Anybody See Rummy spitting and sputtering on tv sunday?

[ljb]

Seems old Rumsfield was caught in a couple of lies Sunday. I saw a replay on the news, it was rather funny to see him with his tit in a wringer. If anyone wants to see it, Moveon.org has the link on their site.

[ljb]

I'm on a slow dial up modem out here but here is the link.
http://www.moveon.org/censure/caughtonvideo/

[Tom]

Yep. I too got a chuckle over Kerry's lie today.
Q? How are Kerry and Hussien the same?
Both are an immediate threat to our soldiers.
Q? How are they different?
Hussein is no longer a threat.

[Secretariat]

Thanks LJB. Just got done watching that. One of the most pathetic displays by a public official since Clinton's I did not sleep with that woman.

Rumsfield was an embarassment in that interview.

[ljb]

Secretariat,
Not sure if Lefty watched it or not but he said he thought Rummy looked fine. Must be wearing his blinkers again.;)

[Lefty]

Been too busy watchin Kerry flippin and floppin. "I voted for the 87 million before I voted against it." Hilarious. And then he had to disavow Howard Dean. A new comedy team is born. No, an old one, Mutt and Jeff.

[Secretariat]

Originally posted by Lefty
Been too busy watchin Kerry flippin and floppin. "I voted for the 87 million before I voted against it." Hilarious. And then he had to disavow Howard Dean. A new comedy team is born. No, an old one, Mutt and Jeff.

I think it was billion Lefty.

[Lefty]

Right you are. 87 billion it is. He voted for it before he voted against it. The man's a riot.

[ljb]

So Lefty, does this mean you don't want to talk about Rummy's hemming and hawing when he got caught in a bold faced lie?
I personally thought he looked like a small boy caught with his fingers in the cookie jar. for shame for shame.

[Secretariat]

LJB,

If you get the chance check out the Richard Clarke interview this Sunday on Sixty Minutes.

Lefty,

Your point is well taken. But let me ask you something. If you felt the nation was in danger, and someone told you that they would do all they could to work within the UN to seek a coalition wouldn't you have voted for the bill. Sure you would. Kerry did.

Now suppose this same person wouldn't even let the issue come to a vote in the UN, and was unable to create a strong coalition and went into Iraq without allowing inspections to finish. And the reason for going into Iraq kept on changing. Would you just vote to rubber stamp the action even if you felt you had been betrayed by this person because he conned you. First time fooled, shame on you, Second time, shame on me. Kerry chose not to make that mistake.

This is not a monarchy and that is why we have votes. The Prez does not get a rubber stamp on whatever he wants. It's called balance of powers.

Kerry felt he had been misled by the Prez after his first vote (which he was), and voted his conscience the second time. It was a difficult deicsion I'm sure - whether to acqueisce and go along after being sucker punched or risk appearing to be following a double standard.

It will be interesting if this comes up in the debates. I noticed Kerry asked to debate Bush once a month leading up to the election, but of course Bush refused...too many fund raisers to attend.

[Lefty]

sec, no I wouldn't go to UN Bush did that and was turned down. The UN has countries whose agendas are diff than ours and then they lie about it. Kerry is just plain wrong. And so are you.
The Pres did not lie and he may have been misled or the intellegence just plain wrong. Hell, even Saddam blvd he had WMD's. Madelaine Albright just asmitted she thought Saddam had the WMD's. So I guess you must be calling her a liar too. But if GW fooled so was Kerry, and Madelaine and Clinton and the list goes on. How convenient your memory is.
Bush has better things to do(like running the country) than debate a fool like Kerry who will nicely self-destruct before the election anyway. Do you honestly blve if it were the other way around that Kerry would have monthly debates with Bush? Don't think so.
GW best man to lead in war on terror. He will fight the terrorists not capitulate to them as you and Kerry would.
kERRY SAYS WORLD LEADERS WANT HIM TO BE PRES.
"Who are they?" a voter asks.
"That's none of your business," Kerry retorts.
What a jerk.

[Lefty]

lbj, just too damn busy watching Kerry get cght in lies. BTW, Rummy not running for Pres. I did see him in an interview but maybe not the one you're talking about as I don't know what the hell you're talking about, but most of the time, you don't either.

[Secretariat]

Originally posted by Lefty
sec, no I wouldn't go to UN Bush did that and was turned down. The UN has countries whose agendas are diff than ours and then they lie about it. Kerry is just plain wrong. And so are you.
The Pres did not lie and he may have been misled or the intellegence just plain wrong. Hell, even Saddam blvd he had WMD's. Madelaine Albright just asmitted she thought Saddam had the WMD's. So I guess you must be calling her a liar too. But if GW fooled so was Kerry, and Madelaine and Clinton and the list goes on. How convenient your memory is.
Bush has better things to do(like running the country) than debate a fool like Kerry who will nicely self-destruct before the election anyway. Do you honestly blve if it were the other way around that Kerry would have monthly debates with Bush? Don't think so.
GW best man to lead in war on terror. He will fight the terrorists not capitulate to them as you and Kerry would.
kERRY SAYS WORLD LEADERS WANT HIM TO BE PRES.
"Who are they?" a voter asks.
"That's none of your business," Kerry retorts.
What a jerk.

LJB,

btw..Heres' that article which is gonna be on Sixty Minutes this Sunday.

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/nm/20040320/wl_nm/iraq_retaliation_dc_1

Lefty,

You just gave the reason Kerry said he did not vote for the second appropriations bill - failure to work with the UN. You stated the UN turned him down. Bush failed to build the coalition he promised, and failed to allow the inspections to work. Why the rush to war without a vote? What was the rush to allow a few more months? Now, we are finding out from Richard Clarke that Rumsfield and Bush were considering striking Iraq immediately after 911 even thought according to the CIA, al-quada had no connection with Iraq at all. Why would they want to do that rather than strike Afghanistan where the culprits were located?

As to the debates, yes Bush has better things to do like make sure he gets to lots of campaign fund raisers. Give me a break. He's scared to debate Kerry just as was scared to appear in front of the 911 commisssion for any length time, and scared to hand over the Cheyney energy documents for what they mgiht reveal.

This is the biggest joke. Bush asking Kerry to name the foregin leaders who have privately told Kerry they would prefer him in the White House, and then stonewalling the 911 commisssion, and refusing to name even attendees at a government commission on our "Public" energy policy. That's got to be the hight of hypocrisy.

btw..we didn't have to wait too long. The new Spain Prime Minister has already gone public endorsing Kerry.

[Lefty]

Sec, Bush couldn't build a coalition when UN turned him down because France, Russia and possibly Germany was worried about their own illegal oil deals. Bush gave his reason in his State Of Union Speech why we shouldn't wait. Go back and review it so you'll stop misquoting him. Leaders lead and fools like Kerry ask permission of the world.
Not surprised Spain endorsed Kerry and that's why I can't vote for him. Liberals just can't get it through their heads you can't appease terrorists. Just ask Israel if that works.
Btw, if Kerry doesn't want to name names then he shouldn't "throw" it out there. After all, anyone can say anything if they don't have to prove it and these days, Dems often do.

[Secretariat]

Originally posted by Lefty
Sec, Bush couldn't build a coalition when UN turned him down because France, Russia and possibly Germany was worried about their own illegal oil deals. Bush gave his reason in his State Of Union Speech why we shouldn't wait. Go back and review it so you'll stop misquoting him. Leaders lead and fools like Kerry ask permission of the world.
Not surprised Spain endorsed Kerry and that's why I can't vote for him. Liberals just can't get it through their heads you can't appease terrorists. Just ask Israel if that works.
Btw, if Kerry doesn't want to name names then he shouldn't "throw" it out there. After all, anyone can say anything if they don't have to prove it and these days, Dems often do.

Lefty,

When Bush fesses up and names who was at our "Public" Energy Policy meeting with Cheyney then Bush might have a leg to stand on about naming names.

Since you feel I'm misquoting, I'll let Kerry speak for himself:

“Today marks the one year anniversary of the invasion of Iraq. It is an important day to recognize the courage and enormous skill of the United States military. Our men and women in uniform are the best and the brightest the nation has to offer, and their efforts to defend Democracy should be honored each and every day. We also must remember those that have given their lives in the fight for freedom.

“Before the war started, I repeatedly called on the President to build a genuine coalition to reduce the military and financial burden on the United States, to go to war only as a last resort, and to have a plan to win the peace. I voted to give him the authority to go to war only when he promised me and other members in Congress that he would do these things. He broke those promises.

“He misled the American people in his own State of the Union Address about Saddam’s nuclear program and WMD’s, and refused – and continues to refuse – to level with the American people about the cost of the war. Simply put, this President didn't tell the truth about the war for the beginning. And our country is paying the price.

“It's time for George Bush to start being consistent on Iraq. It's time for him to finally find the right policy for Iraq. It's time to take the targets off the backs of U.S. soldiers, reduce the burden on America’s taxpayers, and finish the job in Iraq.”

[kenwoodallpromos]

Lately seems like several in the Bush Admin are mumbling!

[Lefty]

sec, why doesn't it mean anything to you that Kerry believed in the wmd's too?
? Why is this lost on you libs? I think it's because you hate Bush.
I don't hate Kerry but i disagree with all of his ideas on how this country should be run from fighting terrorists to improving the economy. He hasn't a clue so vote as many times as you can, it ain't gonna help. Tell him to stop shouting at voters or he's not even going to make it a close election.
I told you why the UN is a bad idea but liberals need approval, I guess.
Leaders lead and liberals seek approval.

[Secretariat]

Originally posted by Lefty
sec, why doesn't it mean anything to you that Kerry believed in the wmd's too?
? Why is this lost on you libs? I think it's because you hate Bush.
I don't hate Kerry but i disagree with all of his ideas on how this country should be run from fighting terrorists to improving the economy. He hasn't a clue so vote as many times as you can, it ain't gonna help. Tell him to stop shouting at voters or he's not even going to make it a close election.
I told you why the UN is a bad idea but liberals need approval, I guess.
Leaders lead and liberals seek approval.

Where in Kerry's quote does he even mention WMD's?

I respect your right to disagree. That's what's great about this country. I do dislike Bush's policies, but Hate is a word I reserve for people who I have met personally who have either betrayed me or injured those I care about. Neither of those qualfications could I apply to Bush so I'd appreciate it if you refrain from continually making those assertions.

As to voting many times, I can't Lefty, I don't live in Florida.

I guess I view war as a last resort, not a first one. I would also assert that our government is only an instrument of the people, and when they act without regard for the people's APPROVAL they aren't really leaders, but self-serving, and will be voted out of office.

[Lefty]

Nice try, sec, but during the Clinton adm Kerry made speeches about wmd's and the danger of Saddam and now you use misdirection by trying to relegate it to his current speech. Nice try but no cigar. The dems gave Bush full authority to go to war and you know it even though they have conveniently forgotten it. I'm glad you don't hate Bush. But I can't understand then why you want to cede out sovereignty to the rest of the world, wreck small businesses by raising taxes, and all the other liberal nonsense.
Funny you mention Fla where we recounted and recounted because Gore a whiner not a winner and everytime Bush won the recount even though thousands upon thousands of military votes weren't counted.
Funny, after this election that suddenly the dems wanted to abandon our age old system of electoral votes and make it a popular vote. Looks like we knew what we were doing with the elctoral vote cause it's used PRECISELY to keep a few big states from controlling the election. Keep whining cause you're not gonna win in Nov this time either. The economy will hum and terrorists will run.
Leaders lead.

[Lefty]

Here's another Kerry "gem" he says Bush not funding homeland security enough.
What? Hmmm, Kerry voted against homeland security and not too long ago said the terrorist threat exaggerated.
This is a confused and confusing candidate.

[Lefty]

Going to war with Iraq was not a first resort. 17 broken resolutions. Say it with me "17 broken resolutions."
A dem worrying about the approval of the people? Everytime there's a vote the dems don't agree with they go to court including the last election. Wow.
The people's elected officers"congress" voted to let GW go to war.
But now there's an election to be won, so the dem's have to make it "seem" like GW not succeeding and was all alone and yes, even lying about wmd's when a whole bunch of 'em agreed with the pres at the time. But I guess that doesn't matter in an election yr.

[JustRalph]

Originally posted by kenwoodallpromos
Lately seems like several in the Bush Admin are mumbling!

If Bush wasn't pissing half of them off, then he isn't doing his job. Bush is President, not weakling underlings. They are just disgruntled over something. I think that their whining only plays to those who are against Bush anyway. Guys like Sec and Amazin will get their BVD's swelled up over it.

Sometimes I think the underlings take a role of self importance and when their bubbles are burst they start writing books and going on Tv to make the boss look bad. Remember Stephanapoulos? I bet him and Clinton still get along? Huh you think? Bill is out making speeches at 100k a pop and George has the lowest rated Sunday show on television. They are both still rich........though..........

[Tom]

Two years. A little over.

Afghanistan, the bastian of the Tailban, playground of terroists,
liberated, the country that held off the Russinas for 10 years then beat them back. We took them rather quickley in war years.
They have a contstitution, a leader, hope for the future. They are facing tough times, but that is expected.

Iraq. Haven of a murderous family of murderers, proven users of WMD, former invader of a native country, sliced through like butter.

Lybia-clearly recognizable WMD out of circulation and in US possesion now. Serious terror fodder removed from the terror market.

A spring offensive underway, alread Al Qeda's #2 rumored to be surrounded.

Bush can say all the stupid things he wants to. With actions like this guy is taking, talk is cheap. The guy is a doer.

Kerry,
As we have recently seem, he is about the same verbal giant he was 30+ years ago fighting Nixon. A man of words, no sticks. A griper. A malcontent. Going nowhere, coming from nowhere.

What has he accomplished in 30 years?
Other than selling out vetererns of three wars, cutting of money for our soldiers, and parading Teddy K like he was still relevant?
And having imaginary friends who are heads of state.

You want smart talk, then vote for Kerry.
You want action, then vote for the cowboy. Cowboys are a good thing.

[ljb]

Tom said
"Afghanistan, the bastian of the Tailban, playground of terroists,
liberated, the country that held off the Russinas for 10 years then beat them back. "
You seem to be overlooking a few minor details here Tom. Osama bin laden beat the Russians with help from the good ol USA.
As of this moment both Osama and his side kick `are still roaming the countryside.
Probably could have eliminated them both long ago if we hadn't taken a side trip on Bush's vengance war.
Now we are tied up in Iraq for years and the real terroists are planning their next attack. For shame for shame.

[ljb]

Just ralph said
"If Bush wasn't pissing half of them off, then he isn't doing his job. "
Well then he must be doing one helluva job cause by last count he has between 80 and 90 percent of the world pissed off.

[Lefty]

lbj, yep, he IS doing one helluva job. A leader leads and that's just what he's doing.

[PaceAdvantage]

Does it bother anyone that we are now putting stock in who leaders of foreign nations WOULD LIKE to see in the White House?

[Tom]

Un-named foreign leaders.
Scary thought.

[Secretariat]

If Bush is doing such a bang up job on terrorism why does his own former counter-terrorism expert feel differently, or must he now be dismissed because he's another Paul O'Neill or even worse Clinton? The hen house is starting to crow.

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20040320/ap_on_go_pr_wh/terrorism_adviser_14

[Lefty]

Don't know what Clarke's prob is, but it's just his OPINION and since he's ex, who cares? Whatever Bush is doing is more than the dems ever did or will do. Clinton was too busy gettin' a "hummer" to arrest bin ladin when he had the chance and i'm not referring to a car.

[schweitz]

He's the ex that lost his job as "top counterterrorism adviser" a couple of weeks after 9-11.

[Lefty]

sounds like a disgruntled emplyee who was fired for not properly doing his job. sec really comes up with really credible stuff doesn't he?
Was dn at racebook today and a lot of people really yukking it up over some of Kerry's statements.

[Secretariat]

Originally posted by Lefty
sounds like a disgruntled emplyee who was fired for not properly doing his job. sec really comes up with really credible stuff doesn't he?
Was dn at racebook today and a lot of people really yukking it up over some of Kerry's statements.

It’s always everyone but Bush isn’t it Lefty. He seems to have a lot of disgruntled people he’s hired lately.

Here’s what CBS News had to say about it: (btw Lefty, tune into 60 minutes tomorrow to get the whole story)

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/03/19/60minutes/main607356.shtml

And here’s a little more of the honesty and efficiency of GW Bush Pre-911 via CBS News.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/05/16/attack/main509294.shtml


btw..better yuk it up now about JK, because come next year he'll be your new commander in chief. It will be very interesting when the 911 commission findings come out.

[Secretariat]

btw..Lefty, if you read the articles, it's pretty apparent who wasn't doing their job.

[Secretariat]

Lefty,

Here's a few tidbits, but catch 60 minutes tommorrow:

Info in parenthisis are mine and not CBS, but all else is from the CBS site.

Clarke helped shape U.S. policy on terrorism under President Reagan and the first President Bush. He was held over by President Clinton to be his terrorrism czar, then held over again by the current President Bush.

( I guess Clarke was good enough for your buddy Reagan, GW’s dad, even Clinton, and even GW Jr. – that’s a pretty impressive record, lots of experience,, like soon to be President Kerry)

Clarke also tells CBS News Correspondent Lesley Stahl that White House officials were tepid in their response when he urged them months before Sept. 11 to meet to discuss what he saw as a severe threat from al Qaeda.

"Frankly," he said, "I find it outrageous that the President is running for re-election on the grounds that he's done such great things about terrorism. He ignored it. He ignored terrorism for months, when maybe we could have done something to stop 9/11. Maybe. We'll never know."

Clarke went on to say, "I think he's done a terrible job on the war against terrorism."

In the aftermath of Sept. 11, President Bush ordered his then top anti-terrorism adviser to look for a link between Iraq and the attacks, despite being told there didn't seem to be one.

The charge comes from the advisor, Richard Clarke, in an interview airing Sunday at 7 p.m. ET/PT on 60 Minutes

There's lots more Lefty.

[Tom]

Like 60 Minutes is a creditable news source?
Come on. Get real. 60Minutes, the same show that did that fluff pice on M Jackson, probably paid him to allow them put on pro-Mike televised rally?
I doubt there will be anyhting worth believing on that show. Here's a tip, the Simpson's are more reality based.

BTW, as for as the 911 Commision reprt goes....bring it on.
I want the truth, no matter what is it.
An no matter what it is, I cannot remotely believe Keery will be the better man to take over.
Whatever Bush did no tdo pre-911, he is doing post 911.
And that's the bottom line.

[ljb]

Sec,
I just got on-line to mention the Clarke interview on 60 minutes tonight and see you have already done so. Some here will view this episode and become enlightened others will probably remain in the dark.
Clarke is the man I mentioned in another thread that Condaleeza Rice thought so highly off that she asked him to stay on. The ducks are starting to get in line now and the righty's appear to be squirming something fierce.
Ah yes, the truth shall set us free!

[ljb]

Tom said
"Like 60 Minutes is a creditable news source?"
Come on Tom, don't tell me you've joined the ranks of the narrow minded and refuse to watch anything that may shed some truth on the matter at hand. While I disagree with most of what you post here, I always thought you did at least look at other views/opinions then your own before making a judgement.
Tell me it ain't so Tom, :)

[Lefty]

I just don't listen to leftwing news anymore now that there is a balanced news source out there. What Clarke has is his opinion and guess what, lots of people in any administration has differing opinions and another big guess what, it's up to the COMMANDER IN CHIEF to weigh them and decide on a course of action.
SIXTY MINUTES: weren't they the network way back before the election in 1990 that brght Bill and Hillary on "softballed" them, let them lie about Jenniffer Flowers and bring national attention to themselves.
Aren't they also the ones that "house" Andy Rooney who denigrates Mel Gibson's movie without seeing it and also denigrates Mel himself without ever meeting him?
I just don't have the "stomach" for these guys anymore.

[ljb]

Tom,
Remember the post I entered that stated the facts about the Bush administration's lack of response to the warnings prior to 9/11? You replied asking if I had any facts to back up the facts I had posted. Well they are being made more public in these articles. Just how many facts backing up facts do you need?

[ljb]

Lefty,
Three letters for you; CYA. The truth is about to bite again.:D

[Lefty]

Prob with you lbj is you can't discern a fact from an opinion.

[ljb]

Wrong answer Lefty,
If it is an opinion, it came from you. If it is a fact, you don't believe it.

[Lefty]

Here's some facts: During the Clinton/Gore adm terrorists hit the World Trade Center, hit the USS Cole, Clinton gave N. Korea permission to build nuclear reactors, Saddam stonewalled the Clinton/Gore adm. time after time, Clinton was offered Bin Ladin but wouldn't arrest him. The UN refused help because France and Russia and possibly others were making illlegal oil deals.
This Pres is trying to clean up the mess. Those are the facts.

[schweitz]

"CBS' corporate parent, Viacom Inc., owns Simon & Schuster, publisher for Clarke's book, "Against all Enemies" ."

[Tom]

Viacom......using one media to advertise another.
Sounds factual to me.

[Secretariat]

Originally posted by Lefty
I just don't listen to leftwing news anymore now that there is a balanced news source out there.

Just curious Lefty which balanced news source you're talking about out there. Rush's....Murdoch's....lol

[Lefty]

sec, FOX NEWS is balanced with both viewpoints. But I know, libs definition of balanced is their way or the highway. Alan Colmes and Susan Estrich my two favorite libs.
Did you know that Bernard Goldberg was fired from CBS a few yrs ago because he wrote in USA TODAY that the CBS piece on the flat tax was slanted and flawed? Thght you'd like to know.

[JustRalph]

http://www.democrats.org/ecaptains/

[Lefty]

sec, FOX NEWS is balanced with both viewpoints. But I know, libs definition of balanced is their way or the highway. Alan Colmes and Susan Estrich my two favorite libs.
Did you know that Bernard Goldberg was fired from CBS a few yrs ago because he wrote in USA TODAY that the CBS piece on the flat tax was slanted and flawed? Thght you'd like to know.

[PaceAdvantage]

Yes, wasn't Clarke on duty when they hit the towers the first time, and then the USS Cole?

[Secretariat]

Originally posted by Lefty
sec, FOX NEWS is balanced with both viewpoints. But I know, libs definition of balanced is their way or the highway. Alan Colmes and Susan Estrich my two favorite libs.
Did you know that Bernard Goldberg was fired from CBS a few yrs ago because he wrote in USA TODAY that the CBS piece on the flat tax was slanted and flawed? Thght you'd like to know.

Bernie Goldberg? You are kidding. Maybe you need to review Goldberg’s appearance on MSNBC on Donahue in 91 to watch this man get his come uppance from of all people, Al Franken, after goldberg trashed the reputation of the late John Chancellor. Goldeberg’s credibility was totally destroyed that day and as Donahue stated to Goldberg “You’ve been really wounded here tonight kid.” Maybe Goldberg does better research since he did back in 91. Let’s hope so.

As to Fox News, … oh Lefty, Lefty, Lefty. You’ve got to get your story straight. This is the Rupert Murdoch owned station. The same Murdoch who owns the NY Post, the paper you just trashed a couple of days ago in a thread. Fox News! That same anti-communist Murdoch who kicked the BBC News off his Hong Kong Star network when it offended the Chinese People’s Republic. The same Murdoch who stated: “The truth is – and we Americans don’t like to admit it - that authoritarian societies can work.” Murdoch shortly thereafter signed a multi-million deal with the People’s Daily, the offical state newspaper of communist China. And who did Murdoch put in charge of Fox but Robert Ailes, a very conservative poltical consultant for Nixon, Reagan, older Bush, and even produced Limbaugh’s show. Fox News has no real liberals represented. Even Colmes, who was a former stand up comic, was hand-picked and hired by Hannity and Colmes told USA today "I am a moderate." C'mon, Lefty. These aren't liberals at all. Put Franken or Michael Moore up against Hannity and then we'll see some real action.

So Lefty, I’m OK that you like the Fox channel, but please don’t try to portray it as balanced. It is the most UNbalanced of news networks, and pretty much a Republican propaganda machine.

[Lefty]

so, you don't like Murdoch and automatically Fox News isn't balanced? Then what are them liberals doing? Who am I to blve, you or my lyin' eyes!
Tell you what, you go tell Colmes and Geraldo it ain't balanced.
And whether a nit like Franken got the best of Goldgerg or not(I seriously doubt it)the fact is, Goldberg was fired for sounding the siren on CBS.

[Lefty]

Sec, thanks, you made my case ideally for me. The fact that he owns a paper whose article I trashed and that other stuff just proves the man is open to alternate viewpoints, unlike CNN and all the networks.
If FOX is a Republican machine they're doing a real bad job of it cause I keep gettin' them liberals' viewpoints all the time.

[Tom]

Ever wonder why there are so few liberal talk show radio programs? And the one coming soon is featuring - your words- a former stand up comic?
Maybe liberals don't have a lot to offer the public and most people know it. Maybe no one want to listen to liberish?
I dunno, just speculatin'.
But if soooo many people are liberals and conservatices don't represent the people, then why or why are they doing so well in the marketplace?

[Lefty]

Very good question, Tom. We have a liberal guy here who has no sponsors and constantly asks for money from his listeners.
The liberals have to ask for donations cause they just don't draw advertisers, do they?

[Secretariat]

Originally posted by Lefty
Very good question, Tom. We have a liberal guy here who has no sponsors and constantly asks for money from his listeners.
The liberals have to ask for donations cause they just don't draw advertisers, do they?

Or perhaps because those big corporate sponsors who pay for the ads don't want the voices heard from the common guy.....

[Lefty]

sec, snap out of it. Big corps donate to both parties and they just want to sell goods and don't care who they sponsor as long as the job gets done. Liberals just don't draw big audiences so guess they're not as common as you suppose.

[Secretariat]

Originally posted by Lefty
sec, snap out of it. Big corps donate to both parties and they just want to sell goods and don't care who they sponsor as long as the job gets done. Liberals just don't draw big audiences so guess they're not as common as you suppose.

Boy are you living in lala land. Have you looked at corporate donation lately?

[Lefty]

sec, you're right. This free mkt capitlist crap just one big righwing conspiracy. Keep the faith, Comrade.

[Secretariat]

Lefty, since you're impressed with books I got soem good ones for ya, and a review.

You can now get a bargain on a couple of books on Amazon Lefty.

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/031600023X/qid=1080012719/sr=1-1/ref=sr_1_1/102-2179998-0461742?v=glance&s=books

Worse than Watergate: The Secret Presidency of George W. Bush by John Dean
House of Bush, House of Saud by Craig Unger

You can get both for $34.27 Lefty, and Dean’s book is new.

Here’s a little to whet your appetite on the Unger book:

Newsbreaking and controversial -- an award-winning investigative journalist uncovers the thirty-year relationship between the Bush family and the House of Saud and explains its impact on American foreign policy, business, and national security.

House of Bush, House of Saud begins with a politically explosive question: How is it that two days after 9/11, when U.S. air traffic was tightly restricted, 140 Saudis, many immediate kin to Osama Bin Laden, were permitted to leave the country without being questioned by U.S. intelligence?

The answer lies in a hidden relationship that began in the 1970s, when the oil-rich House of Saud began courting American politicians in a bid for military protection, influence, and investment opportunity. With the Bush family, the Saudis hit a gusher -- direct access to presidents Reagan, George H.W. Bush, and George W. Bush. To trace the amazing weave of Saud-Bush connections, Unger interviewed three former directors of the CIA, top Saudi and Israeli intelligence officials, and more than one hundred other sources.His access to major players is unparalleled and often exclusive -- including executives at the Carlyle Group, the giant investment firm where the House of Bush and the House of Saud each has a major stake.

[Lefty]

Ain't Dean the one that went to jail cause of Watergate?
Hey, the more madeup stuff that comes outta the left the better our Pres looks.
Remember the book, October Surprise? Turned out not to have one word of truth in it. Hey, sec, no wonder you don't like fair and balanced news.

[Lefty]

And how about the NY Times? No matter how many books Sean Hannity, Anne Coulter, Bill O'Reilly etc sell and hit their bestseller lists hard, they still only review leftwing books.
No wonder I like Fox News so damn much. It truly is fair and balanced.

[arkansasman]

I went to the link someone provided for Move ON. If you want to see a real comedy, go to their website. It has a picture of Al Gore giving a speech on Global Warming in New York on one of the coldest days they had had in 100 years. How funny!!!!

[Lefty]

These same alarmists, 15 yrs ago, were warning of another ice age. Maybe Al shoulda gave that speech.

[ljb]

Lefty,
You folks are trying to spin this off topic. Please try to stay on topic. This thread is about Rummy spitting and sputtering on tv. If you wish to continue in this vein, I would recommend discussing the tv appearances by Conde Rice. She is hard at personal attacks, while she refuses to discuss the issues in public under oath. Ironic hey!

[arkansasman]

It sounds like you are talking about Clinton or Lurch (John Kerry) and not Condy.

I did not think left wingers played the horses. If they do they are probably working undercover for PETA.

[Tom]

Originally posted by arkansasman
It sounds like you are talking about Clinton or Lurch (John Kerry) and not Condy.

I did not think left wingers played the horses. If they do they are probably working undercover for PETA.

When there is alter scratch at the track, Ljb insistes that the refunds be divided up so that the losers get more money back than the winners, even though they put less money into the pools. He claims that the current method of refunds is a rebate for the rich winners.
:rolleyes: :eek: :D :eek: :rolleyes:

[Tom]

Environemntal question?

How do you make a spotted owl sandwhich?

On PETA bread! :D

[Lefty]

lol, very good Tom. And the best place to look for spotted owls is in K-Mart signs.

[ljb]

Neat trick Rightys,
Make jokes and try to change subject. It is obvious how much you guys are hurting. Knowing you voted for Bush last election I have two things to say.
1. I feel your pain.
2. I forgive you. ;)

[ljb]

Ark,
Welcome to the board. Who's your favorite nascar driver?

[Lefty]

derek, you can't even spell simultaneously let alone do things that way.
lbj, we have cght your man Clarke in many many lies. Just like we cght Clinton.

[arkansasman]

Well my favorite would either be David Bonyer or John Conyers. They are Michigan Socialist Nascar drivers - Are they not?

[Tom]

Originally posted by ljb
Neat trick Rightys,
Make jokes and try to change subject. It is obvious how much you guys are hurting. Knowing you voted for Bush last election I have two things to say.
1. I feel your pain.
2. I forgive you. ;)


If this is hurting, I gotta find a way to bottle it and sell it-I will be a rich man (even richer than I am now, thanks to my tax cut for the rich that we elitists split!( HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
Oooooooo I feeeeeeel gooooooooooooooooooooooooood!
It hurts sooooooooooooooooooooooooo baaaaaaad.

OK, another joke to change the subject.
What would have been the perfect political post for W to appoint Al Gore to as a gesture of goodwill after the 2000 election?


Ambassador to CHAD!

(Oh I KILL myself sometimes. Derek! Pop me! )

[ljb]

Tom,
You are a real stand up guy. Most of the rightys are having problems accepting my forgiveness. I always knew you weren't all bad. Thanks Tom and God bless.
ljb :)