T1B

And more to point, SO WHAT if Cheney is the "former CEO" on the DC madam's list? After all this is a draft-dodging half-human war criminal with a pregnant lesbian daughter who tells senators to fuck themselves and shoots his own friends in the face. Ordering an outcall hooker is positively innocent compared to the well-known things he does every day--and for which he'll wear a noose!

LTS TRN 2 wrote:No, R-fan, you're simply offering a cheap smear of my observations.

Given that your "observations" are nothing short of lunacy, don't insult cheap smears.

Psycho wrote:And more to point, SO WHAT if Cheney is the "former CEO" on the DC madam's list?

To wit, you fucking brain-dead loon.

What the fuck does that have to do with anything? Random thoughts much?

P.S. AND bbqjones went playing pool and had VODKA before the match struck the concrete and Paris Hilton once saw Jason at Pinks. But that was before the car commercial in which the daughter obviously knew when she was speaking.

Disprove that. HA!

LTS TRN 2 wrote:P.S. AND bbqjones went playing pool and had VODKA before the match struck the concrete and Paris Hilton once saw Jason at Pinks. But that was before the car commercial in which the daughter obviously knew when she was speaking.

Okay, that made more sense than the avesrage Nick Frisco post.

Maybe.

Mike the Lab Rat wrote:

Terry in Crapchester wrote:JFK lived in an era where "till death do us part" still meant something, and much of the country still had a very Victorian mindset toward sex in general. And while JFK's attitude toward women was hardly unique for the crowd he ran with, his attitude toward marital vows most certainly was unique for its era, at least by the standards of most of society.

Not by the standards of HIS society. Let's see......his dad Joe had mistresses, his brothers Teddy and Bobby had mistresses, Eisenhower had a mistress during WW II, FDR had a mistress...

Criminy, Truman was pretty much the only guy who took his marriage vows seriously.

Terry in Crapchester wrote:Clinton, by contrast, came of age in an era where it became almost as easy to end marriages as it was to enter into them, and based on his age, undoubtedly was influenced, at least to some extent, by the "free love" movement of the late 60's.

The same era that demanded that women be treated as full equal partners in relationships and in society. How does Bill's committing adultery with an intern jibe with the concept of women's lib, treating his wife as a full partner, let alone being a good male role model for his freaking daughter? It's impossible to square his behavior with the "enlightened" view of women he was supposed to hold as a child of the 60's.

He was not unique in being a Presidential cheater. But he supposedly promised to be something different than his predecessors, the first "baby boomer" President, the first to have "come of age" in the 60's. The truth was "meet the new boss, same as the old boss."

I just don't get the adoration - hell almost, VENERATION - heaped on him.

Oh come on, Mike. Kennedy may not have said the exact same words, but he promised much the same thing as Clinton did. The only difference between Clinton and Kennedy in terms of their escapades was that Kennedy had the benefit of a low tech society that could hide his indiscretions better.

But his speeches, the press, everything circulating about him at the time was that HE was the great family man. They called his time in office Camelot because of his words, his "visible" actions, and what he publicly represented as a hope for a new tomorrow.

Of course no one knew he was banging the shit out of hollywood starlets. If they had known, HE might very well have been impeached, back in the day. Comparing the time frames of the two administrations from a social/moral standpoint, the time of Kennedy would have been a far harsher climate for someone accused of adultery, especially with oral sex as the focal point.

I get why people like Clinton. He never came across as trying to screw the American people over, or trying to push HIS agenda. He came across as trying to represent America, and the American people. Whether he actually did or not is not relevant in determining his popularity.

Show me a Bush speech where you get the feeling he has anything else but his own agenda in mind.

Show me a Kennedy Speech where you didn't want to believe.

Charisma.

RadioFan wrote:

LTS TRN 2 wrote:No, R-fan, you're simply offering a cheap smear of my observations.

Given that your "observations" are nothing short of lunacy, don't insult cheap smears.

Psycho wrote:And more to point, SO WHAT if Cheney is the "former CEO" on the DC madam's list?

To wit, you fucking brain-dead loon.

What the fuck does that have to do with anything? Random thoughts much?

P.S. AND bbqjones went playing pool and had VODKA before the match struck the concrete and Paris Hilton once saw Jason at Pinks. But that was before the car commercial in which the daughter obviously knew when she was speaking.

Disprove that. HA!

Your tedious gibberish nonwithstanding, SCOREBOARD NICK FRISCO

Here, suck on this latest crime of the unelected cabal--that's falling like a twenty-dollar face lift,

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld ... ome-center

What was your actual point again? Oh yeah, accusing someone of "lunacy." Yer pathetic, and you know it.

Mister Bushice wrote:Oh come on, Mike. Kennedy may not have said the exact same words, but he promised much the same thing as Clinton did. The only difference between Clinton and Kennedy in terms of their escapades was that Kennedy had the benefit of a low tech society that could hide his indiscretions better.

Uh.....actually, the main advantage that Kennedy had was the adoration of the press, who knew damned well that he was having affairs and basically either turned a blind eye, thought it was a purely private matter, or -in the style of the Old Boys Network- said "atta boy!" Criminy, the guy was also practically crippled with back pain -which many in the press also knew- but didn't feel it was anything worth reporting. The relationship between the press and the Presidency was a hell of a lot different then. THAT was the big difference.

But his speeches, the press, everything circulating about him at the time was that HE was the great family man.

It was utter and shameless PR for clueless Joe SixPack. Shit that was promoted by starry-eyed shills like "Life." Kennedy hung out with the Rat pack, for chrissakes, none of whom was known for their commitment to monogamy.

Mister Bushice wrote:They called his time in office Camelot because of his words, his "visible" actions, and what he publicly represented as a hope for a new tomorrow.

Once again, transparent PR that was manufactured deliberately (largely by Jackie, after his assassination), not generated by genuine adoration by the electorate. The musical "Camelot" opened at the start of his Presidency and was JFK's favorite. Jackie had a personal interest in enshrining her dead husband's memory in the false image of a dedicated family man.

Mister Bushice wrote:Of course no one knew he was banging the shit out of hollywood starlets.

"No one?!?!" Horseshit. Hoover knew, and he HATED the fucking Kennedys.

The great unwashed in the 9-to-5 working world? I'd agree with that.

Mister Bushice wrote:If they had known, HE might very well have been impeached, back in the day.

By whom? The Representatives and Senators who were ALSO banging chicks on the side? Yeah, in the early 1960's, I'm sure that even JFK's political opponents had more than enough of their own marital skeletons to have seriously thought of THAT crap. Shit, if Hoover didn't do anything, there must have been a reason.

Mister Bushice wrote:Comparing the time frames of the two administrations from a social/moral standpoint, the time of Kennedy would have been a far harsher climate for someone accused of adultery, especially with oral sex as the focal point.

True....if anyone in the press or politics were stupid enough to open that can of worms.

But they weren't.

Mister Bushice wrote:I get why people like Clinton. He never came across as trying to screw the American people over, or trying to push HIS agenda.

Clinton was a shameless manipulator of the credulous, the stupid, and the politically-steeped liberals. He genuinely "felt [no one's] pain." It was all a frigging act. I'm not saying that he was evil or that he didn't do anything good while President, I'm saying he brought nothing unique to the table other than the slick PR package. Enough time has passed that we should be able to look back on his eight years in office and admit that he was neither the best nor the worst...contrary to what the slobbering, cranially-challenged Dittoheads AND the drooling, aging leftist hipsters would like to believe about him. He's in the middle. Better than Dubya, but then again, since THAT numbnut is making a decent run for "worst president ever," that's hardly a ringing endorsement.

I agree with mvscal that JFK wouldn't have the "Camelot" horseshit associated with him anymore had he not been capped in Dallas. His Presidency to that point was a mixed bag, Vietnam was looming, and eventually the charm would have worn off....look at Dumbya, who once rode high.

Mike the Lab Rat wrote:Enough time has passed that we should be able to look back on his eight years in office and admit that he was neither the best nor the worst...

An accurate assessment of the Clinton Presidency will not be possible for at least another 20 years. There is simply too much that is yet not known. About all one can say is that he's not likely one of the 5 best or 5 worst Presidents.

BSmack wrote:About all one can say is that he's not likely one of the 5 best or 5 worst Presidents.

Agreed.

Mike the Lab Rat wrote:

Mister Bushice wrote:If they had known, HE might very well have been impeached, back in the day.

By whom? The Representatives and Senators who were ALSO banging chicks on the side? Yeah, in the early 1960's, I'm sure that even JFK's political opponents had more than enough of their own marital skeletons to have seriously thought of THAT crap.

I get what you're saying here, but the same could be said of the Republicans in Congress who led the charge to impeach Clinton, and that obviously didn't stop them.

Shit, if Hoover didn't do anything, there must have been a reason.

You do know about the skeletons in Hoover's sexual closet (double entendre fully intentional), no?

LTS TRN 2 wrote:And more to point, SO WHAT if Cheney is the "former CEO" on the DC madam's list? After all this is a draft-dodging half-human war criminal with a pregnant lesbian daughter who tells senators to fuck themselves and shoots his own friends in the face. Ordering an outcall hooker is positively innocent compared to the well-known things he does every day--and for which he'll wear a noose!

With Cheney's well known blood pressure & circulation problems, it's doubtful he could get a boner even with a barrelfull of viagra, so nobody is gonna believe the hooker story.

Good point, Cooder, I guess that puts that to rest. Meanwhile, another day another criminal breaks cover:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co ... 01130.html

Go Karl! And our Cause!!


Q: Why are the previous Demo administrations' scandals so petty compared to the wholesale undermining of the constitution and basic law as per the GOP scandals over the years?

Anything even remotely close to Irangate? Or Watergate, for that matter? What, Bubba's BJ? Jim Wright's book deal? As for the present Christo-fascist coup instituted by the current (unelected) cabal, even the massive corruption of the Reagan and Nixon crews can't begin to compare.

hmm...I was expecting more from the sound of her voice. Did you ever see all of the babe interns that sit behind the criminal polis that are getting grilled in committee hearings? There's always one or two that the cameraman sort of gravitates to - that's what I was picturing...

GENERAL CRIMINALITY

http://www.americanchronicle.com/articl ... leID=27840

http://maroon.uchicago.edu/online_editi ... each-bush/

http://www.opednews.com/articles/opedne ... ttempt.htm

http://www.dailyscare.com/1394/thuggery ... pital-room

mvscal wrote:

LTS TRN 2 wrote:Good point, Cooder, I guess that puts that to rest. Meanwhile, another day another criminal breaks cover:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co ... 01130.html

Go Karl! And our Cause!!

Hatch Act?!?



Go fuck yourself.

Sin,

Al "No controlling legal authority" Gore

Sure, she's no Ollie North or Jeb Magruder, or Admiral Poindexter, or Elliot Abrams, or any of the hundreds of similar GOP administration criminals over the years. She's just a mild case of amoral lackey dutifully and zealously undermining our basic laws, etc.

But it's the pattern. The clear fact that the nature of the GOP scandals is regularly that of major
criminality, while the Demos' scandals are those of basic venality and personal impropriety--you know, blow-jobs and perks.

No one should doubt that both the Dems and the GOP are equally manipulated by the utterly vile AIPAC, but the GOP really appears to be malignant--since Ike, anyway.

BTW, a little known fact: when Ike bravely and honorably warned the nation upon his leaving office of the threat of the "Military-Industrial Complex," he in fact had been forced to revise his original warning, of the "Military-Industrial-Congressional Complex."

mvscal wrote:There is no Military-Industrial Complex anymore, you fucking tard.

Funny shit. VERY funny.

The term military-industrial complex (MIC) refers to a close and symbiotic relationship among a nation's armed forces, its private industry, and associated political and commercial interests. In such a system, the military is dependent on industry to supply material and other support, while the defense industry depends on government for revenue.

Exactly which part of the definition are you refuting, Apologist?


Please, do tell...

Could be a funny-for-the-ages.



Hey, did you know that American car companies don't have as large a share of the American auto market as they did in 1961?

I guess by mvscal's standards, this means "there is no American auto industry anymore...you fucking tard."


Priceless.

mvscal wrote:There is no Military-Industrial Complex anymore, you fucking tard.

When Ike made that speech the defense industry represented 40% of our entire economic output.

Seriously, babs, if you actually believe your inane piss-in-the-wind statement, then you are indeed one deluded, pathetic ditto-head.

And now for the rest of the definition...

The term military-industrial complex (MIC) refers to a close and symbiotic relationship among a nation's armed forces, its private industry, and associated political and commercial interests. In such a system, the military is dependent on industry to supply material and other support, while the defense industry depends on government for revenue.

The term is most often used in reference to the United States, where it gained popularity after its use in the farewell address of President Dwight D. Eisenhower. As pejorative terms, the "MIC" or the "iron triangle" refer to an institutionalised collusion among defense contractors (industry), The Pentagon (military), and the United States government (Congress, Executive branch), as a cartel that works against the public interest, and whose motivation is profiteering.

Of course, the Anti-America nutjobs above believe this is what is going on, but in the real world, mv is right. And with the Party of Petain in charge of the first branch of government, there is no real symbiosis since the military and industry have very little clout with a bunch of socialists who despise the armed forces. These days a government-union complex is the actual paradigm using the passage in italics.

Diogenes wrote:
Of course, the Anti-America nutjobs above believe this is what is going on, but in the real world, mv is right. And with the Party of Petain in charge of the first branch of government, there is no real symbiosis since the military and industry have very little clout with a bunch of socialists who despise the armed forces. These days a government-union complex is the actual paradigm using the passage in italics.

Right.

mvscal wrote:We couldn't even build another Iowa class battleship if we wanted to.

Of course, there's a reason for that.

Perhaps because we're too busy building new aircraft carriers? Because, of course, there's no more cost-effective way of pursuing terrorists than new aircraft carriers...

PSUFAN wrote:Because, of course, there's no more cost-effective way of pursuing terrorists than new aircraft carriers...

I disagree....

sincerely,
Missile Defense System

mvscal wrote:

Dinsdale wrote:Exactly which part of the definition are you refuting, Apologist?

The part that it no longer has any meaningful influence. It no longer represent nearly half of our economy.

We have one plant making small arms ammunition. There are a whopping 450 people at work building tanks. We used to have a myriad of different aerospace corporations and now we're down to about two. We couldn't even build another Iowa class battleship if we wanted to.

Our defense industry is a joke.

But a very, very BAD joke indeed.

In fact, America produces and sells more weaponry than all of the other nations of the world combined.

Now let's get back to the subject at hand, the unelected cabal's perpetual perp walk, featuring today's high-level felon, "Scooter" Libby (fanatical Israel supporter, of course) getting a 30-month sentence (federal, no parole) for the utterly shameful and cowardly act of smearing a fellow American--CIA agent--just to promote the administration's foul agenda.

GET IN THAT CELL, YOU PIECE OF SHIT!!!

Libby gets to dangle in the wind until Dubya can pardon him.

I imagine it's pretty fun getting slapped with a $250K fine. Maybe he can ask the Cheney Fund for a contribution?

mvscal wrote: We haven't had the rolling mills capable of doing the job for about 40 years or more.

Sorry to enter the thread so late, but this caught my eye.

Rolling Mills? Please to explain just exactly what a rolling mill is. Seems to me that if we're capable of producing carriers and nuclear subs, we could build a modern day battleship.

I'd be interested in seeing you expound upon this subject, mv. Manufacturing methods fascinate.

PSUFAN wrote:Libby gets to dangle in the wind until Dubya can pardon him.

I imagine it's pretty fun getting slapped with a $250K fine. Maybe he can ask the Cheney Fund for a contribution?

Really think Cheney would allow that? It seems he rolled by the court house in his motorcade just as Scooter had been sentenced--apparently to make EXTRA sure the sword had been fallen upon properly.

PSUFAN wrote:Libby gets to dangle in the wind until Dubya can pardon him.

I imagine it's pretty fun getting slapped with a $250K fine. Maybe he can ask the Cheney Fund for a contribution?

I don't think Libby will ever spend a day in the slammer. His lawyers probably will get a stay of the sentence (at least the prison part) pending his appeal. Smirky McFlightsuit will pardon him sometime between November 5, 2008 and January 19, 2009. That will render his appeal moot.

He'll get disbarred -- maybe. But that's about the worst that will happen to him.

War Wagon wrote:
Rolling Mills? Please to explain just exactly what a rolling mill is.

Nevermind. Google is my friend.

mvscal wrote:

Terry in Crapchester wrote:

mvscal wrote:We couldn't even build another Iowa class battleship if we wanted to.

Of course, there's a reason for that.

Right. We haven't had the rolling mills capable of doing the job for about 40 years or more.

Maybe, but that's not what I was talking about.

On 19 April 1989, an explosion of undetermined cause ripped through her Number Two sixteen-inch gun turret killing 47 crewmen. Iowa was still able to deploy to Europe and the Mediterranean Sea in mid-year. Turret Two remained unrepaired when she decommissioned in Norfolk, Va., for the last time 26 October 1990.

http://www.chinfo.navy.mil/navpalib/shi ... 61-ia.html

They've all been decommissioned now. I suppose it's possible to bring them out of mothballs another time, but I'm not so sure that's a good idea, given what happened to the Iowa.

It's easy enough to prevent if you just detail one sailor each morning to go around and make sure nobody stuffed a banana in the barrel.

PSUFAN wrote:Perhaps because we're too busy building new aircraft carriers? Because, of course, there's no more cost-effective way of pursuing terrorists than new aircraft carriers...

I'll agree that aircraft carriers are not a particularly effective weapon in the so-called War on Terror, or at least not in the fronts that have opened so far. Not the least of the reasons for that is geography.

Afghanistan is a fairly land-locked country IIRC. And Iraq borders the Persian Gulf. The Persian Gulf is a relatively small, relatively shallow body of water, and is filled with mines. A carrier has a deep draft and a long turning radius. And during flight ops, a carrier's course and speed is determined by the wind and the necessary course and speed to have the proper relative wind across the flight deck for flight ops. In short, a carrier operating inside the Persian Gulf is a disaster waiting to happen. Period, end of story. And for that reason, no carrier should ever operate inside the Persian Gulf. The fact that the Bush Administration has apparently either ordered or sanctioned such operations confirms two things in my mind. First, the Administration is incompetent. Second, while they give lip service to the idea of "supporting the troops," their actions fall well short of that ideal when the rubber actually meets the road.

A carrier may have limited use in the War on Terror, such as surgical strikes by the airwing against important supplies, and maybe giving advance cover to the ground troops, but that's about it. Then again, the Navy is not the best branch of the service to fight the War on Terror, except maybe for the amphib and Special Forces components, neither of which is exactly the largest component of the Navy. That's not to say that carriers are obsolete, however, and one would be very hard-pressed to make that claim within the context of more conventional warfare.

Battleships, however, are a different story. With the exception of the visual impressiveness of 16" guns, there's nothing a battleship gives you that an Aegis cruiser does not. And an Aegis cruiser is a far more versatile warship.

Rack Mikey for the Beverly Hills Cop reset, btw.

REPORTING FOR MY PROPERLY CAGED ROLE (in society)


So, does the fanatical Israel supporter get the full Paris Hilton treatment? I mean, does he get some celebrity treatment because he's Dick Cheney's bitch?

So, what are these other big crimes of Bubba? I mean beyond the standard whacking of witnesses that might implicate him--and Hillary--for standard financial malfeasance?

Where's the Ollie North drug running to finance death squads?

Bubba was the first U.S. president to actually go to Israel and campaign for a candidate--you know, the poor sane bastard that lost to the Nazi Sharon?

How can you even begin to compare the simple venal allures of pussy and land deals with the utter insanity of fully abetting such vicious lunatics as comprised in the Likud?

Do you even know what's really going on? LOOK what's going on!

Another day, another Cheney minion gets hauled to the slammer

http://www.usnews.com/usnews/news/artic ... griles.htm

Gotta love the judge doubling the plea-deal sentence in light of the fuckstain's pathetic tear-stained denial of any guilt right to the end. Just like DeLay--remember him?

No surprise that the slimiest GOP scumbag could get a 5-4 Texas decision to drop ONE of the felony convictions. There's still two more charges pending, and the dropped charge will be reintroduced.

Do you REALLY think DeLay is anything but an astonishingly corrupt Christer fanatic right-wing power-freak?

The evidence is clear. What's your problem?

Here's a little more detrius of the stinking Chimp/AIPAC consortium,

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340 ... 00,00.html

Why is it that race-state experiments always produce a wide variety of intense criminals? (rhetorical question)

Terry in Crapchester wrote:

PSUFAN wrote:Libby gets to dangle in the wind until Dubya can pardon him.

I imagine it's pretty fun getting slapped with a $250K fine. Maybe he can ask the Cheney Fund for a contribution?

I don't think Libby will ever spend a day in the slammer. His lawyers probably will get a stay of the sentence (at least the prison part) pending his appeal. Smirky McFlightsuit will pardon him sometime between November 5, 2008 and January 19, 2009. That will render his appeal moot.

He'll get disbarred -- maybe. But that's about the worst that will happen to him.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/07/ ... 7669.shtml

Okay, T-Crap, let's see just what kind of (cowardly weasel) fiber undergirds the lunacy of the Chimp/Cheney.

I say Scooter spreads for a cavity check within the week.

LTS TRN 2 wrote:

Terry in Crapchester wrote:

PSUFAN wrote:Libby gets to dangle in the wind until Dubya can pardon him.

I imagine it's pretty fun getting slapped with a $250K fine. Maybe he can ask the Cheney Fund for a contribution?

I don't think Libby will ever spend a day in the slammer. His lawyers probably will get a stay of the sentence (at least the prison part) pending his appeal. Smirky McFlightsuit will pardon him sometime between November 5, 2008 and January 19, 2009. That will render his appeal moot.

He'll get disbarred -- maybe. But that's about the worst that will happen to him.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/07/ ... 7669.shtml

Okay, T-Crap, let's see just what kind of (cowardly weasel) fiber undergirds the lunacy of the Chimp/Cheney.

I say Scooter spreads for a cavity check within the week.

If you honestly believed that Chimpy was going to let one of his boys see the inside of a jail cell, you're an idiot.

Chimpy sets fellow criminal free...

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- President Bush commuted Monday the prison term of former White House aide I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, facing 30 months in prison after a federal court convicted him of perjury, obstruction of justice and lying to investigators.


Bush commuted the jail sentence of convicted White House aide Lewis "Scooter" Libby.

A commutation is distinct from a pardon, which is a complete eradication of a conviction record -- making it the same as if the person has never been convicted.

Bush has only commuted the jail term which means that the conviction remains on Libby's record and he must still pay a $250,000 fine.

Commutations are rarely granted, says CNN's chief legal analyst, Jeffrey Toobin. A commutation is a total right of the president and it cannot be challenged by any attorney or court, he said.

Cheney is dead on the run--has been for a few years. This latest disgrace will only further his descent--cement his place in history as one of the world's great villains. The Chimp, of course, is a joke. And Israel is doomed, properly.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pZhDPHbDnHg

The Chimp and his pals are really slimy.