VIDEO: Bush Bobs and Weaves on Abramoff Photos
VIDEO: Bush Bobs and Weaves on Abramoff Photos
Today, President Bush confirmed that photos exist which document a relationship between him and Jack Abramoff. But Bush refused to release the photos. Instead, he engaged in a dizzying discourse about what the existence of those pictures mean. Watch the highlights:
Bush’s spin contradicts subtantial evidence indicating Bush knew Abramoff personally:
1) The Washingtonian reports that Abramoff knew Bush intimately. “[N]ot only did [Abramoff] know the President, but the President knew the names of Abramoff’s children and asked about them during their meetings. At one such photo session, Bush discussed the fact that both he and Abramoff were fathers of twins.â€
2) Bush suggests he only met Abramoff at big holiday receptions. But we know he met privately with Abramoff and his client in May 2001 at the White House. TIME magazine has seen a photo of the meeting.
3) by virtue of raising more than $100,000, Abramoff obtained the title of Bush “Pioneer.†As a “Pioneer,†Abramoff was a member of an elite club of donors that received special treatment and access to many presidential events.
Sort Comments By: Top Rated | Date
146 Responses to “VIDEO: Bush Bobs and Weaves on Abramoff Photos”
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog Roll
According to reports in the Washington Post, Abramoff was on the Bush transition team, why is this not being drummed by the press?
Bush speaks therefore he lies.
January 26th, 2006 at 2:54 pmWow, hardly a worse liar out there. You'd think by now he'd at least have some skill.
January 26th, 2006 at 2:55 pmKen who?
January 26th, 2006 at 2:55 pmIt still won't matter to his base 22% who also think the sun revolves around a flat earth, and that Iraqis were behind 9/11... Bush remains their Lord and Savior, even as he crucifies them.
January 26th, 2006 at 2:57 pmI think soon Bush will be denying he knows Bush, as in:
"Bush? I don't know him. I mean, I might BE him, but I've never had a conversation with the guy. I've met a lot of people and done a lot of drugs and taken a lot of bribes, so it's hard for me to recall one specific criminal that might be me."
January 26th, 2006 at 2:58 pmJust because they posed together doesn’t mean they were ever in the same room at the same time you stupid radical left wing fringe types!
Nothing funnier than Bush trying to pull the Jedi Mind trick. Senor Presidente, to pull it off successfully you must have superior mental capacity over your targets.
January 26th, 2006 at 3:00 pmIn addition - check out this:
January 26th, 2006 at 3:08 pmhttp://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/007536.php
wow, the picture of confidence.
I love them straight-shootin', tough-talkin', stand up Texans. Yeeeeeeeeeeeeha!
January 26th, 2006 at 3:08 pmFirst he tries to deny photos exist, then he tries to remove them from public view, now he is admitting that the photots do exist. I've seen cats shitting on a bare floor who did better jobs of trying to deny their crimes.
January 26th, 2006 at 3:09 pmWhat could anyone possibly say on this matter - us, him, them, me, you - that speaks louder than Abramoff's $100,000 does?
January 26th, 2006 at 3:09 pmHe's not lying, he's creating another new reality. His new realities scare the living crap out of me.
January 26th, 2006 at 3:10 pmSorry TP - I had not seen that you had posted the same (#7) info earlier today.
January 26th, 2006 at 3:11 pmDon't forget that GW poses with thousands of people every day ... shakes hands ... smiles. It's all part of prezdintin' ... "doesn't mean I'm friends with 'em." This is harrrrrrrrdddddddddd work, y'know.
January 26th, 2006 at 3:19 pmIt's just like the Chalabi thing. "Chalabi? i think i spoke with him once or twice." Yeah, thats why he's sitting behind your wife at the State of the Union address. Bush has a real selective memory when it comes to the crooks and con men he associates with.
January 26th, 2006 at 3:27 pmAccording to reports in the Washington Post, Abramoff was on the Bush transition team, why is this not being drummed by the press?
Comment by Hardy Haberman
Probably because of the Post's habit of being wrong or making shit up as they go along. Ya think?
January 26th, 2006 at 3:27 pmHe's guilty! A dunking! If he floats, he's guilty! If he sinks, he's innocent!
I'm sure Pat Robertson would approve of dunking.
January 26th, 2006 at 3:28 pmWow, hardly a worse liar out there. You’d think by now he’d at least have some skill.
Comment by SuperEdo
Yep, stupid old George who whipped the Zeropean Union, the Islamist head choppers, the Democratic Party, the Russians, Red Chinese, the Taliban,Saddam and the Filthy Left all at the same time. How can he be such a stupid liar?
January 26th, 2006 at 3:32 pmThe part that struck me was when he said something very close to:
'There's an enemy out there, who wants to hit us again. That's what Osama said a few days ago, and I take his words very seriously'
It's gonna be pretty funny to hear that comment backed up against the:
'Ya know, I don't know where he is, to tell you the truth, I just don't spend that much time on him'
What a boner.
January 26th, 2006 at 3:33 pmHe’s guilty! A dunking! If he floats, he’s guilty! If he sinks, he’s innocent!
I’m sure Pat Robertson would approve of dunking.
Comment by G. Gordon Giddy
We'll apply a red hot knife to your tongue and if it burns we'll know you're a liar. Sitting Bull would approve.
January 26th, 2006 at 3:34 pm#19, put out your pants yet Adolf?
January 26th, 2006 at 3:36 pmIRI -
What took ya so long to get here today? Waiting for the daily troll points?
January 26th, 2006 at 3:41 pmSince Pres. Bush bungled the war in Afghanistan (Opium production is on the rise there), assisted the terrorists by turning Iraq into a training ground for them, illegally spied on Americans with his domestic spying and not even trying to follow the law but claiming he’s above the law, broke medicare, racked up the largest deficit in history and created the largest debt in the world, his oh-so cozy relationship with the sleaziest of lobbyists is relatively minor. Why would he start telling the truth now, just because his political party is responsible for the biggest pay-for-play scandals in America?
I mean, it’s not like the Republicans are known for taking personal responsibility for their action!
I’m sure they’ll eventually have to eat crow and take personal responsibility for their actions, misdeeds, and corruption once they are relegated to the minority party.
January 26th, 2006 at 3:43 pm#15, looks like Newsweek has the transition team story too.
January 26th, 2006 at 3:47 pm#21 - "Right between the I's" had to finish drinking his kool-aid and get his talking points in order. Since he’s from the party of “Ditto!â€, he’s not allowed to form his own opinion. He’s only allowed to parrot the party line, and spread calumny and further the disingenuous arguments that are hatched by his superiors.
Once the ‘Donks’ bonk the 'Phants' (and sycophants) back to the minority party, he’ll have to be given new lines to spout.
January 26th, 2006 at 3:47 pm#21, no he's had the firefighters over at his house all morning after he set fire to his pants earlier today.
January 26th, 2006 at 3:47 pmIRI,
What say you to this?
Is Fox news Drifting left?
January 26th, 2006 at 3:55 pmI-RIGHT-I needs to hop back on the troooooll train!
The horns a=blowin'! Last chance to get out before your whole right wing ends up in the hoosegow!
January 26th, 2006 at 3:55 pmHas anyone searched the White House website to see if there is any mention of Abramoff, or the Dept of the Interior?
Try back in May of 2001. around there.
January 26th, 2006 at 3:56 pmI'm glad we have a President who has returned character to the White House and doesn't try to re-define words like "is," "know," "friend," etc. And given all the cash Bush/Cheney raised in 2000 and 2004, $100,000 really is chump change.
In all seriousness, doesn't the President get briefed, even briefly, about who he is taking a photograph with or shaking hands with? I mean isn't that part of the "game," walking into a room and "knowing" who's there, knowing their name, etc? And isn't Bush supposedly good at that "game" of being personable? And isn't this the same President that is famous for comming up with chummy nicknames for people? Or maybe that's it, the press just has to stop asking about "Abramoff" and start asking about whatever chummy nickname Bush gave him, then Bush will remember the guy. It's kind of like that frat brother who you only remember by their nickname. The press just has to start thinking like Bush.
January 26th, 2006 at 3:56 pmI'm kind of growing fond of IRI. I admit it.
He's not so bad. I think he's here to have fun, really.
January 26th, 2006 at 3:58 pmHe's still a pain in the ass, but he's our pain in the ass.
January 26th, 2006 at 3:58 pmAre you a pain in anyone else's ass, IRI? Or are you just loyal to TP?
January 26th, 2006 at 4:00 pmIRI,
What say you to this?
Is Fox news Drifting left?
Comment by G. Gordon Giddy — January 26, 2006 @ 3:55 pm
Gordon,
According to IRI, even Fox is run by a bunch of "liberals". He thinks all corporations are too.
He works with his own definition of what conservatives, liberals are.
January 26th, 2006 at 4:00 pmBush can say whatever he wants.
Rove, Norquist, Reed, Abramoff.
That is the link.
January 26th, 2006 at 4:01 pm#28, I just did and got the following,
Search whitehouse.gov by keyword
Results for: Abramoff
No results were found for your search.
Try changing some of the words in your query.
Tips for better results:
* Check your syntax.
January 26th, 2006 at 4:02 pm* Make sure to use the correct spelling.
* Use the correct case (uppercase for capitalized names, lowercase for common words and phrases).
* Use a comma to separate capitalized names or phrases.
For example: Richard Cheney, George W. Bush
* Try synonyms and variations of words.
For example: CDROM, CD-ROM
Gregor,
Thanks for the info on healthcare in Mexico.
I may have confused it with single payer as compared to multiple, not sure, in any case, Thanks. I did not know that.
I think IRI says whatever will get a rise out of us. I wonder if he really believes half of what he says.
January 26th, 2006 at 4:03 pm#35,
It was scrubbed.
January 26th, 2006 at 4:04 pmPLEASE keep banging on the "impeach now" drum!!!! It reinforces the notion about the wimpy, whiny progs and their lame, weak take on national security. (Some humourous moments can be found - we get to listen to the bobbing and babbling of the aptly named Susan TurnBULL to KEEP telling us how dedicated to national seurity Dems are. Note to Susan - "if the country's gone - what's left to protect??"
January 26th, 2006 at 4:05 pmThis site is non-partisan, no matter what the trolls say, But here's what the Dems say about Abramoff
January 26th, 2006 at 4:07 pmI agree wholeheartedly and enthusiastically that this is an important issue - and maybe the one we need to really change this empire. HOWEVER, this is an issue that can wait just ONE WEEK. Right now there's an issue that will NOT wait a week and that's the
Alioto nomination. I suggest that the progressive blogosphere needs to get on track about this RIGHT NOW or it'll be too late. There's buzz about a possible filibuster by Kerry, and he has enough votes to do it - barely. He needs all the support he can get.
Please, only one week, then we can get back to all the other important issues out there. THIS is the train that's about to run us down NOW.
January 26th, 2006 at 4:07 pmOff topic:
Sen Kerry just called for a filibuster of Alito's nomination. Saw it on cnn.com
January 26th, 2006 at 4:08 pmNote to Susan: With luck, Pres. Bush will NOT have sold the US to the highest bidder before his term is done and we can start to move back to the 'rule of law' that the so-called conservatives were harping about less than 8 years ago.
I really, really with the Republican party would take personal responsibility for their actions! It would make it more believable when they spout that line in their rhetoric.
January 26th, 2006 at 4:08 pmComment by mighty aphrodite
Her I don't really care for ....
52% want impeachment hearings if Bush broke the law by ordering warrantless domestic spying on Americans. We are a progressive country after all.
January 26th, 2006 at 4:09 pmYeah, the Bush crew are certainly on top of national security. What was that Presidential Daily Briefing of August 6, 2001 called? Oh yeah, that's right: "bin Ladin Determined to Strike in U.S.".
http://news.findlaw.com/hdocs/docs/terrorism/80601pdb.html
Who is that darned Tim Osman feller again?
January 26th, 2006 at 4:10 pmZookeeper,
I keep hoping that the Dems will filibuster. Maybe they wanted to blindside the pukesm keep them guessing or lull them into a fallse sense of security and keep their intent hidden ...
They are at the "crap or get off the pot" point, and the base and grassroots have let them know about it. If the DNC wants anymore money, they had better step up to the plate this time.
January 26th, 2006 at 4:13 pm#5 ...oh man that was funny
January 26th, 2006 at 4:13 pmKeep banging your head against a wall hermaphrodity.
January 26th, 2006 at 4:16 pmG. Gordon - 52% of ...who??? Poll? Question? We'll let you guys keep Susan T.......
January 26th, 2006 at 4:16 pm"Nixon...I never heard of nixon,was he a presnut er sumpthin".."Al Capone?...no...Hitler who?..."...it must be hard to hear with that hidden speaker cheney implanted in his ear.
January 26th, 2006 at 4:17 pm*I-wrong-I likes to try to make us jump, now go lie down and take your meds,butthead.
You know these clowns are guilty as hell when they go through the "Jack who?" routine. . .and then the "Oh, ya, we bumped into each other once" followed by the "Of course there are photos, who said there weren't?" which then leads to the "This is being made a political issue by those who hate America." They must be exerting tremendous pressure on anyone who has every taken a photo or thought of taking a photo in the WH. It will be interesting to see how much time it will take before all of this falls apart. gwb must be spending 90% of his twelve waking hours on this.
January 26th, 2006 at 4:23 pmIs it my imagination or does "Right between the I's" stop posting when I call him by that name?
The only time any polls are questioned as to their veracity is when they don't provide abject support to the current administrations tortured logic or the disingenuous arguments used to prop up yet another overreaching policy of Pres. Bush.
http://www.zogby.com/news/ReadNews.dbm?ID=1007
January 26th, 2006 at 4:23 pmAnybody know what Bushco's nickname for Jack was? Surely he had one!
January 26th, 2006 at 4:24 pmIs it my imagination or does “Right between the I’s†stop posting when I call him by that name?
Comment by Democrat Soldier
His name IRI is some reference to firearms and marksmanship. I forget what it is. He lives in a state that has lax concealed carry laws, like Texas or Florida or whatever. He's afraid of the boogeyman.
January 26th, 2006 at 4:27 pmAnybody know what Bushco’s nickname for Jack was? Surely he had one!
Comment by Amy
Good question, Amy!
January 26th, 2006 at 4:27 pmOf course, the ultra-radical right-wingers will proudly laud any poll from any source that supports their misguided positions! If you notice, they’re more than happy to reference the Zogby polls from when Pres. Bush had higher approval than disapproval.
I guess the only time a poll of American citizen opinion carries any weight for the ‘Phants’ is when the outcome is sycophantic.
January 26th, 2006 at 4:28 pmIRI is definately Texas. But not an Austin kind of cool Texas but a Jasper kind of Texas.
I am frightened of those that choose to be led by the inferior.
January 26th, 2006 at 4:32 pmThey're destoying evidence just like they did on 9/11. Nothing new.
January 26th, 2006 at 4:33 pmdamn... that's "destroying" ...with an "R" oops. :/
January 26th, 2006 at 4:35 pmWatch this clip with the sound turned off. You can tell where he's lying by his body language. lol
January 26th, 2006 at 4:35 pmI currently live near Austin, TX. Looking to rejoin my previous company in Connecticut. You know, the state where Pres. Bush was born? Yes, they're still apologizing for that mistake.
Interesting how he’s the only Bush family member that I’ve heard that speaks with a Texan accent. I guess affectations CAN make the man!
January 26th, 2006 at 4:36 pmI watched GWB this morning while he was saying this, and just laughed. Those pictures will be coming out, and I have a good feeling in my heart that they will show him being quite chummy with Abramoff. Abramoff will find a buyer for the pics, and then he'll shop around the little bff notes with hearts dotting the i's, the hannukah cards, bar mitzvah cards for the kiddies, etc., and Georgie will be caught again. IRI and mighty will still love him, though, 'cause he's such a good christian and so misunderstood.
January 26th, 2006 at 4:36 pmWhat Karl Rove didn't know when he picked Bush, is that Bush has no poker face.
He's a terrible liar.
January 26th, 2006 at 4:42 pmAnd that bobbing and weaving?
Thats a move from a little dance we like to call the "Potomac Two Step".
January 26th, 2006 at 4:43 pm"G. Gordon - 52% of …who??? Poll? Question? We’ll let you guys keep Susan T……. mighty aphrodite"
Oh sweetie, I know the memory is the first thing to go for many of advanced age such as yourself, but that would be 52% of americans. You must have missed that article yesterday that talked about how partisan people - such as yourself - shut down the part of their brain where reason lives, and responds to political questions with just emotion. You fit that 'monkey brain' scenario quite nicely. But don't worry, I forgive you for not being able to think rationally about american - most people on the fringes of politics such as yourself share this weakness. It's clear you aren't in control of your mental faculties, and unlike I-RIGHT-I, I won't blame the fact that you're a woman on your emotional state. The study released yesterday proved it wasn't a female problem, but a partisan problem.
So now that we know you have no rational control over your arguments or your ability to comprehend facts - it's much easier to forgive you for your silly comments. Don't worry sweetie, we forgive you for all of the partisan comments you post - you can't help yourself.
January 26th, 2006 at 4:44 pmWish people would quit calling Bush and the other modern day pharisees "Christians". It does a real disservice to Jesus, the guy who spoke the Beatitudes. There ain't nothin' in the behavior of the modern day pharisees that has any basis in Jesus' teachings (Saul of Tarses, maybe...but not Jesus).
January 26th, 2006 at 4:45 pm#64 - RightPunch, I am touched by your compassion and caring nature!
Of course, the type of compassion you just expressed is nothing like the Machiavellian term “compassionate conservative†that only includes the latter and nothing of the former.
I shall endeavor to emulate your behavior, and pity the partisan trolls that cannot help themselves nor their reactionary nature.
January 26th, 2006 at 4:50 pmMr. George W. Bush needs to be subjected to a psychiatric fitness for duty examination to determine if he is fit for the Office of the Presidency. Hope Congress and the Judiciary do their duty - I am tired of hearing Bush saying the American public approves his NSA spaying, torture etc., WE DON'T!
January 26th, 2006 at 4:53 pmBush doesn't consider those who disagree with him to be "americans." Therefore, to him, *we* do not count as the "American Public."
January 26th, 2006 at 5:01 pmCaption contest: "I never did have campaign contribution relations with that man, Mr Abramoff"
January 26th, 2006 at 5:03 pmAlthough #5 is way ahead here already...
January 26th, 2006 at 5:05 pmI-RIGHT-T
"Probably because of the Post’s habit of being wrong or making shit up as they go along. Ya think"?
If you are still out there, are you saying that Abramoff was not part of Bush's transition team?
January 26th, 2006 at 5:09 pm#71, nope he's still smarting from setting fire to his own pants this morning, so he's only up to accusing the WashPo of lying now. No matter that Newsweek made the same statement. No matter too that Abramoff got his senior staffer Ralston onto Rove's team at the same time....
January 26th, 2006 at 5:21 pm“Probably because of the Post’s habit of being wrong or making shit up as they go along. Ya thinkâ€
In keeping with the proverbial broken clock being right twice a day... You got that one right. They do make shit up, just not the way you are implying.
January 26th, 2006 at 5:22 pm52% want impeachment hearings if Bush broke the law by ordering warrantless domestic spying on Americans. We are a progressive country after all.
I'd encourage you to read more in depth about that poll ... based upon the question that was asked, I would answered affirmatively (and we all know that I'm not liberal).
The question was something to the effect of "If Bush wiretapped American citizens without a warrant, do you agree or disagree that Congress should consider holding him accountable through impeachment." The words "should consider" are classic weasel words ... specifically designed to be open to illicit more affirmatives. Basically, most Americans think this thing is a non-issue and the Democrats only serve to keep the news centered on a subject that resonates for Republicans (national defense) ... they should drop it. The Abramoff things is fizzling as well ... most could care less (I know progressives think it's big deal, but conservatives thought the Clinton perjury thing was a big deal too ... the public collectively yawned).
IMHO, Democrats only make themselves look bad when they attack Alito, try and pin Abramoff to Bush (it'll be very hard to "stick" this to him no matter how well he knew the guy), and trumpet the Bush lied mantra (by the way, have you seen the Iraqi Air Force General who claims that the WMDs were flown to Syria on a commuter plane ... hardly a smoking gun ... but what if it's true). There are definite topics that the Democrats can influence public opinion with ... like environment, etc. ... unfortunately, the Democrat base wants more blood (adn thinks they can draw some with the aformentioned issues). If the Democrat leadership listens to the ultra-left, they'll be flying the wrong issues come election time ... my two cents.
January 26th, 2006 at 5:44 pm"I shall endeavor to emulate your behavior, and pity the partisan trolls that cannot help themselves nor their reactionary nature. Democrat Soldier"
Unfortunately the best we can do is pity blind partisans of all stripes. No candidate fully expresses my values that I've ever seen - so I find blind partisanship just silly and irrational. Maybe if I ever go braindead like the rightwing trolls you'll have pity on me as well - it's the most one could hope for :)
January 26th, 2006 at 5:46 pmGiaco, don't believe everything you see on Free Republic. That's where I saw the Iraq-Syria thingy. Now Duefler, Bush's own man, found jack. So as the Scots say 'not proven' and frankly the burden of proof lies with the Freepers on this one.
If I remember correctly, the Clinton thing fizzled mainly because the dude was at 65% popularity at the time.
January 26th, 2006 at 5:56 pmThe Iraq-Syria WMD caper ranks right there with the 'Twin Towers were demolished by explosives' tin foil jobby.
January 26th, 2006 at 5:57 pmTry this Giaco - do you think the President broke the law bypassing the 4th amendment by not getting warrants? If so, what conclusion do you draw from your assertion, and I suspect you are more right there, that the public doesn't care? Are there any other parts of the Constitution that are currently expendable?
January 26th, 2006 at 6:01 pmOh great... more "coincidence theorists." I guess we just have to give up and let the New World Order Police State happen. Don't get mad though, when people like me become the "I told you so" crowd after the fact.
January 26th, 2006 at 6:05 pmGiacomo,
I know you're a partisan, which means you probably can't use the reason part of your brain because of your partisan emotions - but can you explain to me why a madman who had used WMDs wouldn't use them to protect his own dictatorship?
I was always saddened by how irrational and unthinking partisans could be - and now that I know they can't help themselves it just sounds more and more like a kind of medical condition and socialized insanity. Poor things, I feel so much pity for them in their handicapped state. To lose the one part of the brain that makes us human and separates us from animals all in the name of politics. I forgive you for your weakness and illness Giacomo - clearly you can't help yourself.
January 26th, 2006 at 6:10 pm"If the Democrat leadership listens to the ultra-left, they’ll be flying the wrong issues come election time … my two cents. Giacomo"
As a conservative I'm not sure why you would give honest advice to an idealogical enemy (liberals) that you don't want to win. This implies that you are either lying, or you are in the belief that you're helping someone defeat your own party and your own idealogy. You do realize that when you post from the partisan and emotional brain as you did - that nothing you write either sounds logical or reasoned don't you? Wait - no you wouldn't know that, because to know this would require you to answer from your reasoning portion of your brain. Nevermind - question answered :)
I forgive you for sounding silly Giacomo, clearly you can't help yourself. You don't need to apologize, we have already been informed that partisan people can't control their own emotional and unreasoned responses to political topics. I'm guessing religion is a similar topic that you're irrational on - these things tend to go in groupings I would bet.
January 26th, 2006 at 6:17 pmComment by mighty aphrodite
Her I don’t really care for ….
52% want impeachment hearings if Bush broke the law by ordering warrantless domestic spying on Americans. We are a progressive country after all.
Comment by G. Gordon Giddy — January 26, 2006 @ 4:09 pm
Ah, no one does Gordo. I've stopped reading her posts. Too angry and condescending for my tastes.
By the way, someone found the link to the 'water' website that I mentioned last night, and he posted it in the forum - from San Francisco :)
January 26th, 2006 at 6:18 pmMA can engage when you can get her to do more than a 'drive-by rant'. Ned's the one I miss....what happened Ned, did you finally go postal?
January 26th, 2006 at 6:23 pmUnbelieved - the teacher who is so stupid that folowing the posts often proves difficult if not impossible - if you ever figure out what I said through your poorly executed paste and cut, we'll chat.
But I'll make you a deal - I won't read your posts and you don't have to read mine. Deal????
RightSlap/RyaNNe - Try as you might with "sweetie" this and that, you're easy to figure. You stick woith the same juvenile insult in every instance....Zzzzz....
January 26th, 2006 at 6:27 pmDid I hear a car go by again?
January 26th, 2006 at 6:31 pmIs it just me! Trolls are now trying to act like the NSA thing is not that important in the public's eye and Dems are blowing it out of proportion. New talking points?
January 26th, 2006 at 6:34 pm#86 - The Kool-Aid is taking effect - and if it isn't, it's all Clinton's fault.
January 26th, 2006 at 6:40 pm[...] And Think Progress catches a defensive Bush on video, making the above-quoted statements. [...]
January 26th, 2006 at 6:46 pmBut I’ll make you a deal - I won’t read your posts and you don’t have to read mine. Deal????
Comment by mighty aphrodite — January 26, 2006 @ 6:27 pm
Hey, everyone - offend Magda by telling her that you're a woman (she hates women - why else would she be a neo-con?), and she'll quit reading your posts... Excellent news!
Honey, the only stupid one between us is you. You thinking RightPunch is Ryan is further proof. Ryan would NEVER forgive you. Your lack of awareness never ceases to make me laugh... poor old bat. Were you a dog, someone would have shot you by now... In fact, IRI might still, gun crazy guy that one. He'd would shoot anything, especially a woman over the age of 40... (glad I'm safe... makes you just hate me all the more, doesn't it? Try not to shake when you type back, it will increase your typo count).
January 26th, 2006 at 6:47 pm#85 #89 LOL
January 26th, 2006 at 6:50 pm"RightSlap/RyaNNe - Try as you might with “sweetie†this and that, you’re easy to figure. You stick woith the same juvenile insult in every instance….Zzzzz…. mighty aphrodite"
Sweetie, the Punch stands for an alternative to the koolaid you drink - it isn't a reference to violence. I understand how a partisan who sees the world through such hatred and fear might presume the worst - and I forgive you for limitations. Clearly you can't help yourself from insulting and attacking others.
I'm not insulting you dear, and I'm sorry that your emotional and partisan brain won't recognize that I genuinely care for the elderly such as yourself. You are often victimized by politicians and con artists that prey on your naivety and fear. Don't worry, I understand how hard it is to get older and fear the world. I feel for you honey.
And you don't need to be so spiteful next time, I'm saddened by how trapped the rightwing is in its own partisanship. Your brains are all so disabled that you clearly have no rational control over what you right. I don't blame you for the things you say - clearly they don't come from someone fully in charge of their faculties.
And while you love to insult and keep making up pet names for me sweetie, rightpunch will do fine.
January 26th, 2006 at 7:00 pmYep, stupid old George who whipped the Zeropean Union, the Islamist head choppers, the Democratic Party, the Russians, Red Chinese, the Taliban,Saddam and the Filthy Left all at the same time. How can he be such a stupid liar?
Hmmm,China bigger and stronger than ever.Taliban rising back up,Left much cleaner than corrupt Repugs,always have been.Saddam will end up dead because he knows to much about Bush and his pack of idiots.Islamist headchoppers still at it,idiot George had nothing to do with collapse of Soviet Union and contrary to popular belief neither did Idiot Ronny Raygun.And yes George is stupid,he has nothing to do with anything,he is just Karl Roves and Rumsfelds bitch and i think you are too.
January 26th, 2006 at 7:14 pmHey, anyone know why we haven't heard from the Native Americans who got bamboozled by Abramoff, and/or those who were privy to the meeting with Der Shrubbo? Are they witnesses in the Abramoff case and thus have been gagged?
January 26th, 2006 at 7:25 pmWhat about any of his other victims?
G. Gorden I emailed the dems to see if there are any photos at the Texas governours site because Jack lobbied Bush when Bush was governour, would be funny if there were pics there, kinda blows the whole "I really don't know him he's just another washington fellow, if they were sharing burgers in Austin
January 26th, 2006 at 7:38 pmI know you’re a partisan, which means you probably can’t use the reason part of your brain because of your partisan emotions - but can you explain to me why a madman who had used WMDs wouldn’t use them to protect his own dictatorship?
No, I really can't ... I imagine if he moved them out of the country that'd be one reason (or that they didn't exist any longer). I'm not one of those conservatives that blindly thinks the Iraq war is all great ... it's not.
The reason I offered advice and my opinion was in the interest of free thought and stimulating discussion. I really don't expect you to "take my advice", but, rather, was interested in hearing what you thought about my thesis. Your response centered on logic and reason ... but truly was neither. Why is it hard to just answer me and not attack or minimize me ... stick to what I'm saying and leave out the "what you think about me personally part". It's truly irrelavant.
January 26th, 2006 at 7:39 pmGo get a dictionary aphrodite,your exposing your stupidity.
January 26th, 2006 at 7:55 pmWe all know about those filthy Republican novels: Scooter Libby's The Apprentice (excerpted by Nerve here) and Lynne Cheney's Sisters (brought to life in this Nerve photo gallery). But did you know that crook lobbyist Jack Abramoff was briefly a B-movie producer? According to a New York Times story quoted on the IMDB message boards: "A former president of the College Republicans who turned to lobbying after a short-lived career as a B-movie producer, Mr. Abramoff, with his lobbying team, collected more than $80 million from the Indian tribes and their gambling operations; he was known by lobbying rivals as 'Casino Jack.'" His big film? Red Scorpion, a homoerotic thriller starring Dolph Lundgren. Via BoingBoing.
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/11/20/politics/20lobby.html
http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0009106/board/nest/21387103
http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0009106/
http://www.nerve.com/nerveblog/scannerblog.aspx?blogid=96
http://www.boingboing.net/
say it ain't so!
January 26th, 2006 at 8:06 pmas opposed to the poll that Faux uses - where people were asked whether they supported wiretaps on Al-queda.
January 26th, 2006 at 8:11 pmright Giacomo?
you are such a tool.
shove your 2-cents up your a$$
Dear Terry - I apologize for the "hit and run" most days I am so busy and other day's it's hurry up and wait. Having lunch with a friend yeaterday, I was telling her how humourous you all were. She agreed you were HAPPY to have the trolls visit - believe me, we don't want to livein lib-lib land (bordering on la-la land) but we do prevent rudunancy in the extreme:
For example:
ProgA "I hate the dishonest lying selected president."
ProgB "I HATE George Bush more - and his wife is a murderer."
ProgC "I think George Bush the drunk draft dodger is the spawn of the devil - if we believed in such nonsense."
Now picture reading 9000 more of this and trying to make it interesting!!!!
Your welcome!!!!
January 26th, 2006 at 8:48 pmAfter listening to this guy try and talk today, I have come to the conclusion that the 2004 elections were rigged.
January 26th, 2006 at 8:56 pmWait until it comes out that Bush returned Tom Noe's contributions after he was indicated in Ohio in October - possible money laundering of public funds into the Bush/Cheney 04 campaign? and ready to just say noe more America? And what's this, Tom Noe's wife Bernadette was in charge of elections for Lucas County? hmmmmm
January 26th, 2006 at 8:58 pmI say again,
gee, flighty massmurderlikee,
you’re so civic-minded. just think, you could be out doing anything to make this a better world for your kids to live in, and you choose to troll around a website, espousing wingnut values instead. have you taught your children how to goose-step yet?
let me guess, you’re sitting at home, and the fact that one-party rule is actually known as totalitarianism by most students of history escapes you. you want to protect your children from those dangerous “liberalsâ€, because if they get back into power, of course they’re going to start funding the rampant gay militias who are hell-bent on taking over the country and ‘turning everyone gay’.
you watch fox news, and that seems fair- but somehow to you it isn’t fair that there’s a website that very plainly and honestly lists ‘fighting the radical right-wing agenda’ as one of its charges. there are many people that aren’t democrats or even liberals, including myself, that consider that a very worthy cause at this point in american history. because, like it or not, and the original topic of this post proves it, the right wing, holier-than-thou whackjobs are dragging this country through the mud and have very willfully undertaken a program of persecution and truth-distortion.
the way you trolls spew hatred and desire to see those who don’t agree with you abolished is downright disgusting and, if you haven’t noticed, has turned the majority of moderates and independents against you. certainly i’d rather have a third party with a spine, but short of that i’ve got to go with the dems at this point. you wingnuts are ruining it for everyone.
so you may be proud to be raising the new hitler youth, but one day those children of yours might just resent you for leading them down a path of intolerance and myopia.
January 26th, 2006 at 9:19 pmSen. John Kerry will attempt a filibuster to stop Judge Samuel Alito becoming a Supreme Court justice. "Judge Alito's confirmation would be an ideological coup on the Supreme Court," Kerry said, but some senior Democrats are worried the move could backfire. The filibuster effectively extends debate to block a vote, but Republicans believe they will have enough votes to prevent a filibuster.
http://www.cnn.com
January 26th, 2006 at 9:23 pmdemocrats have to stop worrying about 'backfire' especially since at this point they've got no FIRE at all...
January 26th, 2006 at 9:26 pm"No, I really can’t … I imagine if he moved them out of the country that’d be one reason (or that they didn’t exist any longer). I’m not one of those conservatives that blindly thinks the Iraq war is all great … it’s not. Giacomo"
Well anyone who would even float the idea that a dictator would simply give away WMDs instead of using them to protect themselves isn't using reason my friend. I doubt you are 100% partisan, but clearly your posting had a partisan bent. It's just as silly as anyone who believes that there can never be any good that comes out of the Iraq invasion. Every action whether it be good or bad almost always has unintentional consequences and new opportunities. Iraq was mismanaged, but this can produce new opportunities and new understandings for those involved.
But it takes a partisan brain to believe someone like Saddam wouldn't defend himself with every weapon at hand.
"The reason I offered advice and my opinion was in the interest of free thought and stimulating discussion. Giacomo"
I can believe you believe this to be true. But the response that came out of your keyboard was consistent with a partisan brain under stress.
" I really don’t expect you to “take my adviceâ€, but, rather, was interested in hearing what you thought about my thesis. Giacomo"
I didn't realize that making a claim that Saddam spirited away weapons he could have used to defend himself was advice. It sounded to me like the same silly partisan talking point that I've read too many times before.
"Your response centered on logic and reason … but truly was neither. Giacomo"
Well, when you engage your reason center of the brain and stop attacking those that ask you to think rationally, I'll believe you there big guy. You criticize me for not using logic, yet you offer no 'logic' for why a dictator would give away weapons that could defend him? I explained why your statement was illogical, but in a typical example of the partisan brain in action you dismiss my statement as being illogical without being able to describe why. Classic partisan brain syndrome. Don't worry, clearly you can't help yourself.
"Why is it hard to just answer me and not attack or minimize me … Giacomo"
Oh big guy, I'm doing neither. I'm sure you're a swell guy with great capacity for thought - but as the brain scans showed this week, partisan people show a complete lack of using their reasoning centers when confronted with particular topics they're partisan about. See you didn't reason anything in your post, you simply recanted talking points. I however reasoned through them and explained why that supposition was irrational and silly. But because your partisan brain is engaged you aren't even capable of hearing what I say. Instead you simply act emotionally and defensively as is expected.
And that doesn't minimize you, but it does explain what you say, and why you believe so strongly despite the clearly irrational premise.
" stick to what I’m saying and leave out the “what you think about me personally partâ€. It’s truly irrelavant. Giacomo"
What I think about you? Wow, you sure do have a lot of judgement and emotion on my statements - more partisan brain in action. Why I think you're probably a great guy, who's full of great intentions and good will in your inner self. But clearly you're too partisan to use your reasoning, and therefore my pointing that out to you evokes an emotional instead of a rational response. See, I don't think this is a personal issue around you specifically - I think it's more of a brain chemistry and brainwashing issue. I don't hold you responsible for acting this way, because clearly like all partisan people, you have have little awareness or control over your thoughts or actions when it comes to politics. I forgive you for this, and I do truly believe that your intentions are good despite what you say. That's hardly a personal attack, in fact it's one that recognizes both your good intentions and positive desires.
If you try to disengage all of the emotion you have on this and walk through what the other side is thinking, it will help you.
See I know that republicans fear terrorists, so all of your reasoning is around everything you can do to kill terrorists, and everything that they might do to kill you. So in your partisan brain you see Iraq and their WMDs as a terrorist threat, and anything that anyone tells you from your partisan envelope about dangers from Iraq or the terrorists you either believe or recognize as highly likely. It's how your brain works, and it's OK. I understand that you're not aware of this, so therefore you're acting purely from instinct.
January 26th, 2006 at 9:40 pmGarza, the bolo-wearing former chairman of the Kickapoo Traditional Tribe of Texas, has fond memories of his session with Bush, which he said was held in 2001 in the Eisenhower Executive Office Building, next to the White House. According to e-mails in the hands of investigators, the meeting was arranged with the help of Abramoff and Grover Norquist, president of Americans for Tax Reform. In an April 18, 2001, e-mail to Abramoff, Norquist wrote that he would be "honored" if Abramoff "could come to the White House meeting." Garza—known in his native Kickapoo language as Makateonenodua, or black buffalo—is under federal indictment for allegedly embezzling more than $300,000 from his tribe. Through his spokesman, Garza said that during the session, Bush talked about policy matters and thanked those present for supporting his agenda, then took questions from the audience of about two dozen people. Garza told TIME, "We were very happy that Jack Abramoff helped us to be with the President. Bush was in a very good mood—very upbeat and positive." No evidence has emerged that the Bush Administration has done anything for the Kickapoo at Abramoff's behest.
http://www.tbrnews.org/
OucH
January 26th, 2006 at 9:45 pm"Now picture reading 9000 more of this and trying to make it interesting!!!!
Your welcome!!!! mighty aphrodite"
Wow, how can you simultaneously be so emotionally detached and filled with hate for everyone you disagree with at the same time. That must be an example of that partisan brain in action. The brainscans they did on partisans showed that they used the conflict resolution and emotional centers to formulate responses and arguments to those on the other side. So clearly your response fits the partisan brain, so that means it's even easier to forgive you for what you write. Clearly you aren't in control of your own thoughts beyond an emotional response - so therefore it's easy to explain why nothing you seem to write is either reasoned or rational - and instead is just emotional. Whether it's boredom, hate, fear or laughter - your posts are always around how we make you feel, and not about what we make you think.
Thanks for taking the time to be bored with us, maybe someday when you've decided that you're tired of hating and fearing those who are different from you, you'll start using that big brain of yours for reasoning. I forgive you for not being able to do so currently, but I hold out hope that one day you'll find a way to stop hating and start thinking. I know you have it in you old girl - give it a whirl!
January 26th, 2006 at 9:47 pmHow Quaint
January 26th, 2006 at 9:47 pmThe most notable feature of the "republicans" who post here: They usually use thier post to attack someone or make snide comments. Rarely have I seen one who can use facts or speak in a civil manner. Mighty's post much like IRI's posts suggest that both of them just want to "put a stick in a hornets nest" so to speak.
On a personal note, I watched Bush this morning, and it was the usual bob and weave to avoid answering any direct questions. I was especially disturbed, that he justifies the illegal wire taps by saying he's the president so he can do it.
January 26th, 2006 at 10:12 pmRightPunch, normally I enjoy reading your posts, and usually agree with you. This is particularly true regarding Mighty. But I have to say that on this thread Giacomo is using more reason, and you are reacting emotionally. Flame me if you must. I just had to say it.
January 26th, 2006 at 10:48 pmBush and Abramoff have been close friends for years, so George needs to cut the crap and admit it! No more LIES!
January 26th, 2006 at 11:02 pm[...] Is this the stammering of someone telling the truth? Bush bobs and weaves on Abramoff photos [...]
January 26th, 2006 at 11:09 pmLily if you read Giacomo closely, he says " The question was something to the effect of" then posts hisversion of the quote , then proceed to take two words out, comment on those two words, then dismisses the poll by saying that most american think this thing is a nonissue ...they should drop it. He gives his version, then knows how all americans think better than the poll takers themselves. By his statement something ro the effect of, he acknowledges that the words are not exact, so his focusing his attack on words that might or might not be there is empty and leans toward untrue. He then follows with the Abrarmoff thing is fizzling?????? where does he live gitmo? why does he think the repug machine in DC is in full damage control wiping out pics, denying any real interaction between GWB and Abrarmoff ecen though they had known each other since Texas, and abrarmoff has been involved in the GOP since his college days. Ralph Reed Grover Norquist and our buddy Jack ran the college Repug's in the early 80's and they have been cooperating for each other's benifit since then, funny the up and comer that GWB was completely missed Jack but still knows Ralph and Grover. hesecond paragraph is more of the same, the Iraqi general making a statement doesn't make it true especially if the actual issue had been debunked 6 months ago, but by bringing a false issue back up to justify a false reason that both bush and cheny centered their public reasons for the sweat and blood of many sons and daughters( including mine), well I guess I can't blame right punch, hopefully my points will help you see that giacomo's ranting doesn't intersect with the facts very well.
January 26th, 2006 at 11:59 pmI'm not saying he's right or you're wrong. I'm just commenting on your respective reactions.
January 27th, 2006 at 12:08 amLily I was just pointing out what must have seen reason was actually well crafted bovine feces
January 27th, 2006 at 12:27 amDoesn't this remind you of the scene in Austin Powers when they find his Swedish penis pump? He denies that it's his, then they say, "Well, there's a nametag on it that says 'Austin Powers'" or something. It goes on and on, and Austin says, "Really, it's not my bag." Then the woman says, "We also found a book called 'Swedish Penis Pump...it's my bag!' by Austin Powers."...
January 27th, 2006 at 12:56 amThe best part of it all was him repeatedly talking about how he meets a lot of people and takes photos with them. The last guy asked him to comment on the situation regardless of what the photos mean and Bush just went right back to them.
Anyone noticed that they keep talking about Abramoff info as if that's all there is? When there were no photos, Bush never met him, has no idea who he is. When a few photos were found, those were holiday pictures (safely ignoring the May 2001 shot, of course).
Whenever new information crops up, I can just see Cheney in the back with his fingers crossed going "okay, THAT's the last of it..."
January 27th, 2006 at 12:59 am"A Texas paper is reporting that lobbyist Jack Abrarmoff charged a client $25,000 to hgave lunch with Pres. Bush. Not suprisingly, this is the most anyone has ever paid for lunch at Chuck E. Cheese," Conon O'Brien
January 27th, 2006 at 1:15 amLily,
I have no intention of flaming you or anyone else, and I do appreciate your feedback. I genuinely think that Giacomo and mighty both suffer from the partisan brain - but that both really do believe what they believe is correct. I'm not being snide, and I'm sorry if that's how it seems. In my experience most people mean well and believe they're doing the right thing - but as the little study that came out yesterday shows, those of a strong partisan persuasion don't engage their ration centers.
I have read virtually the identical talking points from Giacomo many times online, so I'm not sure why him bringing it up warrants a rational or thinking response, but I welcome his explanation on the matter. If you can think of a reasoned or rational analysis of what he was trying to say that he can't seem to muster, please share. I'm actually very interested.
And once again, I do very much appreciate your opinion, and do value what you and others think. Heck I even value what republicans think, when they actually do so and don't just parrot partisan talking points :)
January 27th, 2006 at 1:36 amWow!
I wonder how republiscum Bushite inbreds are going to be marked for identification in the future when the Party becomes outlawed, and its subscribers hunted down?
Surely after this criminally inept and corrupt presidency the republiscum will be the enemies of the state...
Progressives, take my advice and visit them gun shows...
...cause when the inbreds find out just how badly they've been "copulated" they're going to be looking for some scapegoats...
January 27th, 2006 at 8:24 amDon’t worry Giacomo, thankfully over half of america isn’t dulled into unconscious talking points by the partisanship of the rightwing and still cares for our democracy.
To Lily ... thanks for noticing that I was trying to be fair ...
To Clif ... here's the actual question that was asked (and you'll notice that my memory of it was fairly good) ... "If President Bush wiretapped American citizens without the approval of a judge, do you agree or disagree that Congress should consider holding him accountable through impeachment" ... see the weasel words ... I remembered that part accurately so my analysis (albeit an unprofessional and personal one) was salient.
To RightPunch ... first, I haven't figured out if you're extremely genuine and just disagree with me or are extremely intelligent and realize the certain level of "understanding" you express for me only adds credibility to your post ... either way, it's in good form. I'll assume your genuine until proven otherwise ... that said, my response about the "personal" statements was due to your proclivity toward the "patrisan" label ... I'm not so naive to say that my thoughts on the current political landscape are non-biased and non-ideologically driven ... everyone brings a bias to the proverbial table. That said, I do not suffer or wrestle with cognitive dissonance to the degree that you assume (or appear to assume) ... if I'm confronted with information that is against my belief, I adjust or even change my belief ... truthfully, this happens, to a small degree, a lot. I find that because liberals are so assured of their position, that when they pose that position to me, and I fail to change my opinion, I am then a hopeless partisan in their eyes. This isn't really a fair situation as "proof" and "certainty" are sometimes subjective ... emprirical data is not subjective which is why I hold the opinion I do about the Bush tax cuts. I work in the banking and finance industry ... I'm also a game theory consultant ... much of what I post is based upon those two arenas for much of my thought flows out of my experiences within them. I'm here, as I've said countless times, to stimulate my brain and challenge any indoctrination that may pervade ... "if I can't support what I think to you, then maybe I shouldn't think it (or maybe I should better educate myself)" would be a fair statement of my thinking.
Some have said that you, RightPunch, are in fact the kinder, calmer Ryan Neat ... if so, welcome back. If not, I will say to you what I said to him ... I welcome and appreciate any and all challenges but don't happen to enjoy attacks ad hominem. I won't ever attack you or anyone else ... hopefully the same can be extended. Stick to the basis upon which I argue, instead of the basis for how you believe I operate. For the record, I'm registered Republican, but vote for Democrats if they're better candidates ... I tend to be fiscally conservative but more progressive socially (at least more progressive than most Republicans ... I'm pro-life, pro-gun restriction, against the death penalty) ... I'm more of a Rockefellar Republican than a Neo.
January 27th, 2006 at 8:40 amGiacomo, .. since the american public elects congress, then whether they think congress should, or should not consider any action is a pertinate question not weasel words but the elected representatives responding to the will of the people who sent them and pay their salaries, But since you obviously disagree with this you must really love the unitary executive being pushed by the minions who have become apologists for the illegal acts of this administration, hope you are as open minded when the neo-cons aren't running DC any more.
January 27th, 2006 at 9:05 amHow many times have the Democrats tried this scandal routine with Bush?--and it never works. Whats the definition of insanity? Attempting the same thing over and over again expecting different results. You lefties live in a world that the Democrat talking points and the media create. You claim to think for yourselves, yet you so blindly follow...
January 27th, 2006 at 9:11 amI tend to be fiscally conservative but more progressive socially (at least more progressive than most Republicans … I’m pro-life, pro-gun restriction, against the death penalty) … I’m more of a Rockefellar Republican than a Neo.
Comment by Giacomo #122
Giacomo,
I read your entire post and was indeed impressed with your sense of balance, and seemingly genuine desire for constructive debate. In the past, I have hurled insults, ad hominem attacks and been quite intolerant of many of your posts. For that I do not apologize, because the situation in our country is (in my not so humble estimation) grave for the poor/middle working class minorities and others who are marginalized by a wholly ideologically, morally, and intellectually (especially as related to foreign and domestic policies) bankrupt racists, homophobes, power mongers and neanderthals.
If you voted for George W. Bush (twice especially)then you have to be (again in my not so humble opinion) a complete and utter racist, homophobe, power monger and neanderthal.
Did you vote for George W. Bush?
If so, do you regret having voted for him?
Do you agree with his foreign and domestic policies?
What has his administration done to make America better and stronger at home and abroad?
January 27th, 2006 at 9:11 amI'm for the death penalty as long as it is administered no more than once to a cold blooded murderer.
January 27th, 2006 at 10:30 am#126 would your definition of murder include someone who lies to get one group of people to kill another group of people?
January 27th, 2006 at 10:56 amAt one time I thought people who answered "Don't Know" to polls must be total idiots. Indulge me a moment while I tell you of an experience I had. A poll asked, "Do you believe the media is biased?" Choices were: A. Yes, biased to the right. B. Yes, biased to the left. C. No, completey unbiased. D. Don't know.
January 27th, 2006 at 11:04 amI strongly believe that the media is (are?) biased, yet how could I answer the question? The closest answer for me was A. However, and I think this is important, answering A would suggest that I am completely biased, and may suggest that I can't think for myself because I am blinded by my left wing ideology. So in my opinion, I had no choice but to answer D. I commented that the wording was too restricted, but this didn't change my choices.
Also please note that I strongly disagree with everything after the bold type.
Whoops, bold type didn't come through. I agree with the first 2 sentences, but not with what comes after "Basically, most Americans think..."
January 27th, 2006 at 11:07 amAlso for the record, I very much agree that mighty aphrodite is so filled with hate, it's not worth reading, much less responding to her comments.
January 27th, 2006 at 11:16 amLily what the american public think congress should do is extremely relevant because they pay congresses salary and provide all the money congress uses, If you disagree that congress should hol;d hearings all that the responce means is the hearings would be a waste of time and money, but an congressional investigation into the possibility that the president by admitting he did not follow prescribed law is a constitutional duty, so the poll is actually asking whether the public thinks congress should hold a hearing about a possible violation to the constitution, but since a blow-job wasn't involved then the right can't see the foul.
January 27th, 2006 at 11:41 amI'm not saying what the American public thinks is irrelevant. I'm not even saying the results would be different if the question was worded another way. I'm only saying that a number of polls have built-in bias. Look at Rove's tactics during the 2004 election, "If you knew that John Kerry was a drug user, would you vote for him?" The question here "IF Bush...should Congress consider... Actually there may have been more affirmatives if it had been worded "Bush wiretapped American citizens without a warrant. Do you agree or disagree..." For one thing, this is an undisputed fact. Including the word "if" in the poll may actually have weakened the affirmative results. Personally, I believe Bush should be impeached, convicted, investigated for criminal activity, hopefully convicted again. Then my motto in the next presidential election will be "No pardons."
January 27th, 2006 at 12:09 pmSo Lily your argument is really with the word If in giacomo's post well i can concur because Bush removed all doubt
January 27th, 2006 at 12:14 pmSo Lily your argument is really with the word If in giacomo’s post well i can concur because Bush removed all doubt
Comment by Clif — January 27, 2006 @ 12:14 pm
Exactly.
January 27th, 2006 at 12:32 pmThank you Lily, now go back to your original post and you will see that Giacomc's argument is with out merit because he focused on words that he used to deny the violation of law not the word that the polster used to give the president the benifit of reasonable doubt until convicted
January 27th, 2006 at 12:38 pmSome have said that you, RightPunch, are in fact the kinder, calmer Ryan Neat … if so, welcome back.
Comment by Giacomo — January 27, 2006 @ 8:40 am
He's not Ryan. People don't change this drastically in a matter of a month. He's just smarter about what he's saying now. Don't believe MA, she thinks a liberal is a liberal is a liberal and cannot tell the difference. Even IRI told her that RP is not Ryan, and still, she sticks with it. Not someone you should believe...
January 27th, 2006 at 2:56 pm#130 - I apologize, Lily, if my softer gentler side escapes you. I don't hate anyone - I just don't suffer fools gladly.
January 27th, 2006 at 3:24 pm#136 - "He’s not Ryan. People don’t change this drastically in a matter of a month." - unbelieved
****They can if they're schizophrenic, or bi-polar...Don't count RyaNNe out as RightSlap. (I can generally spot the angst driven unbelieved by her anecdotal evidence to EVERYTHING educational, architectural, and religious.)
****They can if they’re schizophrenic, or bi-polar…Don’t count RyaNNe out as RightSlap. (I can generally spot the angst driven unbelieved by her anecdotal evidence to EVERYTHING educational, architectural, and religious.)
Comment by mighty aphrodite — January 27, 2006 @ 3:24 pm
The only one between us driven by angst is you. I'm not angry. Just inteligent and confident. But I suppose a woman who supports a political party as well as a religion that believes in degrading and dominating women could only assume all other women are as vitriolic and bitter as she. Don't read my posts with anger. They aren't written that way. It's why I still get carded when I by a biottle of wine at the grocery store... while boy scouts line up to help you across the street.
RightPunch is definitely NOT Ryan. You want him to be so badly that you are missing the vast differences in their personalities. Both are extremely smart, informed and value women. I can see why you'd confuse them. And hate them.
January 27th, 2006 at 3:56 pmala richard pryor
who ya gonna beleive, me or your lyin' eyes?
January 28th, 2006 at 3:18 am[...] Despite denials to the contrary, Bush has held meetings with indicted lobbyist Jack Abramoff - curiously, these photos were "deleted" from the database of the company that took them. [...]
January 31st, 2006 at 11:04 ambush and everything he daes is full of shit cause his an ass hoe
February 7th, 2006 at 3:26 pm[...] The White House has continually refused to release photos of President Bush with Jack Abramoff. Moreover, Press Secretary Scott McClellan has said that if photos of the two together exist, they are shots taken at “widely attended” Hanukkah receptions in 2001 and 2002. But according to Eisler, none of the photos in Abramoff’s office were taken at Hanukkah receptions. [...]
February 9th, 2006 at 11:49 amI’ve been in the process of creating a presentation about ethics for class and I’m pleased to have come across this page...there are several excellent comments!...The biggest thing that I have noticed about our elected officials is that they can only remember 2/3 of what it takes to get/be there...first part is "of the people"...second part is "by the people"...they have these down pretty well...and the third part is "for the people"...two out of three may not be bad and may be good enough for meatloaf but personally I think they need to remember where they came from and who they’re there for!...and no it's not for the rich oil mongers, highest bidders, and big businesses...it’s supposed to be for the American public!...They intentionally construct things in a manner that is so complicated and they hope (because they think the American public isn’t smart enough) that nobody figures out what they are truly all about...independence and freedom...where have they gone?..."peace, liberty, and justice for all"...when there is a rich justice and a poor justice the system fails!...mostly because absolute power corrupts absolutely!
February 10th, 2006 at 3:37 amI've damn near read every post here, and unconventional nonconformist is, by my declaration the WINNER! Please(rightpunch) for the love of G@D, don't tell other people that their entire opinion is wholly based on emotional stirings, since an "opponent" poster got under you skin, it triggered a knee jerk emotional reaction on your part.
"If you are to be blindliy led to Washington like sheep, you will surely find yourself devoured by wolves."
February 11th, 2006 at 1:01 amBenjimin Franklin
MR PRESIDENT RULES!!!!!!!!!!!
March 27th, 2006 at 1:46 pmTHE WORLD SUCKS!!!
woe rest suffering conquerers duplicity - Tons of interesdting stuff!!!
October 19th, 2006 at 12:54 amThank you for the great web site - a true resource, and one many people clearly enjoy
February 16th, 2007 at 12:08 pm