Karl Rove scandal starting to break open

Sourdough, come on, man. How many times have I told you this week that I have nothing against Israel? Do I need to repeat myself one more time that I only used them as an example of countries that violate UN policies like it's going out of style? Seriously, I challenge you to dig up something where I ever insinuated that I didn't like Israel. Come on, man, let that one go, Ok?

Ok, fine. I'm in the middle ground on none of these. You oughta know this by now. So, what's the problem?

Yeah, look what it took. You asking me. How bizarre.

First of all, with what 'truth' about Bush did you enlighten me? Seriously, it's a mystery to me. Please be specific, and don't dodge this question like the 47 other questions of mine you dodged in this thread.

Secondly, I am happy to engage in any sort of discourse with you or anyone else on this board. Despite what you may think, I really like everyone here, and I enjoy the constant opposition. Isn't that really what it's all about?

That goes for yourself, G_MAN, SabanFan, tirk, saltyone, martin, and anyone else I left out that I typically engage in arguments/pissing contests with. Seriously, there's no deep-rooted spite for any of you, contrary to how it may seem. I think everybody here is smart, and you all seem like nice, good people that I would get along with in real life, and I get a lot out of our debates. What good are your opinions if you never hold them to the fire?

Sure, I come across like a smartass. That's just part of my personality. And if you knew me personally, you would know better than to take it to heart. That's just my way of being friendly with people, and all my friends know that.

Another part of my personality is that I like to challenge conventional wisdom, which is why you primarily see me as a constant naysayer around here. I may disagree with something just to present another side of the argument when the majority is very one-sided. It's good to present another viewpoint that hasn't gotten mentioned. You never know, you might just make someone realize something that they hadn't yet considered. I do that particularly when I haven't yet fully formed my opinion on a particular topic. What's wrong with that? If you don't want your opinion and logic challenged, you shouldn't be here (not speaking directly to you, SDM).

 

This coming from the same person who didn't know the difference between annunciate and enunciate. (But feels compelled to tell others what to study and research.)
I don't know, I could also be an illiterate redneck, but I'm pretty sure pot and kettle fits here.

As for your current events, the last time I looked, Red China is still equipped with ICBM's thanks to Billary.
Isn't it amazing that before Bill, they couldn't get their rockets off the ground, and now they're capable of hitting the US.
I'm sure they will be more than happy to share this technology with North Korea, who with their new found nuclear capabilities also provided by Billary will be threatening us for years to come.
Also, my memory may be short, but I don't recall Mr. Kenneth Starr or anyone for that matter giving these transgressions the attention they surely deserved, certainly the press didn't, but then I suppose these things are not the threat to the free world that Mr. Rove "Currently" is.

You puzzle me, for someone who puts forth the appearance of being educated, you are awfully shortsighted.

 

Still digging up that old, tired China dog, huh? Yeah, our country has been completely torn apart over that one. That must have been what caused 9/11, Iraq, AND our deficit. I, personally, don't think they are interested in engaging with us militarily.

The point of mentioning Starr was that you neo-cons are are all up in arms about how much attention this slimeball Rove is getting while simultaneously insinuating that Clinton scandals got little to no press attention (a completely absurd suggestion if I've ever heard one).

Short-sighted, huh? You mean like bitching when someone brings up a Bush scandal while at the same time bitching about how no Clinton scandal got attention? Right.

 

Let me just make it clear that I do not, in any way, excuse the China/Clinton controversy. That's pretty sh!tty, as were many of his antics. But outside of a few bottle rockets, China hasn't much in the way of military power beyond its own borders.

 

I'll bet you call yourself libertarian because of 2 things.......pot and abortion. That's it. If I'm correct then you don't even know what libertarian is.

Libertarian's are Republicans except for drugs (namely pot) and abortion. Pot smokers will become whatever party tries to legalize it.....who cares for whatelse they stand for........just as long as dope is legal.

 

Well, you'd better stay away from wagering, then, because you couldn't be anymore incorrect. 'Pot and abortion' are also to key elements of democrats, too, buddy. I 'call myself' a Libertarian because I am a contributing member of the party. The basic, fundamental value of the LP is very much in-tune with many of my personal views. But you apparently have very little perception of what that is. Try again.

You have just revealed exactly how little you know about the LP. Click my sig for some much-needed enlightenment before shooting your mouth of like a jackass. How ironic that you would make such a silly statement in the same post as suggesting that I don't know what a Libertarian is.

Quite possibly one of the dullest, least substantiated statements I've ever read on this board. Most 'pot-smoking hippies' are ardent Democrats. Hell, I even know plenty of pot-smoking Republicans.

Maybe you are so simplistic as to boil down your political preference to one or two issues (or maybe you just inhereted it from your parents), but many of us take a much broader look at the bigger picture. You should try the same.

 

It's interesting that you find China now having the capabilities of launching ICBM's at the US (Thanks to a "PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES") as nothing more than "that old, tired, china dog arguement", shows once again your shortsightedness.

I never insinuated that Clinton got "little or no press attention". What I do insinuate is that he didn't get the type of press coverage that was warranted over the possible "World Altering" decisions he and his administration made in dealing with China and North Korea.

Also, you have not seen me bitch when someone brings up a Bush scandal, what I'm bitching about is, where were all these righteous politicians who are demanding Rove's head,(over something so insignificant) when Clinton was giving or selling missile technology to Red China, and giving Nuclear capabilities to the Koreans.

 

I'm pretty sure Libertarians aren't in favor of bigger government and increased spending, but I guess you could be right.