wrote in message
news:903925ec-d12e-40ac-aef3-

Your "lying us into war" when every other leader in the free world was
given and trusted the exact same info, including Clinton, Pelosi,
Reid, et al.. is just another red herring, now give me a real answer
or admit your just spouting party lines...

========================================

If this election cycle taught me anything it was the absolute BS and
intellectual dishonesty that exists in the world of politics. And it comes
from both sides.

Spin something enough and it becomes a fact. I've never in my life seen a
bunch of supposedly educated people display the ability to straight out lie,
while keeping a straight face, about what they are on record as saying a
year earlier. Or twist a story around, repeating it over and over, until
it becomes "factual".

George Bush "lied" us into the war. Right. BULL****!

Then you watch the pundits. It's as if a position paper is emailed to
everyone early in the morning to be memorized. Throughout the rest of the
day, week or whatever, depending on how much attention a particular issue is
getting, they all repeat, virtually word for word, the same talking points.
We even witnessed it here in this NG on a regular basis.

I've resigned myself to the realization that all politicians, with very few
exceptions, are BS artists.
I used to respect Lieberman because he took a stand that was unpopular with
his party. But, now I see he is back to sucking up in order to save his ass
and position of power. It's sickening. And it's on both sides.

That's why, as goofy as she sounded, Palin attracted so much interest.
She's real. She's not a polished bureaucrat. She's just a simple person
with a common sense perspective on the world. You can agree with her or
disagree, but at least you know what she thinks and it isn't going to change
with the wind. The spin misters ate her alive.

But, to me, what took the cake and I'll never forget was our next Secretary
of State's whopper of a story, repeated several times, claiming to have
flown into Bosnia "under fire" from ground troops. She didn't "miss-speak"
anything. She friggin' made the story up, repeated it over the course of
three days and then, when finally trapped, arrogantly just shrugged it off
as if being a phony, lying SOB wasn't an issue that she needed to concern
herself with explaining. Good grief! What kind of "leaders" are we
willing to accept in this country?

Eisboch

Good grief! *What kind of "leaders" are we
willing to accept in this country?

Eisboch


"Obama" and the Clinton administration....

On Wed, 31 Dec 2008 20:41:18 -0500, Eisboch wrote:


That's why, as goofy as she sounded, Palin attracted so much interest.
She's real. She's not a polished bureaucrat. She's just a simple
person with a common sense perspective on the world. You can agree with
her or disagree, but at least you know what she thinks and it isn't
going to change with the wind. The spin misters ate her alive.

Yeah, but give her time. Not all politicians were born liars, I figure
maybe 1/2 ;-), but they all turn into liars. If Palin is planning on
running in 2012, right now, I figure her handlers are teaching her to lie
with the best of them.

It's a bad system we've created. It corrupts the best of them. I figure
if we take the money out of the system, we might stand a chance. I think
the biggest danger in this system is the incestuous relationship between
campaign finance and corporate welfare. Our politicians spend their
entire careers fund raising, and are beholding to the money, not us.

Eisboch wrote:


That's why, as goofy as she sounded, Palin attracted so much interest.
She's real. She's not a polished bureaucrat. She's just a simple
person with a common sense perspective on the world.


She wasn't intellectually curious, which disqualified her for high
office in my opinion. The woman didn't seem to know anything, and didn't
seem to want to learn. A simple person has no business in the White
House or a heartbeat away from it.

As much as I dislike Cheney, and I dislike him far more than I dislike
Bush, I never thought him intellectually lazy or not smart enough to be
POTUS if he had to take over. Well, actually, he did take over. :)

Palin is not smart enough to be POTUS and she never will be.

But she has great appeal to a certain segment of the rightwing, for sure.

On Dec 31, 9:42*pm, Boater wrote:
Eisboch wrote:

That's why, as goofy as she sounded, Palin attracted so much interest.
She's real. *She's not a polished bureaucrat. *She's just a simple
person with a common sense perspective on the world.

She wasn't intellectually curious, which disqualified her for high
office in my opinion. The woman didn't seem to know anything, and didn't
seem to want to learn. A simple person has no business in the White
House or a heartbeat away from it.

As much as I dislike Cheney, and I dislike him far more than I dislike
Bush, I never thought him intellectually lazy or not smart enough to be
POTUS if he had to take over. Well, actually, he did take over. *:)

Palin is not smart enough to be POTUS and she never will be.

But she has great appeal to a certain segment of the rightwing, for sure.

You are so predictable.. The story is always the same, the names just
change based on the audience... don't you ever have a real thought??

wrote in message
news
On Wed, 31 Dec 2008 20:41:18 -0500, Eisboch wrote:


That's why, as goofy as she sounded, Palin attracted so much interest.
She's real. She's not a polished bureaucrat. She's just a simple
person with a common sense perspective on the world. You can agree with
her or disagree, but at least you know what she thinks and it isn't
going to change with the wind. The spin misters ate her alive.

Yeah, but give her time. Not all politicians were born liars, I figure
maybe 1/2 ;-), but they all turn into liars. If Palin is planning on
running in 2012, right now, I figure her handlers are teaching her to lie
with the best of them.

It's a bad system we've created. It corrupts the best of them. I figure
if we take the money out of the system, we might stand a chance. I think
the biggest danger in this system is the incestuous relationship between
campaign finance and corporate welfare. Our politicians spend their
entire careers fund raising, and are beholding to the money, not us.

Yeah, I agree. Our founding fathers intended political service to be short
interruptions of one's regular lives and vocations, not lifetime careers.

As for Palin, hopefully she will get over the unexpected rush of publicity
and regain her senses. In no way is she qualified to be POTUS anymore than
I am and the sooner she realizes it, the better off she will be. I am
afraid she's a bit of an opportunist and a publicity hound. But, she's
honest and that you can't take away from her.

Eisboch

"Boater" wrote in message
...
Eisboch wrote:


That's why, as goofy as she sounded, Palin attracted so much interest.
She's real. She's not a polished bureaucrat. She's just a simple person
with a common sense perspective on the world.


She wasn't intellectually curious, which disqualified her for high office
in my opinion. The woman didn't seem to know anything, and didn't seem to
want to learn. A simple person has no business in the White House or a
heartbeat away from it.

As much as I dislike Cheney, and I dislike him far more than I dislike
Bush, I never thought him intellectually lazy or not smart enough to be
POTUS if he had to take over. Well, actually, he did take over. :)

Palin is not smart enough to be POTUS and she never will be.

But she has great appeal to a certain segment of the rightwing, for sure.


Cheney was Secretary of Defense for Reagan, I think I recall. Or maybe it
was under Bush I.
Regardless, I seem to recall that he was held in high regard when he held
that position, even by those who didn't necessarily subscribe to the
Republican party's policies.

Eisboch

wrote:
On Dec 31, 3:41 pm, Boater wrote:
Tim wrote:
On Dec 31, 2:35 pm, Boater wrote:
Tim wrote:
On Dec 31, 2:17 pm, Boater wrote:
Tim wrote:
On Dec 31, 2:06 pm, Boater wrote:
Tim wrote:
On Dec 31, 12:50 pm, Boater wrote:
Tim wrote:
On Dec 31, 8:05 am, Boater wrote:
Tim wrote:
Oh, give me a break. Mama Sarah probably told Bristol if she got an
abortion, she'd be tossed out of the house and forced to shack up
somewhere with brilliant boyfriend Levi.
"Probably told"
harry, your speculating in your own fantasy.
Speculating about that family of misfits is fun. What Sarah Palin has
done has resulted in her daughter dropping out of high school and her
future son-in-law giving up the idea of going to college. The daughter
should have gotten an abortion, and stayed in high school. Of course,
the mother should have explained to her daughter how to avoid getting
pregnant.
Harry if that would be your true mode of logic then it would have only
been proper that Democratic Rep. Michael Kernell and his wife should
have had their son David aborted so he wouldn't have become a computer
hacker, being brought up on federal charges for breaking into Palins
email account and therefore causeing shame and embarrassment to his
family as well as the DNC.
yeah, David kernell, a true contributor to society.
Did the Kernell kid get pregnant?
No, but he's an alleged criminal.
So is Dick Cheney.
Teen pregnancy isn't a crime Harry, but computer hacking is.
Cheney is a computer hacker?
When was he arrested? And when was he charged with criminal conduct?
Trial date set?
Sadly, he will likely remain unindicted.
Well then, legally he's not a criminal.
neither is palin's daughter, but Kernell is.
Indeed, Cheney has not been indicted and convicted, so he's no more a
criminal than OJ is a murderer. The two share the same moral compass.
But one is probably behind bars for life, and the other has never had
charges brought on him by anyone for any reason.
That only means he got a pass from the criminal justice system.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

So dickhead.. What specific charges should Bush and Cheney be charged
with, and based on what evidence?

If they are guilty of a crime, why doesn't the Dem House and Senate do
something about it? It would seem that they should be just as guilty of
negligence if they ignore a real crime.

Boater wrote:
wrote:
On Dec 31, 6:35 pm, Boater wrote:
wrote:
On Dec 31, 3:51 pm, Boater wrote:
Eisboch wrote:
"Boater" wrote in message
...
Indeed, Cheney has not been indicted and convicted, so he's no
more a
criminal than OJ is a murderer. The two share the same moral
compass.
I wonder if one has to be actually indicted or convicted to
qualify for
a Presidential pardon, or can Bush issue a blanket pardon for
anything
he and/or Cheney could possibly be charged with after they leave
office.
Eisboch
Blanket, I believe. Gerry Ford gave Nixon one of those, didn't he?
I'd be happy if Bush gave Cheney one, because it would mean he was
guilty of criminal acts.
I doubt Bush can pardon himself.
He hasn't committed any crime that isn't some fantasy of some pimple
faced punk pulling his dick, blogging in his mom's basement... Oh, and
commentators on MSNBC, The Daily Hoax, and The New York Lies...
Now you're a lawyer? snerk- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Nope, that would be your party, and not one of em' has gotten beyond
daydreaming about charges...


Scott, you are in no position to know whether Cheney committed crimes.
There have been many serious accusations about him, and commentary about
the reluctance to prosecute.

I think a pardon for Cheney is in order. I'd welcome it. It would be
prima facie evidence that he is a criminal.

Just, you are in no position to know whether Cheney committed crimes,
but Harry is. Harry is wired with everyone in power.

On Dec 31 2008, 10:08*pm, "Eisboch" wrote:
"Boater" wrote in message

...





Eisboch wrote:

That's why, as goofy as she sounded, Palin attracted so much interest.
She's real. *She's not a polished bureaucrat. *She's just a simple person
with a common sense perspective on the world.

She wasn't intellectually curious, which disqualified her for high office
in my opinion. The woman didn't seem to know anything, and didn't seem to
want to learn. A simple person has no business in the White House or a
heartbeat away from it.

As much as I dislike Cheney, and I dislike him far more than I dislike
Bush, I never thought him intellectually lazy or not smart enough to be
POTUS if he had to take over. Well, actually, he did take over. *:)

Palin is not smart enough to be POTUS and she never will be.

But she has great appeal to a certain segment of the rightwing, for sure.

Cheney was Secretary of Defense for Reagan, I think I recall. *Or maybe it
was under Bush I.
Regardless, I seem to recall that he was held in high regard when he held
that position, even by those who didn't necessarily subscribe to the
Republican party's policies.

Eisboch- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Harry knows that, Eisboch! Harry knows them personally, and they asked
his advice on a range of issues. Just ask him!