Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

ghost_flash · 02:57 AM

Contra-dick-sins:

http://doctor-horsefeathers.com/archives2/000128.php
http://blogcritics.org/archives/2004/03/26/152202.php
http://www.time.com/time/nation/arti...604598,00.html
http://www.command-post.org/oped/2_archives/011168.html
http://www.washtimes.com/functions/p...5-091450-2193r
http://mensnewsdaily.com/archive/a-b...rich032604.htm
http://washingtontimes.com/op-ed/200...1450-2193r.htm
http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/04088/292002.stm
http://www.acrosstheaisle.com/common....aspx?iid=1022

Votes like a Dem:oc:rat:

http://www.suntimes.com/output/novak...t-novak28.html

Zimphire · Mar 29, 2004, 02:57 AM

Clark

Dakar · Mar 29, 2004, 11:44 AM

Originally posted by ghost_flash:
Votes like a Dem:oc:rat:

http://www.suntimes.com/output/novak...t-novak28.html [/B]

I love this. His points aren't valid because he's voted Democrat in the past!!!!

ghost_flash · Mar 29, 2004, 11:48 AM

Originally posted by Dakar:
I love this. His points aren't valid because he's voted Democrat in the past!!!!

This alone would not mean anything. I like how you and others of your ilk continually ignore the multitude of other evidence of his idiocy and agenda.

I'll dumb down my response for you.

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

Duh.

Dakar · Mar 29, 2004, 11:52 AM

Originally posted by ghost_flash:

I'll dumb down my response for you.

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

Duh.

Yes, he got paid for writing a book. That's what usually happens when you write one.

Lerkfish · Mar 29, 2004, 12:11 PM

Originally posted by ghost_flash:
This alone would not mean anything. I like how you and others of your ilk continually ignore the multitude of other evidence of his idiocy and agenda.

I'll dumb down my response for you.

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

Duh.

you know, the last time I offered to "dumb down" a response I got a nasty PM from a moderator for being a condescending jerk. he had a point.

dcolton · Mar 29, 2004, 12:13 PM

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
you know, the last time I offered to "dumb down" a response I got a nasty PM from a moderator for being a condescending jerk. he had a point.

LOL

Spliffdaddy · Mar 29, 2004, 12:20 PM

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
you know, the last time I offered to "dumb down" a response I got a nasty PM from a moderator for being a condescending jerk. he had a point.

If it's the moderator I think it was...he didn't have a point - but rather just a juvenile outlook on life.

Zimphire · Mar 29, 2004, 07:13 PM

Originally posted by Dakar:
I love this. His points aren't valid because he's voted Democrat in the past!!!!

No because he tried to paint himself as non-partisan and claimed he voted Republican, when he is a Democratic shill that voted for Gore.

In other words, he was trying to deceive.

Now, why would he want to do this?

zachs · Mar 29, 2004, 07:18 PM

Originally posted by Zimphire:
No because he tried to paint himself as non-partisan and claimed he voted Republican, when he is a Democratic shill that voted for Gore.

In other words, he was trying to deceive.

Now, why would he want to do this?

So everyone who voted in an election is partisan? Really?

And, by the way, Clarke said he voted Republican in the primary.

Nice spin.

Zimphire · Mar 29, 2004, 07:37 PM

Originally posted by zachs:
So everyone who voted in an election is partisan? Really?

And, by the way, Clarke said he voted Republican in the primary.

Nice spin.

Again, He was being dishonest, and deceptive.

Why would he want to do that?

No to mention that he gave TWO different testimonies. One in private and one in public.

Him and Kerry should take study groups on how to stay consistent.

zachs · Mar 29, 2004, 07:38 PM

Originally posted by Zimphire:
Again, He was being dishonest, and deceptive.

Why would he want to do that?

Why would Condoleezza Rice?

Zimphire · Mar 29, 2004, 07:39 PM

Originally posted by zachs:
Why would Condoleezza Rice?

Condoleezza RIce tried to deceive people saying she was non-partisan?

Silly.

zachs · Mar 29, 2004, 07:41 PM

Originally posted by Zimphire:
Condoleezza RIce tried to deceive people saying she was non-partisan?

Silly.

Again, how does voting in an election make you partisan?

zachs · Mar 29, 2004, 07:43 PM

Originally posted by Zimphire:
Again, He was being dishonest, and deceptive.

Why would he want to do that?

No to mention that he gave TWO different testimonies. One in private and one in public.

Him and Kerry should take study groups on how to stay consistent.

Then Condoleezza Rice and the other White House officials should take study groups on how to stay consistant. Link

Lerkfish · Mar 29, 2004, 08:45 PM

speaking of contradictions

President Asked Aide to Explore Iraq Link to 9/11
By ERIC LICHTBLAU

Published: March 29, 2004

WASHINGTON, March 28 � The White House acknowledged Sunday that on the day after the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, President Bush asked his top counterterrorism adviser, Richard A. Clarke, to find out whether Iraq was involved.

Mr. Bush wanted to know "did Iraq have anything to do with this? Were they complicit in it?" Condoleezza Rice, the president's national security adviser, recounted in an interview on CBS' "60 Minutes."

Mr. Bush was not trying to intimidate anyone to "produce information," she said. Rather, given the United States' "actively hostile relationship" with Iraq at the time, he was asking Mr. Clarke "a perfectly logical question," Ms. Rice said.

The conversation � which the White House suggested last week had never taken place � centers on perhaps the most volatile charge Mr. Clarke has made public in recent days: that the Bush White House became fixated on Iraq and Saddam Hussein at the expense of focusing on Al Qaeda.

In his new book, "Against All Enemies," Mr. Clarke recounts that the president pulled him and several other aides into the White House Situation Room on the evening of Sept. 12, 2001, and instructed them "to go back over everything, everything. See if Saddam did this. See if he's linked in any way."

Mr. Clarke was incredulous, he said in the book. "But, Mr. President, Al Qaeda did this," he said he responded.

Mr. Bush answered: "I know, I know, but . . . see if Saddam was involved. Just look. I want to know any shred," according to Mr. Clarke's account. Mr. Clarke added in later interviews that he felt he was being intimidated to find a link between the attacks and Iraq.

Last week, the White House said it had no record that Mr. Bush had even been in the Situation Room that day and said the president had no recollection of such a conversation. Although administration officials stopped short of denying the account, they used it to cast doubt on Mr. Clarke's credibility as they sought to debunk the charge that the administration played down the threat posed by Al Qaeda in the months before the Sept. 11 attacks and worried instead about Iraq.
.

now isn't THAT interesting...hmmm??

Zimphire · Mar 29, 2004, 09:16 PM

Originally posted by zachs:
Again, how does voting in an election make you partisan?

Not just voting, but ONLY giving contributions to the Democrats as well.

Sorry, again your top isn't spinning.

zachs · Mar 29, 2004, 09:21 PM

Originally posted by Zimphire:
Not just voting, but ONLY giving contributions to the Democrats as well.

Sorry, again your top isn't spinning.

So, the Bush administration officials who have testified contributed to a party other than the Republicans...when?
Condoleezza Rice gave to a party other than the Republicans...when?

Keep trying.

ghost_flash · Mar 29, 2004, 09:23 PM

Originally posted by zachs:
So, the Bush administration officials who have testified contributed to a party other than the Republicans...when?

Keep trying.

Any of them pretending to be a Democrat? LOL. You crack me up.

Keep failing, I'm sure you wont' have a problem doing that.

Clarke is pretending to be nonpartisan. Doh!

zachs · Mar 29, 2004, 09:28 PM

Originally posted by ghost_flash:
Any of them pretending to be a Democrat? LOL. You crack me up.

Keep failing, I'm sure you wont' have a problem doing that.

Clarke is pretending to be nonpartisan. Doh!

So, Clarke is partisan? He's not credible!
Bush administration officials partisan? That's OK, they never said they weren't!

Silly.

Zimphire · Mar 29, 2004, 09:30 PM

Originally posted by zachs:
So, the Bush administration officials who have testified contributed to a party other than the Republicans...when?
Condoleezza Rice gave to a party other than the Republicans...when?

Keep trying.

Zachs again, let me repeat this. And I will do it slowly.

None of them above you mentioned try to ACT AS IF THEY WERE NON-PARTISAN

Clark did!

He was being DISHONEST, and tried to FOOL the AMERICAN people when he tried to play the non-partizan card.

Get it?

Zimphire · Mar 29, 2004, 09:32 PM

Originally posted by zachs:
So, Clarke is partisan? He's not credible!
Bush administration officials partisan? That's OK, they never said they weren't!

Silly.

You keep on ignoring the fact that Clark was being dishonest and tried to lie to make it look like he wasn't a Democratic shill that he is.

Keep repeating that. Over and over again. You are being an apologist now.

ghost_flash · Mar 29, 2004, 09:32 PM

Originally posted by zachs:
So, Clarke is partisan? He's not credible!
Bush administration officials partisan? That's OK, they never said they weren't!

Silly.

Try and follow.

That alone doesn't mean much, but when you add all the other problems this guy has with telling the truth, then you have a major credibility issue.

If you cannot see that, then you have some serious issues.

Zimphire · Mar 29, 2004, 09:34 PM

Originally posted by ghost_flash:
Try and follow.

That alone doesn't mean much, but when you add all the other problems this guy has with telling the truth, then you have a major credibility issue.

Indeed. The fact he has been caught giving TWO totally different testimonies and him trying to act all like he wasn't partisan to make people believe him..

There are just too many loose ends and lies being told.

If your story is just, there should be no need for that.

zachs · Mar 29, 2004, 09:43 PM

Originally posted by Zimphire:
You keep on ignoring the fact that Clark was being dishonest and tried to lie to make it look like he wasn't a Democratic shill that he is.

Keep repeating that. Over and over again. You are being an apologist now.

Clarke lied about his donations to Democrats where?

ghost_flash · Mar 29, 2004, 09:44 PM

Originally posted by zachs:
Clarke lied about his donations to Democrats where?

Puff. < That was your argument going up in smoke. What an idjut.

Zimphire · 09:50 PM

Originally posted by zachs:
Clarke lied about his donations to Democrats where?