7/05/2007 07:16:00 PM
If you do not have a factual source other than that liberal link you have in your article, I suggest you do not publish kindergarten grade insults to about a man you could not compare yourself to in fear of being embarrassed. You apparently do not have much knowledge of the Watergate scandal due to the fact your source is written by democratic ninnies who spend their life criticizing others while they themselves are nothing more than idols of personal assaults conducted by the liberal section of the media. Your article was written purely out of emotion, no facts. So, the next time you go about on the Internet calling people weasels because your afraid to say it to their face, think again and check facts.
There were two links--one to Reason magazine (libertarian) and one to the Boston Globe. The Boston Globe article reported that Scott Armstrong, Democratic party investigator for the committee, charged Thompson with leaking information to the White House.The more I read and hear about Fred Thompson, the more I'm convinced he is unqualified to be president--the same as just about everyone else who's running, unfortunately.It's interesting that you think that the adjective "liberal" is sufficient to discredit a source.Your Blogger profile says that you are a student who wants to join the Marines and become a fighter pilot. That probably means that you are younger than I am, and that your knowledge of Watergate is even farther removed from the actual events than mine. I was in fourth grade when Nixon resigned (on August 8, 1974), an event I remember clearly because it was announced while I was with my family at Big Surf. My knowledge of the events of Watergate is, of course, secondhand.
Well, Mr.Lippard, I respect your correction of my comment and verifying that there were in fact two links. The reason that I do not respect liberals and I find the name discrediting is because the majority of them do not support the war or the republicans, or... the President. They call good men like Fred Thompson names and exaggerate things after a mistake he made in the past. I know for a fact, Mr.Lippard, that you and I also make mistakes. So I just feel obliged to tell you that if you have a problem with someone, say why, don't insult them and call them weasels, I find that very childish. So if you can do that simple thing, I will not make harsh remarks about you or your sources.
Most Americans--and all of them with any sense--do not support the war in Iraq or George W. Bush, a man who has no respect for the U.S. Constitution, the rule of law, or truth.
Mr.Lippard, please provide examples where President Bush has shown disrespect to the Constitution, the rule of law, and the truth.
Penguin (if that is your real name...)- At least our mistakes don't lead a country to war or get innocents killed. And, when I make a mistake I can admit it, and try to fix it, unlike GW.
Penguin,I bet you're more "liberal" than me - for example, do you want to eliminate the minimum wage? Do you think everyone should own their own bazooka? No? You Pinko Commie! - and yet I think George W. Bush is an utter disgrace to this country.Two words, Penguin: Habeas Corpus.
Penguin: Do you watch or read the news? Are you familiar with Bush's signing statements, his unconstitutional "unitary executive" and "executive privilege" arguments, his warrantless wiretapping bypassing the FISA court, his creation of a cherry-picking intelligence group to use bogus information about Iraq WMDs to justify the case for war, the Military Commissions Act and the destruction of habeas corpus? How about Bush's fabricated numbers for the cost of the Medicare drug bill, for the effects of his tax cuts, White House involvement in the Duke Cunningham scandal, the U.S. Attorney scandal (connected to the Cunningham scandal), the suppression and manipulation of data for political ends... The list goes on and on, and this blog has covered a few of them (represented by the links).The site spinsanity.org used to cover in great detail misrepresentations by the Bush administration, which led to the publication of the book, _All the President's Spin_.
Kat, George Bush did not start the war, the terrorists did. They were familiar with what America was like under the Clinton Administration, so they assumed that when they attacked it would be the same under the Bush Administration, but it wasn't. Bush had America strike back with full force against Al Qaeda and the Taliban and took down Saddam Hussien's regime along the way. Innocents are being killed, but the terrorists are doing that not the US. George Bush has a few made mistakes, but having our troops defend the people of the Middle East and fighting terrorists and insurgents across the world was not one of them. Bush strives to defend, not to destroy.
Penguin: 9/11 had nothing to do with Iraq. The terrorists were from Saudi Arabia and Pakistan, both of which are still considered U.S. allies (and neither of which has been fully cooperative in combatting terrorism). The U.S. was right to attack the Taliban in Afghanistan (who were providing support for bin Laden), but they left the job unfinished (and Osama bin Laden uncaptured) in order to divert resources to attack Iraq.Iraq has been an unmitigated disaster, resulting in more American deaths than occurred on 9/11 (and many times more Iraqi deaths) and continued U.S. presence there is not helping. Saddam Hussein was not a good guy and his removal was a good thing, but he was also not a threat to the U.S. and it's arguable that the U.S. is far less safe today than it was before Iraq was invaded. The costs of the war have been enormous--in lives lost, in dollars wasted, in moral capital and foreign cooperation lost.
Einzige,Despite your ramblings and senseless insults of both me and the President I respect the fact that you tried to make up a comment that made any sense at all. I also suggest that you stop talking about national disgraces and stop trying to figure out how to correctly use the word liberal, because you have no idea what you're talking about.
Mr.Lippard I know that Iraq was in no way connected to 9/11, but the Iraqi people had a desire to be free of Saddam and he was becoming a growing threat. Staying in Iraq is necessary because if we leave now everything will fall apart. I had no desire to read the rest of your comment, but I skimmed through it anyways. You are only focused on the negative, and that can not be respected. And as for your other comment, yes I do read and watch the news, but the bs you copied and pasted onto your blog is either a load of lies or an over-exaggerated version of small mistakes.
Penguin,When they were passing out the Kool-Aid, you asked for seconds, huh?Clearly, parsing oblique comments is not your forté. Going forward, I'll be more direct, I promise.
Your somewhat less than witty statement does not humor me. I understood your previous comment perfectly, but that does not mean it makes sense. Although, now I understand you and your blog team members and your strategy. When I beat you on one topic you change the subject. And when I beat you that topic, you start personal attacks. If this is how you respond to every reader who does not agree with you than that is just sad. All I did was make a comment about Jim Lippard's post on Fred Thompson and I get all of this. You and your team members don't realize this, but when terrorists see these blogs and comments that talk trash about the President that you guys post, it seems as if you are anti-American terrorist sympathizers. You need to understand that your not always right, and when you're not don't be a jerk about. Learn from your mistakes, be a good sport ,and move on. I leave you with those words.
Penguin: You're the one who brought in the issue of Bush, with your claim that "the majority of them [liberals] do not support the war or the republicans, or... the President."Your claim that those who dissent from illegal, unpatriotic, anti-liberty, and immoral actions by the Bush administration are supporting terrorism is the reversal of reality.I agree that this discussion has gotten quite far afield of the blog post's topic.
Spare us your red herrings and whiny bullshit, Penguin.You might find your adversaries are more receptive to discussion when you demonstrate you're actually capable of some reflection.
Einzige,I find it quite odd that you are calling me unreflective, due to the fact that instead of trying to consider my point, you entertain yourself by going off-topic and attacking me personally instead of remarking on my comments. And as for whiny bs and red herrings, you are probably still sitting at home trying to figure out what both terms mean.
Post a Comment