators have blocked all such efforts, and will continue to do so in the foreseeable future. Heck, they won't even put people under oath when they're testifying, so what's the point?

But the House is a different animal, you're already seeing it right now. I wouldn't be surprised if Hastert told the Prez to go stuff it, and that's why his name was conveniently "leaked" to ABC. That way they can maintain plausible deniability while at the same time smearing their enemies. That piece has Rove's name written all over it, that's exactly the way he operates.

So what?
Last I checked Kerry was supposed to be elected according to the polls.



....
Bush had nothing to do with ABC's BS story. Brian Ross reported a fake story disavowed not once but twice by the justice department. That story is such a fraud its pathetic..and ever since it was shown to be nonsense the left and ABC have been spinning this nonsense about it being a get back by Bush.

Oh and then its ROVE..OMG OMG OMG.
You guys really need to lay off the LSD...or drop more..soemthing.

You don't know that.

No, they were disavowed by McNulty. AG Gonzales has been strangely silent on this one. Not that I believe a word either one of them says anymore....

Gee, and here I thought it was my original idea. Oh well.... I guess "the left" beat me to it.

Just for the record, I stopped believing Bush after that "we don't do anything without a warrant" bit. What a lyin' sack of dog-doo.

I can't really accuse Gonzales of specifically lying, although he's definitely an evasive little weasel, but I can justifiably accuse Bush, Cheney, and Rummy, and also Scott McClellan (who's gone now, thank you very much) - not to mention that little ferret Libby, who's already been brought up on perjury charges....

And after all that, you still believe the spin and the hype that's emanating from this administration?

Well, sir, your faith must be stronger than mine.

Mine started crumbling right around the time french fries suddenly became fresh vegetables, on June 2, 2003.

That was Bush's USDA, and it just so happens that it propped up the agriculture numbers barely enough to prevent a significant slide in the commodities market at the time.

I've always been skeptical of government numbers, but that was the straw that broke the camel's back. Sure, we're doing fine. Let's just change the numbers to accommodate the desired outcome. Enron, anyone?

DOJ? Forget about it. Torture heretics, burn witches at the stake, threaten unbelievers with civil and criminal penalties, smear political opponents with innuendo, half-truths, and outrageous lies.... this is the nature of the current administration. Through and through. There's not one of them with any integrity. They're all too afraid of the inquisitor-in-chief to step out of line and tell the truth.

Anyway, back to topic. Diplomatic "back channels" are as old as politics itself. Study the history of the Cold War, and you'll discover just how important they can be.

I'm sorry, but Bushie's "principles" are extremely distorted, and his implementation skills are non-existent. If the best you can do is silence your opposition with your self-made "rules", forbidding honest debate and legitimate political protest, then I submit that you've lost before you've even started.

The first time you trample on someone's freedom, or change the numbers in favor of a particular outcome, or break the law in the name of some nebulous threat that may or may not exist, you're beginning a process that can have only one possible outcome: a downward spiral.

There will always be hangers-on, who still believe the emperor has clothes, when the reality is he's parading down the street buck-naked.

Well than I read that you like sheep and in the dirty way..how?
..well "undisclosed sources" told me..oh and I don't believe anyone who refutes it.





You dirty lil man

Innuendo, half-truth, and outrageous lies.

There it is, in black and white.

Thank you for proving my point.

Intermixed with your usual rants against Bush or the Republicans was your point. It quite clearly was that the person was basically guilty of what they where accused of and nothing the DOJ said to the contrary was worthy of merit because you don't believe them.


I'm sorry when the DOJ states twice we have no investigation of Hastert then ABC lied. ABC's failure to remedy that lie by stating they where wrong(even with the expected "apaprently" attached) shows that ABC is not concerned with accurate news reporting but with hype news reporting.

Now leave the sheep alone...this isn't Greece

There you go again.....

I can't continue this debate in good conscience.

First of all, it's already painfully clear that I'm debating with someone who.... um.... can't be convinced.

Second, I take no pleasure in clobbering someone who just doesn't "get it".

Third, you're still trying to make this personal, when it has nothing to do with me.

Get a life. Go pick on someone on "the left", or better yet, wake up and smell the coffee.

Your alarm clock is set to go off on the first Tuesday in November.

Of course you did. You didn't bluntly say they where guilty(just basically implied it) and you most certainly did say that you didn't care what the DOJ had to say on the affair.

Well it is a forum...I have to live with Noesti replying or whatever he does.


Shrug... no skin off my back....


If I see something besides spin and rants that substantiates a point to a degree thats beyond mere hype then sure I can be convinced. I rarely ever see that here from anyone.


I don't agree with you..thats far from "not getting it"..and ranting about Bush in relation to something he has little to nothing to do with is hardly clobbering me.


Was simply an example. Don't take it personally and then its not personal. I simply was showing how I can say you are involved with something cite anonymous cources adn then IF i decide to ignore allto the contrary you have no recourse but to accept it. Now imagine if your Hastert and I'm ABC ..after being told everything I said about you is false well dang I'm just going to report it anyway.
The 4th estate can destroy people without much effort and when its doing so based on falsehoods thats not reporting news.


I have one. Successful enough that I can basically do whatever I want with my time.

The "left" is boring I can write 90% of their replies. Its always the same.


IOW blame Bush for all the ills I ever see?..nah thats dumb.
Or believe all the Democratic hype about how uber they are politically?..please.



Not worried at all. Why would I be?
I have no concerns that the Democrats will actually take over the congress..the political dynamic is not pointing to any significant change and they need an enormous number of seats. Its going to be a rather boring election.

I do expect to see alot of hoopla over any minor to at most moderate gains by the Democrats..they will need a pact with Lucifer to get even with the Republicans.
This year is nothing like the year the Democrats got trashed by the Republicans under Newt..not even close. Hell its almost June and beyond the usual theres nothing much to say.




I must say though I have seen nothing from you that says Conservative or Republican as you claim and your starting to drift more and more into the Far Lefts mode of operation with the can't comprehend and all that stuff.


I know I get a bit heated and will get nasty from time to time but I rarely say someone can't comprehend something...I usually say what they have to say is dumb. Theres a difference it may be slight to some but its there..

Proper channels is more important than actually starting a dialogue. Form over substance, that's all you people know.

__________________
the memories of a man in his old age
are the deeds of a man in his prime

roger waters