I start by saying this is not personal Marv, hopefully you learn something..... or you'll blast me and choose to take it as personal.
If you want to persuade people to see your side persuade, and debate. If you want a pissing contest then your post succeeded.
I know you can do better I've seen it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marvelous Marv
Personal attack.
|
PErhaps, or perhaps he is frustrated with the fact the right continually lets Bush off by pointing to Clinton.
2 Wrongs do not make a right no matter what. To let someone go for partisan reasons or because "your guy did worse" is pathetic, bullshit and destroying the nation.
If you went after Clinton, you should go after Bush equally hard or it was all partisan bullshit.
To me what Clinton did wasn't that big of a deal, it didn't affect me. If Bush lied, if Bush played or fudged with info, then it is our business, and has affected my life. I think there is enough evidence to justify investigations. There was less evidence in evrything Clinton did, but the GOP wanted him investigated to death. This isn't sour grapes, this is there is evidence out there and we should get to know the truth. Otherwise we show that as long as it's the party in charge and we are of that party, that politician can get away with anything...... it's bullshit.... it's time to call politicians on their shit and hold them to the high standards the GOP said we should.... or the GOP has no right to EVER again bitch about another Dem.
I thought when the GOP went after Clinton it was because they had higher standards of what the office of the president stood for....... your reply show that if in fact you believe this going after Clinton was 100% partisan and not for the good of the country.
And that it's ok whatever Bush does because he is from the same party as you so he gets a free pass.
Time to either admit the truth or start holding ALL politicians regardless of party to the same standards.
Quote:
Well, the Bush supporters don't have Janet Reno to stonewall for them.
|
So again, because the previous administration did it, and you didn't like the answers, it's ok if your guy does it, because ????????
Quote:
Strawman. No, I did it because their marriage is a sham.
|
Seems like you have your own little fallacy also, do you know for a fact the Clinton's marriage is a "sham"..... Do you know what truly goes on in their relationship?
If you don't then it's bullshit to refer it as a "sham". Because unless you know for a fact and have evidence to show.... you lost credibility with me. Not because of your partisan views but because you label what you do not have justification to label. And you do so in bitterness and it's bullshit.
I don't call the Bush's marriage a sham even though the daughter's kind of look like Bush's but were "adopted".
See how nasty that sounds.
You are willing to upset and would rather start a fight, lose your debate and take cheap shots by saying "their marriage is a sham" ..... than to stick to facts and deabte the true issues.
Quote:
Are you still pissed about your medical bills? Get over it, it's ancient history, like Clinton. And if Bush learned from Clinton, he'll wait a couple of years and pardon Cunningham, like Clinton pardoned Dan Rostenkowski.
|
You call personal attack, and then you do the same thing.
So again because Clinton was "slime" it's ok for Bush to be? And this proves your party is better how??????????
And if Clinton is ancient history why do you keep bringing him up to "ok" what your party's president does?
Quote:
Then all of the people who bribed Cunningham aren't guilty. Your line of reasoning is seriously flawed.
Better tell that to the people who want to send DeLay and Cheney to the chair. And Frist, and Libby, and any other Republican with a parking ticket.
SHALL WE? You're about five years behind the times. If a tenth of the stonewalling occurs that Janet Reno undertook, there wont' be a single conviction.
Not even YOU believe that one.
Then chill, and in five years, whatever Bush did or didn't do won't be important.
|
So instead of debating the issues you still refer to Clinton 5 years out of office, yet "whatever Bush did or didn't do won't be important" you don't want the same criteria applied to Bush??????
Quote:
I'm cutting you off now. Your post is too Host-like.
|
I don't understand what one is supposed to get out of your reply anyway?
That because Clinton was bad and Reno "stonewalled" it's ok for Bush to be bad and stonewall?
You call personal attack and then make one.
And you showed nothing in support of Bush, just that Clinton was bad, and that makes it ok for Bush to be.
Redundant are my respnoses in here because you're whol post was basically Clinton did this, so Bush gets a free pass.
And you want everyone to believe the GOP is the "Moral" party???????? Doesn't sound like it to me.
Moral would be to hold Bush above those Clinton standards..... which in this post you have shown you refuse to do.