Why are you acting like 'the above transgressions' occured after this scandal? We discuss current events here. Must we mention every scandal/questionable circumstance that Clinton was involved in everytime one pops up about W? Would that make the neo-cons feel better? You people puzzle me sometimes. You seem to have a curious definition of 'real harm.' What constitutes that, exactly? Having a large-scale terror attack? Being involved in a war with no end in sight? Having a perpetually record-setting national deficit? Having half of the nation poisoning the name of the other half? No? I'd say that's 'real harm', but perhaps you see it differently. And what do you mean 'Where was all this outrage?' Do you know who Kenneth Starr is? I'm certain that yourself, your family members, friends, and about one half of the country were simply spitting fire for about 8 years. The outrage was well-documented. I never knew that memory loss was a side-effect of Republicanism. Funny. You know, a lot of us have been 'waiting for all the facts to come out' for quite some time, and definitely not just about this demagogues recent allegations. Ummm, Ok. Then I think it's safe to say that the viewpoint of most of the posters here is somewhat tainted since they love this administration so much. Don't get worked up and go on about how you have certain issues with this administration again, Sourdough. I'm not speaking directly to you. However, I do think that it's egresious to make the assertion you did.
"egregious" definition: "Conspicuously bad or offensive" used in a sentence: "'egresious' is an egregious spelling of egregious".
Yes, G-man, all of those democrats were scandalous, too. I call your WMDs and raise you an Abu Gharaib. :wink:
Current events? The Sandy Burger event was a current event and no one brought it up. Hillary Clinton and her recent scandal and no one brought it up. The whole point is most of the news media and the leftists on this board make really big deals out of anything they can find while ignoring the scandals on the other side, such as the UN. When is the last time anyone heard Any middle man or Democrat on this board discuss the UN? It doesn't happen because it doesn't fit their agenda and its not in the lefts playbook. Egresious assertion? I really wasn't trying to be offensive, I was being sarcastic. Its my own fault for not using a notation or something to illustrate that. I apologize to Red then. Red is truely one of my favorite posters, we've had our debates and probably gotten on each others nerves before but if he ever came to Denver I would grill him up a T-bone steak to die for or treat him to the finest steak house in Denver like he was an old friend. Look, from the posts and responses of others I'm not the only one that thought Red hated Bush and Republicans. I said it because it sure looked like he hated Bush and his administration like they were an enemy of his and whoever else. Chaos, How about you? Have you ever approved of anything this president or any Republican has done?
Wow, martin. Great way to point out a typo! Funny that you didn't catch G_MAN's 'garnd' earlier in this thread. I wonder why not. Btw, it's 'egregious' to try and make yourself look superior by correcting typo's when your posts are regularly littered with them. Trust me, it's ok that you can't find anything else in that post to disagree with.
And? What's your point? You want us to 'bring up' older issues in every thread questioning W&Co.? You bring it up all the time. And no one 'brought up' Tom DeLay's antics (of course, 'no one' is restricted to Republicans, since you are accusing only Bush disapprovers of not 'bringing up' these issues). Yet more evidence of linking Republicanism to short memory. You and I discussed the UN yesterday. Sure, I didn't divulge a litany of objections towards them, primarily because it's not something I spend a lot of time thinking about. You honestly think the neo-cons aren't trying like hell to keep this one quiet? It's completely immaterial, anyway. What does it matter? I think that a lot of you hate Clinton, Democrats, Libertarians, and whomever else may not fit perfectly into your convoluted mold. Well, since you asked, I voted strictly Republican for about the first 5 years that I was allowed to do so (I'm 26 now), including for W in '00. And I've even voted for some since then (i.e. Jindal for governor). But, as Red has iterated many times on this board, this is not your Raegan republican administration. As for this president, I was completely with him on Afghanistan. That was a well-executed and warranted mission (still is). But I don't see why any of that matters. Let's just say that I answered 'no' to that question. Would that mean that we couldn't argue? Is that necessarily a sign of a corrupt mind that lacks validity in its viewpoints?
I actually think Clinton is a likable guy, I wouldn't mind going fishing with him and drinking a beer or twelve. It's just that he's an incompetent president based on his performance in office--that's what I object to, amigo.
