Condi must go

[NDNdancer]

I can't believe people are actually considering this criminal for VP?
4gqaw5UnHA4&hl=en

[Scribbler1]

Condi will go, when Bush does.

[ECW]

Condi Rice running for VP would be Manna From Heaven. Lumping McCain and Rice into one big Bush-ball that we could drop-kick into the ocean would be soooooo much fun. Too bad she chickened out...

[Buck Laser]

I think she's (wisely) removed herself from consideration. Her running would be like Alan Keyes "moving" to IL to run against Obama for the senate in 2004.

I don't know for sure whether or not Rice is part of the criminal cabal in the administration, but she sure has stuck around for too long.

[NDNdancer]

Thanks ECW.

[micfranklin]

It's surprising at how many people can't stand Condi. Honestly I liked Colin Powell a lot better.

[Elrathin]

It's surprising at how many people can't stand Condi. Honestly I liked Colin Powell a lot better.

Which is the reason Condi won't go on the McCain ticket. She would be his Titanic.

[apdst]

It's surprising at how many people can't stand Condi.

Liberals hate anyone who isn't a Liberal.

I liked Colin Powell better, too.

[NDNdancer]

I liked Colin Powell too, until he lied to the world about WMD.

[ECW]

Liberals hate anyone who isn't a Liberal.

What a crock. I like plenty of conservatives, both public and private figures, and I'm as big a Liberal as they get in these parts. I just don't happen to like liars who help drag us into war on false pretenses be they conservative or Liberal. Ask me if I like LBJ... Go on. I dare ya.

Gross stereotypes is what gets folks into rhetorical trouble.

[micfranklin]

I liked Colin Powell too, until he lied to the world about WMD.

At least he had the courage to step down before it turned into what it is now.

[lily]

At least he had the courage to step down before it turned into what it is now.
I also give him points for apologizing.

[lily]

Condi must go

Her and Cheney are the only ones left. I used to respect this woman.


I can't believe people are actually considering this criminal for VP?

McCain still worships the ground Bush walks on, I can see him still considering it......not only for the name, but he would have a woman and a black covered, also with his age, I could see a lot of Republicans voting for him, just so she would replace him.

[NDNdancer]

McCain still ..........but he would have a woman and a black covered, also with his age, I could see a lot of Republicans voting for him, just so she would replace him.

She's only black on MLK day. She left her black roots behind a very long time ago. She has zero cred in the black community.

[apdst]

She's only black on MLK day.

She looks black everytime I see her.

[micfranklin]

She's also just as corrupt as the rest of the administration. And like I said, I give props to Colin Powell for stepping down at the right time.

[apdst]

She's also just as corrupt as the rest of the administration.

And you know that because she's a Republican. Right?

[micfranklin]

And you know that because she's a Republican. Right?

No because she's corrupt.

[Elrathin]

And you know that because she's a Republican. Right?

Just like many on the right make blanket statements about liberals or dems.

I hope McCain does pick Condi, it would guarantee a Dem victory.

[ViolaLee]

Right on El.

Condi for VP!!!

[apdst]

Just like many on the right make blanket statements about liberals or dems.

You never hear a Rightie screaming about corruption, without evidence.

William Jefferson is corrupt.

[Pookie]

Liberals hate anyone who isn't a Liberal.

I liked Colin Powell better, too.


No, hon, I don't have a problem with Condi. But as you said, I liked Colin Powell better too, and remember, I'm a liberal.
What about Jeb Bush as VP and McCain POTUS?
Purrs,
Pookie

[preservanation]

Condi will go, when Bush does.
Absolutely.


There seems to be a certain segment of the population out there who would like nothing more than to criminalize anybody who they happen to disagree with. They need no more cause or evidence other than that.
In most circles this is considered fascist tactics of which Stalin would be most proud.

[Elrathin]

There seems to be a certain segment of the population out there who would like nothing more than to criminalize anybody who they happen to disagree with.

Really got any examples of someone on the left wanting to arrest someone, not because they might have done something illegal, but JUST BECAUSE they disagree with them?

I think I will be waiting a long time for you to back up that piece of righty rhetoric.

[preservanation]

Hey El, ever hear of the fairness doctrine, hate speech or any one of a dozen colleges and universities who shout down and physically attack invited conservatives thus infringing on their free speech, or denying Military recruiters for appearing on campuses for which they are allowed to by law?

These are the first stages of fascism. Once they can get opposing view points criminalized watch what happens. Not for lack of trying.
All they have to do is find a judge who, due to his left-wing agenda, deems opposing Affirmative Action, school vouchers or supporting welfare reform as "Hate Speech".
IMO, this is the aim of some on the left.
After that happens, it's too late. That's why I fight so hard now...

[Elrathin]

Hey El, ever hear of the fairness doctrine, hate speech or any one of a dozen colleges and universities who shout down and physically attack invited conservatives thus infringing on their free speech, or denying Military recruiters for appearing on campuses for which they are allowed to by law?

Yes I have heard of the fairness doctrine, but that isn't calling for the criminalization for speech. That is asking other points of speech also be added. And for the record, as a liberal, I do not agree with it now since we have other means such as the internet available.

So still waiting for proof for someone wanting another person arrested JUST because they disagree with them. Can you actually back up your righty rhetoric Pres, or will you back away again. :lmao:

[preservanation]

My time is short...but this is what I wrote..."There seems to be a certain segment of the population out there who would like nothing more than to criminalize anybody who they happen to disagree with."

I'm a little confused why you're asking for thissSo still waiting for proof for someone wanting another person arrested JUST because they disagree with them.
I want to preempt the desires of some.
So far my rights are being protected by the Constitution and I want to keep it that way.
There are some who would like to criminalize who they consider conservatives and disagree with (like Condi, Bush Cheney, the Easter Bunny, etc) without facts or proof...read the threads!
This is what I'm arguing against.

[Elrathin]

My time is short...but this is what I wrote..."There seems to be a certain segment of the population out there who would like nothing more than to criminalize anybody who they happen to disagree with."

I'm a little confused why you're asking for thiss
I want to preempt the desires of some.
So far my rights are being protected by the Constitution and I want to keep it that way.
There are some who would like to criminalize who they consider conservatives and disagree with (like Condi, Bush Cheney, the Easter Bunny, etc) without facts or proof...read the threads!
This is what I'm arguing against.

Because so far you haven't proven that someone wants to criminalize another person JUST BECAUSE they disagree with them. That is why I wrote that.

People want to impeach Bush because they feel he falsified intel or at the very least cherry picked it. That isn't right, but then that isn't wanting to criminalize someone JUST because they don't agree with that person.

You still have provided NO PROOF to back up your claim and frankly the sad and tired rhetoric from the right is not only getting old, but pathetic. Some people on the right really need to come up with new material and not just talking points from the likes of Limbaugh and Coulter.

[apdst]

Really got any examples of someone on the left wanting to arrest someone, not because they might have done something illegal, but JUST BECAUSE they disagree with them?

I've seen Liberals caliming that certain persons should be arrested without any evidence to suggest that a crime was committed. In every case, it seems that when Liberal advocates a baseless arrest, the person they insist be arrested is a Right Winger. Helluva coincidence, huh?

[Elrathin]

I've seen Liberals caliming that certain persons should be arrested without any evidence to suggest that a crime was committed. In every case, it seems that when Liberal advocates a baseless arrest, the person they insist be arrested is a Right Winger. Helluva coincidence, huh?

Bullshit, show me where a liberal wants a conservative arrested JUST BECAUSE they disagree with them.

What you have shown is that some people believe someone has commited a crime, such as cherry picking evidence, not simply because they disagree with them.

This is funny that some on the right cannot tell the difference between wanting someone arrested for a crime they think they committed and wanting someone arrested for disagreeing with them.

Again, show me a liberal wanting someone arrested simply for disagreeing with them.

[apdst]

Bullshit, show me where a liberal wants a conservative arrested JUST BECAUSE they disagree with them.

Show me where a Liberal has produced evidence to arrest someone, other than disagreeing with them. We NEVER hear Liberals scream about Democrats.

How many, "put'em in jail", Liberals have come out against William Jefferson?

Obama is booty buddies with a terrorist. Don't hear nobody crying about that.

[Elrathin]

Show me where a Liberal has produced evidence to arrest someone, other than disagreeing with them. We NEVER hear Liberals scream about Democrats.

They have provided a scenario that needs to be investigated. I've said that I don't agree with impeaching just based on what we have seen, but yes it should be investigated.

However, wanting someone arrested for a crime they think they committed is not the same as wanting someone arrested just for disagreeing with them as YOU and pres seem to think.


How many, "put'em in jail", Liberals have come out against William Jefferson?

Actually quite a bit. I've said in pre-haste myself that he is guilty. Yet he hasn't had a trial. I've also seen others on the right wanting Hillary put in jail as well without evidence.


Obama is booty buddies with a terrorist. Don't hear nobody crying about that.

That's because he isn't.

[apdst]

They have provided a scenario that needs to be investigated

They've failed even do that much.

However, wanting someone arrested for a crime they think they committed is not the same as wanting someone arrested just for disagreeing with them as YOU and pres seem to think.

Insisting that someone be arrested and jailed without a trial, or a shread of evidence equates to wanting them arrested because you disagree with them.

William Ayers has had extensive contact with Obama. Ayers helped launch Obama's political career. That's a fact.

[Elrathin]

They've failed even do that much.

Regardless it is more than just disagreeing as you and Pres have accused.



Insisting that someone be arrested and jailed without a trial, or a shread of evidence equates to wanting them arrested because you disagree with them.

William Ayers has had extensive contact with Obama. Ayers helped launch Obama's political career. That's a fact.

What you call without a shred of evidence is different than what some people think they have. Again, it proves that they don't want anyone jailed SIMPLY BECAUSE THEY DISAGREE WITH THEM.

Is it THAT hard to understand? There is not a liberal going "Hey I want that conservative arrested because he disagrees with me".

[apdst]

Regardless it is more than just disagreeing as you and Pres have accused.

Nice try.

Again, it proves that they don't want anyone jailed SIMPLY BECAUSE THEY DISAGREE WITH THEM.

But, they don't have anything. Not even phony evidence. I've asked time and again for the crime to be named and the evidence to be produced, and in every case I never recieved an answer. This thread is a perfect example. Not on person has been able to tell me exactly what crime Condi Rice has committed, only that she's, "corrupt".


There is not a liberal going "Hey I want that conservative arrested because he disagrees with me".

There's a not a single Liberals going, "I agree that we should have invaded Iraq, but I think Bush did it the wrong way and should be investigated", either.

[Elrathin]

Nice try.



But, they don't have anything. Not even phony evidence. I've asked time and again for the crime to be named and the evidence to be produced, and in every case I never recieved an answer. This thread is a perfect example. Not on person has been able to tell me exactly what crime Condi Rice has committed, only that she's, "corrupt".

Baseless accusations is not the same as wanting someone arrested for disagreeing with them. Again show me the evidence or I'll take that as admission you guys have nothing but rhetoric on the issue.

If you want to say the reasons that people want Bush, people in this administration, or whatever is not correct or false, I don't argue that possibility. But to say that liberals want people arrested for disagreeing with them is blatantly FALSE.


There's a not a single Liberals going, "I agree that we should have invaded Iraq, but I think Bush did it the wrong way and should be investigated", either.

So? What does that have to do with yours and Pres accusations that liberals want to criminalize disagreeing with them?

[apdst]

Baseless accusations is not the same as wanting someone arrested for disagreeing with them.

What other motivation would the Liberals have to push a baseless accusation? Other than replacing a president they disagree with, whatelse do the Liberals have to gain from the false accusations?

[Elrathin]

What other motivation would the Liberals have to push a baseless accusation? Other than replacing a president they disagree with, whatelse do the Liberals have to gain from the false accusations?

I already told you, right or wrong, some people think Bush tampered with the intel to push that Iraq had WMDs. That isn't simply disagreeing with him, that is an accusation that goes above simple disagreeing.

You may think they have nothing, I may think they have nothing, however, it is not to them. They aren't wanting him arrested simply for disagreeing with them.

You and Pres have said that liberals want to criminalize disagreeing with them. That has been proven false.

[apdst]

I already told you, right or wrong, some people think Bush tampered with the intel to push that Iraq had WMDs.

Choosing the intel you choose to believe in is not a crime.

They aren't wanting him arrested simply for disagreeing with them.

You'll never find a single Liberal that agrees with Bush, yet wants him arrested.

You and Pres have said that liberals want to criminalize disagreeing with them.

Show us the Liberal that Liberals want jailed. I'll be waiting.

[Elrathin]

Show us the Liberal that Liberals want jailed. I'll be waiting.

This has NOTHING to do with yours and Pres accusation that liberals want other jailed simply for disagreeing with them.

I'll take your redirection as an admission that you cannot prove your accusation.

[apdst]

When you figure that the only reason that Liberals want to see these people jailed--and there is no other reason--is because Liberals don't like their politics. So, yes, Liberals wish to criminalize anti-Liberal dissent.

[Elrathin]

When you figure that the only reason that Liberals want to see these people jailed--and there is no other reason--is because Liberals don't like their politics. So, yes, Liberals wish to criminalize anti-Liberal dissent.

I've already shown you the reasons they think, if you choose to ignore that, that is your problem. You choose to ignore the facts that the reasons they feel are not simply because of disagreement.

There is no liberal that has said he wants speech criminalized simply because they disagree with him which is what you and Pres have accused.

You have yet to show me a quote on that. Again, I'll take the redirection and interpretations as you cannot back up Pres statement with facts.

[lily]

How many, "put'em in jail", Liberals have come out against William Jefferson?



Doing a simple search on this forum would give you the answer you probably don't want to know.....a lot.

I also want to remind you that Jefferson's office was raided and the Republicans were in the majority at that time and put an end to that one, not the Democrats.

[lily]

But, they don't have anything. Not even phony evidence. I've asked time and again for the crime to be named and the evidence to be produced, and in every case I never recieved an answer. This thread is a perfect example. Not on person has been able to tell me exactly what crime Condi Rice has committed, only that she's, "corrupt".

Well......technically you're right, lying isn't a crime, but it is a sign of corruption.....but then I don't think anyone has accused her of a crime.




There's a not a single Liberals going, "I agree that we should have invaded Iraq, but I think Bush did it the wrong way and should be investigated", either.

So.......we should not investigate the mistakes that were made, for no other reason that they won't ever happen again?

[apdst]

A simple question: What is the number one tactic used by tyrannical dictatorships to despose of political enemies? Prosecute them on trumped up charges. Yes?

There is no liberal that has said he wants speech criminalized simply because they disagree with him which is what you and Pres have accused.

How many different re-inventions of comments are you going to come up with?

So.......we should not investigate the mistakes that were made, for no other reason that they won't ever happen again?

That's not the motivation behind the investigation...LOL!...that's funny that you would say something like that.

Well......technically you're right, lying isn't a crime, but it is a sign of corruption

No it isn't. We all know that even straight politicians are going to bullshit us.

I also want to remind you that Jefferson's office was raided and the Republicans were in the majority at that time and put an end to that one, not the Democrats.

Dennis Hastert objected to his office being raided. The Black Caucus plead Jefferson's inocence. None of the Republicans have said he's innocent.

[Elrathin]

Hey APDST show me the comments you feel as proof from a liberal that wants to criminalize speech that disagrees with them. Go ahead, I'll enjoy ripping apart your so called accusations some more lol. Time to actually provide some proof to yours and Pres accusations. This should be fun, when asking for proof, many a conservative will run away.

[apdst]

Hey APDST show me the comments you feel as proof from a liberal that wants to criminalize speech that disagrees with them.

This is becoming nothing but a play on words. I gues if you keep twisting the question, sooner, or later, I won't be able to answer it. Eh?

But, I'll answer your question. No problem, slick.

I can't believe people are actually considering this criminal for VP?

There ya go. That was easy.

[Elrathin]

This is becoming nothing but a play on words. I gues if you keep twisting the question, sooner, or later, I won't be able to answer it. Eh?

But, I'll answer your question. No problem, slick.

I can't believe people are actually considering this criminal for VP?



There ya go. That was easy.

And how does that quote show that liberals are wanting to criminalize someone for disagreeing with them?

[apdst]

And how does that quote show that liberals are wanting to criminalize someone for disagreeing with them?

How did Stalin ulliminate his political enemies, AKA people who disagreed with him?

[Elrathin]

How did Stalin ulliminate his political enemies, AKA people who disagreed with him?

Ah so we are back to your interpretations and not proof, I got it.

[apdst]

Afraid to answer the question? If yer skeered, say yer skeered.

Come on big boy, answer the fucking question.

[Elrathin]

Afraid to answer the question? If yer skeered, say yer skeered.

Come on big boy, answer the fucking question.

Stalin did what stalin did, that is noway what ANY liberal is doing now. You afraid to provide some proof? What liberal is doing as Stalin did EXACTLY?

[apdst]

What liberal is doing as Stalin did EXACTLY?

Liberals aplenty are pushing to prosecute people whose politics they disagree with. It's as plain as day.

Are you saying that there are NO Liberals that want to prosecute the people that they disagree with, politically?

[Elrathin]

Liberals aplenty are pushing to prosecute people whose politics they disagree with. It's as plain as day.

Who is being prosecuting ONLY because they disagree with liberals? PROVE IT.


Are you saying that there are NO Liberals that want to prosecute the people that they disagree with, politically?

As a whole (MAJORITY), yes I am. They may want to prosecute someone because they think they are doing an illegal act, but they don't want to prosecute them simply because they disagree with them only.

Of course you may be able to find some nut job liberal that might, I'll give you that. All sides have nut jobs, even yours. But as a whole NO, liberals do not want to prosecute someone simply because they disagree with them.

[apdst]

Who is being prosecuting ONLY because they disagree with liberals? PROVE IT.

How many Liberals are pushing to prosecute Liberal politicians on trumped up charges? Hell, Liberals don't wanna prosecute Liberals on legitimate charges...LOL!

There's ya proof, sport.

[Elrathin]

How many Liberals are pushing to prosecute Liberal politicians on trumped up charges? Hell, Liberals don't wanna prosecute Liberals on legitimate charges...LOL!

There's ya proof, sport.

That's not proof that liberals are wanting to prosecute people simply for disagreeing with them. God come on man, you can do better than this. Either provide the proof or man up it's rhetoric. I got you on this one.

[apdst]

You ain't got nothin' but your dick in your hand on this one.

I'm done with that.

[Elrathin]

You ain't got nothin' but your dick in your hand on this one.

I'm done with that.

Colorful, but it still provides no proof to your accusations. You and Pres are the one that made it and you can't prove it.

[lily]

El 1
Apdst 0

[apdst]

You can't call yourself a neutral party, Lily, so don't even try that crap.

[preservanation]

I already told you, right or wrong, some people think Bush tampered with the intel to push that Iraq had WMDs. That isn't simply disagreeing with him, that is an accusation that goes above simple disagreeing.

You may think they have nothing, I may think they have nothing, however, it is not to them. They aren't wanting him arrested simply for disagreeing with them.

You and Pres have said that liberals want to criminalize disagreeing with them. That has been proven false.
Here, what about Bush, Condi, Cheney, Rumsfeld, I've been over this before.
Some on the left not only want them prosecuted here and in the Hague with no proof but drawn and quartered in the public square.
READ THE THREADS.
I swear I'm not making this up.

[suedanim]

Even when evidence is given you, you reject it. Your partisan loyalty prevents you from having the ability to read or view evidence objectively. Instead, you guys appear to

http://www.aroundhawaii.com/assets/articles/2007/01/491/images/200701_aw2006waf2007015.jpg



Condoleeza Rice is an outrageous liar. I HOPE John McCain picks her as his running mate.

[Elrathin]

Here, what about Bush, Condi, Cheney, Rumsfeld, I've been over this before.
Some on the left not only want them prosecuted here and in the Hague with no proof but drawn and quartered in the public square.
READ THE THREADS.
I swear I'm not making this up.

Sorry Pres, but reasons WERE given why people want those others brought up. You just don't agree with those reasons and neither do I.

But it isn't simple disagreement as you have accused the left.

You can twist words all you want but there hasn't been any liberal that has said "I want <insert name here> arrested for disagreeing with me". Sorry the facts are AGAINST you on this one and there is nothing you can do about it but man up and actually admit what you said is nothing but rhetoric.

[apdst]

Even when evidence is given you, you reject it.

You, nor anyone else, has ever posted any. There's been nothing to reject. We've flat out begged for evidence and none has been produced.

[preservanation]

Sorry Pres, but reasons WERE given why people want those others brought up. You just don't agree with those reasons and neither do I.

But it isn't simple disagreement as you have accused the left.

You can twist words all you want but there hasn't been any liberal that has said "I want <insert name here> arrested for disagreeing with me". Sorry the facts are AGAINST you on this one and there is nothing you can do about it but man up and actually admit what you said is nothing but rhetoric.Ok. Good points.

To the others who want Condi et al punished:
Remind me again why they should be jailed absent the fact that the advocates of her criminal prosecution disagree with her.
If there are actionable offenses on any members of the administration who's head you all want on a stick please share them with us...

Or better yet, call Pelosi and the House of Representatives with the evidence.
They've been holding hearings, reviewing reports, launching investigations and casting their nets in wide arcing swaths to ensnare the scallywags for almost two years. I'm sure they would be eager to receive the information. I'm sure they could do something with it...one can't turn around in that chamber without stepping on a lawyer's shoes.

[apdst]

Still waiting for that deluge of evidence, Sue.

[preservanation]

http://www.aroundhawaii.com/assets/articles/2007/01/491/images/200701_aw2006waf2007015.jpg
BTW, the saying is "deaf, dumb and blind"
The picture depicts the disabilities out of order.
No wonder you also get other things wrong.

[apdst]

Still waiting, Sue.

[lily]

BTW, the saying is "deaf, dumb and blind"
The picture depicts the disabilities out of order.
No wonder you also get other things wrong.

........and here I thought it was hear no evil, see no evil, speak no evil.



Which pretty much makes sue's statement true. (http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5iqhD-JYXWdJYC6_r1TC0s6mLU2MA[/url])



BAGHDAD (AFP) - US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice in a surprise visit
to Baghdad on Sunday said Iraqi leaders were more united than ever, as
Shiite cleric Moqtada al-Sadr warned of a war against the government.

Rice also said that security in Iraq had improved but, during her stay in
Baghdad's Green Zone, the heavily fortified area was rocked by an explosion
which, according to a US official, could have been a rocket attack.

More than 60 people, including 40 Shiite fighters, were reported killed
since Saturday in clashes with security forces, Iraqi and US officials said.

[apdst]

Forty enemy fighters killed? How many did we lose? three? I guess we're getting our asses handed to us, again.

[preservanation]

Originally Posted by preservanation
BTW, the saying is "deaf, dumb and blind"
The picture depicts the disabilities out of order.
No wonder you also get other things wrong.

........and here I thought it was hear no evil, see no evil, speak no evil.

Which pretty much makes sue's statement true. Really, conservatives speak no evil????
Are you sure that is what suedanim was trying to say?
If so, cool...I'll take it, but it sure is uncharacteristically generous.

[ECW]

You, nor anyone else, has ever posted any. There's been nothing to reject. We've flat out begged for evidence and none has been produced.

Plenty of evidence has been produced. The right rejects it for ideological reasons and disputes the facts by attempting to discredit the source which still leaves the facts in play. The very thing that a trial is supposed to settle is what you want presented as a fait accompli before the trial even begins. Things don't work that way and they never have.

Personally, I like the idea that the major players of the fiasco of a war could be brought under indictment by a world court. It will keep them and their poisonous ideas from traveling around the world to promote them. Ask Rumsfeld if he's going on a German holiday anytime soon.