On Fri, 07 Jan 2005 11:05:00 -0500, DSK wrote:

Dave Hall wrote:
You are convinced that Bush is guilty guilty guilty, but you have no
proof as to what he is guilty of.

Quote *one* post of mine where I said President Bush is guilty of
anything...

You just did below.


Other than lying (which is proven by his own public statements), such as
starting a war under false pretenses.

Where has he lied about that? What proof do you have that he
intentionally made a false statement?


Of course, he's unquestionably
guilty of dodging service in Viet Nam

At least he served in SOME capacity as compared to some other public
figures who completely dodged the draft.


, of DWI, and of various kinds of
fiscal malfeasance, all of which he's been found guilty of by our legal
system, and let slide because of his family connections & wealth.

DWI is a minor offense. The stuff stupid teenagers do. He had a wild
side in his youth. So sue him.


You've often claimed to be a conservative, yet you are constantly
defending liberals

Not at all. I am pointing out the stupidity of many people who claim to
be "conservative" but are nothing other than hate-spewing morons.

A differing opinion is automatically considered "hate" to you? That's
the sort of demonization games that liberals play when they try to
silence the opposition.

Besides, President Clinton was a centrist, a moderate. That is one of
the keys to his success.

He was more or less forced to be that way once the republicans took
over the congress in '95. Since Clinton was more concerned with his
legacy, he learned how to dance.

If you recall in the beginning of his first term, he tried to sell us
the bill of goods for a universal health care system. That's hardly
"moderate". You'll also note that this type of behavior disappeared
after '95, when it became evident after the shift in power in
congress, that the American people just didn't want a liberal
president. He "adjusted". No more, no less.

Dave

On Fri, 07 Jan 2005 16:08:45 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote:


"Dave Hall" wrote in message
.. .
On Fri, 07 Jan 2005 08:44:27 -0500, DSK wrote:

Bert Robbins wrote:
Why was there a "cleanup" team put in place during Clinton's first run
for
President?


Why are you so concerned about it, 12 years later?

Because it establishes precedent and provides perspective.


Isn't it more important that President Bush *still* hasn't gotten Osama
Bin Laden?

That could change at any time. But then again, Clinton had his chance
to nab OBL, but chose not to......

Dave

Well....actually, Clinton chose not to invade two countries, and then enlist
the occasional help of the Pakistanis (as Bush did) when they wanted nothing
more than to buy weapons from us. You can see the result of the current
policy. Is that what you think Clinton should've done?

The Sudanese government had OBL in custody in 96 and offered him to
us. We declined to pursue it. We see the result of that inaction.

Dave

On Fri, 07 Jan 2005 10:59:48 -0500, DSK wrote:

Bert Robbins wrote:
... Hillary is also a crook!


You are totally convinced of that, despite an $80 million prosecution
effort could find *nothing* serious enough to prefer charges.

In other words, you're full of nonsense.


Isn't it more important that President Bush *still* hasn't gotten Osama
Bin Laden?


I don't care if Pres. Bush ever gets Osama Bin Laden.

I want our military forces to chase down any and all terrorists around the
world and kill them. Terrorism is a fight that we will be involved in
forever.

More nonsense. Osama Bin Laden perpetrated the most horrific & deadly
terrorist attack on the U.S. in all history. President Bush was warned
about him and his cabinet given thick folders of intel on OBL's
operation. But they had other priorities.

According to what credible source?

Please don't say Richard Clarke. His obvious agenda makes anything he
says unreliable.

Dave

"Dave Hall" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 07 Jan 2005 11:05:00 -0500, DSK wrote:

Dave Hall wrote:
You are convinced that Bush is guilty guilty guilty, but you have no
proof as to what he is guilty of.

Quote *one* post of mine where I said President Bush is guilty of
anything...

You just did below.


Other than lying (which is proven by his own public statements), such as
starting a war under false pretenses.

Where has he lied about that? What proof do you have that he
intentionally made a false statement?


Of course, he's unquestionably
guilty of dodging service in Viet Nam

At least he served in SOME capacity as compared to some other public
figures who completely dodged the draft.

He conviently ignores the dangers of any fighter pilot training.




, of DWI, and of various kinds of
fiscal malfeasance, all of which he's been found guilty of by our legal
system, and let slide because of his family connections & wealth.

DWI is a minor offense. The stuff stupid teenagers do. He had a wild
side in his youth. So sue him.

In reality, back several years ago.....DWI was NOT that big of an offense,
and what happend to Bush happened to countless people in countless small
towns.....until the neo prohibitionists under the guise of MADD changed the
landscape. Now it only happens onthe rare occassion that a county exec gets
cuaght.




You've often claimed to be a conservative, yet you are constantly
defending liberals

Not at all. I am pointing out the stupidity of many people who claim to
be "conservative" but are nothing other than hate-spewing morons.

A differing opinion is automatically considered "hate" to you? That's
the sort of demonization games that liberals play when they try to
silence the opposition.

Besides, President Clinton was a centrist, a moderate. That is one of
the keys to his success.

He was more or less forced to be that way once the republicans took
over the congress in '95. Since Clinton was more concerned with his
legacy, he learned how to dance.

Don't you love the liebrals revisionist history...........centrist /
moderate.....only AFTER he attempted the large guvmint take over of any
private sector business.....and got slammed doing it, only AFTER his party
lost majority rule for the first time in 40 something years.


If you recall in the beginning of his first term, he tried to sell us
the bill of goods for a universal health care system. That's hardly
"moderate". You'll also note that this type of behavior disappeared
after '95, when it became evident after the shift in power in
congress, that the American people just didn't want a liberal
president. He "adjusted". No more, no less.

Dave

"Dave Hall" wrote in message
...


OBL was already implicated in the '93 WTC bombing as well as the
bombing of several embassies. He could have been brought up on
terrorism charges then, and should have been. Then maybe 9/11 would
not have happened.

That's why you need to stomp out terrorism when it's small enough to
control. You don't wait until it's grown so large that you have a hard
time tracking them.

If you run across anyone capable of actually doing that, y'all stop by and
let us know, ya hear?

"Dave Hall" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 07 Jan 2005 16:08:45 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote:


"Dave Hall" wrote in message
. ..
On Fri, 07 Jan 2005 08:44:27 -0500, DSK wrote:

Bert Robbins wrote:
Why was there a "cleanup" team put in place during Clinton's first run
for
President?


Why are you so concerned about it, 12 years later?

Because it establishes precedent and provides perspective.


Isn't it more important that President Bush *still* hasn't gotten Osama
Bin Laden?

That could change at any time. But then again, Clinton had his chance
to nab OBL, but chose not to......

Dave

Well....actually, Clinton chose not to invade two countries, and then
enlist
the occasional help of the Pakistanis (as Bush did) when they wanted
nothing
more than to buy weapons from us. You can see the result of the current
policy. Is that what you think Clinton should've done?

The Sudanese government had OBL in custody in 96 and offered him to
us. We declined to pursue it. We see the result of that inaction.

Actually, what you see if your government at work. There could be only ONE
reason we didn't extradite him. Do I need to explain it to you?

... Osama Bin Laden perpetrated the most horrific & deadly
terrorist attack on the U.S. in all history. President Bush was warned
about him and his cabinet given thick folders of intel on OBL's
operation. But they had other priorities.


Dave Hall wrote:
According to what credible source?

A little-known group called the Sept 11th Investigating Commission.


Please don't say Richard Clarke. His obvious agenda makes anything he
says unreliable.


I guess his agenda was so obvious that President Bush kept him in
office. Unfortunately (from your point of view), Clarke considered the
best interests of the American people as a higher duty than personal
loyalty to President Bush, right or wrong.

DSK

"DSK" wrote in message
...
... Osama Bin Laden perpetrated the most horrific & deadly terrorist
attack on the U.S. in all history. President Bush was warned about him
and his cabinet given thick folders of intel on OBL's operation. But they
had other priorities.


Dave Hall wrote:
According to what credible source?

A little-known group called the Sept 11th Investigating Commission.


Please don't say Richard Clarke. His obvious agenda makes anything he
says unreliable.


I guess his agenda was so obvious that President Bush kept him in office.
Unfortunately (from your point of view), Clarke considered the best
interests of the American people as a higher duty than personal loyalty to
President Bush, right or wrong.

DSK


But Doug....isn't the CIC sorta like a king or sumthin? Or a deity? :-)

Doug Kanter wrote:
But Doug....isn't the CIC sorta like a king or sumthin? Or a deity? :-)


To some people, yes. And the President should be an all-powerful,
all-knowing, benevolent father figure. But it doesn't seem to work out
that way....

DSK

On Mon, 10 Jan 2005 12:50:27 -0500, "P.Fritz"
wrote:


"Dave Hall" wrote in message
.. .
On Fri, 07 Jan 2005 11:05:00 -0500, DSK wrote:

Dave Hall wrote:
You are convinced that Bush is guilty guilty guilty, but you have no
proof as to what he is guilty of.

Quote *one* post of mine where I said President Bush is guilty of
anything...

You just did below.


Other than lying (which is proven by his own public statements), such as
starting a war under false pretenses.

Where has he lied about that? What proof do you have that he
intentionally made a false statement?


Of course, he's unquestionably
guilty of dodging service in Viet Nam

At least he served in SOME capacity as compared to some other public
figures who completely dodged the draft.

He conviently ignores the dangers of any fighter pilot training.




, of DWI, and of various kinds of
fiscal malfeasance, all of which he's been found guilty of by our legal
system, and let slide because of his family connections & wealth.

DWI is a minor offense. The stuff stupid teenagers do. He had a wild
side in his youth. So sue him.

In reality, back several years ago.....DWI was NOT that big of an offense,
and what happend to Bush happened to countless people in countless small
towns.....until the neo prohibitionists under the guise of MADD changed the
landscape. Now it only happens onthe rare occassion that a county exec gets
cuaght.

Exactly. The picture is different when historical context and
perspective is taken into consideration.


You've often claimed to be a conservative, yet you are constantly
defending liberals

Not at all. I am pointing out the stupidity of many people who claim to
be "conservative" but are nothing other than hate-spewing morons.

A differing opinion is automatically considered "hate" to you? That's
the sort of demonization games that liberals play when they try to
silence the opposition.

Besides, President Clinton was a centrist, a moderate. That is one of
the keys to his success.

He was more or less forced to be that way once the republicans took
over the congress in '95. Since Clinton was more concerned with his
legacy, he learned how to dance.

Don't you love the liebrals revisionist history...........centrist /
moderate.....only AFTER he attempted the large guvmint take over of any
private sector business.....and got slammed doing it, only AFTER his party
lost majority rule for the first time in 40 something years.

That minor detail is conveniently overlooked when liberals heap their
praise on Clinton.


Dave