Author Topic: Loving the Bush Haters: Is it wrong to take pleasure... ?  (Read 1676 times)

Offline yowser

  • Copper Member
  • **
  • Posts: 102
Loving the Bush Haters: Is it wrong to take pleasure... ?
« Reply #30 on: November 10, 2003, 01:10:53 PM »
I never laughed at you...honest.  Wear whatever you like.

yowser
« Last Edit: November 10, 2003, 01:15:36 PM by yowser »

Offline DmdNexus

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 901
Loving the Bush Haters: Is it wrong to take pleasure... ?
« Reply #31 on: November 10, 2003, 01:18:19 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by Kieran
I was assuming Nexus was going to make a point beyond quoting my well-crafted paragraph. I quess not. ;)


Yah I did respond... damn liberal neo-con internet filtered my comments....can't remember excatly what I was going to say...

Clinton was a watermelon head too.... playing hide the cigar with a 21 year old... is still legal isn't it?

Offline Kieran

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 4119
Loving the Bush Haters: Is it wrong to take pleasure... ?
« Reply #32 on: November 10, 2003, 02:21:39 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by DmdNexus
Yah I did respond... damn liberal neo-con internet filtered my comments....can't remember excatly what I was going to say...

Clinton was a watermelon head too.... playing hide the cigar with a 21 year old... is still legal isn't it?


What about all that other stuff I typed? Is it all legal, too?

Offline DmdNexus

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 901
Loving the Bush Haters: Is it wrong to take pleasure... ?
« Reply #33 on: November 10, 2003, 03:30:13 PM »
FBI files - illegal.

Firing the tavel office - not politically correct... however legal....it's the spoils system brought in by Jeffereson... when congress inquired as to the reason and refusing to have turned over the paper work would have been an obstruction of congress - at least Newt was threathing contempt of congress... it never got to that... it was all technically legal.

Now the current congress is requesting the current White House provide information concerning what it knew before and around about 9/11 and the intelligence used to justify invoking the War Powers Act... This is a friendly congress... it's republican... yet the White House is stonewalling.... congressmen on the IC (Intelligence Committee.. these guys have clearances so they can see "secret" information) - The question these congressmen are asking.. hey "we're on your side... what are you hiding... we jsut want to verify that the law was properly invoked because there's a gap between what you said and what was found.... if the intellignece is faulty... then we'll look in to fix that... that's all there is too it."

Marc Rich - The President has the authority to pardon people. It's unconditional. It's legal. Sure question Clinton's motives, he probably did it for the money and because Rich is his personal friend. It's his rigth to do so. It's 100% legal.

Now consider Bush Sr pardoning of Weinberger. Weinberger was about to be indicted to testify about his diary and Bush Srs involvement with IranContra... Motive? Sure there is. Bush doesn't want to go to jail... Weingberger was never chartged... never found guilty of anything.... Bush sr set a precident - to pardon a man before he was found guilty of a crime.
http://www.fas.org/news/iran/1992/921224-260039.htm

Bush Sr is just a little sullied by pardoning "5 other persons who already had pleaded guilty or had been indicted or convicted in connection with the Iran-Contra arms-for-hostages investigation."

Bush Sr was DCIA... these guys worked for him.. friends probably ... he was also probably involved in this situation "intimately."

Was it legal - you betcha! That's the president's perogative.

Al Gore got caught making fund raising phone calls from his VP office - bad boy! Slap! Yes very illegal. However, hardly hard core criminal activity... doesn't even compare with oh....

Like ... Selling weapons to terrorists governements... like IRAN!

Newt got caught too... Bad boy! Slap!
When it comes to political money both parties are guilty of chit... both!

Currently, someone in the Bush Administration broke a federal law concerning national security... that's rather more serious... than raising campaign money... someone in the white house is a traitor and is not serving the national interests of this country... It's probably not Bush.... I'm pretty sure of that... that woud be rather stupid of him if it were... but with someone telling secrets to the press... why is he so Lackadaisical about finding out who it is?

Especially since he's trying to fight a war on terrorism... last thing he needs is someone leaking CIA opratives to the world. Bad boy! Slap!
« Last Edit: November 10, 2003, 03:33:10 PM by DmdNexus »

Offline Kieran

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 4119
Loving the Bush Haters: Is it wrong to take pleasure... ?
« Reply #34 on: November 10, 2003, 07:00:56 PM »
Quote
Marc Rich - The President has the authority to pardon people. It's unconditional. It's legal. Sure question Clinton's motives, he probably did it for the money and because Rich is his personal friend. It's his rigth to do so. It's 100% legal.


I've a feeling bribery is illegal.

Let's talk about campaign money. Let's compare that to selling arms. What happened right after Clinton gets some Chinese money? Suddenly China acquires some of our most valuable harddrives straight from Los Alamos. Connection? I dunno, but it doesn't look too good.

As far as the person connected with releasing the identity of agents, get 'im. That can't be tolerated by either side. Won't find defense from me.

Getting back to the point, your assertion is that Republicans break the laws, and you insinuated Democrats don't. As Clinton amply proved, you're wrong. Understand, I am not excusing lawbreaking by either side, just correcting the statement.