Laurel help me...

[Andra_Jenny]

I saw this and tried to find your last post about how the Dems did not trash the white house and I argued that the report from the GAO did not clear the Clinton gang so since I am tired of hunting for it and have limited time I will offer you this

http://www.newsmax.com/showinsidecover.shtml?a=2001/6/2/234023

Oh, say it ain't so

New signature line

DEMOCRATS: PARTY OF WHITE TRASH (meet us at the el camino)!

 

[Nogard]

The post is not the entire news report. It has been edited to support your viewpoint. Either post the entire article as written or don't post any of it. This is an blatent attempt to further a lie. Original article was by Mike Allen, LA Times-Washington Post Service. Entire investigation was hindered by white house refusal to document charges. New report relies on MENTAL NOTES kept by one aide. For christ's sake get real

 

[bluntforcemama]

Back Off

Where's Celestial Body? Oh wait... she's coming to kick your plagiarizing ass. That's right, we know all know about you already. Oh, and such an inventive walnut-brain you have for calling those who oppose you WHITE TRASH, that's just the attitude I would expect from you. Go find yourself some morals and someone who wants to listen to the drivelling shit that drips from your trap.

 

[Weevil]

Why is the party that so consistently destroys the other in minority support the party of white trash? Why is the party that has most of its support in urban centers the party of White Trash(I suppose white trash could live anywhere but it's typically applied to folks in rural areas. The city equivelant being, uh, idiots or something)

We know who has White Trash in their dumpster.

 

[crystalhunting]

Hmmmmmmm..I read through this article..and a few others on the site,This appears to be a Republicans can do no wrong...and a Democrats can do no good publication,NOT very unbiased journalism I think.I also find it dubious that there is no actual damage list published,and that the Bush Admin...asked specifically that none be tallied,perhaps this was yet another...Clinton is scum and all Democrats are scum tactic.Sounds like normal politics to me..The truth here in the USA..is that is you look hard enough...you can allmost allways find a magazine or newspaper article to support your view on the political situation.I recall that in the first term of Clinton..Jerry Falwell was produceing a so-called report about Clinton murdering evangelical christians in Arkansas for political benifit.Clinton has damn near been accused of every atroucity you can think of,It was simply more Republican/Moral Majority tactics to make him look like scum.


come on now unclebill...add your comments now.


CH

 

[TygerEyez]

If trash is white, why throw it out? It's obviously clean.

*shakes head* Back on subject... Anyway, I don't agree with plagerizing, but Nogard? Whenever you try to argue your side of an arguement, don't you only say things that would support your side? True there could be downsides to your viewpoint, but you never say, "Hey, my point is wrong, but I'm supporting it because yada yada yada."

The point of an arguement is to establish your point of view and support it. Not that I agree with how this person did, but.. *shrugs* not everyone passes highschool debate.

Everybody should just not worry about everyone else... Yes, I know: pot calling the kettle back because I posted anyways. *shrugs*

 

[Laurel]

If the vandalism really happened, and the White House withheld evidence from Federal investigators (when the General Accounting Office asked them about the vandalism, Bush's people said at that time that they had no evidence), then there is a good chance Bush will find himself in a similar position to that of his predecessor. If, on the other hand, they are lying now about there being evidence, then Bush may well find himself in the same position as his predecessor.

The bottom line is this:

Either the White House lied to Federal investigators, or they're lying now to the American people. Either way, I find it reprehensible and I look forward to the Conservatives and Liberals on this board joining together to condemn this probably impeachable behavior.

 

[Oliver Clozoff]

Smugness is just so attractive in a woman.

 

[Laurel]

You think so?

 

[Problem Child]

I don't know about smugness, but sarcasm gives me wood.

 

[Laurel]

You too?

 

[Problem Child]

I'm trying to figure out a way to work Teddy Kennedy into this thread.

 

[lavender]

 

[Problem Child]

You're not accusing me of something are you sweetie?

 

[lavender]

 

[Problem Child]

You think I was a troll?

On what thread?

 

[WriterDom]

If the vandalism really happened, and the White House withheld evidence from Federal investigators (when the General Accounting Office asked them about the vandalism, Bush's people said at that time that they had no evidence), then there is a good chance Bush will find himself in a similar position to that of his predecessor. If, on the other hand, they are lying now about there being evidence, then Bush may well find himself in the same position as his predecessor.

The bottom line is this:

Either the White House lied to Federal investigators, or they're lying now to the American people. Either way, I find it reprehensible and I look forward to the Conservatives and Liberals on this board joining together to condemn this probably impeachable behavior.

The word from the first day was let's move on. But I feel your desperation

 

[Purple Haze]

It's the Republican way, don't be bothered by facts, keep up the drivel and the "red, white and blue", because if you say something enough times it becomes true, right?

If the right wing wasn't so embarrassed by the Duh-President they put in office, they wouldn't be pointing their fingers still at a man who isn't even in power any more, it's a sad case of diverting attention from their own pathetic worthlessness.

Bill Clinton will be indicted within the next three years.

Bill Clinton will be pardoned by "you know who" right around election time.

It will be a cheap, but expensive way for the White House to make themselves look all warm and fuzzy.

It could work.

I'm not lyin'.

 

[Laurel]

If the vandalism really happened, and the White House withheld evidence from Federal investigators (when the General Accounting Office asked them about the vandalism, Bush's people said at that time that they had no evidence), then there is a good chance Bush will find himself in a similar position to that of his predecessor. If, on the other hand, they are lying now about there being evidence, then Bush may well find himself in the same position as his predecessor.

The bottom line is this:

Either the White House lied to Federal investigators, or they're lying now to the American people. Either way, I find it reprehensible and I look forward to the Conservatives and Liberals on this board joining together to condemn this probably impeachable behavior.

The word from the first day was let's move on. But I feel your desperation

But I don't understand...The President didn't 'let it go' - he told the press about the 'damage', then told the GAO that he had no evidence of damage. Now he says he's telling the press he does have evidence. Here we have a President who has lied (whether it be to Federal investigators or to the American people, he still lied), and about something much more substantial than the blowjob. Do you condone the use of vicious lies to discredit the other party, or is it only oral sex lies that are worthy of impeachment? Please explain to me why Bush lying about damage to the White House is less wrong than Clinton lying about a blowjob.

 

[Pyper]

Hey Laurel?


*SMACK*

 

[Andra_Jenny]

Nogard

More on vandalism for Laurel
http://www.newsmax.com/showinsidecover.shtml?a=2001/6/3/111635

 

[Andra_Jenny]

I will accept anything you say about me my smarts my viewpoint anything that's OK.


I DO NOT FUCKING PLAGERIZE!

I DO NIT FUCKING STEAL!

I AM INSENSITIVE!

BUT YOU ARE A LYING FUCKING ASSHOLE!

and why drag celeste the body in to do your dirty work coward!

 

[Andra_Jenny]

Laurel it is so obvious, but after 8 years of the Clinton's I can see how you forgot what it is like but,

Dubya was trying to be gracious...















































It was the left that just would not let it go.





















They brought it up and now we revisit the issue with many more facts in hand. Do Democrats suddenly hate facts?



















I was raised Democrat and we used to worship truth.



















Now all they do is fucking lie.



















honestly






















sorry!

 

[Andra_Jenny]

Laurel, you will have to back up that statement because I do not recall our president himself ever bringing up that topic. That was done by Newsmax and Drudge because the Bush people simply have more class.

 

[Andra_Jenny]

Purple Haze

That was simply a fascinating piece of analysis. Was that yours or have you heard that theory broached before? I have no doubt that President Bush would pardon Bill Clinton, even if, as with Ford, it cost him the election.