NationStates Jolt Archive

According to Fox News, two journalists were paid by Bush to put forth television and radio ads, supporting his policies. There is an investigation looking into it, to see if there was an illegal activity. If so, hopefully, he'll get impeached and we'll end up with Cheney as President. Conservative, yes, but arguably, not as stupid. In my opinion, this Fox News article, along with a few other recent shots at Bush in their articles, show that Bush is even losing popularity among the Conservative newsmedias. Now he has to pay people to like him. And the funds were never disclosed, until they were discovered.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,145495,00.html

A Washington Post Editorial also commented on something along these lines. I think it's the same story, but at the very least, it's very similar. Bush was paying people to broadcast what appeared to be news reports from independent journalists, but were really government-funded advertisements. The ads never disclosed that information, however, so many have said that's propaganda. The government putting forth information disguised as news. How could it not be propaganda?!

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A38596-2005Mar15.html

EDIT:
If you are a half-literate Conservative, please click this one.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2005-01-06-williams-whitehouse_x.htm

That's just one of them, though, but the more important one. Maggie Gallagher might be innocent, but Armstrong Williams was admittedly given $240,000 to comment on the "No Child Left Behind" program on his talk show. He was also paid to put out videos about the program, which looked like news reports. This is illegal. The goverment cannot use tax money to create "fake news", the promote its programs.

Paying Fox or MSNBC with tax money to be biased is illegal. Using tax money to make your own "news" programs is no different. It's just that the news programs are owned by the government instead of independent companies

Not a surprise. Not in the least.

Even if he did do that he wont be impeached because hes Dubya! Hes invinsible! Hell just bribe every member of any form of govt. to look the other way.

its surprizing Foxnews would report this considering that theyre an entire network devoted to spreading Bush propaganda but still dont believe the foxnews version of it since they mix lies in with the truth

Yo, Eurtrusca, what's your take on this?

I'm curious, you've been around in the political theater longer than most of us; do you remember this kind of thing happening before? If so, could we get some examples outta ya?

I thought it was amazing Fox News reported it at all. Things are really turning around for Bush, I think. Even Conservatives, like Fox, are turning their back on the Shrub.

I thought it was amazing Fox News reported it at all. Things are really turning around for Bush, I think. Even Conservatives, like Fox, are turning their back on the Shrub.

In his defense, he's only a shrubbery!

In his defense, he's only a shrubbery!
BRING US...
ANOTHER SHRUBBERY!!
http://bau2.uibk.ac.at/sg/python/Scripts/HolyGrail/jpgs/13-headk.jpg

That's fucking gold, man! Gotta love the Python.

But who do you have no reason to love? That's right --- George W. Bush!

Propaganda! actually didn't see this one... 4 years from now maybe, but now :confused:
But this propably leads to nothing. After all he is Bush!

Only *BUMP*ing so maybe Eutrusca might reply.
Besides, it's worth a *BUMP* or two. For now.

Meh, no surprise there.

He almost seems to take pride in his corruption.

He's a politician. This isn't the first time a President/Senator/Congressmen/Governor etc... has paid the Media to present a view and it won't be the last. That people act as if its something special and it actually makes Bush worse than any other politician out there is laughable.

well - fox didnt break this first
and in response to the last post - it looks like this is taxpayers money - umm its sick - is about a hundred times wrose then the reasons for holding impeachment hearings for clinton - but somehow i doubt that even happens - let alone bush actually getting impeached

Not a surprise. Not in the least.
You said it for me.

Did anybody read the article?

It says his education minister hired some people to promote No Child Left Behind (that most idiotic of education reform bills... *sigh*), and now Bush is firing her for it. And you make this into "Bush buying illegal propaganda"?

Be liberals if you must. But be stupid intelligently! Speculate about a vast right wing conspiracy or something...

Did anybody read the article?

It says his education minister hired some people to promote No Child Left Behind (that most idiotic of education reform bills... *sigh*), and now Bush is firing her for it. And you make this into "Bush buying illegal propaganda"?

Be liberals if you must. But be stupid intelligently! Speculate about a vast right wing conspiracy or something...

That was just one of the many people he paid to spread his propaganda.

furthermore - ministers arnt that far detached from bush himself -

Meh (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=402707) :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

Yo, Eurtrusca, what's your take on this?

I'm curious, you've been around in the political theater longer than most of us; do you remember this kind of thing happening before? If so, could we get some examples outta ya?

I would have appreciated Eutrusca's response to my other thread, too.

He's a politician. This isn't the first time a President/Senator/Congressmen/Governor etc... has paid the Media to present a view and it won't be the last. That people act as if its something special and it actually makes Bush worse than any other politician out there is laughable.
Oh, yeah. Sure. Hussein, the Shah of Iran, Stalin. It's not first time it's happened.

BUT, it's the first time an American President has done it.

Did anybody read the article?

It says his education minister hired some people to promote No Child Left Behind (that most idiotic of education reform bills... *sigh*), and now Bush is firing her for it. And you make this into "Bush buying illegal propaganda"?

Be liberals if you must. But be stupid intelligently! Speculate about a vast right wing conspiracy or something...
You misread the article. The person promoting NCLB was a black man, paid "to regularly comment on NCLB during the course of his broadcasts," and to interview Education Secretary Rod Paige for TV and radio spots that aired during the show in 2004. This is because NCLB has been extremely unpopular among black families. Paying a black TV host to promote bill passed by Bush, while not disclosing that he was paid a quarter of a million to do it is illegal. That is a goverment employee, disguised as a journalist, complimenting the government. Understand?

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2005-01-06-williams-whitehouse_x.htm

And that's just one Columnist. There's another one too. Columnist Maggie Gallagher was paid over 40,000 to make and distribute brochures on Bush's "healthy marriage" initiative. During the time, she wrote two articles on the same initiative, in her column. They're speculating that she was paid to write those articles.

The Bush administration spent a record $88 million on government-funded public relations contracts in 2004 -- a 128 percent increase over 2000, according to the report prepared for House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., and other Democrats.

He's more than doubled the amount of money on public-relations than Clinton. Seeing how he didn't hold a single press-conference for the first 9 weeks of his Presidency in 2000 and considering he had eggs lobbed at his limo during his second inauguration (wasn't even able to continue with the ceremony!), it's not surprising that he's needed to pay the media to continue brainwashing his 'loyal' followers.

Did anybody read the article?

It says his education minister hired some people to promote No Child Left Behind (that most idiotic of education reform bills... *sigh*), and now Bush is firing her for it. And you make this into "Bush buying illegal propaganda"?

Be liberals if you must. But be stupid intelligently! Speculate about a vast right wing conspiracy or something...
Wow, the only person in this thread who doesn't have his head up his ass, and sound ignorant when they speak. Oh let's call Bush Shrubbery.... Good One:rolleyes: Can you think of any other immature, 2nd grade comebacks? Hey, I have a question for you liberals, why do you jump on Bush for paying someone to support his No Child Left Behind, which is a good policy at that, but don't jump on Ted Kennedy for leaving that girl to die? gg hypocrites.

Wow, the only person in this thread who doesn't have his head up his ass, and sound ignorant when they speak. Oh let's call Bush Shrubbery.... Good One:rolleyes: Can you think of any other immature, 2nd grade comebacks? Hey, I have a question for you liberals, why do you jump on Bush for paying someone to support his No Child Left Behind, which is a good policy at that, but don't jump on Ted Kennedy for leaving that girl to die? gg hypocrites.
Cape, you didn't read what I said. "She" did not support No Child Left Behind.

Armstrong Williams was the one that was paid to support No Child Left Behind, not Maggie Gallagher. Feil skimmed the article, then hypocritically accused us of not reading it.

Pardon me, but the two of you are the ones with your heads up your asses, if you can't see how blatantly illegal this is, and how Bush is brainwashing America. You're frightened to death by college professors, but the President putting out fake news reports and paying talkshow hosts seems to be okay to you.

And Terri Schiavo is irrelevant. Let her rest in peace. Tom DeLay pulled the plug on his own father. It's hypocritical how Conservatives say people can only have value, if they're "producers" (thus making Mexicans' and Africans' lives worthless), but some half-dead, Christian zombie is more important than billions of starving children. You'll protest and get arrested for her, but you won't protest the government for refusing to give Africa foreign aid or stop the diamond industry from funding their oppressive regimes.

He's a politician. This isn't the first time a President/Senator/Congressmen/Governor etc... has paid the Media to present a view and it won't be the last. That people act as if its something special and it actually makes Bush worse than any other politician out there is laughable.
It IS special. And the fact that most of Americans don't seem to care enough to put an end to this kind of things is unbelievable. "well blaah, everybody's doing it..." is not an excuse.

I wonder why you let your government lie to you all the time. Or not always lie, but not tell the truth either. "Everybody does that" seems to be good enough answer to every political problem you have around there.

According to Fox News, two journalists were paid by Bush to put forth television and radio ads, supporting his policies. There is an investigation looking into it, to see if there was an illegal activity. If so, hopefully, he'll get impeached and we'll end up with Cheney as President. Conservative, yes, but arguably, not as stupid. In my opinion, this Fox News article, along with a few other recent shots at Bush in their articles, show that Bush is even losing popularity among the Conservative newsmedias. Now he has to pay people to like him. And the funds were never disclosed, until they were discovered.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,145495,00.html

A Washington Post Editorial also commented on something along these lines. I think it's the same story, but at the very least, it's very similar. Bush was paying people to broadcast what appeared to be news reports from independent journalists, but were really government-funded advertisements. The ads never disclosed that information, however, so many have said that's propaganda. The government putting forth information disguised as news. How could it not be propaganda?!

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A38596-2005Mar15.html

EDIT:
If you are a half-literate Conservative, please click this one.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2005-01-06-williams-whitehouse_x.htm

That's just one of them, though, but the more important one. Maggie Gallagher might be innocent, but Armstrong Williams was admittedly given $240,000 to comment on the "No Child Left Behind" program on his talk show. He was also paid to put out videos about the program, which looked like news reports. This is illegal. The goverment cannot use tax money to create "fake news", the promote its programs.

Paying Fox or MSNBC with tax money to be biased is illegal. Using tax money to make your own "news" programs is no different. It's just that the news programs are owned by the government instead of independent companies

Stunning news. I never expected this.

Cape, you didn't read what I said. "She" did not support No Child Left Behind.Armstrong Williams was the one that was paid to support No Child Left Behind, not Maggie Gallagher. Feil skimmed the article, then hypocritically accused us of not reading it.
"Education Secretary Margaret Spellings started this week, replacing first-term Education Secretary Rod Paige. "
My mistake. I misread this line to read that Paige replaced Spellings as opposed to the other way around. It doesn't change the fact that in my sentence, "education minister" is the anticedent of "her". In my defence, I wrote the thing late at night.


Pardon me, but the two of you are the ones with your heads up your asses, if you can't see how blatantly illegal this is, and how Bush is brainwashing America. You're frightened to death by college professors, but the President putting out fake news reports and paying talkshow hosts seems to be okay to you.

It's not OK. But neither is accusing Bush for the actions of his Education Secretary. Mr. Paige should be taken to court, tried, and if convicted, stripped of his job under "high crimes and misdemeanors". If the evidence indicates that others were involved, they should be tried as well, regardless of rank. But you cannot accuse one man based on the crimes of another.

It appears to me that:
The secretaries were charged with helping the success of their various programs.
Some less scrupulous secretaries illegally hired people to support their views.
Bush found out.
"President Bush on Wednesday ordered his Cabinet secretaries not to hire columnists to promote their agendas after disclosure that a second writer was paid to tout an administration initiative."
Williams claims that he broke no law, and the FCC is looking into it.
Bush fired his Education minister.

"President Bush on Wednesday ordered his Cabinet secretaries not to hire columnists to promote their agendas after disclosure that a second writer was paid to tout an administration initiative."
Williams claims that he broke no law, and the FCC is looking into it.
Bush fired his Education minister.

As in most of these cases, the leader delegates, sometimes the delegates do the wrong thing.
Sometimes they do what they have been told and are cut out swinging in the breeze.

You can take your pick which case is right for this one.

It's not OK. But neither is accusing Bush for the actions of his Education Secretary. Mr. Paige should be taken to court, tried, and if convicted, stripped of his job under "high crimes and misdemeanors". If the evidence indicates that others were involved, they should be tried as well, regardless of rank. But you cannot accuse one man based on the crimes of another.
Agreed. But you'd think Bush would be more careful in selecting his cabinet. I also highly doubt the FCC will do anything. At worst, they'll be fired and sent to a white-collar resort for a year.

Also, this an unrelated topic, but based on your same logic, the entire government of France is not responsible for a few politicians in the U.N. taking bribes. Right?

Also, this an unrelated topic, but based on your same logic, the entire government of France is not responsible for a few politicians in the U.N. taking bribes. Right?

I don't know enough about the situation to comment, but I believe you are correct. Those who knew of it and did nothing, or participated in it are guilty; those who did not are innocent.

If you have links or quotes of sources that I could use, I could make a better conclusion on this; at the moment, for all I know I could be agreeing with a strawman fallacy. Such links or quotes would be appriciated.

It's not OK. But neither is accusing Bush for the actions of his Education Secretary. Mr. Paige should be taken to court, tried, and if convicted, stripped of his job under "high crimes and misdemeanors". If the evidence indicates that others were involved, they should be tried as well, regardless of rank. But you cannot accuse one man based on the crimes of another.

It appears to me that:
The secretaries were charged with helping the success of their various programs.
Some less scrupulous secretaries illegally hired people to support their views.
Bush found out.
"President Bush on Wednesday ordered his Cabinet secretaries not to hire columnists to promote their agendas after disclosure that a second writer was paid to tout an administration initiative."
Williams claims that he broke no law, and the FCC is looking into it.
Bush fired his Education minister.

Bush should certainly be held responsible for the actions of his subordinates. He tells them what he wants from them, and he chooses people who will do it the way he wants it done.

It is essential that politicians be held accountable for what their subordinates do, since otherwise they could basically do whatever they wanted to and always let some underling take the fall if it goes bad. I hope I'm not the only one who thinks that letting that happen is incredibly stupid and dangerous.

Frankly, even assuming that Bush had no knowledge his subordinate's actions, if he doesn't have good enough judgement to select a minister who will operate within the confines of the law, he probably doesn't have good enough judgement to be president either.

Personally I think it's very unlikely that Bush was unaware of what was going on, or at the very least I'm positive that Bush wasn't very surprised when he found out.

Listen I like Bush but not cuz he paid people to "make" me like him, i like him because of his views, stand points and actions. You all can make up your own mind. you dont have to be zombies of cnn msnbc or even fox news. just listen to your heart then list to the politicans and make up your mind based on you views and what you believe, not what people tell you u must believe. If you think bush hasnt done anything your dead wrong. He has freed a country from a tyrant leader. he has a huge man hunt underway in afghanistan for bin laden. he helps others in needs i.e tsunami victims, earthquake victims, and so on. if you think kerry or gore could have done a better job ok . im not here to say they wouldnt have. im just saying that i dont believe they could have done it as good. but those are my views you dont have to take them to heart. your probably saying to yourselves that i dont have anything to worry about cuz everyone i know is here in town and safe. our town has sent over 300 overseas to fight. i lost two good friends in the iraqi war. who do i blame? not bush, he wasn't holding the gun that shot my friends, i blame the insurgents that we were fighting against, now my friends that stood by them are helping build schools, libraries, and policing polling areas to help out with the new freedom iraq has thanks to president bush and the iraqi voters. RIP all who give their lives so that we may live another day.

The opinion of Cote d'Azur ( no im not french either )

*snip*
This debate isn't about Iraq, and I can't say that I know if Bush's actions there were for the best. I personally believe that they weren't, but I admit I could be wrong.

What is clear is that Bush's people have broken the law and, in my opinion, the trust of the American people - it is far from honest to hire someone to make you look good.

Do you think it's ok that Bush's people illegally payed for press coverage? Or are you just going to ignore it because you approve of other things Bush has done? Blind loyalty is anathema to a democratic state.

well - fox didnt break this first
and in response to the last post - it looks like this is taxpayers money - umm its sick - is about a hundred times wrose then the reasons for holding impeachment hearings for clinton - but somehow i doubt that even happens - let alone bush actually getting impeached

while if true this is of course a travesty (any time tax payers money is wasted it is a travesty) but this is no way comparible to Clinton.. Clinton spat in the face of all judicial processes when the lied under oath ... The presidency is suppose to be a moral compass from which our citzens to look toward and he has the audacity to lie to a federal judge ? For that purgery alone Clinton should have been impeached.. who cares about his silly misdoings with is secretary or intern or whatever that fat lard was

This debate isn't about Iraq, and I can't say that I know if Bush's actions there were for the best. I personally believe that they weren't, but I admit I could be wrong.

What is clear is that Bush's people have broken the law and, in my opinion, the trust of the American people - it is far from honest to hire someone to make you look good.

Do you think it's ok that Bush's people illegally payed for press coverage? Or are you just going to ignore it because you approve of other things Bush has done? Blind loyalty is anathema to a democratic state.

in retrospect do you think its ok that the Past President Clinton lied to judical forces under oath and directly and blatently to the american people ? This is beyond paying for press coverage but attacks the moral fabric of our governmental institutions.. if impeachment couldn't be brought for this... Impeachment wont even be considered for Bush

in retrospect do you think its ok that the Past President Clinton lied to judical forces under oath and directly and blatently to the american people ? This is beyond paying for press coverage but attacks the moral fabric of our governmental institutions.. if impeachment couldn't be brought for this... Impeachment wont even be considered for Bush

A key diference is that Clinton lied about something that related only to his personal life. Clinton didn't actually do anything illegal. Bush has outright broken the law by paying for this press coverage, and lied or exagerated about matters of national security (like the WMDs in Iraq). To me that seems hugely more serious than what Clinton did.

If you think lying about a private matter is morally worse than intentionally deceiving the American public about people by buying reporters then I think you're nuts. Certainly what Clinton did was bad - especially because it has made it that much easier for Bush to do what he's done.

I agree that impeachment won't even be considered for Bush, but I think that's unfortunate.

A key diference is that Clinton lied about something that related only to his personal life. Clinton didn't actually do anything illegal. Bush has outright broken the law by paying for this press coverage, and lied or exagerated about matters of national security (like the WMDs in Iraq). To me that seems hugely more serious than what Clinton did.

If you think lying about a private matter is morally worse than intentionally deceiving the American public about people by buying reporters then I think you're nuts. Certainly what Clinton did was bad - especially because it has made it that much easier for Bush to do what he's done.

I agree that impeachment won't even be considered for Bush, but I think that's unfortunate.

your missing the bigger issue though.. the crime isn't about the content of which clinton lied about.. but the very fact that he lied under oath.. that itself was a crime of purgery.. a serious crime which would have landed any other citzen in prision for some extended time. I dont think if these allegations are infact true that Bush should go unpunished.. but i DO belive (and I think most every legal expert will agree) Purgery committed by the presidency is far worse then misapropriation of public funds especially in the amount at hand (not even about wide spread corruption)

Quite frankly im shocked you would even consider them on the same level let alone bushs alleged misdoing being worse

Edit: think about it.. he lied under oath about a personal matter which would have produced no legal consequences... how can we after this have been presumed to trust him on matters which WOULD have legal implications ?

Although I was never a big fan of clinton either I do think that it's okay that he lied about a blowjob because his private life should have never been made public in the first place and his indiscretions hurt nobody (except maybe the feelings of his immediate family), where as the Bush administration paying the media to spread propaganda to keep Bush and his policies popular so that he can run this country into the ground with his horrendous environmental, economic and foreign policies and sending our brothers and sisters off to die on mis-information should get Bush locked up nice and tight for the rest of his pathetic life.

Yeah you wont see Bush lying under oath because he refuses to even take the oath. He couldn't even face the 9/11 committee alone because he would have been ripped apart without uncle Dick there to save him. A committe he opposed to even having in the first place. It's interesting how he doesnt care to take any kind of responsibility for mistakes he or his cabinet may have made.

At least Clinton came out and said he lied and he apologized for it.

Although I was never a big fan of clinton either I do think that it's okay that he lied about a blowjob because his private life should have never been made public in the first place and his indiscretions hurt nobody (except maybe the feelings of his immediate family), where as the Bush administration paying the media to spread propaganda to keep Bush and his policies popular so that he can run this country into the ground with his horrendous environmental, economic and foreign policies and sending our brothers and sisters off to die on mis-information should get Bush locked up nice and tight for the rest of his pathetic life.

Yeah you wont see Bush lying under oath because he refuses to even take the oath. He couldn't even face the 9/11 committee alone because he would have been ripped apart without uncle Dick there to save him. A committe he opposed to even having in the first place. It's interesting how he doesnt care to take any kind of responsibility for mistakes he or his cabinet may have made.

At least Clinton came out and said he lied and he apologized for it.

well im glad we are accepting apologies for purgary these days.. its one thing to lie on camera.. quite another to a federal judge.. and Bush shouldn't have succumed to the 9/11 commission because it was a congressional committee and he has to maintain the authoritative power of the exectuive branch. By allowing himself to be interogated by Congress he is lessening the power of the executive branch disturbing the balance of powers. The executive is on the same footing as Congress and does not have to answer to it less offical charges are being made.

Quite frankly I would have rather seen Clinton not take an oath then defile it and the executive branch by spitting in its face and thumbing his nose at our judical system. Besides do you actually think if these allegations are true these so called bought media coverage had any meaningful impact on the election or the acceptance of his policies ? he was getting tremendous media coverage reguardless. The only travesty here is that tax payers money was lost.. not that it isn't lost daily on worthless dead end programs anyway

Sumamba Buwhan has said most of what I was going to anyway, so I won't repeat that. I just wanted to add that i don't think that Bush's dishonesty is any more acceptable because you can't pin a specific lie down. The fact of the matter is that he has intentionally decieved the American people, and if he did a better job lying than Clinton did so that we can't point to a single outright lie, that doesn't count in his favour.

It is blatantly clear that Bush intentionally deceived the American people about a matter of policy, and that is worse than anything Clinton did.

For all his faults, at least Clinton was honest when it mattered.

Sumamba Buwhan has said most of what I was going to anyway, so I won't repeat that. I just wanted to add that i don't think that Bush's dishonesty is any more acceptable because you can't pin a specific lie down. The fact of the matter is that he has intentionally decieved the American people, and if he did a better job lying than Clinton did so that we can't point to a single outright lie, that doesn't count in his favour.

It is blatantly clear that Bush intentionally deceived the American people about a matter of policy, and that is worse than anything Clinton did.

For all his faults, at least Clinton was honest when it mattered.

that is to suggest Clinton came out and repented after realizing he fault... he wasn't honest when it mattered.. he was honest when it was blatently clear he lied.. he was caught with his hand in the cookie jar so to speak.. there is no differenciation here between the two cases other then the fact that Bush MAY have lied to the people.. when clinton lied to the people and a federal judiciary .. which makes it worse

Besides do you actually think if these allegations are true these so called bought media coverage had any meaningful impact on the election or the acceptance of his policies ? he was getting tremendous media coverage reguardless. The only travesty here is that tax payers money was lost.. not that it isn't lost daily on worthless dead end programs anyway

If Bush had little to gain from the extra coverage then why on Earth would he break the law to do it? I think you're just being silly now.

that is to suggest Clinton came out and repented after realizing he fault... he wasn't honest when it mattered.. he was honest when it was blatently clear he lied.. he was caught with his hand in the cookie jar so to speak.. there is no differenciation here between the two cases other then the fact that Bush MAY have lied to the people.. when clinton lied to the people and a federal judiciary .. which makes it worse

By "he was honest when it mattered" I meant that he was honest about matters relevant to his duty as President - unlike Bush.

By "he was honest when it mattered" I meant that he was honest about matters relevant to his duty as President - unlike Bush.

Can you prove that anything Bush said was a deliberate lie?

If you can, you would be the first. And you should work for the media, because they would pay cash for anyone who can prove such a thing.

By "he was honest when it mattered" I meant that he was honest about matters relevant to his duty as President - unlike Bush.

we can never know that since he coudlnt' even be honest about something which would have no legal impact... then how can we trush he was honest in matters which WERE relevant to his duty.. this is why his crime was more severe. if he dosn't even have the sligthest respect for our LEGAL system how can we expect he had similar respect for any system ?

Can you prove that anything Bush said was a deliberate lie?

If you can, you would be the first. And you should work for the media, because they would pay cash for anyone who can prove such a thing.

Well, not an outright deliberate lie, no. On the other hand paying people to say good things about you and not mention they're being payed certainly counts as obvious deliberate deception. Telling people that we're sure Iraq has WMDs when in fact the intelligence is very ambiguous counts as intentionally deceiving too.

It is undeniable that Bush has intentionally deceived the American people on numerous occasions, and, as i said before, if he's too smart to be caught in an outright lie that doesn't make it any better.

Can you tell me that you honestly believe Bush wasn't deliberately deceiving people when he payed for the extra press coverage?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A41077-2004May19.html

This news article (on a different but related issue) provides an interesting slant on things...

"The 16-page legal opinion says that HHS's "video news releases" violated a statute that forbids the use of federal money for propaganda, as well as the Antideficiency Act, which covers the unauthorized use of federal funds."

They make a mistake (or a deliberately misleading word choice for partisan reasons) in this sentence--the GAO is not qualified to make a legal ruling. However, this is the information I was interested in finding--the "news" releases violated use of federal money for covert propaganda and unauthorised use of federal money.


"Administration officials contended they had not erred with the videos, and they predicted that the GAO findings will have no effect on their efforts to implement the Medicare changes -- or on public sentiment. "That's an opinion of the GAO. We don't agree," said Bill Pierce, an HHS spokesman. Pierce said video news releases "are everywhere" in corporate public relations and in the public affairs work of federal agencies. "

"Sen. Frank Lautenberg (D-N.J.) said he is preparing a bill that would require Bush's presidential campaign to reimburse the money. "

I think this is the best idea. I hope Senator Lautenberg's bill passes (assuming it does what he says it will do and not anything else on the side).


Incidentally, can anybody provide me with a source for the law that is supposed to have been broken re. covert propaganda? I'd like to see it for myself.

Ok, you can all hate Bush. It is your right. And even though I think you are most likely high on drugs to hate him, it is your right.

It is also my right to support Bush.


Now all this about Right wing propoganda and what not is BS. And nothing ANYONE has said is solid. Because our nation is full of hate and remorse for stupid reasons NOTHING an anti-Bursh or pro-Bush can say is fully solid.


And on a more right wing note. If you don't like Bush, leave.

Ok, you can all hate Bush. It is your right. And even though I think you are most likely high on drugs to hate him, it is your right.

It is also my right to support Bush.


Now all this about Right wing propoganda and what not is BS. And nothing ANYONE has said is solid. Because our nation is full of hate and remorse for stupid reasons NOTHING an anti-Bursh or pro-Bush can say is fully solid.


And on a more right wing note. If you don't like Bush, leave.

Thankyou, Mr. Lochnagar http+://pagiserver.cz/store/ender/Cave%20troll%202.jpg !

...Thanks for discrediting all the other conservatives on this board. Care to demonstrate the lack of solidity in everybody's posts? Certainly there are plenty that are based on false assumptions etc, but there have been quite a few reasonable things here and there among the anti-bush ravings.

(dunno rules for direct linking here, so didn't direct link)

Can you prove that anything Bush said was a deliberate lie?

If you can, you would be the first. And you should work for the media, because they would pay cash for anyone who can prove such a thing.

I suppose this is why no one in power has actually tried to get him impeached or anything like it yet. Despite all of the masses of circumstantial evidence, tremendous ill-will and clear motives for the deceptions, the burden of proof is very high, especially when impeachment is a political process, not a judicial one as such.. With full control of all major political bodies, the Republican party can effectively block any and all atempts to oust ANY of its members. Let alone a major figure like Bush.

All arguments from insiders who defect come down to simple hearsay, all outside sources can be attacked in the media and pushed aside, all documentation can be discredited, ignored, or simply withstood through political force.

Look at the Abu Graib hearings; Rumsfeld lost some political power, but nothing more. Politically thats simply amazing; any other administration would have been forced to sack SOMEONE, if not entire cabinets after such atrocities were shown so vividly. The Bush administration simply put a gag on Rummy for a few months and waited out the storm of contraversy. Eventually the media got tired and the public stopped caring.

As political infighters, this administration ranks amongst the best of all time. Prosecuting them would be almost impossible even if they were not in full control of Washington; they are. Its fully impossible as is. Right now a "smoking gun" offense like Abu Graib could simply be disregarded as trivial by the administraiton. Its amazing their grip on power is so strong.

*snip*
Scary, isn't it?

All right comrade. Only the Republicans tell the truth in political discusitions....

Now WE look like the bad guys!

Do you think thats what we should be portraing?

I don't, and because I came on as a voice of reason instead of throwing wild accusations, the Republican party dosnt look bad and the Democrats who made accusations to beguin with DO look bad.


But because now Im on a rant:

Ok, so lets say Bush did buy the illegal Propoganda. Is that any worse then what Kerry did? No.

Dose that mask the fact that Kerry has lied about plenty of things? You democrats are sure as heck hopeing it dose.


Also, who really cares if Foxnews is putting out Rightwing Propoganda?

CNN, See BS, and MSNBC seem to like putting out Left Wing Propoganda as far as I can tell... But do you care? No.


So now the big question for all the Democrats out there, why is it ok for some one from your party to do something... but when a Republican dose it, it becomes a crime against God?

. There is an investigation looking into it, to see if there was an illegal activity. If so, hopefully, he'll get impeached

Yeah, and pigs will fly. Are you kidding me? I'll be shocked if they don't find some way for Little Lord Bush to sit a third term!

Anyone know the difference between a President and a President's staff? *raises hand
Anyone know the difference between rumor and truth?
*raises hand

"Bush Administration Pays For Illegal Propaganda"

Imbeciles!
I get my illegal propaganda for free.

Propoganda isnt illegal.

Just saying "Vote for me" is propoganda.


Stop trying to make things look worse then they are because you are mad your party lost.

Shut the hell up and get a clue. I can provide if you desire.
The issue is not whether or not Bush is using Propaganda. EVERYONE uses propaganda. The issue is that he is paying for it with our fucking taxpayer dollars. OUR MONEY! He is spending our money to convince us that he is doing a good job.
You know how these programs were paid for? They were paid for with the cash that comes out of your income at every paycheck. And the cash that comes out of mine.
What he did is blatantly illeagal, and to top it off, he didn't disclose in the reports that they were being payed for by a political party.
NO other president in the history of America has commited this offense.
He should be CAST OUT ON THE STREET on his ASS FOR THIS!

It IS special. And the fact that most of Americans don't seem to care enough to put an end to this kind of things is unbelievable. "well blaah, everybody's doing it..." is not an excuse.

I wonder why you let your government lie to you all the time. Or not always lie, but not tell the truth either. "Everybody does that" seems to be good enough answer to every political problem you have around there.

Actually it's not the first time.... Remember when Clinton lied? Oh wait, after 4 years we forget everything bad that a Democratic president does, but we always remember the Republican faults. I think they're in the Library of Congress or something.

This president is no worse than the last, just in a different way. And what I find more disguisting than the actions of the government, is the actions of citizens to find ANYTHING they can use to deploy their own beliefs upon mainstream media.

I'm not going to pretend to know anything about these "illegal propaganda" allegations but I will tell you one thing. I distrust and loathe the mass media. You would have to do quite a bit to proove this before I would beleive it. and I don't think I'm alone in that respect.

Shut the hell up and get a clue. I can provide if you desire.
The issue is not whether or not Bush is using Propaganda. EVERYONE uses propaganda. The issue is that he is paying for it with our fucking taxpayer dollars. OUR MONEY! He is spending our money to convince us that he is doing a good job.
You know how these programs were paid for? They were paid for with the cash that comes out of your income at every paycheck. And the cash that comes out of mine.
What he did is blatantly illeagal, and to top it off, he didn't disclose in the reports that they were being payed for by a political party.
NO other president in the history of America has commited this offense.
He should be CAST OUT ON THE STREET on his ASS FOR THIS!

Actually, no, he Isn't the first presdent to do so. Check your history books again.Social Security used to be full until (a few years back) a decision was made to spend the "excess" from what was not being sent back to retirees. Hmm... I wonder who made that decision.... Anyone wanna try and guess?

Clinton lied about a blowjob. Bush lied about WMDs. There is a difference there. Also, Bush never got suckered into taking an oath to tell the truth.

Clinton lied about a blowjob. Bush lied about WMDs. There is a difference there. Also, Bush never got suckered into taking an oath to tell the truth.

While we're busy pinning errors of individual departments on the President, let's discuss the late 90s economy, why don't we?

Actually, no, he Isn't the first presdent to do so. Check your history books again.Social Security used to be full until (a few years back) a decision was made to spend the "excess" from what was not being sent back to retirees. Hmm... I wonder who made that decision.... Anyone wanna try and guess?
I fail to see how spending the social security budget has anything to do with funding propaganda with taxpayer dollars.

I fail to see how spending the social security budget has anything to do with funding propaganda with taxpayer dollars.

When Social Security began, it's intended purpose was to fund INDIVIDUAL retirements. You paid in while working, and got YOUR OWN money back.... After so much money was put in, and not so much being withdrawn, an idea "spawned" to spend the 'excess' money since no one would notice. Your tax dollars paid into Social Security were used to Fund Government programs, commercials and conception-designing. Look it up, its really quite interesting.

What is clear is that Bush's people have broken the law and, in my opinion, the trust of the American people - it is far from honest to hire someone to make you look good.Politicians and celebrities have public relations agents in order to make them look good. To spin the media and tell the people what they want them to hear. It's dishonest, but it isn't exactly confined to Bush. The only truly immoral and uncommon thing done here is that these particular pieces of propaganda were sold as real news; nobody watching or listening knew that it was from the Administration itself. It's a form of deception.

while if true this is of course a travesty (any time tax payers money is wasted it is a travesty) but this is no way comparible to Clinton.. Clinton spat in the face of all judicial processes when the lied under oath ... The presidency is suppose to be a moral compass from which our citzens to look toward and he has the audacity to lie to a federal judge ? For that purgery alone Clinton should have been impeached.. who cares about his silly misdoings with is secretary or intern or whatever that fat lard wasHey, hey, I have an idea! It's a great one, too!

STOP LIVING IN THE PAST.

This Clinton stuff is getting old. You know how this works? We talk about THE PRESENT, LIKE WHAT'S GOING ON WITH BUSH, and then you justify it by saying that Clinton did something like it! Does that make what Bush does acceptable? Is it okay? Since Stalin killed millions of his own people, it must have been okay for Hussein to do the same! Gee, now the rationale for war is gone again!

And then we go back and refer to something Reagan did, then you point to Carter, then we point to Nixon, then you point to Kennedy, then we point to Eisenhower, then you point to FDR, then we point do Hoover, then you point to.. to.. who knows! It's useless! It's unproductive! Stick to the issues! Stop whining about something that happened a decade ago.

And Conservatives whine when Democrats gripe over the 2000 election. Pathetic.

This Clinton stuff is getting old. You know how this works? We talk about THE PRESENT, LIKE WHAT'S GOING ON WITH BUSH, and then you justify it by saying that Clinton did something like it! Does that make what Bush does acceptable? Is it okay?

And then we go back and refer to something Reagan did, then you point to Carter, then we point to Nixon, then you point to Kennedy, then we point to Eisenhower, then you point to FDR, then we point do Hoover, then you point to.. to.. who knows! It's useless! It's unproductive! Stick to the issues! Stop whining about something that happened a decade ago.

And Conservatives whine when Democrats gripe over the 2000 election. Pathetic.

It's not a matter of living in the past. It's a matter of using reference to debate a current situation. For example, Bush 'lied' about WMD... a while ago. So it's in the past. So stop mentioning it. Bush "-PAID-" for ads, paid being past tense, meaning in the past. Stop mentioning it. You cannot discount the past simply because it isn't beneficial to your cause....

When Social Security began, it's intended purpose was to fund INDIVIDUAL retirements. You paid in while working, and got YOUR OWN money back.... After so much money was put in, and not so much being withdrawn, an idea "spawned" to spend the 'excess' money since no one would notice. Your tax dollars paid into Social Security were used to Fund Government programs, commercials and conception-designing. Look it up, its really quite interesting.
A misappropriation of funds, yes. But that was while we still had a surplus. And anyway, we are talking about using taxpayer money for personal political gain here, not just misappropriation of funds. We are talking about undeclaired propaganda paid for by you and me.


It's not a matter of living in the past. It's a matter of using reference to debate a current situation. For example, Bush 'lied' about WMD... a while ago. So it's in the past. So stop mentioning it. Bush "-PAID-" for ads, paid being past tense, meaning in the past. Stop mentioning it. You cannot discount the past simply because it isn't beneficial to your cause....
I think what he's saying is that the fact that clinton lied has nothing to do with this debate, and that Bush's crimes are no less because of it.

A misappropriation of funds, yes. But that was while we still had a surplus. And anyway, we are talking about using taxpayer money for personal political gain here, not just misappropriation of funds. We are talking about undeclaired propaganda paid for by you and me.



I think what he's saying is that the fact that clinton lied has nothing to do with this debate, and that Bush's crimes are no less because of it.
Of course, but it was previously mentioned that no president before now used tax dollars for propaganda, which is false. And in order to show it is false, you have to use past references.

In terms of "misappropriation" of funds. I'm sorry, but they didn't misplace the money. They took it out of OUR funds and used it for political and departmental progression. I call that foul, too. I don't think that President Bush should get off for anything illegal he does, but I do not think we should forget that this is not exclusive, and he is not the only "liar" in a political office. If you want to remove someone for lying, we might need to change out the entire Senate, too.

It's not a matter of living in the past. It's a matter of using reference to debate a current situation. For example, Bush 'lied' about WMD... a while ago. So it's in the past. So stop mentioning it. Bush "-PAID-" for ads, paid being past tense, meaning in the past. Stop mentioning it. You cannot discount the past simply because it isn't beneficial to your cause....Bush is relevant to the present. Clinton is not. Arguments based on semantics are not a wise way to go.

My point, Damaica, was that oftentimes Bush's Administration does something I consider morally bankrupt and when it's pointed out, someone is there to mention that Clinton did something similar. Or FDR. Whatever, man. I don't care. The moral permissability of an action is not based on the precedence set by people in a similar position in the past. By mentioning Clinton, the person attempts to justify the action by saying that it has been done in the past, and is thus acceptable. An idea which I think you and I can both agree is full of holes.

Dont you think. know, the game Nation States is full of commies. They will jump down your throat for condemming communism anywhere. You can even say "well in Cambodia under the name of communism 3/4 of thier population was killed." Oh well facts dont matter with liberals.

Nuff said, he put it in a nutshell.

Of course, but it was previously mentioned that no president before now used tax dollars for propaganda, which is false. And in order to show it is false, you have to use past references.
You haven't shown it false yet.
When in the past has a president used tax money for partisan propaganda?

If the allegation really is true ( using taxpayers money)
shouldn't this thread be titled " We pay for illegal propaganda" :D

Bush is relevant to the present. Clinton is not. Arguments based on semantics are not a wise way to go.

My point, Damaica, was that oftentimes Bush's Administration does something I consider morally bankrupt and when it's pointed out, someone is there to mention that Clinton did something similar. Or FDR. Whatever, man. I don't care. The moral permissability of an action is not based on the precedence set by people in a similar position in the past. By mentioning Clinton, the person attempts to justify the action by saying that it has been done in the past, and is thus acceptable. An idea which I think you and I can both agree is full of holes.

Completely. Unfortunately, this is a mutual aspect for both liberal and conservative debate tactics. The biggest problem is, though, that too many people criticize a president, even when rumors and lies are proven to be just that. And I am not referring to any President, this was a problem in the 90s, too. There's nothing wrong with pointy out an action of a President. But every single action one does not like is being twisted to an extreme. Each thing a President does is something that he/she should be impeached for. Personally, I'd like to see the (R)s go with a male candidate with a female runningmate. I'd like to see how hard people look for loopholes and lies in that. >.> Same for (D)s, who might throw a female for candidate. I doubt America will have a female President voted in in 2008, but I think that in the next 5 years, both parties are going to be seeing a lot of changes in one another. This might help calm things down?

You haven't shown it false yet.
When in the past has a president used tax money for partisan propaganda?

No, because I challenged others to do the research. Too many of these posters find the first site on google they agree with and discount the rest. I'm a military man. I know some things, but I don't have enough time to cite everything. In fact, this is my last post, as I have a mission to get back to.

If the allegation really is true ( using taxpayers money)
shouldn't this thread be titled " We pay for illegal propaganda"
No, it should be titled "Bush pays for illegal propaganda with our money."

I don't, and because I came on as a voice of reason instead of throwing wild accusations, the Republican party dosnt look bad and the Democrats who made accusations to beguin with DO look bad.

You need spell check :P

But because now Im on a rant:

Ok, so lets say Bush did buy the illegal Propoganda. Is that any worse then what Kerry did? No.

Dose that mask the fact that Kerry has lied about plenty of things? You democrats are sure as heck hopeing it dose.

Kerry isn't President...Bush is President, Presidents are held to a higher standard than Senators. It is just the way it is.
Tell me about these lies that are as bad as what Bush did please?

Also, who really cares if Foxnews is putting out Rightwing Propoganda?

CNN, See BS, and MSNBC seem to like putting out Left Wing Propoganda as far as I can tell... But do you care? No.


So now the big question for all the Democrats out there, why is it ok for some one from your party to do something... but when a Republican dose it, it becomes a crime against God?

Fox admittig they do it is bad.
MSNBC isn't close to left wing, have you seen Scourbrough Country? Yeesh, some people are ignorant.

Tell me when Democrats used tax payer money to do what Republicans did?

No, because I challenged others to do the research. Too many of these posters find the first site on google they agree with and discount the rest. I'm a military man. I know some things, but I don't have enough time to cite everything. In fact, this is my last post, as I have a mission to get back to.
Yeah, 'cause I really have time to go research my points and all of yours too.
On a lighter note, good luck on this mission of yours. ;)

Yes, these endorsements are somewhat dubious, and in the case of the NCLB bit, possibly illegal. But the person who decided to pay the pundit isn't even in charge of the education department any more. And, despite your personal opinion, you don't have the evidence you need to say Bush personally put money into this. I'm not saying he didn't, I'm just saying you're being inaccurate. And it's far from an impeachable offense anyway.

what has all of this dribble accomplished.. there is ZERO evidence to suggest Bush was in anyway connected to either of these incidents.. there are no motives strong enough to make me or most people belive that bush would feel he had to pay 21,000 ? to get some columist to propgate his ideas.. he is the president ... he can go on camara and fart and make headlines ... any policy he suggests is going to get limitless coverage and have supporters on both sides thanks to partisianship. so he will suddenly sacrifice everything to pay 21,000 dollars to some columist ? that makes sense.

This is just bush haters sucking dry any opprotunity to make look bush like the devil himself and quite frankly its old. And i only brought up clinton because some people had the audacity to say these allegations (with no creidble proof) was infact worse then the president of the US who was caught and admited to thumbing his nose at our very judical system by lying to the federal judiciary.

again i say ZERO evidence of any type linking Bush to these allegations of having clear and willing knoweldge to commit fraud and engage in what could be nothing less the bribary.

Actually it's not the first time.... Remember when Clinton lied? Oh wait, after 4 years we forget everything bad that a Democratic president does, but we always remember the Republican faults. I think they're in the Library of Congress or something.

This president is no worse than the last, just in a different way. And what I find more disguisting than the actions of the government, is the actions of citizens to find ANYTHING they can use to deploy their own beliefs upon mainstream media.
You're doing exactly what I said. Somehow you misunderstood my post as anti-Bush and say that Democrats are just as bad. Well that's no excuse. You still should do something about it. Bashing others is not the way to solve your political problems. Don't let them lie (not to tell the truth) to you. By them I mean both Republicans AND Democrats.

But as Niccolo Medici already wrote, it maybe impossible to force anyone in government to take any responsibility of their actions.

e: oh well, shouldn't have written this, sorry about bumbing.

You're doing exactly what I said. Somehow you misunderstood my post as anti-Bush and say that Democrats are just as bad. Well that's no excuse. You still should do something about it. Bashing others is not the way to solve your political problems. Don't let them lie (not to tell the truth) to you. By them I mean both Republicans AND Democrats.

But as Niccolo Medici already wrote, it maybe impossible to force anyone in government to take any responsibility of their actions.

e: oh well, shouldn't have written this, sorry about bumbing.

While you would have us running to Bush's front door breaking it down with an axe and throwin him in prision for as long as the law allows (or forever depending if your liberal or conservative) unlike with the Clinton case.. there is NO direct evidience of wrong doing on Bush's part and there is no ominise ommission of error. So why should we all be running to place blame ? The right forces are probably already moving on this doing their own investigations.. if more comes from it and a direct link can be made.. then im all for blame and all for trials.. but until then (innocent until proven guilty still applies)

While you would have us running to Bush's front door breaking it down with an axe and throwin him in prision for as long as the law allows (or forever depending if your liberal or conservative) ...
WTF? Do I make posts without realising it? Is there another Helioterra or what the hell you're talking about?

I don't know enough about the situation to comment, but I believe you are correct. Those who knew of it and did nothing, or participated in it are guilty; those who did not are innocent.

If you have links or quotes of sources that I could use, I could make a better conclusion on this; at the moment, for all I know I could be agreeing with a strawman fallacy. Such links or quotes would be appriciated.
There's an investigation. It's very clear that either his Secretaries did this on their own or Bush ordered it, himself. Because they're really the only ones that could (or would) order something like this. Even Bush's comments (from the Fox News article) seem to imply he thinks his secretaries are guilty.

"All our Cabinet secretaries must realize that we will not be paying commentators to advance our agenda. Our agenda ought to be able to stand on its own two feet."

The Education Secretary, Rod Paige, was part of the contract for NCLB. Part of the deal was that Armstrong Williams would interview him in exchange for being paid (according to the USA Today article). So, obviously, the Education Secretary must've known about it. The second journalist was working directly under the Assistant Secretary of Health and Human Services. So, at the very at least both the Education Secretary and Assistant Secretary of HHS are guilty, if not Bush as well. But I question the validity and thoroughness of the actual investigation, since it's being done by the FCC, rather than the FBI. Technically, it's within both departments' jurisdiction. I'd rather have the FBI, or at least both, doing investigations into this. Like many people, I don't trust the FCC.

He has freed a country from a tyrant leader.
Both the U.N. and China have issued reports that there are enormous human rights abuses in Iraq, and really have not changed. Hussein was an oppressive dictator, but like rogue nations on Nationstates, he gave his people a fair amount of freedom "as long as they didn't step out of line." If you opposed the government, you'd disappear. The Shah of Iran was the same way, but we kept him in power (which is why the people that overthrew him currently hate us). The fact that thousands of Iraqis have been killed and there is currently a brutal war in Iraq, with corrupt, American soldiers arresting and torturing innocent people, we have done very little. Recently, several officials in the new Iraqi government have said that Bush and Blair are war criminals... and these are the people we supposedly "freed." France and Italy also continue to criticize us over human rights abuses. Our relations with Germany have been damaged, as well, from the discovery of the innocent German, imprisoned by the U.S. in Guantanamo.

he has a huge man hunt underway in afghanistan for bin laden.
What manhunt? When the President was asked, not too long ago, if they were going to find Bin Laden, he was quoted as saying, "I don't know where Bin Laden is. I don't care. It's not a priority."

he helps others in needs i.e tsunami victims, earthquake victims, and so on.
What did Bush donate to the tsunami victims? Like.. $15,000? That only adds insult to injury. Our navy was aware of the tsunami before it hit, but they notified no one. They officially claim that they had no means of contacting the Thai government, but I find that to be highly improbable. You mean, with the U.S.'s great resources, and the fact that we put more money into our military than any country in the world---there are STIL L some countries that it takes a while, for us to contact? No way. With satellite phones, internet, and foreign embassies, this is not likely. I don't buy the conspiracy theories that the government caused it, but it's clear to me that they did not notify Thailand, though I don't know why.

our town has sent over 300 overseas to fight. i lost two good friends in the iraqi war. who do i blame? not bush, he wasn't holding the gun that shot my friends
No, but he sent them to a war over oil and has also cut military benefits. In order to pay for the war, Bush also cut several benefits (though I don't remember them offhand). This angered a lot of people, but they felt that Bush had turned their backs on them. First, there was the scandal with not paying for body armor and then he cuts benefits? It was a slap in the face.

i blame the insurgents that we were fighting against, now my friends that stood by them are helping build schools, libraries, and policing polling areas to help out with the new freedom iraq has thanks to president bush and the iraqi voters.
Iraq already had schools, libaries, and police. This ignorance in America severely botehrs me. Iraq did not look like Tattooine from Star Wars. If you've seen "Fahrenheit 9\11", you'll see footage of Iraq before the war. It's rarely shown, because we'd like to all think the place had no freedom. But no, they had barber shops, restaurants, library, schools. They were just ruled by a dictator who didn't allow freedom of speech or the press. As long as you didn't oppose the goverment, you were fine. Although this is wrong, this is no reason to go to war. There are many countries much worse than Iraq. And like I said, the Shah of Iran, who we defended, was no different.

A key diference is that Clinton lied about something that related only to his personal life. Clinton didn't actually do anything illegal.
No, it's "technically" legal. I mean, if they sub-poena you and ask you, "DID YOU EVER LET A DOG LICK YOUR TESTACLES?", even though it's none of their business, if the judge thinks it's relevant and you lie, it's perjury.

Bush has outright broken the law by paying for this press coverage, and lied or exagerated about matters of national security (like the WMDs in Iraq).
I agree. And Blair as well. If you follow the British news, there's been substantial evidence that Blair's administration knew the WMD argument was nonsense and that the war wasn't legal.

Ok, you can all hate Bush. It is your right. And even though I think you are most likely high on drugs to hate him, it is your right.

It is also my right to support Bush.


Now all this about Right wing propoganda and what not is BS. And nothing ANYONE has said is solid. Because our nation is full of hate and remorse for stupid reasons NOTHING an anti-Bursh or pro-Bush can say is fully solid.


And on a more right wing note. If you don't like Bush, leave.
Yes, this is why I'm leaving America. In America, there is a plethora of people who enjoy being willfully ignorant. They are easily swayed by patriotism, religion, and emotion, unable to think rationally or logically. Anyone can clearly see, from the allegations brought forth, that even though it may not illegal on a technicality, it certainly is unethical enough that it should be.

All right comrade. Only the Republicans tell the truth in political discusitions....

Now WE look like the bad guys!

Do you think thats what we should be portraing?

I don't, and because I came on as a voice of reason instead of throwing wild accusations, the Republican party dosnt look bad and the Democrats who made accusations to beguin with DO look bad.


But because now Im on a rant:

Ok, so lets say Bush did buy the illegal Propoganda. Is that any worse then what Kerry did? No.

Dose that mask the fact that Kerry has lied about plenty of things? You democrats are sure as heck hopeing it dose.


Also, who really cares if Foxnews is putting out Rightwing Propoganda?

CNN, See BS, and MSNBC seem to like putting out Left Wing Propoganda as far as I can tell... But do you care? No.


So now the big question for all the Democrats out there, why is it ok for some one from your party to do something... but when a Republican dose it, it becomes a crime against God?
MSNBC and CNN, no. CNN has done very little reports on Iraq, vote fraud, and prison torture. If they had a liberal slant, they'd have mentioned a great deal more of it. As for MSNBC, the way that they covered the Schiavo case throws the "liberal bias" argument out the window. But yes, CBS is very liberally biased.

Propoganda isnt illegal.
Propaganda is illegal. In fact, this further adds to the argument that Bush is a fascist. Among the defining characteristics of fascism, a fascist stirs nationalism (patriotism), manipulates people through using religion as a political tool, and spreads propaganda. You see, it's one thing if independent groups, like CBS or Fox, spread propaganda. But if the government does it, that's bad.

We're becoming like China, Communist Europe, Cuba, or pre-war Iraq.. where the media, controlled by the government constantly tells us how great the government is. Putting forth decieving messages or lies through the mass media is a crime, not for regular citizens, but definitely politicians. Because, in being our leaders, they are held to higher moral standards, due to holding such immense power.

Actually it's not the first time.... Remember when Clinton lied?
Lying about oral sex is nothing compared to lying, in order to start an unjustified war, while also paying journalists to compliment your leadership.

what has all of this dribble accomplished.. there is ZERO evidence to suggest Bush was in anyway connected to either of these incidents..
I agree. But even if he wasn't aware of what was going on, one or two members of his cabinet were. Not only does that show you how corrupt the American government is, but it also makes the President seem incompetent. He "didn't know" black votes were being thrown out. He "didn't know" that Saddam had no WMDs. He "didn't know" about the prison torture. He "didn't know" his own advisors were spreading propaganda. I am worried about what, in the future, Bush will be conveniently ignorant of.

But even if he wasn't aware of what was going on, one or two members of his cabinet were. Not only does that show you how corrupt the American government is, but it also makes the President seem incompetent. He "didn't know" black votes were being thrown out. He "didn't know" that Saddam had no WMDs. He "didn't know" about the prison torture. He "didn't know" his own advisors were spreading propaganda. I am worried about what, in the future, Bush will be conveniently ignorant of.

John Kerry was unaware that leaders of the Ohio Democratic Party in cooperation with the Ohio NAACP were giving crack to people in order to register them to vote. The people involved have admitted what they were doing. Kerry said he had no idea. What else was Kerry conveniently ignorant of?

A good leader always delegates, and NEVER knows the details below. That's why he tries to pick good people - and out of many people, some will fail to be good. A poor leader - in fact a catastrophic leader - is a micromanager. Want to know why the raid in Somalia was a disaster? Because it was micromanaged in advance - crippling any possibility that it could succeed.

John Kerry was unaware that leaders of the Ohio Democratic Party in cooperation with the Ohio NAACP were giving crack to people in order to register them to vote. The people involved have admitted what they were doing. Kerry said he had no idea. What else was Kerry conveniently ignorant of?
Kerry is not the head of the NAACP, nor the Democratic Party, therefore that is irrelevant.

The President's job is leadership of the entire country. He is the 'head of state', unlike John Kerry who is neither the head of the NAACP, nor the DNC, therefore, not responsible, whatsoever.

A good leader always delegates, and NEVER knows the details below.
That's not a leader. That's a lame duck. You have to know the details below to delegate properly.

A poor leader - in fact a catastrophic leader - is a micromanager. Want to know why the raid in Somalia was a disaster? Because it was micromanaged in advance - crippling any possibility that it could succeed.
A good leader stays on top of things and knows what's going on. He picks individuals he's sure he can depend on. I'm not suggesting micromanagement, but lack of oversight, lack of knowing your associates, and constantly using "plausible deniability" are signs of poor leadership.

If I was a military general at war and constantly, people were killed, and my only excuse was, "Well.. I didn't know the enemy was there", or, "I didn't read that report", you bet your ass I'd be demoted real quick. This mention of 'micromanagement' is nonsense. Micromanagement is telling them what to do. I'm simply suggesting he be aware of what they're doing. Bush didn't even have any idea of what their project was, apparently. Having his cabinet tell him what they're spending money on would be important and having Bush simply meet with his cabinet is not micromanagement. Bush's cabinet are Presidential advisors, not puppetmasters, meant to run the government for him.

Kerry is not the head of the NAACP, nor the Democratic Party, therefore that is irrelevant.

The President's job is leadership of the entire country. He is the 'head of state', unlike John Kerry who is neither the head of the NAACP, nor the DNC, therefore, not responsible, whatsoever.

Kerry's people. They were working for him, working to get him elected. He should have known, by your standards. By my standards, I would be willing to give him a pass.


That's not a leader. That's a lame duck. You have to know the details below to delegate properly.
No, I don't need to know the details. I tell people "what" I want done - not "how" to do it.


A good leader stays on top of things and knows what's going on. He picks individuals he's sure he can depend on. I'm not suggesting micromanagement, but lack of oversight, lack of knowing your associates, and constantly using "plausible deniability" are signs of poor leadership.
Then Bush is way ahead of Clinton in the individuals you can trust department.

If I was a military general at war and constantly, people were killed, and my only excuse was, "Well.. I didn't know the enemy was there", or, "I didn't read that report", you bet your ass I'd be demoted real quick. This mention of 'micromanagement' is nonsense. Micromanagement is telling them what to do. I'm simply suggesting he be aware of what they're doing. Bush didn't even have any idea of what their project was, apparently. Having his cabinet tell him what they're spending money on would be important and having Bush simply meet with his cabinet is not micromanagement. Bush's cabinet are Presidential advisors, not puppetmasters, meant to run the government for him.

Clinton and Albright decided that they would tell the Rangers in Somalia exactly what equipment they would be permitted to use - after General Garrison had already drawn up a plan that included the use of an AC-130 to put precision fire support on target and the use of US armored vehicles for the exfiltration. Clinton micromanaged it - he told them "how" it would be done - which resulted in a lot of people getting killed.

I have the impression that Bush says, "get my message out", and he leaves it up to them how to do it. Clinton said, "I want Aidid", and, "oh, by the way, I want you to send 100 lightly armed men into the middle of 5000 armed Somalis in unarmored helicopters so that we don't offend their sensibilities with the presence of armored vehicles, and no, you can't have any fire support, because no matter how many of your men get killed, or ripped limb from limb by Somalis on television, I don't want to have the bad PR from the sight of a tank on the street in Mogadishu. That, and I don't care if all your men get killed."

Getting back to the original point of this thread, and adding a bit of topical light-hearted relief:
http://images.ucomics.com/comics/tt/2005/tt050316.gif

Clinton lied about a blowjob. Bush lied about WMDs. There is a difference there. Also, Bush never got suckered into taking an oath to tell the truth.


Bush lied about WMDs... As well as Bill Clinton, Al Gore, John Kerry and several members of the Clinton administration.

Watch this.

http://www.flashbunny.org/content/misled.html

"Quote:
Originally Posted by Lochnagar
Ok, you can all hate Bush. It is your right. And even though I think you are most likely high on drugs to hate him, it is your right.

It is also my right to support Bush.


Now all this about Right wing propoganda and what not is BS. And nothing ANYONE has said is solid. Because our nation is full of hate and remorse for stupid reasons NOTHING an anti-Bursh or pro-Bush can say is fully solid.


And on a more right wing note. If you don't like Bush, leave.
----------------------------------------------------------

Yes, this is why I'm leaving America. In America, there is a plethora of people who enjoy being willfully ignorant. They are easily swayed by patriotism, religion, and emotion, unable to think rationally or logically. Anyone can clearly see, from the allegations brought forth, that even though it may not illegal on a technicality, it certainly is unethical enough that it should be.
---------------------------------------------------------------------

Ok bye, please forget to write.

Because I dont like people who are greedy and hate there own nation screwing up my contry.

And also, ETHICS!?

Sence when dose a Democrat give a rats arse about ethics?

Isn't that too Fudimentalist for you?

-----------------------------------------------------------
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lochnagar
All right comrade. Only the Republicans tell the truth in political discusitions....

Now WE look like the bad guys!

Do you think thats what we should be portraing?

I don't, and because I came on as a voice of reason instead of throwing wild accusations, the Republican party dosnt look bad and the Democrats who made accusations to beguin with DO look bad.


But because now Im on a rant:

Ok, so lets say Bush did buy the illegal Propoganda. Is that any worse then what Kerry did? No.

Dose that mask the fact that Kerry has lied about plenty of things? You democrats are sure as heck hopeing it dose.


Also, who really cares if Foxnews is putting out Rightwing Propoganda?

CNN, See BS, and MSNBC seem to like putting out Left Wing Propoganda as far as I can tell... But do you care? No.


So now the big question for all the Democrats out there, why is it ok for some one from your party to do something... but when a Republican dose it, it becomes a crime against God?
---------------------------------------------------------------------

MSNBC and CNN, no. CNN has done very little reports on Iraq, vote fraud, and prison torture. If they had a liberal slant, they'd have mentioned a great deal more of it. As for MSNBC, the way that they covered the Schiavo case throws the "liberal bias" argument out the window. But yes, CBS is very liberally biased.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

You still didn't answer*SP* my question...
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lochnagar
Propoganda isnt illegal.
-------------------------------------------------------

Propaganda is illegal. In fact, this further adds to the argument that Bush is a fascist. Among the defining characteristics of fascism, a fascist stirs nationalism (patriotism), manipulates people through using religion as a political tool, and spreads propaganda. You see, it's one thing if independent groups, like CBS or Fox, spread propaganda. But if the government does it, that's bad.

We're becoming like China, Communist Europe, Cuba, or pre-war Iraq.. where the media, controlled by the government constantly tells us how great the government is. Putting forth decieving messages or lies through the mass media is a crime, not for regular citizens, but definitely politicians. Because, in being our leaders, they are held to higher moral standards, due to holding such immense power.

--------------------------------------------------------------------

No... Because John Kerry also used propoganda...

Saying "Vote for me" is propoganda...

Saying all this anti Bush crap is PROPOGANDA!

So you must be a fascist too...

yeah, how quickly we forget.

"Clinton and Albright decided that they would tell the Rangers in Somalia exactly what equipment they would be permitted to use - after General Garrison had already drawn up a plan that included the use of an AC-130 to put precision fire support on target and the use of US armored vehicles for the exfiltration. Clinton micromanaged it - he told them "how" it would be done - which resulted in a lot of people getting killed.

I have the impression that Bush says, "get my message out", and he leaves it up to them how to do it. Clinton said, "I want Aidid", and, "oh, by the way, I want you to send 100 lightly armed men into the middle of 5000 armed Somalis in unarmored helicopters so that we don't offend their sensibilities with the presence of armored vehicles, and no, you can't have any fire support, because no matter how many of your men get killed, or ripped limb from limb by Somalis on television, I don't want to have the bad PR from the sight of a tank on the street in Mogadishu. That, and I don't care if all your men get killed."



That statement was gold. And you deserve a gold star for rubing that into there faces.

A good friend of mine lost his dad to another one of Clintions big mistakes.

why do we always have to turn things like this into gay left vs right - democrats vs republican things - its an illegal use of tax dollars - your counter arguement shouldnt be about clinton - no matter what your politics you should be able to see that this is a gross mis-use of tax money and not in the best interest of democracy

why do we always have to turn things like this into gay left vs right - democrats vs republican things - its an illegal use of tax dollars - your counter arguement shouldnt be about clinton - no matter what your politics you should be able to see that this is a gross mis-use of tax money and not in the best interest of democracy


good point - we should look at it like this: The Republican party illegally misused taxpayer dollars to fund propaganda to get public opinion on their side for their agendas. So anyone we can find responsible for this should be heavily publicly and the Republican party should have to pay the money back.

Lochnagar, apparently you can barely read because I already said this. It's not that it's propaganda, it's that it is payed for by taxpayer dollars (our money) and undeclaired. (It's an advertisement that acts like a news report.)
Bush may as well have reached into the collective wallets of American citizens to pay for this propaganda, which he then tried to pass off as news.

And as far as leadership goes, if i'm a president and I tell my soldiers to "go capture that village" And they nuke it and the innocent civilians inside of it to the ground and capture the remains, I can hardly claim that It isn't my fault because I didn't know. Bush has a RESPONSIBILITY to know. IT IS HIS JOB!

Cape, you didn't read what I said. "She" did not support No Child Left Behind.

Armstrong Williams was the one that was paid to support No Child Left Behind, not Maggie Gallagher. Feil skimmed the article, then hypocritically accused us of not reading it.

Pardon me, but the two of you are the ones with your heads up your asses, if you can't see how blatantly illegal this is, and how Bush is brainwashing America. You're frightened to death by college professors, but the President putting out fake news reports and paying talkshow hosts seems to be okay to you.

And Terri Schiavo is irrelevant. Let her rest in peace. Tom DeLay pulled the plug on his own father. It's hypocritical how Conservatives say people can only have value, if they're "producers" (thus making Mexicans' and Africans' lives worthless), but some half-dead, Christian zombie is more important than billions of starving children. You'll protest and get arrested for her, but you won't protest the government for refusing to give Africa foreign aid or stop the diamond industry from funding their oppressive regimes.
Ka-POW! :sniper:
You ROCK!

Clinton spat in the face of all judicial processes when the lied under oath ... The presidency is suppose to be a moral compass from which our citzens to look toward and he has the audacity to lie to a federal judge ?
Whoa, the glistening irony. :rolleyes:
Here ....
The presidency is suppose to be a moral compass from which our citzens to look toward
Bullsh*t. If he's there as a moral compass you're so lost in the woods already that you might as well slather yourself with baste and ante up to the beasts of the wild since you're too stupid to have thought your way out of this problem in the first place.
A moral compass itself wouldn't already go whichever way the $ BLOWS HIM. Audacious, hardly .... they didn't exchange money for it. Clinton was just stupid to let down his guard and think that the rightwing insidious motherf*ckers would actually let him rest on his own merits of his own job, and ignore whatever he diddled on the side. Yeah, that was stupid. That was also then. This is now. I didn't pay for the blowjob, I PAID FOR THAT STUPID F*CKING INVESTIGATION. A lot of us did, who didn't want to.

your missing the bigger issue though.. the crime isn't about the content of which clinton lied about.. but the very fact that he lied under oath.. that itself was a crime of purgery.. a serious crime which would have landed any other citzen in prision for some extended time. I dont think if these allegations are infact true that Bush should go unpunished.. but i DO belive (and I think most every legal expert will agree) Purgery committed by the presidency is far worse then misapropriation of public funds especially in the amount at hand (not even about wide spread corruption)

Quite frankly im shocked you would even consider them on the same level let alone bushs alleged misdoing being worse

Edit: think about it.. he lied under oath about a personal matter which would have produced no legal consequences... how can we after this have been presumed to trust him on matters which WOULD have legal implications ?
Why in the f*ck would anyone with a legal degree (noting their EXPERTISE) side with a wholly disproportionate OPINION about that? It was personal with Clinton. It's public and financial with BushCo, AND illegal. You're WAY off base here. Don't try and rope legal experts in with your horseplop. That's a sad beg.
Well, at least you're shocked, that's a good start, maybe you'll pay better attention to the situation.

why do we always have to turn things like this into gay left vs right - democrats vs republican things - its an illegal use of tax dollars - your counter arguement shouldnt be about clinton - no matter what your politics you should be able to see that this is a gross mis-use of tax money and not in the best interest of democracyI tried to make this point a bit ago. It doesn't matter. Nobody cares. More important than corruption and the truth is defending your side and attacking the other side; that's how you know who's with you and who's against you, after all.

Sad, huh?

well - fox didnt break this first
and in response to the last post - it looks like this is taxpayers money - umm its sick - is about a hundred times wrose then the reasons for holding impeachment hearings for clinton - but somehow i doubt that even happens - let alone bush actually getting impeached
But Kerry owning Heinz coporation and possibly putting workers in jepordy because of conflict of interest is not sick?

Comeon think about it, you work for a big-wig conglomerate like Heiz, they find out you vote for the other guy, do you think for one second they won't find some way to fire you and blame it on some inane bullshit?

Your accusations against Bush are menial and petty at best and just plain wrong at worst, give it up, George W. is no prize winner, but compared to alot of the politicians out there he's all we got!

we can never know that since he coudlnt' even be honest about something which would have no legal impact... then how can we trush he was honest in matters which WERE relevant to his duty.. this is why his crime was more severe. if he dosn't even have the sligthest respect for our LEGAL system how can we expect he had similar respect for any system ?
Actually, this is following the "perpetual victimhood" mentality of people who get stunned once by reality and then try to make every thing that follows the fault of the impetus, to lesser or greater degree. Sounds like some emotional maturity needs to be reached before this debate gets much further ... oh wait, you stated that your president should be a moral leader for (you)? Well it's fairly obvious then that the current agenda's public-state "morals" suit (you) nicely in a way (you) don't have to think about too deep, whereas a relatively unimportant public moral transgression from before (impetus) should be blamed right through everytime this subject comes up?
Sound familiar? That's right every little f*cking problem we've been dealing with w/Bush has been because Clinton f*cked it up first ... right.

All that most anti Bush people have said sence my last post was this.

"Clinton did something bad but he is not immportant because he is a Democrat."


Useing Taxmoney to pay for propaganda is not as bad as Black Hawk down because no one died from some propoganda. But because Clinton was responsable for BHD then it can be pushed aside because its "not important to the issue."




Here is the real issue here. Bush did something that ANY Democrat would have gotten away with. *I mean come on, any of the Kennedys would be able to get away with murder.*

Admit it, if it were Kerry in this position right now.


YOU WOULDN'T CARE.

But Kerry owning Heinz coporation and possibly putting workers in jepordy because of conflict of interest is not sick?

Comeon think about it, you work for a big-wig conglomerate like Heiz, they find out you vote for the other guy, do you think for one second they won't find some way to fire you and blame it on some inane bullshit?

Your accusations against Bush are menial and petty at best and just plain wrong at worst, give it up, George W. is no prize winner, but compared to alot of the politicians out there he's all we got!John Kerry's wife owns a large share of Heinz. Not Kerry. His wife. Pay closer attention to what you're saying before you demean someone else; it actually makes you look a little odd.

All that most anti Bush people have said sence my last post was this.

"Clinton did something bad but he is not immportant because he is a Democrat."No. We have said that party is irrelevant. That truth is what is most important, because it is the foundation of a democracy. Tell me, is English your first language?


Useing Taxmoney to pay for propaganda is not as bad as Black Hawk down because no one died from some propoganda. But because Clinton was responsable for BHD then it can be pushed aside because its "not important to the issue."Nobody has said that. That was in the past. We're currently concerned with something we can actually do something about, Lochnagar. Truman dropped the bomb on Japan; if we think that's wrong does that mean we should spend our time whining about that when there are issues facing us in the present? No. That's stupid. Get over Clinton.




Here is the real issue here. Bush did something that ANY Democrat would have gotten away with. *I mean come on, any of the Kennedys would be able to get away with murder.*

Admit it, if it were Kerry in this position right now.


YOU WOULDN'T CARE.Prove it. Otherwise, stop being such a dismissive bigot.

because I came on as a voice of reason instead of throwing wild accusations, the Republican party dosnt look bad and the Democrats who made accusations to beguin with DO look bad.
Okay ...
>EGO CHECK<
Here's your "voice of reason":
Ok, you can all hate Bush. It is your right. And even though I think you are most likely high on drugs to hate him, it is your right.

It is also my right to support Bush.


Now all this about Right wing propoganda and what not is BS. And nothing ANYONE has said is solid. Because our nation is full of hate and remorse for stupid reasons NOTHING an anti-Bursh or pro-Bush can say is fully solid.


And on a more right wing note. If you don't like Bush, leave.

I guess this is more qualified as "voice of YOUR reason".


Also, who really cares if Foxnews is putting out Rightwing Propoganda?

What is the topic of this thread? What don't you understand about the discourse and dissent here? A lot of people don't agree with paying for someone else's bullsh*t, and when it involves these angles it demonstrates quite clearly the potential of corruption as well as its obvious follow-through of such.

BRING US...
ANOTHER SHRUBBERY!!
http://bau2.uibk.ac.at/sg/python/Scripts/HolyGrail/jpgs/13-headk.jpg


NI... NI... NI!

bah! - you've countered my point with something about kerry again! we're talking about about this current mis-use of tax money by bush -

- and further more... kerry doesnt own heinz - and by that logic no one who owns a company could ever run for president

While we're busy pinning errors of individual departments on the President, let's discuss the late 90s economy, why don't we?
No, let's not. Let's deal with the thread topic. Mind your manners. If you want 90's economies, especially ones that lead to SURPLUSES, go to some other thread or start one. In the meantime, let's discuss the issue at hand.

booyah!

this is how it has been since Bush and his bumbling presidency

lets dismiss it all and talk endless shit about Clinton and what Kerry or Gore might have done so we don't have to admit any mistakes or corruption on our side - just like our hero Mr Bush.

Acculy... English is my 2nd language... I'm of Russian decent. Although my room mate is English.


And so once again, all that you all have done is try to hide/cover up/ignore a mistake made by Clinton...

Once again, you are feeling uncomfortable with someone putting a stain on your argument so you make the claim that "nothing can be done about Clinton" or "This is about BUSH and Clinton is not important for this conversation"


So ok, we can now all get to see the way your little game is played.


Ohh well... So I geuss Democrats really are above the law. They have the money to be.

Acculy... English is my 2nd language... I'm of Russian decent. Although my room mate is English.


And so once again, all that you all have done is try to hide/cover up/ignore a mistake made by Clinton...

Once again, you are feeling uncomfortable with someone putting a stain on your argument so you make the claim that "nothing can be done about Clinton" or "This is about BUSH and Clinton is not important for this conversation"


So ok, we can now all get to see the way your little game is played.


Ohh well... So I geuss Democrats really are above the law. They have the money to be.
Back to 6th grade debate forum for you. It isn't a strain for you to smokescreen and obscure the issue, it's merely a limp-dick hijack attempt. Deal with the subject matter for what it's worth and then go ahead and start your own thread about your "perceptions" of things.

Acculy... English is my 2nd language... I'm of Russian decent. Although my room mate is English.I see. Well, you write English pretty well. But you seem to have trouble reading it sometimes.


And so once again, all that you all have done is try to hide/cover up/ignore a mistake made by Clinton...

Once again, you are feeling uncomfortable with someone putting a stain on your argument so you make the claim that "nothing can be done about Clinton" or "This is about BUSH and Clinton is not important for this conversation"Okay, whatever. Clinton did whatever you said, Lochnagar. Know what? I don't care. He killed a million babies, is responsible for everything bad that ever happened in the 90s, had as many extramarital affairs as he could, lied every time he was on television or under oath, is responsible for the dip in the economy at the turn of the century, violated every principle of our democracy and constitution and sacrificed virgins to the devil.

Now can you please, for the LOVE OF GOD AND EVERYTHING THAT'S HOLY, forget about him and talk about GEORGE WALKER BUSH?! Is that so god damn hard? Is it impossible to talk about his flaws without talking about William Jefferson Clinton?! I admit to everything you ever say about Clinton! I don't care! Hear that? I don't give a flying fuck anymore! What's important to this country right now is the actions of the CURRENT ADMINISTRATION! Does that even make sense to you? That the present is what is most relevant, since you can affect it, as opposed to the past? Jesus Christ on a cracker! Why is everyone so DENSE?!

-snip-

The only way these hardliners can attempt to argue is by bringing up Clinton. They have nothing else...

Personally, I feel less offended by the money used than I do by the way Bush abused our trust like that.

Imagine getting into a Catholic confession booth and hearing Bush on the other side. Or going to the doctor because you're not feeling well, and it's actually Bush there instead of a real, qualified doctor. Or, imagine calling technical support because your computer is on the fritz and hearing Bush answer the fone.

It's exactly like that. It's as if we went to a school district to find out how the students have been doing and finding Bush standing there with his little contrived and carefully censored "fact sheet" waiting for us.

I feel used and insulted.

Time for an herbicide.

Bush is evil, but he is really an atheist!! He says he is a Christian but I went to this website and it said he was an atheist!! Now I understand why he is so evil.

Personally, I feel less offended by the money used than I do by the way Bush abused our trust like that.

Imagine getting into a Catholic confession booth and hearing Bush on the other side. Or going to the doctor because you're not feeling well, and it's actually Bush there instead of a real, qualified doctor. Or, imagine calling technical support because your computer is on the fritz and hearing Bush answer the fone.

It's exactly like that. It's as if we went to a school district to find out how the students have been doing and finding Bush standing there with his little contrived and carefully censored "fact sheet" waiting for us.

I feel used and insulted.
*cringe*
Even i haven't imagined him so ubiquitous. Not to that degree ... but there's still time i guess.
You harshed my buzz, man! (see Scientific American April Fool's thread) ;)