Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

---

At 7/28/07 08:30 PM, tony4moroney wrote:

You've been blaming it on the democrats. I even told you (all above reasons) why the responsibility primarily falls with the republicans.

Only because you want it to.

Now as Bush's dictatorship comes to a close,

oo, more exaggerations... including one that doesn't make any sense at all!

and in the face of the failure that Iraq was/ is we'll see more and more republicans moderating their stances.

Yeah, it's too bad the military nor the troops in Iraq have that view.

Omgod Slate! The source that you allege is 'anti-fox' had an article supporting Libby but discounted several critical factors, corrected by an observant reader.

Key words: Supporting Libby.

I rest my case.

He lied, according to testimonies of FBI, CIA agents and a multitude more. Found guilty by the Court. End of story.

Hey, if you're fine with their testimony not adding up, well... that's your problem.

You know what though? I'm curious as to why you defend him. He lied plain and simple,

You can't prove it.

Neener neener.

hahaha!

You want to know why?

Because i'm sick of the democrat's double standards.

Clinton is the KING of pardons, I didn't hear any complaints. Bush didn't "pardon" anything really. He commuted his prison sentence AND left ON the fine and probation.

Clinton fired all of the attorneys upon entering his office, yet I heard no complaints. Yet when Bush fires a mere 8 probly for political reasons (which is entirely legal) you guys open up investigations out of the woodworks.

I guess "unwarranted searches" and "probable cause" don't apply when investigating the president, especially when you bitch about his wireless program (which was given to him by congress).

It's amazing the hypocracy you guys have. I may be a partisan asshole, but so are you. However, at least i'm consistant with the law.

---

At 7/28/07 08:43 PM, Memorize wrote:

At 7/28/07 08:30 PM, tony4moroney wrote:

You've been blaming it on the democrats. I even told you (all above reasons) why the responsibility primarily falls with the republicans.

Only because you want it to.

Now as Bush's dictatorship comes to a close,

oo, more exaggerations... including one that doesn't make any sense at all!

and in the face of the failure that Iraq was/ is we'll see more and more republicans moderating their stances.

Yeah, it's too bad the military nor the troops in Iraq have that view.

Tell that to the Vietnam War Vets, the Generals that quit, the Iraqi's themselves and polls that show a growing majority of troops who believe Iraq has shown little to no improvement since their occupation.

Key words: Supporting Libby.

I rest my case.

Point is it disproves your assertion that they're anti-fox and have a bias when in truth they're at the very least moderate or if they've omitted key facts that prove he's guilty perhaps they're slightly right-wing. It also kills two birds with one stone in that the proceeding commentary shows Libby is guilty.

He lied, according to testimonies of FBI, CIA agents and a multitude more. Found guilty by the Court. End of story.

Hey, if you're fine with their testimony not adding up, well... that's your problem.

Their testimony does add up, there may be some slight errs but would you honestly expect them to retain a perfect memory after 4 years? Tell me, what unprecedented benefits do these agents from different agencies stand to gain by lying? The fact of the matter is he was found guilty in the face of prevailing evidence by a non-partisan judiciary and court.

You know what though? I'm curious as to why you defend him. He lied plain and simple,

You can't prove it.

Neener neener.

hahaha!

That's been your argument to support every single scandal. You full well know there's a cover up, but simply because its not legally possible to prove some people are lying, because Bush and co. won't comply with subpoenas which will bring an exponential change in understanding that somehow all of this is acceptable. According to you its OK as long as you can't get caught.

You want to know why?

Because i'm sick of the democrat's double standards.

Clinton is the KING of pardons, I didn't hear any complaints. Bush didn't "pardon" anything really. He commuted his prison sentence AND left ON the fine and probation.

Clinton's pardons never involved his actual administration being involved in a scandal. A lot of them were legitimate given how ridiculous drug laws are. There was one problem I had however, it was when he pardoned his brother for DUI? But that's incomparable to pardoning then granting executive privilege to cloak a network of lies for a multitude of scandals.

Clinton fired all of the attorneys upon entering his office, yet I heard no complaints. Yet when Bush fires a mere 8 probly for political reasons (which is entirely legal) you guys open up investigations out of the woodworks.

I thought we already clarified this earlier. Most, if not all president's fire all attorneys upon entering office. Its somewhat of a tradition 'cleaning out the closet' if you will to start afresh. Clinton never then introduced an entire bunch of GOP cronies which were incompetent. Also, Bush fired them halfway through his term, and possibly to cover up an investigation which is illegal and is a problem and is incomparable to previous president's motives for firing attorneys upon entering office

I guess "unwarranted searches" and "probable cause" don't apply when investigating the president, especially when you bitch about his wireless program (which was given to him by congress).

I guess unwarranted searches don't apply when expending millions of dollars, wasting resources and men investigating clinton since day one and then investigating a blowjob and blowing it up to epic proportions.

It's amazing the hypocracy you guys have. I may be a partisan asshole, but so are you. However, at least i'm consistant with the law.

i may have a slightly liberal bias but as we know, in the current political climate reality has a slightly liberal bias.

---

At 7/28/07 09:15 PM, tony4moroney wrote: i may have a slightly liberal bias but as we know, in the current political climate reality has a slightly liberal bias.

win

---

At 7/28/07 09:15 PM, tony4moroney wrote:

Tell that to the Vietnam War Vets, the Generals that quit, the Iraqi's themselves and polls that show a growing majority of troops who believe Iraq has shown little to no improvement since their occupation.

Haha. right.

Iraq is nothing like Vietnam.

Vietnam was fought to stop the spread of terrorism.

In iraq, there are about 100 US deaths per month. In Vietnam, there was 500 per month.

Vietnam was also being backed by a super power nation at that time. We also militarily succeeded in stopping the north from taking over the South with an agreement. But after we withdrew, the north broke that agreement and invaded the South while we did nothing about it due to political pressure.

By the way:

link1

link2

link3

link4

link5

Bush's original plan was to be out in '08.

So far, that's looking good.

Iraqi police are taking control. Haha, more than you know apparently.

To say Iraq is a failure just because you don't like Bush is shere ignorance.

It took the US 12 years to come up with a stable government and constitution while fighting a bloody war. It's taken Iraq what? Just a couple years to come up with a government?

I'd say that historically, they're doing rather well.

Point is it disproves your assertion that they're anti-fox and have a bias when in truth they're at the very least moderate or if they've omitted key facts that prove he's guilty perhaps they're slightly right-wing.

I never said THEY were anti fox.

I said that "oreilly-sucks.com" was anti-fox and with a name like that, it's not a credible source of information.

Their testimony does add up, there may be some slight errs

Interesting.

Even when I present multiple sources of them screwing up, all you can come up with is "slight errors"?

Please.

but would you honestly expect them to retain a perfect memory after 4 years?

Ok, answer me this. Why was it that one of the witnesses at first "couldn't recall", yet in the courtroom suddenly had perfect memory?

That's been your argument to support every single scandal.

That... and the fact that you guys have yet to provide ANY CREADIBLE proof for your court cases and investigations.

Clinton's pardons never involved his actual administration being involved in a scandal.

But it did involve business partners and relatives.

I thought we already clarified this earlier. Most, if not all president's fire all attorneys upon entering office.

And I thought I couldn't have made it anymore clearer:

THE PRESIDENT IS GIVEN POWER BY THE CONSTITUTION TO FIRE AND HIRE ANY ATTORNEY EVEN FOR POLITICAL REASONS

i may have a slightly liberal bias but as we know,

Oh, it's much much more than slighly.

The difference between you and me, is that I wanted clinton kicked out AND wanted Libby in prison. All you want are republicans in prison.

---

At 7/28/07 09:35 PM, Memorize wrote: Vietnam was fought to stop the spread of terrorism.

HA HA HA HA HA HA

You don't seriously think that, do you?

---

At 7/28/07 10:16 PM, public-enemy1 wrote:

You don't seriously think that, do you?

Of course I meant communism.

Going to type one thing, thinking another.

---

At 7/28/07 10:17 PM, Memorize wrote:

At 7/28/07 10:16 PM, public-enemy1 wrote:

You don't seriously think that, do you?

Of course I meant communism.

Going to type one thing, thinking another.

Oh...then I apologize.

I got ahead of myself

---

At 7/28/07 09:15 PM, tony4moroney wrote: Their testimony does add up, there may be some slight errs but would you honestly expect them to retain a perfect memory after 4 years?

You know, I find it very odd that you would write off the discrepencies in testimony between those agencies as merely their memories being degraded slightly with the march of time... yet you expected Rove to have perfect, total recall of those same events four years ago, and denounced him as a liar and a perjurer for saying "I do not recall."

Why is that?

According to you its OK as long as you can't get caught.

According to you, getting a blowjob in office and lying about it to a grand jury is just a-ok so long as no one got killed or fired.

Also, Bush fired them halfway through his term, and possibly to cover up an investigation which is illegal and is a problem and is incomparable to previous president's motives for firing attorneys upon entering office

So the issue here isn't so much THAT he fired them, it's simply a matter of WHEN he fired them, nevermind that it was done for purerly political reasons either way? Is that basically what I can surmize this whole pissing match to be about, a calender date?