Subject: Interesting reading, but...

GWB's (I am assuming that this is who "smirk" is) intelligence has not been tested that I know of.

You are correct.
The fastest way to test his intelligence would be to let him speak without Cheney providing
the answers to pre-approved questions. On the rare occasions when Bush takes questions,
he answers with "We're working on the details" or "I'll have that answer shortly."
He in incapable of thinking on his own. Granted, that's just my opinion, but if I'm wrong
why doesn't he hold live prime time press conferences that include follow ups?
Then again, if Mr Rove is in the room, the press will be afraid to ask anything substantive.

He may not be an intellectual like his predecessor.  This is not really that important, anyway.

Hell, no. Why should the man in charge of the planet be an intellectual?
After all, he has Condi and Uncle Dick to answer tough questions, right?

Being an honorable man is important.  Having people believe what you say is.
Having the country's best interests at heart is.  GWB beats his predecessor handily in these areas.

For years, Rush has teased Clinton (in his baby talk voice) for "always wanting to help the starving
children and help the poor people and help the lazy minorities," whereas Bush has cut taxes for the
oil companies who are making never-before-seen profits by gouging California households.

...but if you say Bush has the country's best interests at heart, Koresh bless you.

GWB is not as charismatic as his predecessor (he does beat last years opponent).
Again not very important unless you are shallow enough to fall for that sort of stuff.
I admit, I voted for GWB because I liked the ideas he proposed.
So far he has kept more promises than his predecessor did in eight years.

A groundless claim, but we can't get deep into every one, now can we?

I noticed at least a few names on the list of folks who were Clinton supporters (J. Williams, Steffanopolous)
and if they did hatchet jobs on BC, then they probably saw all of his associates he hung out to dry to protect
his skin and just followed his example.

Who did Clinton hang out to dry?
And, if true, why would you accept that as an excuse for others to do the same?

I notice that you deal in derogatory names for those you do not like, whether true or not and,
if true not very provable.  BC (and his protege AG) are documented liars.  They did it again and again
in the press and on TV.  This point is not debatable for anyone with any reason amount of objectivity.

I'll admit Clinton lied about sex if you'll admit Reagan lied about selling Stingers to a terrorist nation.

For those with some objectivity who were steadfast BC supporters, I feel sorry.
You must have been very embarrassed by your standard bearer, time and time again.

Not me.
I was embarrassed that the country went on a nine year journey inside his zipper
to see what juicy "scandals" Richard Mellon Scaife was willing to finance.

Hopefully you voted for him only because he supported views close to yours.
For those who have little or no objectivity (symptoms include thinking Bill & Hillary could do no wrong,

Nobody ever said that...
Why would you claim anybody did?

...the impeachment was only about sex and had nothing to do with lying under oath,

Take away the sex and tell me what he lied about.
And again, compare Clinton's lies to Reagan or Bush, would you?
"No weapons on those two small planes to Iran." and "I was out of the loop for Iran-Contra,"
both of which were major lies about American policy with lives and millions of dollars at stake.

How you can condemn Clinton for lying about a blow job and let Reagan/Bush off for lying
about stealing weapons from our military to give to Islamic Jihad  then lying about it,
then finally having to pardon the whole gang to keep the truth buried, is beyond me.

...that we ought to have the kind of country where we would take Henry Hyde and family out
and stone them  (bonus points if you  know who said this and got almost a total pass)

Rush has mentioned that JOKE Alec Baldwin told every day for three years.
If Baldwin was serious about murdering Hyde, why wasn't he arrested?
Because Ken Starr was too fair and didn't want to cause trouble?

...and have turned off your brain long before you reached this line or have stopped reading it, anyway),
my observation is that you are little different than the hateful spawn of real right wing extremists
(sorry, the bulk of the NRA does not fall in this category).

This is a comedy site. I've said that from day one,
And for someone who condemns Clinton's sexcapades and applauds Reagan arming BIG TERROR,
I'm not sure you're the best judge of right & wrong.

You may think bombing abortion clinics is reprehensible, but not mink farms, laboratories
and other places where animals are used by humanity.  [Just for the record bombing either
of the above is reprehensible in my book.]


You think freedom of speech only applies when views articulated line up closely to yours or are at least
not offensive, but any time views are offensive to you are expressed, it is "hate speech" and should be illegal.

You'd have to provide an example before I could answer that.
I don't think I've ever called for Rush/Hannity types to be taken off the air,
but I've called them lying sons of bitches and I have published 622 issues of examples.

Just for the record again, I defend anyone's right to express all views, even if I do not agree with them.
The views may be wrong, incorrect or outright lies, but you can express them.  Be sure there are those
who will expose them.


As for liberal voices in the media (I doubt you are still reading, but just in case), lets list a few:
Walter Cronkite,  - possible, but has been off TV for what, 15 years?
Sam Donaldson, - Sam is a Monica-gossiping whore - hardly a Clinton supporter.
Juan Williams, - sometimes on NPR, but he's Murdoch's boy on Fox News.
Michael Kinsley, - I'll give you that halfway, but he's been off TV for 3-4 years.
Peter Jennings, - Crazy talk
Jim Hightower, - possibly right, but I've never heard him speak, so does he qualify?
Dan Rather, - Crazy Talk, but I understand his daughter is a Demo
Tom Brokaw, - Crazy Talk,
Ellen Ratner, - Don't know the name, so does she qualify?
Larry King, - I'd say he was at one time, but like most "liberal commentators," he sold his soul so he
                       could do non-stop Monica slurs for three years, so he's hardly a Clinton supporter

If I remember the original piece that got you to write, I asked
"Who would defend Clinton the way those I listed defend Republicans to the death?"
Please offer an example of anyone on your list who defended Clinton during impeachment.

As far as non news media go, lets list a few there too:
Woody Harrelson, Ted Danson, Meryl Streep, George Takei, Alec Baldwin, Danny Glover, Barbara Striesand.

You might have something there, but they don't have daily, hate-filled shows that run 24/7 like Rush, Hannity,
Chris Matthews, Bill O'Reilly, Brit Hume, Tony Snow, John Mclaughlin, Bob Novak, Fred Barnes etc etc etc

I am gratified to hear some of the above, remarking that Bush is doing a good job.
As far as shrinking numbers of liberal voices in the media, good,
it is finally time that the media mirrored America more.

Mirrored America?
Who do you think won the last three popular votes in national elections?
I admit, you're only half crazy, and you've been polite, but why would you think
America is conservative when the GOP can't win a national popular vote?

Conservative talk show hosts prove this beyond a shadow of a doubt.
If not, they would not be as popular and they certainly would not have thrived.

Liberals are boring
We would never spend nine years looking into a Republican's sex life.
We have never fabricated non-existent "scandals" like Lucy in the chocolate factory.
If Clinton was 1/100th the criminal your side claimed he was, why was impeachment about sex?
Why wasn't impeachment about "arming China," or "Filegate," or "Whitewater" or Travelgate?"
You see?
You're stuck.

There were no crimes - your side had to fabricate "alleged" crimes so you could get Clinton
under oath and ask him about his sex life.  It was ALWAYS about sex, and nothing more.

As far as doing a rebuttal for Clinton, the reason no one
(did bart cop?  If yes, I would be interested in reading it.)

It's in the back issues. I think I successfully rebutted every "scandal" your guys invented.
The American people agree with me, too. Otherwise public opinion would have allowed
for the removal of this most popular president.

My prediction for this is one of the following:
1.  I just read it [if so, here is my OPINION:  it was pathetic.]
2.  It will say something to this effect or at least a partial combination of the following:
     a.  it was all about sex  [wrong answer, it is about perjury, a felony]
     b. He is doing such a great job, his personal life is irrelevant [when he takes advantage
         of a young girl at the office and then lies under oath, it is relevant.].
     c. everyone does it, so its okay [everyone smokes, drives drunk, but that is hardly okay].)
did one is this:  THEY WOULD NOT HAVE HAD A LEG TO STAND ON!  He committed perjury
and partisanship was the only thing that saved his bacon.  His White house was for sale at the end,
and many people (not too many poor in this group) purchased pardons from him.

1. I don't follow what you meant to say...
2. a. Of course it was about sex and nothing more.
        If you disagree, please explain Clinton's non-sex "crimes."
    b. I agree, he did a great job - America thinks so, too.
        What do you mean "young girl?"
        Jenna Bush is four years younger than Monica and your side says she's old enough
        to break the law and have her own mind because she's old enough to go to war.
    c. This is true, everybody does it, including Gingrich, Hyde, Burton, Livingston, Barr,
        (Whoops, Barr didn't have sex - he murdered his unborn daughter.   Sorry, mistake)

There was no perjury. Perjury requires a substantive lie. Lying about a blow job isn't substantive.
Remember when Mark Furhman lied about using the word "nigger" in a MURDER trial?
He wasn't arrested for that crime because it wasn't relevant.

Now I doubt that Bartcop has read all the way to the bottom of this missive, but if I am wrong,
I salute your endurance.  And this will make you cringe probably: God Bless You!

No, Sir, but your lack of logic makes me cringe a little.
Arming a terrorist nation while guaranteeing America you're not is a bigger crime
than anything Clinton did with Monica and the voters know it - too bad you can't see it.

Besides stealing those weapons from America's arsenal and selling them to Islamic Jihad to fund
an illegal war, Reagan and Bush committed actual perjury because those were substantive crimes .

Yet you are so morally outraged that Bill Clinton lied about sex so his wife wouldn't find out.

Tell me, what year did you graduate from Rush's E.I.B. University?

Privacy Policy
. .