I had once been under the impression that impersonating Secret Service would get you in really deep shit.
Guess I was wrong. Or maybe IOKIYAR.
One of my favorites, friend Uke. As you may recall, the Reagan papers were due for release a couple years back, the twenty year statute having run its course. There was…considerable interest…in such subjects as Iran-Contra. Then GeeDub slapped a special extension, keeping the papers under lock and key. National security, dontcha know. Those papers will be released when we pry them from his cold hands, or when a Dem sits in the Oval Orifice.
I presume, on the basis of experience and prejudice, that those papers reveal things that the Pubbies very much want to keep from us. YMMV, but I doubt it.
I’m crapulent with this Motion for Censure. I’ve been gorging on the possibility that this action places Mr Bush right up there with the likes of Andrew Jackson and Bill Clinton.
Sorry to come into this so late.
But Doors. You’re complaining about stale schtick?
Can you please cite for me the times you’ve actually addressed the content of a post rather than try to undermine the credibility of the poster on a personal level? To most people, this indicates that you cain’t address the actual content.
You’re not a stupid person, Doors. But anymore, seems to me, you’re all about ad hominem, like a poor man’s QED. What happened to the old days, when you could actually engage the subject under discussion, without having to resort to misdirections akin to “Yeah, wull, yur stoopet”?
We miss the old Doors dude. When come back, bring therapy.
That comment was an attempt at a light-hearted jab at someone that I consider to be a friend. I didn’t consider it to be an ad hominem. He and I have had discussions about President Bush and the war in person many times, and I consider his opinions to be quite valuable. But he’s been going down this road of late, and I consider it to be a matter of concern.
That’s all it was. Really.
Now, on to one thing that I disagree with in this thread, a minor thing, really. I take exception to the following:
What, I don’t count? If I may be so bold, if you start to type and the words all, none, always, or never appear on the screen, unless you are referring to yourself you’re probably wrong. As it is in this case.
Nor did I take it as such. We may disagree about a great many things, but it’s never gotten personal.
And I’ll just have to respectfully disagree with your view of things here, for the reasons I’ve already given. 
How about this little gem? I’ve been off the Boards a lot recently, so I don’t know if there’s been a thread about it:
Just one small editorial change… before denial, they go into attack mode. That;s what happened in Plamegate, that’s what they tried to do with Murtha, that was the underpinning message in Bush’s infamous Veterans Day speech. There are plenty of other examples, but that should be enough.
Well, you’d think so, wouldn’t you?
And yet, as the incidents pile up, all we get is “Aren’t you guys sick of this yet? Don’t you have anything better to do?”
Before, when Bush had strong approval ratings, this was thrown in our face as if it somehow invalidated our concerns and our criticisms.
Now that his approval ratings have tanked, we’re told we should let it go because he’s lost his “clout” and “credibility.”
One wonders exactly what confluence of circumstances would make criticism of the President—of all the wrongdoings of his administration—a legitimate enterprise.
(name inserted by me)
a different party occupying the oval office, obviously.
Sure-you count. When did you apologize for voting for Dubya? I am sorry I missed it.
I guess that makes one. Who’s next? Now, don’t all crowd at once…
I don’t need a tutorial on the use of the words none, never or always, thanks. The day I hear someone like (insert pundit here) state that perhaps the Bush admin was misguided in this or that aspect is the day hell freezes over, for example. The day that his own party stands up to his more extreme BS (and really, the Harriet Maier insanity doesn’t count) is another snow day in hell.
IMO, the GOP would rather have a horrifyingly ignorant idealogue in power than any able Dem, because by God, it’s THEIR horrifyingly stupid man in power. Power at any cost. Whoever coined it here: party before country has it exactly right.
Maybe you should get out more.
Tucker Carlson and William F. Buckley have both recanted their support for the Iraq War. That’s just off the top of my head.
Perhaps it’s not enough. Perhaps nothing less than a full blown, media blitz mea culpa will do for me at this point. YMMV.
(I also don’t care to listen to that pompous fart Tucker).
Is Buckley on TV? I don’t read the National Review. heck, I don’t watch much TV either!
[quote=John Mace]
Tucker Carlson and William F. Buckley have both recanted their support for the Iraq War. That’s just off the top of my head.
[/quote
Forgive me if I’m wrong (and I may well be as I can’t find the article at the moment) but didn’t Buckley’s repudiation of the Iraq mission run something along the lines of “There’s no point trying to civilise these raghead savages. Let’s just cut our losses and get out while we can”? In other words, I don’t remember him actually withdrawing his support for President Bush, not do I remember him recanting earlier statements supporting the initial invasion.
I had thought Buckley was done. I was surprised while on vacation to find his column in a paper in New Mexico. (Roswell, I think.) He doesn’t seem to have much in common with the Republican Party as it is today, at any rate.
He’s closer to the libertarian wing of that Party. Tucker is, too.
Buckley is stepping down from running the Nat’l Review, but I suspect hell will freeze over (to borrow eleanor’s phrase) before he stops offering up his opinion pieces.
Isn’t that all he ever did? He’s the pundit’s pundit, IMS. And so arrogant in his leaning back and intoning such wisdom to the hoi polloi…
Tucker is just a jerk–like Carvel (or however you spell it). Ugh and yuck.
Sorry for the tangent. I haven’t watched the news yet today, but I’m sure there is something in it that I could Pit Bush for…
How about Straw men?
They’re one of his favorite, and very annoying, ploys.
I always find it amazing how having rights violated is ‘no big deal’ - but man, you suggest further regulations for firearms and suddenly it’s an “over my dead body” situation.
-Joe
That’s 'cause the only rights that matter are the ones they think most important. Poor kids of color? Foreigners? Who cares? Not important. Ozone depletion? Not as important as having my car cool at all times. Learn about Kwanzaa or Ramadan in school? No way–but let’s all pray and have Christmas parties. Woman’s right to choose? I wouldn’t get myself into that kind of mess–so she doesn’t need that choice. As long as it’s not THEIR privacy that’s being invaded, nobody else matters. Afterall, if you don’t have anything to hide, there’s no reason to object to the intrusion, is there?
:rolleyes: