The Curse of the Second Term

I heard about this on the radio the other day.

Despite sounding like a bad B movie it would seem that it is compulsory for US Presidents to implode somewhere about year 6.

This, on the face of it, would seem an odd custom. :blink:

It is not uncommon.

This latest (Plame/CIA/Libby) is actually quite hilarious in the true variety of it's circumstantial fecklessness.

A bit of the 'While you didn't fire the gun, you were observed to have spit on the sidewalk' aspect.

No crime really seems to have been committed, and the only person whose incredibly boorish behavior should be questioned (Joe Wilson, Plame's husband) isn't in the docket.

If no crime has been committed why is libby facing indictment on 5 counts and if guilty up to a $1.25 million fine and 30 years jail time?
From all i've heard it seemed pretty clear cut that the White House leaked the name on purpose and that apparently is a criminal offence, no?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by j2k4

It is not uncommon.

This latest (Plame/CIA/Libby) is actually quite hilarious in the true variety of it's circumstantial fecklessness.

A bit of the 'While you didn't fire the gun, you were observed to have spit on the sidewalk' aspect.
Seems to me that it's only a crime if sex is involved, at least when Clinton leaked it was just on a chubby girls dress :rolleyes:
No crime really seems to have been committed, and the only person whose incredibly boorish behavior should be questioned (Joe Wilson, Plame's husband) isn't in the docket.

---

The actual crime is all but impossible to prove, but then the investigation is not yet complete.
I'm not surprised that the republicans try to deflect from the actual facts of what Wilson said...."no yellow cake here" by twisting details about why he was looking in the first place.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by G.W. Bush

Let me say a few words about important values we must demonstrate while all of us serve in government. First, we must always maintain the highest ethical standards. We must always ask ourself not only what is legal, but what is right. There is no goal of government worth accomplishing if it cannot be accomplished with integrity.

Second, I want us to set an example of humility. As you work for the federal government there is no excuse for arrogance, and there's never a reason to show disrespect for others. A new tone in Washington must begin with decency and fairness. I want everyone who represents our government to be known for these values.

---

source

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by j2k4

This latest (Plame/CIA/Libby) is actually quite hilarious in the true variety of it's circumstantial fecklessness.

---

After you're done chuckling about breaches in national security we can all share a good laugh about Frist, Delay and Miers, too.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by clocker

After you're done chuckling about breaches in national security we can all share a good laugh about Frist, Delay and Miers, too.

---

You have my permission to laugh about Miers.

The other two haven't had their day, yet.

Anent Libby-

If he had the gall to utter what Joe Wilson himself did at every opportunity, fie on him, but that very non-fact is the basis for Wilson's complaint, and also the reason the Grand Jury was convened.

Whether/why Libby lied to the FBI (the charging offense) is still a mystery, but the whole issue of Plame and her cover being "blown", is not an issue at all, as evidenced by the charges laid.

If you can't see the humor in that, you must be highly sedated or awfully (almost impossibly) liberal.

As a side note, it must be acknowledged that the ultimate steward/custodian of an undercover agent's status is the agent him-/herself.

If Valerie Plame were at all concerned about her own cover, she should have, immediately upon her husband's first social utterance as to her employer, drawn her secret-agent pistol and blown the dumb bastard away, don't you think?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by j2k4

You have my permission to laugh about Miers.

The other two haven't had their day, yet.

Anent Libby-

If he had the gall to utter what Joe Wilson himself did at every opportunity, fie on him, but that very non-fact is the basis for Wilson's complaint, and also the reason the Grand Jury was convened.

Whether/why Libby lied to the FBI (the charging offense) is still a mystery, but the whole issue of Plame and her cover being "blown", is not an issue at all, as evidenced by the charges laid.

If you can't see the humor in that, you must be highly sedated or awfully (almost impossibly) liberal.

As a side note, it must be acknowledged that the ultimate steward/custodian of an undercover agent's status is the agent him-/herself.

If Valerie Plame were at all concerned about her own cover, she should have, immediately upon her husband's first social utterance as to her employer, drawn her secret-agent pistol and blown the dumb bastard away, don't you think?

---

You cannot be this sheepish and stupid.

Leaking identity in retaliation > Lie about getting dick sucked.

If you can't see that those reporters didn't get Plame's identity from her husband then you must be highly sedated or awfully (almost impossibly) Republican.

I honestly don't think shit of any real consequence will happen to Frist, Delay, Libby, or Rove...and it's not due to their supposed innocence.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Busyman

You cannot be this sheepish and stupid.

Leaking identity in retaliation > Lie about getting dick sucked.

---

Sheepish?

Are you familiar with the meaning of the word?

Stupid?

I may be wrong (doubtful as that is), but I'll never plead to stupidity, and you will certainly never prove it.

The moral equivalence of "leaking identity" (which is not what Libby is charged with, for the precise reason I mentioned) and an Oval Office knob-job is debatable, B; besides which, I never brought up "dick-suck"ing or Clinton's name, that was vid.

Get shit straight before you post-or is your urge to try to nail me of the same order as the one which compels you to go after Bush, et.al., at the drop of an indictment?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by j2k4

Sheepish?

Are you familiar with the meaning of the word?

Stupid?

I may be wrong (doubtful as that is), but I'll never plead to stupidity, and you will certainly never prove it.

The moral equivalence of "leaking identity" (which is not what Libby is charged with, for the precise reason I mentioned) and an Oval Office knob-job is debatable, B; besides which, I never brought up "dick-suck"ing or Clinton's name, that was vid.

Get shit straight before you post-or is your urge to try to nail me of the same order as the one which compels you to go after Bush, et.al., at the drop of an indictment?

---

1. To my knowledge this is not directly about Bush but about many top leaders surrounding him. This says nothing about Bush himself.:ermm:

2. I brought up Clinton just because. It amazes me that in previous efforts to be all appalled and "upheavaled" about a dick suck, that something that is directly related to the country's security (and serious crimes of your top leaders) is summarily excused for bullshit reasons when it's CaptainObvious.

3. Leaking an identity versus a dick suck is not morally equivalent and is nor debatable. What are you thinking? :wacko:

4. Stupid and sheepish are somewhat redundent. Are you an idiot or a dolt? Sheepish is obvious though....like a sheep....:dry:

I am not familar with the details of the cases above, although I am aware of some of the names and that there are court issues pending. (Libby strikes as a curious name for a Bush aide :unsure: )

However, the principle of second term implosion is interesting as some sort of political phenomenon. Do Presidents get blase because they are no longer seeking re-election? The appointment of Miers is possibily a better indication of this than any naughtiness Mr Libby or Mr DeLay have been up to.

Is George frittering his political capital away like a kid in a candy store?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Busyman

...that something that is directly related to the country's security (and serious crimes of your top leaders) is summarily excused for bullshit reasons when it's CaptainObvious.


4. Stupid and sheepish are somewhat redundent. Are you an idiot or a dolt? Sheepish is obvious though....like a sheep....:dry:

---

I excused nothing, summarily or otherwise.

As to sheepish, crack a dictionary, B.

You'll feel a bit sheepish yourself.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Biggles

However, the principle of second term implosion is interesting as some sort of political phenomenon. Do Presidents get blase because they are no longer seeking re-election? The appointment of Miers is possibily a better indication of this than any naughtiness Mr Libby or Mr DeLay have been up to.

Is George frittering his political capital away like a kid in a candy store?

---

A second term is like jumping into a tank full of hungry sharks. The fact that there cannot be a third term means that the opposition cranks up the pressure to show that a change of party is needed and the lawmakers from the presidents party are looking for their own ambitions and are less likely to lay in front of the tank to protect the president.
I'm sure if presidents could only serve one term the scandals would come to light earlier, likewise if they could serve more than two terms the "second term curse" would probably not occur.
The scandals are always there, such is politics it's the oppositions job to find them (or create them), it's just a matter of support or lack of in covering them up.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by j2k4

I excused nothing, summarily or otherwise.

As to sheepish, crack a dictionary, B.

You'll feel a bit sheepish yourself.

---

Oh rly?

This is... :lookaroun ...is not the only definition of sheepish. :dry:

I'll invoke the tamed obedience definition for you, Ed McMahon.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Biggles

I am not familar with the details of the cases above, although I am aware of some of the names and that there are court issues pending. (Libby strikes as a curious name for a Bush aide :unsure: )

However, the principle of second term implosion is interesting as some sort of political phenomenon. Do Presidents get blase because they are no longer seeking re-election? The appointment of Miers is possibily a better indication of this than any naughtiness Mr Libby or Mr DeLay have been up to.

Is George frittering his political capital away like a kid in a candy store?

---

You have to remember that a new Republican Presidential nominee must take the reigns. Folks are going to try separate themselves from others and if Bush is considered a blunder, separate themselves from all his bad policies. Ultimately, since the Christian right won the election for him, it will probably be the right way to go sans the bad stuff.

You always see the mudslinging on both sides after a 2-term President for obvious reasons.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Busyman

Oh rly?

This is... :lookaroun ...is not the only definition of sheepish. :dry:

I'll invoke the tamed obedience definition for you, Ed McMahon.

---

I was going to point out that you might prefer to use the word ovine, or even stick to your previous "sheep-like", but if you insist on wrong usages, by all means, feel free.

You have never seemed to be intent on building credibility, anyway.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by j2k4

I was going to point out that you might prefer to use the word ovine, or even stick to your previous "sheep-like", but if you insist on wrong usages, by all means, feel free.

You have never seemed to be intent on building credibility, anyway.

---

I'm not a politician and neither are you. You smoothing over an obvious leak from someone up top in the Republican party does nothing for your credibility either. What this person (or these people) did is despicable.

If sheepish is sheep-like (among other definitions) then the usage was correct in the first place. :O

Maybe you could crack open your dictionary every once and awhile. :dry:

@ J2k4 and Busyman

This a potentially interesting topic for Drawing Room debate, please keep your fisticuffs for the lounge... Any more, and I may start hitting the delete button...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sara

@ J2k4 and Busyman

This a potentially interesting topic for Drawing Room debate, please keep your fisticuffs for the lounge... Any more, and I may start hitting the delete button...

---

Done here, Ma'am.

Biggles,
The phenomonon of the second term implosion is rooted in the fact that reelection is no longer a concern, so the Administration's pet agendas can be forwarded with little fear of repercussion.
Hence the Bush desire to delay the gun shield legislation until now...the fallout can't hurt his future election chances.
Typically, the President's personal agenda is moderated somewhat by concerns for his party's future, but Bush seems more interested in his personal legacy and the rank and file be damned.

J2,
The fact that Libby ( and so far, only Libby...Rove is apparently dancing frantically to avoid the same charges) has only been charged with lying under oath (and lying about more important matters, i.e. WMD, has never seemed a problem for this administration) and obstruction of justice does not detract from the fact that the compact between undercover operatives and the government they serve has now become vulnerable to political gamesmanship.
Plame's status as "undercover" or not is irrelevant, how secure can any operative feel knowing that political expediency trumps their personal security?
For an administration that fancies itself as being on a war footing, comprimising it's intelligence service seems like a real bone-headed move, don't you think?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by clocker

Biggles,
The phenomonon of the second term implosion is rooted in the fact that reelection is no longer a concern, so the Administration's pet agendas can be forwarded with little fear of repercussion.
Hence the Bush desire to delay the gun shield legislation until now...the fallout can't hurt his future election chances.
Typically, the President's personal agenda is moderated somewhat by concerns for his party's future, but Bush seems more interested in his personal legacy and the rank and file be damned.

J2,
The fact that Libby ( and so far, only Libby...Rove is apparently dancing frantically to avoid the same charges) has only been charged with lying under oath (and lying about more important matters, i.e. WMD, has never seemed a problem for this administration) and obstruction of justice does not detract from the fact that the compact between undercover operatives and the government they serve has now become vulnerable to political gamesmanship.
Plame's status as "undercover" or not is irrelevant, how secure can any operative feel knowing that political expediency trumps their personal security?
For an administration that fancies itself as being on a war footing, comprimising it's intelligence service seems like a real bone-headed move, don't you think?

---

:clap:

Quality.:happy:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by clocker

J2,
The fact that Libby ( and so far, only Libby...Rove is apparently dancing frantically to avoid the same charges) has only been charged with lying under oath (and lying about more important matters, i.e. WMD, has never seemed a problem for this administration) and obstruction of justice does not detract from the fact that the compact between undercover operatives and the government they serve has now become vulnerable to political gamesmanship.
Plame's status as "undercover" or not is irrelevant, how secure can any operative feel knowing that political expediency trumps their personal security?
For an administration that fancies itself as being on a war footing, comprimising it's intelligence service seems like a real bone-headed move, don't you think?

---

Politicians and their functionaries have been doing this dance you speak of for years, and your favorite administrations (whichever they might have been) were among those who exhibited the fullest variety of tawdry behaviors.

On the other hand, who am I to deny you the opportunity to gloat over such small potatoes?

The fact that Ms.Plame's "undercover status" has never been validated is a bit curious, don't you think?

The fact that her husband is easily the most egregious offender in the "name that agent" sweepstakes, and also the loudest complaining party, is also curious.

How come these points don't faze you or the media?

The fact you feel compelled to mention Rove at this point indicates nothing, apart from your fervent wish that he be hauled into the docket also.

No matter what you've heard, if there exists the slightest possibility of his endictment, he will be indicted.

If it doesn't happen, he will have attained a glorious status (investigated but not indicted) enjoyed by many in Washington, and probably 80% of the Clinton administration.

BTW-those who've noted here that the allegations against Libby are far worse than Bill Clinton's "dick-suck" (as Busyman refers to it) are wrong.

Clinton lied to the court, and ended up admitting it; never mind what it was about.

Libby is still innocent, but, if proven guilty, will still have to find a mighty tall ladder to even get a glimpse of Clinton's offense-after all, he is still merely a Whitehouse functionary, and Clinton was the President of the U.S.A.

They just don't compare.

As to WMD, if you yourself had been polled prior to the Iraq war, you'd have said you believed Saddam had them, because everybody else did-period.

Hans Blixt mentioned that he was intensely interested in the progress of the war, as "We will finally find the truth" about WMD.

That's hilarious, because nowadays Blixt and the doofus I.A.E.A. (which also "wasn't sure") are the first references of those who say Saddam didn't have WMD, never did, and everyone knew it.

There is no shortage of documented "Saddam has WMD! We have to do something!" quotes from every living soul on the political scene who have since tried to make partisan hay with the "Bush lied!" nonsense, and that you choose to forget this is the surest endictment of your own statements.

Much as I would hate to see a liberal administration, if such ever comes to pass again (difficult to believe), I hope we're all still here, 'cuz I'll have a blast.

If you still want to hash out the WMD thingie, google up a gaggle of quotes from credible sources which were gathered before the Iraq war-then we'll talk.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by j2k4

If you still want to hash out the WMD thingie, google up a gaggle of quotes from credible sources which were gathered before the Iraq war-then we'll talk.

---

Goodness, if you want to quote Democratic members of Congress as believing there was WMD, it's already been done...on this forum.
I never believed it. Bush was asking about Saddam since he got in the White House. I believed (and it's not far-fetched) that he looked for a reason and had one cooked up. Just the same, I believed Clinton bombed Iraq when the heat was on his ass.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by j2k4

Much as I would hate to see a liberal administration, if such ever comes to pass again (difficult to believe), I hope we're all still here, 'cuz I'll have a blast.

---

Fact. We are worse off now than we were under Clinton. I remember when I worked in Silver Spring when Clinton was elected. There was this geeky white guy that worked in the office (always with a suit, tie, briefcase, and hiked up waist pants....as a telemarketer) thought it was the end of the world when Bush lost.

People like that guy can't see the hand in front of their face. I wonder what he's saying now. Do people follow their party...even to hell, or do they follow logic.

Are we better off now than we were under Clinton?

Is the world better off now than we were under Clinton?

I don't know wtf Bush is. He not liberal and he surely ain't Republican.
I like some liberal views and Republican ones. Bush sucks at both. F.

It's seems by your post above that you'll look for anything to lambast a liberal President. I'm still looking for something to laud Bush. He's my President and unlike yourself, whether he's Republican or Democrat, I wanna like him.:happy:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by j2k4

...How come these points don't faze you or the media?
Because they are irrelevant (although I hesitate to speak for "the media" as whole...seems a bit pretentious).
Libby was charged with perjury and obstruction of justice.
How come these points don't faze the conservatives and Republicans?



The fact you feel compelled to mention Rove at this point indicates nothing, apart from your fervent wish that he be hauled into the docket also.
My fervent wishes aside, there is no doubt that he is under intense scrutiny by the same prosecutor that investigated Libby and may indeed still be charged.
Oh, forgive me, is this all part of the persecution of conservatives that has also ensnared Delay?
Boy, that's tough...where do you think we learned this sort of behaviour?
Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery.

No matter what you've heard, if there exists the slightest possibility of his endictment, he will be endicted.
One can only hope.

...
As to WMD, if you yourself had been polled prior to the Iraq war, you'd have said you believed Saddam had them, because everybody else did-period.
I don't think so and at any rate, that point is irrelevant also.
Why is it unreasonable to expect the President to have better intelligence and information that I, a mere clock mechanician?
All evidence seems to indicate that Bush manipulated data and rejected any advice that did not fit his preconceived agenda.
Sorry, I meant Cheney's agenda.
I Would need the proverbial "very tall ladder" to reach the worldview that one assumes heads of state to enjoy, so, even if I did believe in the existence of WMDs it excuses my ignorance.
What's Bush's excuse?

...
If you still want to hash out the WMD thingie, google up a gaggle of quotes from credible sources which were gathered before the Iraq war-then we'll talk.

---

Too much work for a pointless debate mon frere.
Bush was either:
-egregiously misled
-intentionally deceived
-intentionally deceptive.

In any case, he fucked up royally.
His hubris might prevent him from admitting responsibility, but certainly doesn't excuse him from accepting it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Busyman

It's seems by your post above that you'll look for anything to lambast a liberal President. I'm still looking for something to laud Bush. He's my President and unlike yourself, whether he's Republican or Democrat, I wanna like him.:happy:

---

You want to like Bush.

That's a stitch.

Okay.

Hillary Clinton-(D) New York

John Kerry-(D) Mass.

John Edwards-(D) Nowhere, USA

George Allen-(R) Virginia

Chuck Hagel-(R) Nebraska

John McCain-(R) Arizona

Any thoughts on electability?

Personal leanings?

Clocker-

To take just one of your...concerns, I guess:

What will you take away from all this if Rove is not indicted and continues as he has?

If Libby is not convicted?

I understand perfectly your avoiding the google I proposed; I hate such things myself, but I find it telling, nonetheless.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by j2k4

What will you take away from all this if Rove is not indicted and continues as he has?

If Libby is not convicted?

I understand perfectly your avoiding the google I proposed; I hate such things myself, but I find it telling, nonetheless.

---

What will I take away...I have no idea really.
At the very least I suppose they will have earned the same grudging respect one must afford O.J. and Robert Blake.

As for the second...
If the American public believed in WMD it's because Bush said it was so.
Do you believe that they will still be found or has the major reason for our incursion become irrelevant now?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by clocker

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by j2k4

What will you take away from all this if Rove is not indicted and continues as he has?

If Libby is not convicted?

I understand perfectly your avoiding the google I proposed; I hate such things myself, but I find it telling, nonetheless.

---

What will I take away...I have no idea really.
At the very least I suppose they will have earned the same grudging respect one must afford O.J. and Robert Blake.

As for the second...
If the American public believed in WMD it's because Bush said it was so.
Do you believe that they will still be found or has the major reason for our incursion become irrelevant now?

---

??????

O.J. and Blake deserve grudging respect?

I'm stunned.

Do you think they were guilty or innocent?

I was all in favor of ousting Saddam on general principle; WMD would have just been icing on the cake.

As to whether they'll be found?

Physically found?

Probably not; whatever their disposition, that particular issue is akin to JFK's assassination...we may find out, we may not.

I think, if anything, we'll find something that indicates whatever WMD he may have had was transferred to another party-Syria perhaps, or maybe they are in terrorist hands, or maybe they're buried, like so many other things in Iraq.

I am not troubled by their absence, as a motivation for going into Iraq, apart from the intentions of whichever entity might currently possess them.

Also-

I am not excusing Libby for whatever crimes he might have committed, but I am perfectly at ease waiting for the legal deliberations to take place.

I do think he is small beer, and considering how Sandy Berger (Burglar?) skated, I'd be surprised to see Libby slapped hard if he is found guilty.

I see today that Joe Wilson is screaming for Cheney to resign over this...stuff.

If you can put aside your abiding hatred of the Veep long enough to tug on your objective cap, don't you feel this is just a bit hysterical/premature?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by j2k4

I was all in favor of ousting Saddam on general principle; WMD would have just been icing on the cake.

---

I'm sure Bush felt the same way and used WMD to make you feel there was icing on the yellow cake......and 2000+ dead soldiers later.................

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Busyman

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by j2k4

I was all in favor of ousting Saddam on general principle; WMD would have just been icing on the cake.

---

I'm sure Bush felt the same way and used WMD to make you feel there was icing on the yellow cake......and 2000+ dead soldiers later.................

---

Sure sounds as if you want to "like" him.

No comment on the candidates, huh?

I'll answer

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by j2k4

Okay.

Hillary Clinton-(D) New York An acceptable president

John Kerry-(D) Mass. An acceptable president

John Edwards-(D) Nowhere, USA not yet ready

George Allen-(R) Virginia totally unacceptable

Chuck Hagel-(R) Nebraska totally unacceptable

John McCain-(R) Arizona An acceptable president


Any thoughts on electability?

Personal leanings?

---

Personally I would have liked the rumoured (by untrue) Kerry/McCain ticket last year.

Oh my God.

You are liberal.

No getting around that now.

BTW-

McCain is not a Republican.

I've heard some up-close and personal info on him that would turn even your stomach.

Hillary?

I can't believe it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by j2k4

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Busyman

I'm sure Bush felt the same way and used WMD to make you feel there was icing on the yellow cake......and 2000+ dead soldiers later.................

---

Sure sounds as if you want to "like" him.

No comment on the candidates, huh?

---

Not really. I like McCain ok. Kerry was ok.

Irregardless to Bush, I look at each issue that crosses separately and the war is one of them. I do want to like my President. That's CaptainObvious but Bush is like the retarded kid that you want to finally do something intelligent. When he does, you just want to jump for joy!! :01:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by j2k4

Oh my God.

You are liberal.

No getting around that now.

BTW-

McCain is not a Republican.

I've heard some up-close and personal info on him that would turn even your stomach.

Hillary?

I can't believe it.

---

Well hell I liked Alan Keyes 'till I heard him speak on a 2 specific occasions and he turned out to be a smart idiot.

We all can't believe you like Bush. It defies logic since you seem to be smart. He's also definitely not a Republican. He doesn't even embody Republican ideals I like. As I said, these years stink compared to the Clinton years.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by j2k4

Oh my God.

You are liberal.

No getting around that now.
put me in whichever class you wish, it doesn't bother me one bit.
BTW-

McCain is not a Republican.
I'm pretty sure he is ...perhaps you mean he isn't right wing enough for you....but then you spent a fair time trying to tell us that you are not a republican but instead a conservative... are you now gluing what you made separate? He is a moderate and a free thinker, not just a drone that does the boding of pat Robinson and Jerry Falwell


I've heard some up-close and personal info on him that would turn even your stomach.

Was this during the rove led smear campaign ?

does McCain get held to different standards? seems to me you are unable to judge Libby until the jury convicts, Ken Mehlman gets a pass...etc. etc. why does McCain get the presumption of guilt?

Hillary?

I can't believe it.

---

Why?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Busyman

We all can't believe you like Bush. It defies logic since you seem to be smart. He's also definitely not a Republican. He doesn't even embody Republican ideals I like. As I said, these years stink compared to the Clinton years.

---

Everything is relative.

I prefer Bush to Kerry.

Do I like Bush?

I wouldn't say so, but I can't remember liking anyone since Reagan.

I don't see any Democrats I like.

Am I supposed to, to prove I'm fair-minded?

BTW-

Give Clinton or Gore or Kerry the slate Bush has had to deal with and get back to me.

Clinton got a free ride.

Vid-

I'll send a PM about McCain when I get a chance.

It's not what you think, believe me.

Have to run now.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by j2k4

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Busyman

We all can't believe you like Bush. It defies logic since you seem to be smart. He's also definitely not a Republican. He doesn't even embody Republican ideals I like. As I said, these years stink compared to the Clinton years.

---

Everything is relative.

I prefer Bush to Kerry.

Do I like Bush?

I wouldn't say so, but I can't remember liking anyone since Reagan.

I don't see any Democrats I like.

Am I supposed to, to prove I'm fair-minded?

BTW-

Give Clinton or Gore or Kerry the slate Bush has had to deal with and get back to me.

Clinton got a free ride.

---

Bush put numerous pot holes in a road he had to travel.

Nuff said. :dry:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by j2k4

... but I can't remember liking anyone since Reagan.
Why?
Because he was a world-class napper or because he racked up the largest peacetime deficits in history (well, until Bush Jr. hit the stage...)?

Give Clinton or Gore or Kerry the slate Bush has had to deal with and get back to me.
Boy, that would be fun, wouldn't it?
Except Bush has refused to deal with the "slate he was dealt" and instead pursued an agenda divorced from reality.Yes, I mean Iraq.

Clinton got a free ride.
From whom?
Certainly not the Republicans who hounded him for eight straight years with frivolous investigations.
BTW, about the legal system you are so "comfortable" entrusting Libby to...
Clinton was never convicted of anything, yet you constantly imply that he was guilty. Where is the "innocent till proven guilty" sentiment there?
Or does that only apply to Conservatives?

Vid-

I'll send a PM about McCain when I get a chance.

It's not what you think, believe me.

Have to run now.

---

Oh come on, share with the class.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by clocker

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by j2k4

... but I can't remember liking anyone since Reagan.
Why?
Because he was a world-class napper or because he racked up the largest peacetime deficits in history (well, until Bush Jr. hit the stage...)?

You forget he spent that cash in aid of defeating Soviet communism.

Bush is willing to spend to defeat terrorism.

I deem both endeavors worth-while.

That you don't is, of course, your prerogative.

Give Clinton or Gore or Kerry the slate Bush has had to deal with and get back to me.
Boy, that would be fun, wouldn't it?
Except Bush has refused to deal with the "slate he was dealt" and instead pursued an agenda divorced from reality.Yes, I mean Iraq.

Yes you do, and no, I don't.

I'm talking about 9/11 and a nice batch of hurricanes, but I'm sure you knew that, didn't you?

Clinton got a free ride.
From whom?

From Mother Nature, and from Bin Laden-don't bother bringing up the Cole, etc., 'cuz he didn't exactly deal with any of that, did he?

Certainly not the Republicans who hounded him for eight straight years with frivolous investigations.
BTW, about the legal system you are so "comfortable" entrusting Libby to...
Clinton was never convicted of anything,

No need to convict him; he confessed.

yet you constantly imply that he was guilty. Where is the "innocent till proven guilty" sentiment there?

As I said, he confessed his guilt, and it follows (logically) that he was not innocent.

Right?

Or does that only apply to Conservatives?

Vid-

I'll send a PM about McCain when I get a chance.

It's not what you think, believe me.

Have to run now.

---

Oh come on, share with the class.

---

When I send vid his PM, you'll get one too.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by j2k4

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by clocker

Oh come on, share with the class.

---

When I send vid his PM, you'll get one too.

---

Should I take you off my ignore list then :naughty: :lol:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by j2k4

You forget he spent that cash in aid of defeating Soviet communism.

Bush is willing to spend to defeat terrorism.

I deem both endeavors worth-while.

That you don't is, of course, your prerogative.

---

:lol: :lol: :lol:
You've got to be kidding me.

Where's this money going to fight terrorism? I knew you were conservative but this takes the cake as far as sticking up for one's party.
Spending to increase security is one thing. "Fighting them over there so we don't have to fight them over here" by attracting Iraqi's and outsiders to Iraq to kill 2000+ of our soldiers is fucking dimwitted and anyone who believes so is also dimwitted.

Meanwhile our own borders are still porous and airport security still sucks ass. I also work in sensitive areas and I honestly don't know where 9/11 did a whole lot in certain areas to wake-up Bush (I won't get into what). Private industry has stepped their security though. In some instances I must go through more shit to do my job in a multi-tenant building than a government one.

Nice going with that spending doohicky.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by j2k4

Yes you do, and no, I don't.

I'm talking about 9/11 and a nice batch of hurricanes, but I'm sure you knew that, didn't you?

---

9/11...agreed. Measures to step up like airport security and immigration are still fucked. Afghanistan was understandable. He was fucked before the hurricanes...that just happened ffs. He handled Katrina shittily.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by j2k4

Clinton got a free ride.

From Mother Nature, and from Bin Laden-don't bother bringing up the Cole, etc., 'cuz he didn't exactly deal with any of that, did he?

---

No he didn't. I could poll everyone here and most will agree that Clinton, during these years, would have been a better decision maker by a landslide.

I think you even know that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by j2k4

No need to convict him; he confessed.
As I said, he confessed his guilt, and it follows (logically) that he was not innocent.

Right?

---

Yes and no. You harp on the legal system as if we what we personally believe is not enough.

Clinton may have confessed but was he convicted?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Busyman

Clinton may have confessed but was he convicted?

---

Another one for the time capsule.

Ranks in the top five of the most inane sentences I've ever read, any place, anytime.