View Single Post
Old 06-24-2005, 06:00 AM   #40 (permalink)
RangerDick
Loser
 
Location: manhattan
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mantus
Ranger,

Well roachboy covered the bases.

I somehow doubt that you need me to submit proof that Bush misled the country into this war. As you stated yourself there are plenty of arguments out there.

I am aware that there are many discusions out there on whether the President misled this country or not, but the topic was mentioned by you.
I'm confused by what you mean here. There are arguments out there on both sides. I think that the difference in considering these arguments is that the left's frothing-at-mouth hatred for Bush seriously impedes their ability to analyze the information presented in an unbiased fashion. In other words, it appears that this group starts out with the conclusion that "Bush is guilty and should be impeached" and works backward, or reverse-engineers, twists facts, grasps at straws to back up the conclusion that they've already formulated.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mantus
Quote:
The "Bush lied" meme is quite old and worn out. Repeating it over and over does not make it any truer.

Infact from your very first post the issue of
Quote:
New York Times suppressing information that would support Bush's impeachment.

...was never confronted.
So far all you posted your personal opinion on the matter, which is fine, but I would like to hear the basis for that opinion.
In part I base my opinion on the premise that the NYT is an extremely left-biased newspaper (as an example- the Abu Ghraib front page streak) and would love to put the screws to Bush on this issue just as much as you and roachboy would. Whether or not we all agree on the Times having a left leaning bias, I think at the very least it's fair to say they are extremely critical of the Bush administration. Now, Why aren't they publishing these "stories"? This was the topic of host's OP. Unless any of us has a direct line to the editing room at the NYT, all any of us can do is offer our opinion on this. I'd submit that if there was any meat behind these cries for impeachment, the Times would publish them. Or am I not understanding your question?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mantus
Also, I am sorry for the rather demeaning tone in my previous post. I was just a little vexed by your "check mate" remark.
No offense taken at all, I've got a strong chin. I can a take a jab every now and then, it helps keeps things interesting. I can see how the "check mate" thing might have spawned it, but just so you guys know, I only meant it in good clean verbal-jousting fun.
RangerDick is offline  
 

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 200 201 202 203 204 205 206 207 208 209 210 211 212 213 214 215 216 217 218 219 220 221 222 223 224 225 226 227 228 229 230 231 232 233 234 235 236 237 238 239 240 241 242 243 244 245 246 247 248 249 250 251 252 253 254 255 256 257 258 259 260 261 262 263 264 265 266 267 268 269 270 271 272 273 274 275 276 277 278 279 280 281 282 283 284 285 286 287 288 289 290 291 292 293 294 295 296 297 298 299 300 301 302 303 304 305 306 307 308 309 310 311 312 313 314 315 316 317 318 319 320 321 322 323 324 325 326 327 328 329 330 331 332 333 334 335 336 337 338 339 340 341 342 343 344 345 346 347 348 349 350 351 352 353 354 355 356 357 358 359 360