DaVinci 0
Recommended Posts
kallend 2,148
QuoteQuoteWhy won't you admit that the only reason we're having this discussion is because she's a Democrat?
Cause it would not be true. The only reason I am having this discussion is because you and others seem to have quite a double standard. It is OK for one party to have waste, but not the other.
I would prefer neither party encourages waste.
Why do you continue with this "SILLY" (Tony Snow) thread. Waste is giving the North Koreans 50,000 tons of oil to have them do what they were already doing in 2002.
...
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
DaVinci 0
QuoteWhy do you continue with this "SILLY" (Tony Snow) thread.
Why do you?
QuoteWaste is giving the North Koreans 50,000 tons of oil to have them do what they were already doing in 2002.
It is only silly if nothing comes from it. Would you rater just start another war?
QuoteWhy do you continue with this "SILLY" (Tony Snow) thread.
Maybe if you quit posting, it would quickly fade away.
QuoteThe only reason I am having this discussion is because you and others seem to have quite a double standard. It is OK for one party to have waste, but not the other.
I would prefer neither party encourages waste.
Show me where I have encouraged waste OR fostered a double standard.
Take your time.
QuoteQuote
I'm not so sure about that. It seems to me that the right does smearing and misinformation better than the left. Well, at least the smearing and misinformation that gets picked up and beaten to death in the "liberal" media.
Don't kid yourself. Both sides view the other side as the worse offender.
I honestly don't think I'm kidding myself or anyone else. Sure, politics has always had a seedy, mudslinging side but the R's starting in the late 80's brought it to a new level. It was damn near elevated to an art form during the Clinton years. A couple of examples, Whitewater. A sour land deal worth about $200K occupies the news for about six years, costs the taxpayers probably $100 million and no one finds any wrong doing. Cheney runs a company that admits to defrauding the taxpayer for millions of dollars and........chirp......chirp.......chirp. Nothing. Number two: A seedy rumor gets spread around (yet another Scaife creation) that the Clintons were involved in Fosters death. That gets a fair amount of air time, still gets thrown around by some on the right, and has helped to fuel this notion that Hillary's people are hateful, vindictive and ready slice and dice any opponent. How do you think she would be portrayed if she had ACTUALLY killed someone? Would she have gotten the kid gloves that Laura did? Hell no.
P.S. No, I'm not trying to stir up anything with regard to Mrs. Bush's unfortunate history. Just using it as a good example of a double standard.
Well, for starters, the Clinton's have a pretty sleazy trail. Bill's back-stabbing tactics and misrepresentations to avoid the draft. Numerous charges of rape and sexual misconduct. A trail of dead bodies. Bill's drug dealing brother. Hillary has a 10,000% return on Cattle Futures and then decides "I'm good". "Vince Foster is dead - we better go clean up/out his apartment". Hillary's charge of a vast right wing conspiracy blew up in her face.... and on Monica's dress, too.
No doubt, the end result of the Starr investigation was a huge waste of resources. That doesn't change the fact that the Clinton's left a particularly nasty wake.
Was Haliburton guilty of wrongdoing while Cheney was in charge? I know about the company's financial irregularities. They were well reported in the media. Hopefully, the company will be fully prosecuted for it's wrongdoing.
Comparing Hillary to Laura Bush is a bad analogy. Hillary came on the scene basically saying "I'm a modern woman, not a Tammy Wynnette 'stand by your man' type . We are the presidency." In other words, she said "I don't give a shit how all the other first ladies have acted, if my husband wins, I'll be the co-President" This pissed off a lot of people.
In contrast, Laura Bush has made a point of distancing herself from the power of the Presidency, instead taking on the role as ambassador and dignitary for the Presidency and the country.
QuoteMaybe if you quit posting, it would quickly fade away.
Hey, this is fun. How many more posts will there be if I chime in?
This has got to be your side's most embarassing thread ever. But for some reason you guys have it in your heads that you just won't let it die without getting the last word. Why? I can't guess. If I were you guys I'd slink away quietly.
But go for it! Give us another ten examples of your obsession. Just hit the reply button and try to distract some more. It's over to the right.
First Class Citizen Twice Over
Quote
Well, for starters, the Clinton's have a pretty sleazy trail. Bill's back-stabbing tactics and misrepresentations to avoid the draft. Numerous charges of rape and sexual misconduct. A trail of dead bodies. Bill's drug dealing brother. Hillary has a 10,000% return on Cattle Futures and then decides "I'm good". "Vince Foster is dead - we better go clean up/out his apartment". Hillary's charge of a vast right wing conspiracy blew up in her face.... and on Monica's dress, too.
No doubt, the end result of the Starr investigation was a huge waste of resources. That doesn't change the fact that the Clinton's left a particularly nasty wake.
Was Haliburton guilty of wrongdoing while Cheney was in charge? I know about the company's financial irregularities. They were well reported in the media. Hopefully, the company will be fully prosecuted for it's wrongdoing.
Comparing Hillary to Laura Bush is a bad analogy. Hillary came on the scene basically saying "I'm a modern woman, not a Tammy Wynnette 'stand by your man' type . We are the presidency." In other words, she said "I don't give a shit how all the other first ladies have acted, if my husband wins, I'll be the co-President" This pissed off a lot of people.
In contrast, Laura Bush has made a point of distancing herself from the power of the Presidency, instead taking on the role as ambassador and dignitary for the Presidency and the country.
The short answer:
If "sleaze" is the charge then there's plenty in the Bush camp to go after. And Bill and Hillary didn't have anyone erasing their tracks.
Hillary's charge of a vast right wing conspiracy was only wrong in that it wasn't vast. Most of the accusations and "scandals" were the result of a concerted effort to make noise and try to dig up some sort of dirt in an effort to bring Clinton down, much of which was financed by Richard Mellon Scaife and pumped through Rev. Moon's rag, the Washington Times.
And yes, Cheney was running Halliburton at the time of the fraud. That they continue to do it is not necessarily his fault, it's our government's fault for re-hiring them but then again, that's typical Washington wastefulness.
And I'm sorry if Hillary's assertiveness pissed off people. Big deal, some people can't stand an assertive woman. I looked at her effort to bring about health care reform as a "freebie" since, to my knowledge, First Lady is not a paying job and the dialog is an important one. And I DO think that the comparison with Laura and her past is valid because I know damn well that the witch hunt that descended on the Clinton's would have included Hillary even if she had just been an uninvolved First Lady. It was pretty much an all encompassing assault looking for anything that would stick.
And for the record, I wasn't a big Clinton fan. But I grew to hate what was being done to him through the incessant character assassination attempts. It's shitty politics. And no, it's not the same thing as what some of us are doing to Bush. I dislike him for his political decisions and the subsequent fall out, not because of his diet or his hair cut, or even if he's was doing Condi in the oval office wearing nipple clamps and Bozo nose. I might draw the line however if he were to do it on the front lawn or post the video on You Tube.
kallend 2,148
Quote
The short answer:
If "sleaze" is the charge then there's plenty in the Bush camp to go after. And Bill and Hillary didn't have anyone erasing their tracks.
Hillary's charge of a vast right wing conspiracy was only wrong in that it wasn't vast. Most of the accusations and "scandals" were the result of a concerted effort to make noise and try to dig up some sort of dirt in an effort to bring Clinton down, much of which was financed by Richard Mellon Scaife and pumped through Rev. Moon's rag, the Washington Times.
.
The very source of this "silly" non-story about Pelosi and the Jet.
...
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
kallend 2,148
QuoteQuoteWhy do you continue with this "SILLY" (Tony Snow) thread.
Why do you?
Because it's your side that is making an ass of itself.
...
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
DaVinci 0
QuoteShow me where I have encouraged waste OR fostered a double standard.
Take your time.
This thread shows it quite well.
QuoteQuoteShow me where I have encouraged waste OR fostered a double standard.
Take your time.
This thread shows it quite well.
I can't believe that you revived this thread so you could do nothing more than fail to answer a direct question.
DaVinci 0
QuoteI can't believe that you revived this thread so you could do nothing more than fail to answer a direct question.
I responded to a question from you.
I answered your question, it is not my fault you choose to ignore the answer.
This has GOT to be the Angry Right Wing's most stupidly embarrassing thread ever.
You can't save face here. You can't blame others. It's a lost cause.
Your only chance is to let the thread die and fade from memory. That's my advice.
First Class Citizen Twice Over
You can't save face here. You can't blame others. It's a lost cause.
Your only chance is to let the thread die and fade from memory. That's my advice.
First Class Citizen Twice Over
QuoteQuoteI can't believe that you revived this thread so you could do nothing more than fail to answer a direct question.
I responded to a question from you.
Yes, you did indeed respond.
I answered your question,
No, you didn't. Your answer was only slightly more specific than "on dropzone.com". I hate double standards and I hate government waste and if you read my posts you'll see that. I do however, have a tendency to point out severe examples of government waste as opposed to the nickel and dime crap that was brought up here simply for partisan button pushing. You accused others of being blind to "their" party's waste while you, yourself are guilty of doing that very thing as your primary contribution to this thread. You want to call me out for being hypocritical? Then do it, but be specific. I'm not sure which I hate more, government waste, double standards or baseless character attacks.
DaVinci 0
QuoteNo, you didn't
Yes I did.
QuoteI hate double standards and I hate government waste and if you read my posts you'll see that. I do however, have a tendency to point out severe examples of government waste as opposed to the nickel and dime crap that was brought up here simply for partisan button pushing
You have the double standard here. You claim to hate waste but not if it is from your party, or it is not big enough.
QuoteI'm not sure which I hate more, government waste, double standards or baseless character attacks.
You mean like when you claim to hate waste but not on this topic but try to make me look stupid for not liking this watse either while you accept it? You mean that kind of waste, double standard and character attack?
Quote
You have the double standard here. You claim to hate waste but not if it is from your party, or it is not big enough.
So that's it? That's your double standard? You're right, I'm not going to complain about every dime. There's too many dimes. I'd rather complain about the dollars. I didn't bitch about Pelosi's plane, didn't bitch about Hastert's either.
Interesting concept though, me not complaining means that I support it. Mind if I apply that logic to all of your non-responses?QuoteI'm not sure which I hate more, government waste, double standards or baseless character attacks.
You mean like when you claim to hate waste but not on this topic but try to make me look stupid for not liking this watse either while you accept it? You mean that kind of waste, double standard and character attack?
I'm not trying to make you look stupid. I'm accusing you of being hypocritical in your attacks on myself and Kallend.
DaVinci 0
QuoteI'm not trying to make you look stupid. I'm accusing you of being hypocritical in your attacks on myself and Kallend.
By being hypocritical and making attacks.
kallend 2,148
QuoteQuoteI'm not trying to make you look stupid. I'm accusing you of being hypocritical in your attacks on myself and Kallend.
By being hypocritical and making attacks.
Please keep this thread going as long as possible. It makes the right look "STUPID".
...
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
QuoteQuoteI'm not trying to make you look stupid. I'm accusing you of being hypocritical in your attacks on myself and Kallend.
By being hypocritical and making attacks.
Bucking for a gig at the Washington Times? You've got the right wing media style down to perfection. Just keep saying it, regardless of validity, and hopefully it will stick. I guess this thread has come full circle now. But go ahead and get in the last word. Then you can interpret my non-response to mean anything you want
And don't forget to throw in a reference to Clinton.
kallend 2,148
QuoteQuoteQuoteI'm not trying to make you look stupid. I'm accusing you of being hypocritical in your attacks on myself and Kallend.
By being hypocritical and making attacks.
Bucking for a gig at the Washington Times? You've got the right wing media style down to perfection. Just keep saying it, regardless of validity, and hopefully it will stick. I guess this thread has come full circle now. But go ahead and get in the last word. Then you can interpret my non-response to mean anything you want
And don't forget to throw in a reference to Clinton.
Yup, the Washington Times, Sun Myung Moon's outlet to the world, subsidized by his church.
"I established The Washington Times to fulfill God's desperate desire to save this world." Rev. Sun Myung Moon
...
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
By now it's pretty clear that this whole todo got stirred up because several Repubs sounded off before getting the facts right. Egg on their face. Egg on my face.
But while it was considered a valid story, you seemed to be saying this was chump change... much ado about nothing.
Did you really think a US Representative getting around $3,000,000.00 per year in taxpayer funded travel was irrelevant?
Egg on my face.
But while it was considered a valid story, you seemed to be saying this was chump change... much ado about nothing.
Did you really think a US Representative getting around $3,000,000.00 per year in taxpayer funded travel was irrelevant?
Cause it would not be true. The only reason I am having this discussion is because you and others seem to have quite a double standard. It is OK for one party to have waste, but not the other.
I would prefer neither party encourages waste.
Share this post
Link to post
Share on other sites