Lucky...

Don't tell him tho, he still thinks he can pull it out and win the primary...

Unless you're a goalie then you ALWAYS play the puck. Guess which one I am The puck????

I'm under the assumption that you weren't quoting someone, but those were your words. The way you have it formatted it appears you are quoting someone. So is telling a lie to Congress about something that ends in the death of thousands as imnportant as something trivial? If we compare it to the general logic surrounding the criminal system we can find that there are HUGE differences. Lying in a perjerous fashion about negligible things in a case where there are no victims, probably won't get more than a warning from the judge, versus an intentional lie about a major issue in a murder trial. IOW's, a lie is not a lie, is not a lie. If your wife lied about spending $20 more than she initially said she did, would that carry as much weight as her lying about shopping when you dicovered she was getting screwed by a co-worker at his house? Seriously, it's convenient to wave the, "A lie is a lie" flag all over the place, but it is ridiculous/irresonsible to purport all lies as the same.

And Bush is a convicted criminal, convicted in a court of law. That doesn't seem to stop any adoration for him from you. Personally I think driving drunk is a bit more serious than lieing about a blowjob. But hey, we all have our priorities....you like to fight against blowjobs, I like to fight against drunk driving.... Great point, I missed that one. Again, more morality, as Amazon was referencing. BJ's bad, alcohol good. I agree, I'm pro-BJ, anti-drunk driver.

HERE, RUSH, I'LL REPOST IT FOR YOU. PLEASE SHOW ME THE ATTACK. WHILE YOU'RE AT IT, RESPOND TO THE REST OF IT OR CONCEDE. FOR CLARITY, I'LL PLACE MY STATEMENTS IN BOLD. Just saying that you can't believe that everyone can not think that Bush breaks all laws makes you someone that can not talk about the issues. It is very telling where you must get ALL your news from. As for Clinton, HE DID NOT GET IMPEACHED FOR GETTING A BJ. Just stating that shows you do not know the facts or you choose to ignore them. Do I think Clinton was a criminal? Hell yes, he addmittied to it. Last time I knew lieing under oath (FOR A SEXUAL HARRASSMENT SUIT) is called purgurey and is a felony. And by the way, what would the media do to any Rebublican that would have gotten into the same situation? THEY would have piled on just like they do to Bush today..... Bush has broken no laws that we know of. The charges run wild but with no fact to back them up they wither and die, (just like the once great Dem party in doing) *** [B]Where did I write that he breaks all laws? Please post reference. I agree, punctuation is overrated. Thanks for making the issue about me though. Back to the issue: “Bush approved intelligence leak" [/B] [B]Oh, that’s next thread where we discuss from where I get my news. I don’t understand how this affects the issue; “Bush approved intelligence leak"[/B] [B]So if you are successfully able to establish that I don’t know jack, then Bush must be innocent, right? I just don’t understand your angle here, you could hypothetically make your proof and Bush would still be Bush regardless of me. Learn how to argue the issue, no the person making the argument. Back to the issue: “Bush approved intelligence leak" I understand why you just replied and didn’t post quotes from me, so here is the one to which you wee referring:[/B] Furthermore, the Repubs went after Clinton for being Clinton, not for some silly BJ and subsequent lie. [B]The last part, the subsequent lie. See, I do know the technical reason why Clinton was impeached. Truth is, Clinton dared to against the Republican machine and was impeached for something the world other than neo-con US felt was very ridiculous. Again, neo-con US was right and 90% of the rest of the world was wrong. Factually, I doubt you realize why Clinton was impeached, the four charges where 2 were handed down as impeachments. Furthermore, I doubt you know what the process is for indictment and removal, % of votes required at each level and all kinds of other related stuff. Not that Clinton’s or Bush’s guilt or innocence rides on that knowledge.[/B] [B]As an aside, it’s hard to read someone tell me I don’t know what I’m talking about when they wrote: “addmittied” “purgurey” Was there a sexual harassment suit? I don’t think there was, I think it was a Congressional investigation that was stemmed from Ken Starr‘s preliminary investigation. Oh well, same thing, right? Was Clinton sued in civil court or tried in criminal court fro the Lewinsky deal? Uh, I think not. In some states we still have laws prohibiting Open and Notorious Cohabitation, but they are as enforced as much as spitting on the sidewalk laws. Interrogating a person in the 1990’s for getting a BJ in that capacity is entirely ridiculous and a witchhunt.[/B] [B]Great point, the media went after Clinton just like they did Reagan/Bush for Iran/Contra. Speaking of which, that was an example of scumbags being guilty as hell, but there not being enough proof. So that deflates your, “liberal media” theory when you discuss the media going after politicians, as they did with Clinton. Again, it’s ok to talk about the media, but they only report and sometimes skew the facts; doesn’t change the actual guilt or innocence of the politician.[/B] [B]Wiretapping, torture, and the Libby scandal; don’t be so sure there won’t be charges coming down, especially if the House becomes Democratically controlled. Polls have the Dems very high as a result of the Republican corruption. And with gas prices even higher than Republican despise, I think the Dems will take back the House and maybe the Senate. So if anything the Dems have an upswing in popularity. You must have forgotten to address these issue I posted in response to you: 1) Actually he's the 2nd favorite to women, behind JFK. I think you mean you view him as a pig for the way he is to women. OK, so don't date him, but many women would.... and prolly do. 2) Furthermore, the Repubs went after Clinton for being Clinton, not for some silly BJ and subsequent lie. They would have impeached him for whatever, once they had a majority in congress for a bit. It was pathetic and the Repubs opened a door that they will be walking thr very soon if Congress turns Democratic, or at least the House. 3) What is this world coming to: A president held to political standards!!! Uh, impeachment is a political process, just as censure and all other actions. Do you think the Clinton impeachment was criminal? Is it a crime that is enforced to commit adultery? They call it, "High Crimes and Misdemeanors," but in a political sense. Kind of like when a corporation kills people; it's a civil infraction. 4) OK, so Bush f'd up and left him there, so what? He is in his position, just like Brown of FEMA and now "IT IS WHAT IT IS," regardless of what some wish it was. 5) Clinton should have shoved it down Monica's throat to ensure no leakage, or,.... pulled out a dirty sock and emptied it there and no one would know the diffffff........ coulda - shoulda - ISN'T; Specter is there and making his assertions, just as Clarence Thomas did. Bush ran him out and placed his clone there, but Specter is there and Bush can't do shit but face the same music Clinton did..... Clinton's gotta be loving it. 6) Factoid: Clinton had a 50% approval rating after impeachment..... what is Bush's before? Maybe 35% or so? Pathetic.[/B]

Now you're a victim? What statement did I make where you feel attacked. Instead of posting how you're such a victim, post the statement I made by prompting, QUOTE instead of, REPLY. I have no idea as to what you are talking about since you didn't quote it, but you've just ducked another post I spent a fair amount of time constructing..... no surprise....

Absolutley. Then the Dems will attempt to fix the problem and get some result - it's down the drain now that it might be impossible - Bush will have doubled the national debt - 5.5T to 11T by Jan 09. Clinton turned a several hundred billion $ annual deficit into a 230 billion $ annual surplus, then Bush turned that into a 500+ billion $ deficit in I think a year or two..... now they're excited that it might be below 400 billion per year. Then, if the Dems fix the problem, to whatever degree they can, the public will focus on peripheral, meaningless issues and go after them, then dethrown the Dems..... sad..... As crazy as it sounds, they are. They are throwing the government into such debt that the US gov will be subordinate to corporate America, hence the US gov is and will be smaller than it was before they took office. It's been going since Reagan. Reagan, Bush, Bush are responsible for 60% of the national debt. Bingo! And someone just called me hypocritical! I wonder if he served, cause I sure did and I'm a Dem that is disgusted with the war and Republican Military Industrial War Complex. The lion's share of patriotic Repubs are non-vets, versus the not-so-patriotic Dems (joke). Anither great point. And this is where the Repubs claim there is a Democratic conspiracy, which, even if true, is ridiculous since there was that little impeachment thing over a BJ and subsequent lie. The Repubs have made thier bed, they just don't like laying on it.....

IRONY meter PEGGED at 10.0 When doing a search you posted several times in the Christian and proud of it thread. OH that was an OVERSIGHT on your part.. just like your boss Ooooops!!! Well, he skim posted .

So you missed the thread about Christian and proud and all the responses? Actually, I only read a few pages of that thread because it wasn't very interesting to me. You seen to forget that an equal number of Democrats are religious. To preach ones religious beliefs (shoving it down my throat) while at the same time bashing others who do the same thing is the height of hypocrisy. - I'm agnistic, but am tollerant of others beliefs so long as they don't cram it down throats. My experiences are that it is usually, almost exclusive that the right wingers do the cramming of religion. I think this is supported in legislation. Please show me examples where lefters legislate their morality in 'cramming it down our throats' fashion. I'm sure you can find remote examples, and I would be critical of those people, but generally we can see the righties doing it daily.

So you missed the thread about Christian and proud and all the responses?

But enough about: 1) School vouchers 2) No more stem cell research (no new embryos) 3) God in the pledge 4) Anti-abortion 5) The 28th Homophobe Amendment proposal and support ...what exactly is you point and proof that Bush uses religion as political tool??????

Conversly I ask the same thing of you... but I do not feel hatred for those of you on the right. You constantly SPOUT that anything that does not agree with your goosestepping to the Bu$h Drum as hatred. I will let GOD sort you out for your use of war, hatred, and all of your other sins that are making this world so much less than what it could be. Perhaps you would want to look inside to see that all that the religeous right support might actually be the religious wrong. Seriously.. perhaps the line from the bible "YOU SHALL KNOW THEM BY THEIR DEEDS" might just resonate with some of you on the religious right. Unless you reaally are the ones who are completely stuck on hatred...war....greed...arrogance.. which truely is being stupid. Well put.......

Post your assertions and my response - explain yourself and I will be glad to address it.

Just saying that you can't believe that everyone can not think that Bush breaks all laws makes you someone that can not talk about the issues. It is very telling where you must get ALL your news from. As for Clinton, HE DID NOT GET IMPEACHED FOR GETTING A BJ. Just stating that shows you do not know the facts or you choose to ignore them. Do I think Clinton was a criminal? Hell yes, he addmittied to it. Last time I knew lieing under oath (FOR A SEXUAL HARRASSMENT SUIT) is called purgurey and is a felony. And by the way, what would the media do to any Rebublican that would have gotten into the same situation? THEY would have piled on just like they do to Bush today..... Bush has broken no laws that we know of. The charges run wild but with no fact to back them up they wither and die, (just like the once great Dem party in doing) *** Where did I write that he breaks all laws? Please post reference. I agree, punctuation is overrated. Thanks for making the issue about me though. Back to the issue: “Bush approved intelligence leak" Oh, that’s next thread where we discuss from where I get my news. I don’t understand how this affects the issue; “Bush approved intelligence leak" So if you are successfully able to establish that I don’t know jack, then Bush must be innocent, right? I just don’t understand your angle here, you could hypothetically make your proof and Bush would still be Bush regardless of me. Learn how to argue the issue, no the person making the argument. Back to the issue: “Bush approved intelligence leak" I understand why you just replied and didn’t post quotes from me, so here is the one to which you wee referring: Furthermore, the Repubs went after Clinton for being Clinton, not for some silly BJ and subsequent lie. The last part, the subsequent lie. See, I do know the technical reason why Clinton was impeached. Truth is, Clinton dared to against the Republican machine and was impeached for something the world other than neo-con US felt was very ridiculous. Again, neo-con US was right and 90% of the rest of the world was wrong. Factually, I doubt you realize why Clinton was impeached, the four charges where 2 were handed down as impeachments. Furthermore, I doubt you know what the process is for indictment and removal, % of votes required at each level and all kinds of other related stuff. Not that Clinton’s or Bush’s guilt or innocence rides on that knowledge. As an aside, it’s hard to read someone tell me I don’t know what I’m talking about when they wrote: “addmittied” “purgurey” Was there a sexual harassment suit? I don’t think there was, I think it was a Congressional investigation that was stemmed from Ken Starr‘s preliminary investigation. Oh well, same thing, right? Was Clinton sued in civil court or tried in criminal court fro the Lewinsky deal? Uh, I think not. In some states we still have laws prohibiting Open and Notorious Cohabitation, but they are as enforced as much as spitting on the sidewalk laws. Interrogating a person in the 1990’s for getting a BJ in that capacity is entirely ridiculous and a witchhunt. Great point, the media went after Clinton just like they did Reagan/Bush for Iran/Contra. Speaking of which, that was an example of scumbags being guilty as hell, but there not being enough proof. So that deflates your, “liberal media” theory when you discuss the media going after politicians, as they did with Clinton. Again, it’s ok to talk about the media, but they only report and sometimes skew the facts; doesn’t change the actual guilt or innocence of the politician. Wiretapping, torture, and the Libby scandal; don’t be so sure there won’t be charges coming down, especially if the House becomes Democratically controlled. Polls have the Dems very high as a result of the Republican corruption. And with gas prices even higher than Republican despise, I think the Dems will take back the House and maybe the Senate. So if anything the Dems have an upswing in popularity. You must have forgotten to address these issue I posted in response to you: 1) Actually he's the 2nd favorite to women, behind JFK. I think you mean you view him as a pig for the way he is to women. OK, so don't date him, but many women would.... and prolly do. 2) Furthermore, the Repubs went after Clinton for being Clinton, not for some silly BJ and subsequent lie. They would have impeached him for whatever, once they had a majority in congress for a bit. It was pathetic and the Repubs opened a door that they will be walking thr very soon if Congress turns Democratic, or at least the House. 3) What is this world coming to: A president held to political standards!!! Uh, impeachment is a political process, just as censure and all other actions. Do you think the Clinton impeachment was criminal? Is it a crime that is enforced to commit adultery? They call it, "High Crimes and Misdemeanors," but in a political sense. Kind of like when a corporation kills people; it's a civil infraction. 4) OK, so Bush f'd up and left him there, so what? He is in his position, just like Brown of FEMA and now "IT IS WHAT IT IS," regardless of what some wish it was. 5) Clinton should have shoved it down Monica's throat to ensure no leakage, or,.... pulled out a dirty sock and emptied it there and no one would know the diffffff........ coulda - shoulda - ISN'T; Specter is there and making his assertions, just as Clarence Thomas did. Bush ran him out and placed his clone there, but Specter is there and Bush can't do shit but face the same music Clinton did..... Clinton's gotta be loving it. 6) Factoid: Clinton had a 50% approval rating after impeachment..... what is Bush's before? Maybe 35% or so? Pathetic.

Intelligence leaking from from George Bush? That's not new news... Actually he had an affirmative defense: Bush: I have no intelligence.

You are becoming the master of putting words in someones mouth. You are taking what I am posting and turning it into something I am not even implying ...and Specter? a good example of a RINO. He never should have been left in his position so you missed hitting any point there. Hell, even my comment about Clinton you twisted clear out of context. Face it, the left has got nothin here. But I recognize the left responds to the charge, not the facts! OK, so Bush f'd up and left him there, so what? He is in his position, just like Brown of FEMA and now "IT IS WHAT IT IS," regardless of what some wish it was. Clinton should have shoved it down Monica's throat to ensure no leakage, or,.... pulled out a dirty sock and emptied it there and no one would know the diffffff........ coulda - shoulda - ISN'T; Specter is there and making his assertions, just as Clarence Thomas did. Bush ran him out and placed his clone there, but Specter is there and Bush can't do shit but face the same music Clinton did..... Clinton's gotta be loving it. Factoid: Clinton had a 50% approval rating after impeachment..... what is Bush's before? Maybe 35% or so? Pathetic. Not that you're guilty of anything, but by supporting him with that defense it sounds as tho he's guilty, just that you feel it can't be proven.

JUST IN: The president has declared it the weekend on Tuesday, cause he loves the weekend.

they started against clinton because he is a pig when is comes to women. And where do you the get president is above the law BS?? I never said that. And where do you the get president is above the law BS?? I never said that. You sure can twist a post around Actually he's the 2nd favorite to women, behind JFK. I think you mean you view him as a pig for the way he is to women. OK, so don't date him, but many women would.... and prolly do . Furthermore, the Repubs went after Clinton for being Clinton, not for some silly BJ and subsequent lie. They would have impeached him for whatever, once they had a majority in congress for a bit. It was pathetic and the Repubs opened a door that they will be walking thr very soon if Congress turns Democratic, or at least the House. The only other pres to be impeached was Andrew Johnson, Lincoln's VP turned pres after Lincoln's assassination. He was impeached for usurpation of power - many counts. It was in teh midst of the Civil War, obviously, and he basically ignored Congress by usurping their power. He wasn't removed. I think Nixon would have been removed if he had stayed in office. I think you see Democratic corruption vs Republican corruption. Not from you, but from Bush's actions. I can't believe there is one person around that thinks Bush follows the laws and rules of his office. What is this world comming to: A president held to political standards!!! Uh, impeachment is a political process, just as censure and all other actions. Do you think the Clinton impeachment was criminal? Is it a crime that is enforced to commit adultery? They call it, "High Crimes and Misdemeanors," but in a political sense. Kind of like when a corporation kills people; it's a civil infraction.

Did Bush really release a classified file and try to sell ports to the UAE? Oh, I thought if you could wag the dog, so could I!

If this is real and not some fun post, I'm all about her!!!! One word: HEDONISM!!! I agree with everything you wrote....

Yep. I think the trend of the country is to come away from the greasy Republican military industrial war machine. New polls show that not only voters are disgusted with the pres, but Congress even more. Ultimately tho, the guys in uniform, for which I was one years back, take it in the drawers for corp profits and this concept of industrial military supremacy. I used to think the dropping of the bombs was so essential, but now I think it was merely: A) An experiment B) A way to upstage the Ruskies and be WWII heroes. I think things will change in the upcomming years.....

http://www.facts.com/amhist/haa00001010.htm#h03 Critics Say Bombings Were Immoral, Unnecessary Critics of the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings say that it is barbaric and a crime against humanity to target civilians with such a devastating weapon. They note that 95% of the people who were killed in the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings were civilians. According to Japanese estimates in the wake of the bombing, some 75% of those immediately killed died as a result of burns, either from "flash burns" caused by the heat of the blast or from burns from fires sparked by the blast. Many more died later from effects of the radiation, including radiation sickness (also called acute radiation syndrome) and cancer. SO if virtually all were civilians, what was teh neccessity? _________________________________________________________ http://www.inthesetimes.com/site/main/article/2278/ When George W. Bush declared war on Iraq to destroy Saddam’s nonexistent weapons of mass destruction, he was following the great American tradition of the Big Lie. Sixty years ago, when President Harry Truman announced to the American public that the first atomic bomb had been dropped on Hiroshima, he told a whopper, describing the city as “a military base” targeted “because we wished… to avoid…the killing of civilians.” Yet Hiroshima was not a military base; the Bomb had been deliberately dropped without warning on the city center, instantly leveling it and incinerating as many as 75,000 men, women and children. Another 125,000 died more slowly, many of them rotting inside-out from radiation poisoning. Truman also claimed that the Bomb was our one way to compel Japanese surrender and that its use on Hiroshima and Nagasaki saved half a million American lives. Yet as Gerard DeGroot observes in The Bomb, his caustic compendium of the history of nuclear weaponry, weeks earlier the United States had intercepted Japanese peace feelers to the Soviets. Japan was probably prepared to surrender on conditional terms-but the United States would accept only unconditional surrender. The real target of the Bomb was the USSR. At Yalta, the Soviets had agreed to invade Japan in exchange for concessions in Asia-and the Russians were due to invade by August 15. The U.S. rush to nuke Japan allowed America to renege on that agreement. Analyzing the impact of the Bomb less than a year later, the United States’ own Strategic Bombing Survey challenged the claim that the Bomb ended the war, asserting “certainly prior to 31 December 1945, and in all probability prior to 1 November 1945, Japan would have surrendered.”

Here's a bunch of quotes from military people, Einstein, etc... http://www.doug-long.com/quotes.htm DWIGHT EISENHOWER "...in [July] 1945... Secretary of War Stimson, visiting my headquarters in Germany, informed me that our government was preparing to drop an atomic bomb on Japan. I was one of those who felt that there were a number of cogent reasons to question the wisdom of such an act. ...the Secretary, upon giving me the news of the successful bomb test in New Mexico, and of the plan for using it, asked for my reaction, apparently expecting a vigorous assent. "During his recitation of the relevant facts, I had been conscious of a feeling of depression and so I voiced to him my grave misgivings, first on the basis of my belief that Japan was already defeated and that dropping the bomb was completely unnecessary, and secondly because I thought that our country should avoid shocking world opinion by the use of a weapon whose employment was, I thought, no longer mandatory as a measure to save American lives. It was my belief that Japan was, at that very moment, seeking some way to surrender with a minimum loss of 'face'. The Secretary was deeply perturbed by my attitude..." ALBERT EINSTEIN Einstein was not directly involved in the Manhattan Project (which developed the atomic bomb). In 1905, as part of his Special Theory of Relativity, he made the intriguing point that a relatively large amount of energy was contained in and could be released from a relatively small amount of matter. This became best known by the equation E=mc2. The atomic bomb was not based upon this theory but clearly illustrated it. In 1939 Einstein signed a letter to President Roosevelt that was drafted by the scientist Leo Szilard. Received by FDR in October of that year, the letter from Einstein called for and sparked the beginning of U.S. government support for a program to build an atomic bomb, lest the Nazis build one first. Einstein did not speak publicly on the atomic bombing of Japan until a year afterward. A short article on the front page of the New York Times contained his view: "Prof. Albert Einstein... said that he was sure that President Roosevelt would have forbidden the atomic bombing of Hiroshima had he been alive and that it was probably carried out to end the Pacific war before Russia could participate." Einstein Deplores Use of Atom Bomb, New York Times, 8/19/46, pg. 1. Regarding the 1939 letter to Roosevelt, his biographer, Ronald Clark, has noted: "As far as his own life was concerned, one thing seemed quite clear. 'I made one great mistake in my life,' he said to Linus Pauling, who spent an hour with him on the morning of November 11, 1954, '...when I signed the letter to President Roosevelt recommending that atom bombs be made; but there was some justification - the danger that the Germans would make them.'". And a bunch of others........ What I extrapolated was that we had a race to end the war and not let Russia share in the glory. We dropped teh bomb early before Russia had a chance to get into the action over thee, as they would have been credited for ending the war. Many good theories and statements.

You actually saw this, or did you indirectly read this from some partisan source of questionable accuracy? I saw and heard this during the 60th anniversary special over the weekend last August. I've done papers on WWII and never before read this. It does seem plausable - probably true. I would like to do more research on this. Of the 30 or so books I have read about WWII, I do not recall ever reading this either. But I do remember reading how it was an attractive city early in the planning stages for it's industry and geographic location. It really stuck in my mind when I heard it. I've been to Tinian, the place where both bombs, Little Boy and Fat Man were loaded and armed - actually I think Fat Man was armed by teh crew as it flew, but the acft tookoff from Tinian - I visited Saipan, an island we took back from the Japanese as they jumped to their death to avoid being taken. A lot of WWII history there. I want to research that assertion from Discovery Channel.

Well, post that it is false..... I just related what I personally heard and saw.