Typical Republican Hypocrisy

“i know they can't vote, i'm trying to point out that this thread, more specifically the title, is EL TORRO CACA....”

“What are you in for? How do you get the internet in prison?”

“the thread title is viOliN having some fun trolling.”

“I'm surprised no Clinton bashers stopped to point out that this guy (R.A.D. are his initials, btw) at least admitted what he did. There is nothing in the story that suggests he lied about anything. Clinton was assailed, not just for sexual misconduct, but for lying his way out of the problems he got himself into.

While I think the Watergate scandal was far worse - the underlying dynamic is similar: alot of people were more upset by the lying and the cover-up than the misdeed itself.”

“Whose side are you on, PED?!?”

“I suppose the difference, however, between Clinron and Delgaudio, is that Clinton's transgressions were never illegal, and thereofre maybe he was entitled not to tell everyone about it. Of course, Delgaudio could exercised his 5th Ammendment right, but that would have likely ruined his plea bargain.”

“Different if you consider perjury legal, retugo.”

“LOL Phaed!

Retugo: I'm not 100% sure Clinton's sexual activities were legal. Is adultry legal in Washington DC?

More importantly, we have to remember that Clinton looked into TV cameras and lied. In tones of sincerity and confidence, he swore to friends and allies who trusted him that the allegations about Monica were false. People very close to Clinton felt deeply betrayed by his lies. Some were going to resign in protest - but stayed on in order to fight the Republican impeachment campaign which they found even more offensive than Clinton lying about a bj.

I never really trusted Clinton. I registered Democrat so I could vote against him in the '92 primary (just like I registered Republican to vote for McCain in 2000). Clinton was bright and competent - but a bit too slick. He did a much better job than I expected - especially with the deficit. If he weren't a lying slut he would have done even better.”

“If you wanna pick the next president, its the candidate who I chose to vote against in the primary.”

“The next president will be a democrat. The president following that will be Colin Powell.”

“I don't know. Powell has sold off his previously held convictions to placate his boss. That would seem to put him in the "untrustable" category.”

“Dun: People were saying the same thing about Bush Sr. under Reagan.”

“wow ped, you go boi!


phaed, who in your fanticy world do you see as a democrat that could beat bush?”

“If the economy improves significantly Bush will be hard to beat (unless soemthing else blows up on him in a major way), if the economy worsens significantly - Bush will have a hard time.”

“Not to get you started, strat, but the last election, whatever else it was, was very close. There is talk from the green party about not running a candidate to make sure that no republican is elected to office.

I hate to hazard a guess about the next dem candidate. There are too many contenders I just flat out don't like.”

“lolz phaed, why wouldn't you want to get me started?

so your green buddies are keepin out of this one, huh? hmmm....wonder if they know about that skillsaw of yours......

my prediction; bush will win in an ELECTORAL landslide, bout 54% of the vote...you heard it here first........”

“Okay, swami, which votes get ignored to make it happen this time? :)”

“well, the offshore military voters will not be disenfranchised again by the democratic party...for one thing...”

“Yeah, I voted for Clinton over Bush from the Philippines. Gotta count those.”

“phaedrus...the amelda marcos of TT....”

“The reason Bush is likely to get re-elected more than any other reason, is that he is preparing to throw more money into his campaign and beat his previous record of campaign spending. He is going to beat us over the head with his particular spin, and it will be hard to run against the big money. I wonder if "Kenny-Boy" will fly GW around in his personal jet this time around????
There are definitely issues about
Bush that, if questioned enough times in the media, will cause some of the moderate republicans to look elsewhere. There are many veterans who don't like GW's military record.”

“look dan, i like you. like chilie, treebeard and pedxing, i may not always agree with you but i think you think things through. in other words, you ar reasonable in your incorrect opinions(haha, j/k man). now surely a man of your reasonability can see that the leading democratic candidate, mr john "F" kerey{sp? don't care}, is worth far far more than bush or anybody else in the race. the heir to the heinze ketchup fortune was asked recently if he would dip into his personal wealth to run his campaign and he said he could not rule that out. therefore, your argument that bush will spend more is a falsehood. he may get more money donated but his cash on hand is nowhere near what kerry has at his disposal.


people trust bush. he has a hometown realness to him. that is the deal that liberals underestimate. he's just a plain ole guy that peeps can relate to. that's all ya need.....”

“I wouldnt get to confident on bush, he pissed a lot of people off with his war in iraq and now hes supporting santorium's gay bashing and of course his stellar enviromental record... anything less then a great economy is going to hurt him badly.

then again are there any other viable canidates?whats perot and stern doing these days :}”

“Atheist president?God,I hope so.”

“yeah, bush is in horrible trouble all right.....i don't know what i'm gonna do when i'm homeless because i got laid off.....


unless i'm a millionaire come election time, i'm votin for someone else!”

“Strat: Where did I argue that Bush will spend more? Actually, I would guess that Bush would outspend Kerry based on Bush's fund raising from last election - but I wouldn't be sure.

My point about the economy is that it could be a huge factor in the election - at least if it gets significantly better or worse than it is now. If people are hurting badly financially, they won't support Bush. If they are doing well, they will keep rallying 'round the flag that Bush has been waving.”

“hmmmm ped......are you dunadan too? that's who my post was adressed to.


the dems will make sure the economy is bad, screwing their own constituants, making it harder on them, so they can blame bush and regain power....”

“Dems make the economy bad?


By voting for the Bush tax cut?”

“Strat.... I get it... I didn't follow your "punctuation" and read:

"pedxing, i may not always agree with you but i think you think things through. in other words...."

without seeing how you were connecting it to the line before.”

“He's been reading Bush & Quayle thinking they were Strunk & White.”

“hardy har har, tiltie von stinky pinky....

ped, gotcha...thought you were dan as a troll for a minute there, lol....”

“LOL!

dan's a great guy ('cept for the high coup) and has a great family, but who would wanna trade places with a flatlander!? (esp. one who is no where near an ocean).”

“When I was a baby, my eyes were closed and I voted Dem, then when I became a man my eyes were open and I voted Rep.”

“Bill Clinton registers for the draft on September 08, 1964,
accepting all contractual conditions of registering for the draft.
Given Selective Service Number 3 26 46 228.

Bill Clinton classified 2-S on November 17, 1964.

Bill Clinton reclassified 1-A on March 20, 1968.

Bill Clinton ordered to report for induction on July 28, 1969.

Bill Clinton dishonors order to report and is not inducted into the military.

Bill Clinton reclassified 1-D after enlisting in the United States Army Reserve on August 07,1969 under authority of Col.E.Holmes.
Clinton signs enlistment papers and takes oath of enlistment.

Bill Clinton fails to report to his duty station at the University
of Arkansas ROTC, September 1969.

Bill Clinton reclassified 1-A on October 30, 1969, as enlistment
with Army Reserve is revoked by Colonel E. Holmes and Clinton now

AWOL and subject to arrest under Public Law 90-40 (2)a) 'registrant
who has failed to report...remain liable for induction.'

Bill Clinton's birth date lottery number is 311, drawn December 1,1969, but anyone who has already been ordered to report for induction is INELIGIBLE!

Bill Clinton runs for Congress (1974), while a fugitive from justice under Public Law 90-40.

Bill Clinton runs for Arkansas Attorney General (1976), while a
fugitive from justice.

Bill Clinton receives pardon on January 21, 1977, from Carter.

Bill Clinton FIRST PARDONED FEDERAL FELON ever to serve as
President.

All these facts come from Freedom of Information requests, public laws, and various books that have been published, and have not been refuted by Clinton.

After the 1993 World Trade Center bombing, which killed six and injured 1,000; President Clinton promised that those responsible would be hunted down and punished.

After the 1995 bombing in Saudi Arabia, which killed five U.S.
military personnel; Clinton promised that those responsible would be hunted down and punished.

After the 1996 Hobart Towers bombing in Saudi Arabia, which killed 19 and injured 200 U.S. military personnel; Clinton promised that those responsible would be hunted down and punished.

After the 1998 bombing of U.S. embassies in Africa, which killed 224 and injured 5,000; Clinton promised that those responsible would be hunted down and punished.

After the 2000 bombing of the USS Cole, which killed 17 and injured 39 U.S.sailors; Clinton promised that those responsible would be hunted down and punished.

An Interesting Question:

This question was raised on a Philly radio call-in show. Without
casting stones, it is a legitimate question. There are two men, both
extremely wealthy. One develops relatively cheap software and gives billions of dollars to charity. The other sponsors terrorism. That being the case, why was it that the Clinton Administration spent more money chasing down Bill Gates over the eight years in office, than Osama bin Laden?

Think About It!

It is a strange turn of events. Hillary gets $8 Million for her
forthcoming memoir. Bill gets about $12 Million for his memoir yet to be written. This from two people who spent 8 years being unable to recall anything about past events while under oath!”

“Strat. I was making a point that Bush set a new record in campaign spending in the last election. It's been reported that he will beat his own record this time. It seems to me that money is what beat McCain in the last election. McCain looked, to me, to be the better Republican candidate.
I don't know how you can say GW Bush is just a good-ole-boy from a small town. From my point of view, he was raised in the lap of luxury, born with economic and political connections that most people do not have, and cannot attain. I guess his accent and lack of vocabulary are enough to convince some people, though.”

“By the way, Ped is a top-rate kinda guy, also, if you like the elitist city-types. LOL”

“well dan, all i said is that he has a 'quality' that people relate to. of course he's rich, most politicians are. 7 of the top 10 rishest congresspeeps are democrats, for the record. bush is just a plain talkin common scence guy.

mccain is a rather liberal republican and he got beat because his ideas weren't accepted by the voters”

“well dan, all i said is that he has a 'quality' that people relate to. of course he's rich, most politicians are. 7 of the top 10 rishest congresspeeps are democrats, for the record. bush is just a plain talkin common sense guy.

mccain is a rather liberal republican and he got beat because his ideas weren't accepted by the voters”

“"Bill's one of us after all!

"Sinners have long cherished the fantasy that William Bennett, the virtue magnate, might be among our number," Kinsley wrote. "The news over the weekend -- that Bennett's $50,000 sermons and best-selling moral instruction manuals have financed a multimillion-dollar gambling habit -- has lit a lamp of happiness in even the darkest of hearts."

Article"aero
08:03:42 AM
05/08/03

"http://www.powells.com/cgi-bin/biblio?inkey=2-1573225274-2" target="_blank"> A better read for Bennett? "pedxing
09:36:10 AM
05/08/03

"http://niazi.com/Neurons/onthe.htm" target="_blank"> vice is nice"pedxing
09:38:35 AM
05/08/03

"But hey, Las Vegas is a "family" place. Just don't let the kids stare too long at the showgirls and hookers!"aero
09:44:04 AM
05/08/03

"Good reads, ped!"aero
09:46:22 AM
05/08/03

"Odds are ten to one Bennett didn't read these..."treebeard
09:49:40 AM
05/08/03

"anybody ever play the stock market?"stratdewd
10:26:33 AM
05/08/03

There!”

“Bill Bennett is Satan.

When he's in Vegas though, they call him Satin.”

“It's backlash due to the repubs calling Slick Willey out for adultry. Only difference is Bill never lied to all of america about it even after he got busted.

"I did NOT lay $100 on THAT black 32!"”

“The only difference is that Billy Bob Bennett is EVIL.”

“Nigal, I am inclined to think the 32 is red.”

“I could never hit it if it were both!! I'm a slots man myself. How bad does THAT sound?”

“lol,,that would be my luck....play both the red and black and it would hit the green 00”

“hatred is not a family value....



Bush Haters Drowning in Anger

May 8, 2003


The Democratic leadership (not you rank-and-file members) are drowning in hatred. It's made them totally irrational, to the point where they can't refrain from attacking George W. Bush even when they know doing so will hurt them more than it does him. If they didn't hate Richard Nixon too, they'd do well to take heed of his farewell words: "Always remember others may hate you but those who hate you don't win unless you hate them. And then you destroy yourself."



Bush doesn't hate guys like hate-filled Bob Byrd of the KKK. That's the whole idea behind his "new tone." Two things are going on with the Democrats and this latest attack on Bush over his landing on the USS Abraham Lincoln. Number One: Attacking Bush is the natural instinct of the reactionary Democrats and liberals, because they can't go on living if they're out of power much longer. Everything - duty, honor, country - is second to getting their power back.

Number Two: There is a seething rage and hatred for Bush. This hate fuels their attacks, and every single George W. Bush success stokes that fiery hate - which in turn leads to ever more brutal (and politically foolish) salvos. For example, every single thing these people said about Iraq turned out to be bupkis. Not one of the so-called peace movement's nightmare scenarios came true. Now they see this great carrier landing, and they flip out! If we'd lost, you know damn well they'd be all over Bush for that, but they just can't abide any reminder that this man they called an idiot won two wars against foes they called unbeatable in 18 months.

These überleftists, those of you marching in the anti-Bush peace marches who can't get over this false talking point that Bush is "illegitimate" after 2000, have been infected with this hatred. I am talking about many of you rank-and-file people in some of this, because I think you're the ones these Democrats think they're winning over with this hatred in the presidential primaries. I've been asked what I'd do if I were on the other side of that carrier landing. I know this: I'd try to get in on it! At the very least I'd shut up about it, rather than talk about it so the news keeps playing the video of it over and over again.”

“Nice read strat. Slanted but nice. I was listening to someone on Savage Nation talking about Jeb Bush's career and what he has acomplished in Florida. I was very impressed. They were making comparisons between Cali and Florida as they are simular states with simular make up. While California has tried to tax it's way out of debt Florida has cut taxes...and it's working. The guy was saying that Jeb would be the most likely GOP pick to run in 2008. From what I heard the guy is squeeky clean and a true believer in smaller government. I'd vote for him.”

“savage is great, i really like him. neil boortz too.


jeb seems pretty good from what i've seen of him...”

“By Jonathan Chait
Thursday, May 8, 2003; Page A31


In the lead-up to the war against Iraq, liberal doves all made pretty much the same point, with some variation: However successful the conflict itself might be, the long-term diplomatic costs of alienating much of the world would outweigh any benefits. This prediction, while questionable, at least had the benefit of playing out over such an extended period of time that it could not be conclusively disproved until its adherents were all long dead. Alas, after the campaign hit a snag, many doves were unable to resist the temptation to crow over the supposed overconfidence of the war plan -- and as a result looked silly a few days later when Saddam Hussein's regime collapsed, to the apparent delight of most Iraqis.

Now, it seems, war opponents are making a similar mistake. The present cause of their crowing is the failure (thus far) of the military to find solid evidence of weapons of mass destruction. Opponents of the war are starting to assert, or at least hint, that the entire rationale for the conflict has been undermined. The notion that Bush made the whole thing up about weapons of mass destruction has taken root on the left and is creeping ever closer to the liberal mainstream. My fellow liberals who have taken up this line are once again making a disastrous misjudgment.

The soft version of this argument is that the delay in finding weapons of mass destruction proves we should have given the U.N. weapons inspectors more time. Hans Blix intimated as much when he archly noted that "it is conspicuous that so far [U.S. troops] have not stumbled upon anything, evidence." The reason U.S. troops haven't yet found anything is that Hussein worked assiduously to hide his proscribed weapons. Iraq moved weapons around the country in tractor-trailers, buried them in out-of-the-way places and so on. The lesson is that finding Hussein's weapons isn't as simple as pulling over to the side of the road and peering into suspicious-looking buildings. It requires cracking open the elaborate secrecy apparatus surrounding them. That's something Blix was never going to be able to do. The difficulty of locating weapons of mass destruction doesn't prove that inspectors should have been given more time. It proves that inspections could never have worked while Hussein remained in power.

Recently a more radical version of this argument has gained credence: Maybe there never were any such weapons. In this view, the entire notion was a kind of Gulf of Tonkin redux -- a sinister ploy by Bush and his neoconservative minions to whipsaw the public into supporting a war whose real motives (Israel? Oil? Empire?) could not be stated openly. It's entirely appropriate to question the honesty of Bush's stated rationale for fighting. After all, the arguments he uses to justify his domestic agenda are shot through with deceit. (Consider his shifting, implausible and contradictory justifications for cutting taxes.) And it's also true that a few elements of the administration's evidence against Iraq have turned out to be overstatements or outright hoaxes.

So Bush's claims should never be taken at face value. But accepting the fact that Iraq had an extensive and continuing program for weapons of mass destruction doesn't require taking Bush at his word. The U.N. Special Commission, when it finished its work in 1999, concluded the same thing. So has Germany's intelligence service. So has the United Kingdom's. Indeed, the only people who seem to doubt it are either allies of Hussein or those who distrust Bush so much that they automatically assume everything he says must be false.

Perhaps the most disheartening development of the war -- at home, anyway -- is the number of liberals who have allowed Bush-hatred to take the place of thinking. Speaking with otherwise perceptive people, I have seen the same intellectual tics come up time and time again: If Bush is for it, I'm against it. If Bush says it, it must be a lie. Their opposition to Bush has made liberals embrace principles -- such as the notion that the United States must never fight without U.N. approval except in self-defense -- to which the Clinton administration never adhered (see Operation Desert Fox in 1998, or the Kosovo campaign in 1999). And it has made them forget that there are governments in the world even more odious and untrustworthy than the Bush administration.

The writer is a senior editor at the New Republic.



© 2003 The Washington Post Company”

“WASHINGTON (AP) -- Democratic Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton repeatedly insists she isn't running for president, but a new nationwide Republican effort aims to raise funds for the 2004 election by suggesting the GOP has to stop her.

"Are you ready for a new Clinton era in Washington?" the letter from the Republican Presidential Task Force begins. "...It could happen. But only if you let it."

The appeal being sent this week continues: "If Republicans don't take immediate steps to counter her, Senator Hillary Clinton will continue to rise unimpeded to the very pinnacle of power in Washington and we will see the dawning of a new, more liberal Clinton era."

The three-page letter points out that the New York senator has said she will not run for president in 2004. Nevertheless, it focuses on Clinton's quick rise through the ranks of the Democratic Party since winning office in 2000, arguing that she has become her party's "top fund-raiser, their top ideologue, their leading voice in opposition to President Bush."

High polling numbers for Clinton among Democrats have fueled speculation about her plans, but she has repeatedly said she will not run in 2004.

The Republican letter, written by Task Force chairman Sen. George Allen of Virginia, cites several news reports describing Clinton as a burgeoning political force.

Allen, who also serves as chairman of the National Republican Senatorial Committee, writes that his group will launch "a new mission: To stop Hillary."”