The one sidedness by Liberals and some others in this forum is rediculous

First of all Bill Clinton was impeached. He was found not guilty on all charges. His ethics were deplorable. You can't defend someone who doesn't have any. On the same note how can you defame Clinton and the hold up Rove or Delay as a paragon of virtue. All three are crooked. Hopefully Delay ends up in prison as anyone who isn't an idiot can see he is guilty as hell.

Secondly you can't say someone was convicted of a crime, not know for sure if they were, then defend it with a bad memory when someone calls you out. I would expect if i wrote something that was without a doubt wrong someone would call me out.

Lets try: Harry Truman was convicted of molesting children in 1941.

 

Wow, i could spend all day responding to this. But I won't.

1) Never said Bush/Cheney was unethical. Delay is. Cheney's people are. Bush's people are. I do not know the first thing about George Bush's ethics. I do know he can't give field questions when he doesn't have answers beforehand. Nothing about the man's ethics.

2) Why do you have to bring me up in every single FSA post? Mancrush?

3) Why do you constantly explain away one person's wrongdoings or misgivings by using someone who performed similar actions as an example? At least you are consistant, but that one of the most illogical arguments a person can make. Just because John Wayne Gacy dressed up like a clown, kidnapped, raped and killed over 30 young men, doesn't mean if I do it, I can point to Gacy and say, look, he did it too.

 

HOW DARE YOU SAY SUCH A THING!?!?!?! There's no way that's true. You're making it up out of thin air. It's common knowledge that diddling kids was legal during WWII.

 

I have no idea what you mean here?
Its like Chinese?

I didn't criticize you for calling me out?
I'm not defending Delay and Rove, we don't know the truth yet.
The difference between Bill Clinton, Delay and Rove is that we
had proof when it comes to the Clinton's because its past tense.

Delay and Rove is present and future tense, neither has been convicted yet.
How can you say I defend them when I said I could care less if they were
thrown out of office?
As far as I know in this country you are still innocent until proven guilty.

 

Its simple, you brought it up not I, your watergate comment proves that you
have already convicted everyone here.
That told me all that I needed to know.

Illogical?
Your talking about ethics of the Bush Administration?
Isn't talking about the ethics of the Clinton Administration the same thing?
What don't you understand about that?

 

Brilliant post!
Where might you stand on all of this?
Why don't you add something significant to the discussion?

 

Unless you are Bill Clinton. Then its innocent until proven guilty. Then once proven innocent, still guilty.

 

We all know what you people think about Bush, Cheney, Delay and Haliburton.
What is your opinions on Judith Miller?
I asked this question and others and no one would answer me?
This is what I meant with the title of this thread.

What is your take on Ronnie Earl?

 

I don't care about this issue. My opinion is that everyone is biased & one-sided. My way of adding something significant to this discussion was to point that out.