Jailing Reporters

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
221

[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:
http://corner.nationalreview.com/05_07_17_corner-archive.asp#069855

NADAGATE GOALPOSTS [Ramesh Ponnuru]

Most of the press says that Bush has lowered his ethical standards: he had said that he would fire anyone who had leaked classified information, or involved in leaking it, but is now saying he will fire only those guilty of criminal wrongdoing. Tom Maguire says it’s the press that has moved the goalposts ( http://justoneminute.typepad.com/main/2005/07/moving_the_goal.html ). I think you can make a case either way, but that the ambiguity in this situation tells in the president’s favor.

Maguire provides links to Bush’s statements, which is handy. Let’s review.

Sept. 2003: Bush says, “[I]f there is a leak out of my administration, I want to know who it is. And if the person has violated law, the person will be taken care of. . . . If somebody did leak classified information, I’d like to know it, and we’ll take the appropriate action.”

June 2004: Bush is asked, “[D]o you still stand by what you said several months ago, a suggestion that it might be difficult to identify anybody who leaked the agent’s name? . . . [A]nd do you stand by your pledge to fire anyone found to have done so?” Bush answered, “Yes.”

Today, Bush said, “If someone committed a crime, they will no longer work in my administration.”

Here’s how Maguire reads it: Bush originally said he would fire anyone who committed a crime in leaking Plame’s identity. Bush was then asked a question with a false premise: that he had said he would fire anyone who had leaked Plame’s name. He said that he stood by his earlier pledge, but unwittingly seemed to accept the reporter’s unwitting modification of it. He is now restating the original pledge.

It seems to me that the original comment was ambiguous: If you read “leak classified information” to include non-criminal leaking of classified information, and read “take the appropriate action” as a euphemism for firing, you can say that Bush was pledging to fire the leaker even if no crime occurred. The June 2004 question could then have been a question designed to reduce the ambiguity in the original statement.

So my tentative conclusion is that the press’s version of the president’s words and Maguire’s version are both a bit too definite. But the ambiguity is tougher for the press’s version, since it tries to portray the president as breaking a pledge.
[/quote]

of course he left out:

bush:“Today, everything is so promising and new,” the new president said. “I’m hoping the day will never come when any of us take this place for granted.”

Bush warned that he expected his White House staff to meet the highest ethical standards, avoiding not only violations of law, but even the appearance of impropriety.

“We must remember the high standards that come with high office,” he said. "This begins careful adherence with the rules. I expect every member of this administration to stay well within the boundaries [that] define legal and ethical conduct.

"No one in the White House should be afraid to confront the people they work for over ethical concerns, and no one should hesitate to confront me as well.

and

McClellan: “If anyone in this administration was involved in it [the improper disclosure of an undercover CIA operative’s identity], they would no longer be in this administration.”

the writer makes an incorrect assumption. McClellan (who speaks for the president) had already said what reporters are now saying. (of course we know that Ponnuru is faking ignorance, but hey, it’s the national review)

Rove WAS involved. Libby WAS involved. But no firing.

222

[quote]rainjack wrote:
WMD wrote:
Hello all,

It seems some of the right-wingers are a little unclear about the cyclical nature of American politics, what with all the cries of “losers, losers, losers, bitter liberals, Bush-haters, blah, blah, blah!” Remember guys, eventually the Republicans will wind up on the losing side and the Dems or whoever will hold sway, then the Repubs will win again and on and on and on. So how about graguating high-school and actually giving that aspect of the debate a rest. I mean is that your last refuge when you run out of any other retort? Bush had about, what, a 2 or 3 percent margin of victory so the country is roughly equally divided. Not exactly a mandate.

“Selected not elected”, blah blah blah. You are absolutely right. Politics is cyclical. And it is turning away from the libs currently. When the losers will lay down their partisan bullshit, their thinly veiled witch hunts, and their deluded elitist self-image, then maybe the tone will change.

But until they learn to lay down the ABB rhetoric, I will be damned if I give the losers a pass. This whole Rove ‘scandal’ is nothing more than an ABB witch hunt, and anyone who has taken a look at the facts would see through it. But that would be asking the ABB crowd to have an objective bone in their body. It ain’t happnin.

[/quote]

Um, I didn’t say anything about “selected not elected” nor did I mention anything about Rove. The nature of American politics is partisan, at least at this time. Kind of an inevitable consequence of a two party system that has outlasted it’s usefulness and the incredible changes that are taking place within our society. You yourself are one of the most partisan people on T-nation, almost as blind in your devotion to the Bush camp as JeffR. And while politics may be turning away from the liberal side of things, it seems alot of people are more centrist in their views as opposed to purely radical conservative. I believe many republicans have over-played their hands and we’ll see how that plays out in the future.

You might want to look up the word objective to see if it fits you at all. You come across as pretty hostile and aggressive to me. Not exactly objective. Maybe we understand the word differently. Objective folks seem a bit calmer and less, um, pissed off. If you are so certain of the rightness of your position, why does anybody who challenges your viewpoint get you so worked up? I’m not talking about guys like vroom or elkhuntr1 with whom you have a well-established relationship but maybe folks like myself, who are neither wholly liberal or conservative, but who are generally more centrist yet who find Bush and his cronies odious? Just to be clear, I dislike Bush for a number of reasons, but I am definitely not liberal. Just ask my liberal friends.

WMD

223

[quote]ZEB wrote:
All I asked for is some proof when you call the President a “criminal.” I don’t think that’s asking too much. [/quote]

Don’t be an idiot Zeb. Getting all uptight in a request for proof is more than a bit stupid.

All any of us can do it point to the media and say, this is how we interpret it. Why don’t you let Elk say how he interprets it.

You are just a dirty under-handed republican who will play every trick in the book as long as it isn’t against the law, or even if it is, as long as nobody can prove it.

That’s how I’m starting to view republicans. Ruthless bastards who will twist every law, cheat at every turn, do anything they can get away, in order to do what they want to do.

It sucks. Don’t agree? Fine. It’s my opinion. Many of the right wing clowns in here act in the same manner.

224

[quote]Elkhntr1 wrote:
Sasquatch, I hear you buddy, I understand you think it’s WEAK, but you know in my opinion, I question how people don’t say see what is to me glaring evidence. You know the saying about leading a horse to water?

I don’t believe there is proof that would sway your thoughts no matter how credible it was.

I certainly don’t believe there is proof in heaven or earth that would sway someone as dogmatic as rainjack or Zeb

Often times these debates turn into one person posting a coservatives writers oped and then a left leaning person posting theres. I can’t, nor do I care if I could, give you the proof you ask for it would be like trying to tell a Taliban that his religion was full of shit by showing him the Bible, an exercise in futility![/quote]

It’s too bad you feel this way because it is incorrect. I would be open to any legitimate info that shows culpability in any crime.

As stated, I’m not as red as you may think. It would not make me happy to know our trust and the responsibility entrusted to the position have been abused, but I would want to know. I would want justice served.

I see glaring accusations, I see no glaring evidence. I know how the battle is fought these days, it’s dirty and ugly. That is unfortunate. I will loook at any information and try to judge credibility to the best of my ability. Could that be skewed. Certainly. As it would be from any human looking at most any info.

Peace to you. Let’s agree to disagree here if that’s ok. It’s not personal, I indeed hope that if illegal activity is ocurring, it is uncovered and penalized accordingly. If it’s just unpopular or wrong, then so be it.

225

[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:

[/quote]

Whoops. B.B., don’t know if you realize but cliff may is a nut!
Check his initial reaction to Novak’s column where May’s excuse was that everybody knew Plame was an agent. Now it’s Corn’s fault? While he is quite the nutty make believer in writing (witness in 2 different tellings of the novak story he makes up both!) The best is watching him lie with abandon on cnn!

Holy cow, on rereading this is one of the kookiest things ever, and the facts be damned!(again this is Natl Rev.!) As if saying:
“…Wilson never worked for the CIA, but his wife, Valerie Plame, is an Agency operative on weapons of mass destruction.” isn’t enough! My goodness!

226

[quote]ZEB wrote:

“Called upon” by whom? The democratic spin machine? LOL…how silly.
[/quote]
uhhh, actually that would be the BUSH justice dept. (Hilarious that you tried Dems though! It’s not working for Ken “robot” Mehlman or Bill “the gambler” Bennett either–but still priceless when they dare to say it)

this has already been proven. (yawn).
He did confirm classified info (plame “sent” wilson) and that is against the law. And again the bush justice dept and the cia think this (not political—but damn you tried it again!)

227

Hey, Sasquatch, believe me when I say peace back to you a hundred times! I have nothing against you at all. It seems like you can realize we just have a different opinion.

I have said it before and I will say it again to you… I could be wrong.

I don’t happen to think I am wrong on my views stated here, but I have to concede that possibility.

Again, peace to you bro and thanks for your attempt to look at opposing views.

228

[quote]vroom wrote:
ZEB wrote:
All I asked for is some proof when you call the President a “criminal.” I don’t think that’s asking too much.

Don’t be an idiot Zeb. Getting all uptight in a request for proof is more than a bit stupid.

All any of us can do it point to the media and say, this is how we interpret it. Why don’t you let Elk say how he interprets it.

You are just a dirty under-handed republican who will play every trick in the book as long as it isn’t against the law, or even if it is, as long as nobody can prove it.

That’s how I’m starting to view republicans. Ruthless bastards who will twist every law, cheat at every turn, do anything they can get away, in order to do what they want to do.

It sucks. Don’t agree? Fine. It’s my opinion. Many of the right wing clowns in here act in the same manner.[/quote]

How do you view Democrats? I know this will make me look partisan more so than I am, but I find these statements to be a tad melodramatic.

I believe I know your current feelings of the present administration, but this is a broad brush you have chosen to paint with. I’m certain it is more of an emotional response than one you actually believe.?

The political field is a hot bed for rhetoric and name calling these days. Is anything positive being worked on right now? Has anything positive been generated in the past couple of years? This 2 party system is lending itself to us against them, and nothing of true value is being accomplished.

I wish I had an answer, but until the American public steps up to the plate and demands better from our public officials, this is what we got, and this is what we’ll get.

229

[quote]JeffR wrote:
e,

I love that you’ve become a crusader for truth, justice, and law.

Wasn’t it a few short years ago when a sitting President was allowed to decide what lies were “acceptable.” Obstruction of justice, destroying a woman’s right to protect herself, putting himself above the law, on and on and on.

Hey, at least he could give a great speech!!!

I think your words were, “It’s just a blowjob.”

Now we’ve got a situation that becomes less relevant by the day. Very few legal minds think this is worth talking about.

Here you are with the: Those devious Republicans, they aren’t being held accountable!!! They are mafia thugs!!! The repub machine is shielding them.

First of all, it appears Rove has been 100% open from the very beginning. Second, the mafia comparision is bitter, small, wrong, and weak. You’re coming apart.

I should write a book called: The Summer of 2004. Remember the good old days when John Edwards was going around saying, “We’re going to win.” Time had the headlines “The Contenders.” farenheit 911 was making your sphincter pucker. Record contributions being made to the democratic party. john “I’ll keep a little stashed away to pay for botox, bitch” kerry was reporting for duty.

God, what good times!!!

Your vehement denunciation of Rove and your hasty conclusion proves that your hypocrisy knows no bounds.

You want an example of some real “getting away with it?” Of course you do. Here’s the “Grand Old Man” of the democratic party (we’ve already discussed sheets byrd).

Got this e-mail today:

"Something We Should Remember

From Mary Jo Kopechne

I would have been 65 years of age this year. Read about me and my killer below.

When Sen. Ted Kennedy was merely just another Democrat bloating on Capitol Hill on behalf of liveral causes, it was perhaps excusable to ignore his deplorable past.

But now that he’s become a leading Republican attack dog, positioning himself as Washington’s leading arbiter of truth and integrity, the days for such indulgence are now over.

It’s time for the GOP to stand up and remind America why this chief spokesman had to abandon his own presidential bid in 1980 - time to say the words Mary Jo Kopechne out loud.

As is often the case, Republicans have deluded themselves into thinking that most Americans already know the story of how this “Conscience of the Democratic Party” left Miss Kopechne behind to die in the waters underneath the Edgartown Bridge in July 1969, after a night of drinking and partying with the young blond campaign worker. But most Americans under 40 have never heard that story, or details of how Kennedy swam to safety, then tried to get his cousin Joe Garghan to say he was behind the wheel.

Those young voters don’t know how Miss Kopechne, trapped inside Kennedy’s Oldsmobile, gasped for air until she finally died, while the Democrats’ leading Iraq war critic rushed back to his compound to formulate the best alibi he could think of.

Neither does Generation X know how Kennedy was thrown out of Harvard on his ear 15 years earlier – for paying a fellow student to take his Spanish final. Or why the US Army denied him a commission because he cheated on tests.

As they listen to the Democrats’ “Liberal Lion” accuse President Bush of “telling lie after lie after lie” to get America to go to war in Iraq, young voters don’t know about that notorious 1991 Easter weekend in Palm Beach, when Uncle Teddy rounded up his nephews for a night on the town, an evening that ended with one of them credibly accused of rape.

It’s time for Republicans to state unabashedly that they will no longer “go along with the gag” when it comes to Uncle Ted’s rants about deception and moral turpitude inside the Bush White House.

And if the Republicans don’t, let’s do it ourselves by passing this forgotten disgrace around the Internet to wake up memories of what a fraud and fake Teddy really is.

The Democratic Party should be ashamed to have the national disgrace from Massachusetts as their spokesman.

And the GOP needs to say so out loud!!!

Please pray for our Troops fighting for us.
God Bless you All"

Nice freakin’ party, e.

JeffR

[/quote]
It would be nice to hear from the young man that Laura Bush “killed”, did you get that email too? Your party is on tv lying everyday about national security. Why doesn’t it bother you? And why tell this lie:

“First of all, it appears Rove has been 100% open from the very beginning.”

(readers–jeffry has done it again. Lied for no apparent reason.)

It actually has been documented that he has been uhhh… lying to us from the begining, and still to this day (although thoroughly debunked this weekend–god Mehlman the robot was clueless! Today Hannity ravaged by Isikoff-priceless!)

Oh jeffry–please stop posting your kooky GOP emails, unless you get Mike Douglas’s letter. Maybe he could clear up the first lady’s lies (boyfriend or not? Jeep or corvair? Driving or not driving? Tested for alchohol? Relevant or not relevant to Rove?)

230

Since Elk seems to be so misinterpreted on this one particular point, I will try to help out…

[quote]Elkhntr1 wrote:
Sasquatch, I am hoping that peoples who are in a position more suited to it then me to expose this admins wrongdoings will do it. I don’t have the money or resources to scour the land for proof in which to bring up a case. Is that going stop me from stating my view… No![/quote]

What he really means: “I don’t need any proof to call someone a criminal. When the subject is politics you whould be able to throw irrational terms around and not get called out on them. Besides, I hate Bush!”

He means: “I am very concerned that there is no real proof that he’s a criminal. But what the heck like I said this is the Internet if I want to call the President a criminal I will and you can’t stop me. Besides I hate Bush!”

“Like I said before it’s the Internet I can say what I want as long as they’ll let me. Did I ever tell you that I hate Bush?”

“Come on guys let’s get off this “proof” nonsense and just go back to calling politicians names, it’s fun and well you know I hate Bush!”

[quote]Just to point out a little hypocrisy of the rabid right, I was just as offended by remarks against Kerry’s service in Vietnam as well as numerous Clinton remarks as these guys are for using the Teflon Don in a comparison to their idol.
[/quote]

“I beg you to stop asking me for proof! For the last time I HAVE NO PROOF! and you know it! Now let’s just get back to name calling you know that’s my forte! Oh and I want to make one last thing perfectly clear: I HATE BUSH!”

231

[quote]Elkhntr1 wrote:
“until they put learn to put down the ABB rhetoric” another way of saying until they agree with me rainjack.
[/quote]

Once again you prove you have not a clue what I am saying. But that’s okay - at least you are consistent.

The same press that filed a friend of the court brief proving that their beloved reporters were not guilty of anything, have conveniently left out of their Rove witch hunt stories that the same friend of the court brief clears Rove as well.

Hmmmm…I wonder why that would be. Wait - I think I know - they HATE ROVE. THEY HATE BUSH.

I could give a shit if you agree with what I say. But if you think ABB is just a way to sway Bush haters over to the right - you couldn’t be more wrong.

It is an illness that befalls losers that can’t understand why their ideas and their candidates have been rejected election after election. They actually have therapy groups set up and running to help the losers deal with the fact that they are indeed losers.

Why would I want nutjobs like that agreeing with me? I’d rather be right than agreed with.

232

[quote]100meters wrote:
BostonBarrister wrote:

Whoops. B.B., don’t know if you realize but cliff may is a nut!
Check his initial reaction to Novak’s column where May’s excuse was that everybody knew Plame was an agent. Now it’s Corn’s fault? While he is quite the nutty make believer in writing (witness in 2 different tellings of the novak story he makes up both!) The best is watching him lie with abandon on cnn!

Holy cow, on rereading this is one of the kookiest things ever, and the facts be damned!(again this is Natl Rev.!) As if saying:
“…Wilson never worked for the CIA, but his wife, Valerie Plame, is an Agency operative on weapons of mass destruction.” isn’t enough! My goodness!

[/quote]

100meters,

Firstly, the positions aren’t mutually exclusive. It’s quite possible to believe her identity wasn’t a well guarded secret, but that she wasn’t really a highly publicized figure until the Nation article.

Secondly, the point wasn’t, and never has been, that she is employed by the CIA. The point, both legally and morally, is whether she was an undercover operative whose identity the CIA was affirmatively guarding. Within the language of the applicable law, that means someone who had actually been an undercover operative within the previous 5 years. No undercover = no leak. To put it another way, if she wasn’t an undercover operative, it doesn’t matter who leaked.

If she was, then we can get into all the stuff about knowledge.

The reason all the liberals who are up in arms are trying to resort to squishy language (it reminds me of “tantamount to torture”) about morality and standards is that they know there are questions at several levels as to whether anything even arguably illegal took place, and the more facts that have come to light, the more those questions are resolving towards no illegality.

As to morality, that all goes to mindset. Is it possible to be immoral by accident? If you tell something you don’t regard as a secret (i.e. the identity of a CIA analyst who isn’t an undercover operative), is that immoral? I leave those questions to you, and those who see all sorts of implied skullduggery in what seems to me to have been a public-relations dispute concerning Joe Wilson’s credibility between the CIA and the White House.

The worst motive that I think I can likely impute to Rove and/or Libby and/or whomever, given what we know, in this is a desire to portray both Wilson and the CIA as political, and politically alligned against the administration. Nothing more than politics as usual, if there’s no outing of an undercover agent – and under the law it doesn’t look as if there was.

233

Oh, Zeb, you’re so melodramatic! You should win an oscar for best supporting actress with that dramatic display in defense of your idol.

Such a bitter angry zealot you are. You must feel like one of the holy crusaders from history past out on your crusade to stamp out every last evil democrat on the planet. sean hannity I’m sure is very proud of you.

Oh, and are you gonna drop jerffy’s true indentity or what? Don’t tease us like that zeb!

234

[quote]rainjack wrote:
Elkhntr1 wrote:
“until they put learn to put down the ABB rhetoric” another way of saying until they agree with me rainjack.

Once again you prove you have not a clue what I am saying. But that’s okay - at least you are consistent.

The same press that filed a friend of the court brief proving that their beloved reporters were not guilty of anything, have conveniently left out of their Rove witch hunt stories that the same friend of the court brief clears Rove as well.

Hmmmm…I wonder why that would be. Wait - I think I know - they HATE ROVE. THEY HATE BUSH.

I could give a shit if you agree with what I say. But if you think ABB is just a way to sway Bush haters over to the right - you couldn’t be more wrong.

It is an illness that befalls losers that can’t understand why their ideas and their candidates have been rejected election after election. They actually have therapy groups set up and running to help the losers deal with the fact that they are indeed losers.

Why would I want nutjobs like that agreeing with me? I’d rather be right than agreed with. [/quote]

I actually think you would be a prime candidate for intense therapy before your hurt yourself or someone else.

235

What? Oh - the facts are too much for you?

Personal attacks? They suit you much better than trying to pay attention to facts. They just get in the way, don’t they Elk?

236

[quote]rainjack wrote:
What? Oh - the facts are too much for you?

Personal attacks? They suit you much better than trying to pay attention to facts. They just get in the way, don’t they Elk?[/quote]

rainman, you’re funny. You call me an ABB ‘LOSER’ and suggest I need therapy and then have the gall when I retort with my own quip to cry about personal attacks… I am beginning to think you are prone to schoolgirl tactics when you are frustrated.

237

[quote]Elkhntr1 wrote:
rainjack wrote:
What? Oh - the facts are too much for you?

Personal attacks? They suit you much better than trying to pay attention to facts. They just get in the way, don’t they Elk?

rainman, you’re funny. You call me an ABB ‘LOSER’ and suggest I need therapy and then have the gall when I retort with my own quip to cry about personal attacks… I am beginning to think you are prone to schoolgirl tactics when you are frustrated. [/quote]

You can’t frustrate me. Well you can when you fail to read what I write. I didn’t make up the ABB condition. That is something the Bush haters have created on their own. As for the group therapy - it is very real. They have several groups in the loser states and Florida that counsel ABB losers on how to deal with reality.

As for you being an ABB Loser - you’ve said you hate Bush. You blame him for lying. You blame him for 200 dead American soldiers. You refuse to look at the facts in the Rove investigation, and make up stuff about how your rights have been infringed upon since Bush has been elelcted.

You exhibit all the classic signs of an ABB loser. Pardon me for calling you a duck but you are sure doing a lot of freakin quacking.

238

[quote]rainjack wrote:
Elkhntr1 wrote:
rainjack wrote:
What? Oh - the facts are too much for you?

Personal attacks? They suit you much better than trying to pay attention to facts. They just get in the way, don’t they Elk?

rainman, you’re funny. You call me an ABB ‘LOSER’ and suggest I need therapy and then have the gall when I retort with my own quip to cry about personal attacks… I am beginning to think you are prone to schoolgirl tactics when you are frustrated.

You can’t frustrate me. Well you can when you fail to read what I write. I didn’t make up the ABB condition. That is something the Bush haters have created on their own. As for the group therapy - it is very real. They have several groups in the loser states and Florida that counsel ABB losers on how to deal with reality.

As for you being an ABB Loser - you’ve said you hate Bush. You blame him for lying. You blame him for 200 dead American soldiers. You refuse to look at the facts in the Rove investigation, and make up stuff about how your rights have been infringed upon since Bush has been elelcted.

You exhibit all the classic signs of an ABB loser. Pardon me for calling you a duck but you are sure doing a lot of freakin quacking.
[/quote]

Haha, you are indeed funny. All you ever offer is your ABB rhetoric like that magically proves you are right “you hate bush you hate bush” you are like a broken record.

The guys that agree with you tolerate you because they will accept anyone who chants the Holy Bush song . Anyone with integrity or who didn’t want to be labeled a lunatic or associating with lunatics would put as much distance between you and them as humanly possible.

WMD’s earlier description of you was spot on the money, but we wouldn’t expect you to understand this because of course you are incapable of looking inward at yourself. You can only blame Bush haters, Mexicans, Muslims, liberals, whichever is more convenient to spew your discontent with life at.

You exhibit all the classic signs of a malcontent blaming rageaholic.

239

Slow down Elk, you are going to run out of ammunition man!

–

Anyway, more seriously, labelling people as ABB and then trumpeting “loss after loss” when there have now been two very close elections, is a bit loopy.

When you truly believe people are ABB, you are probably also one of those people that considers the president a demi-god instead of a normal greedy, horny or overstressed person who has all the faults the rest of us do.

The administration is made up of people. These people have character flaws and weaknesses. They are real people. They make mistakes. They make poor decisions or can exercise poor judgement at times.

While you applaud Cheney for using the F-word in congress, you would decry those that disagree with you for using that type of language. You are hypocrites. You will do and say anything to be have your way, but cry all day long if the same tactics are used against you.

People are using their own judgement to read the facts. While Boston posts up nice biased articles, they aren’t necessary containing all the facts, leaving out important details that allow people to make an informed judgement.

Personally, I find the statements made by Rove, his attorney and the gonad who speaks for the president, very revealing. They twist and turn, watch their language and cover things up. They do this all the time. They are a mean bunch who will do what it takes to make others do as the administration wishes.

That’s my read of the situation. You don’t have to agree with me. You can have a different opinion. However, you cannot prove me wrong. Only the actions of the administration and of the president have any hope of proving me wrong – and unfortunately for you, I’ll be the judge of those actions as well.

On the other hand, you too can be a cheerleader and trumpet the same words the talking heads on television are saying, letting them give your opinion instead of forming one all on your own, because it is hard work. It’s hard work to decipher the crap being spewed and try to make a decision on what things really mean.

Besides, it would probably take reading comprehension skills.

240

[quote]vroom wrote:
ZEB wrote:
All I asked for is some proof when you call the President a “criminal.” I don’t think that’s asking too much.

Don’t be an idiot Zeb. Getting all uptight in a request for proof is more than a bit stupid.[/quote]

Not uptight pal. Just think when you make an accusation such as what Elk has done you might have at leas some proof behind it. But this is the Internet, a place where truth is the victim and name calling lives on :slight_smile:

Yes, that’ what I want him to do. Give me some solid evidence that he is interpreting to mean Bush is a “criminal.” So far he has been unable to do such. Do you think he will come up with it?

LOL vroom is in his natural habitat: name calling again…vroom you just never learn…

[quote]That’s how I’m starting to view republicans. Ruthless bastards who will twist every law, cheat at every turn, do anything they can get away, in order to do what they want to do.

Many of the right wing clowns in here act in the same manner.[/quote]

Fortunately you are Canadian and don’t have to put up with our system. It is fun to attack from across the boarder though huh? LOL

Now try to post back to me without name calling.