Comments on: 4 Stories Illustrate Bush’s Unrelenting Dishonesty

By: sporkovat

sporkovat — Fri, 11 Apr 2008 19:11:57 +0000

au contraire!

as experienced firepups know there is at least one subject on which the Official Story of the Bush regime must not be questioned - and that is the subject with which the 9/11 Truth movement attempts to deal.

however, such ‘tinfoil hat conspiracy theories’ are not very welcome here, for on this subject Bush and Cheney are presumed to be saintly truthtellers.

By: ACitizen

ACitizen — Fri, 11 Apr 2008 17:48:46 +0000

You raise an interesting point.

Honestly, this sort of post about what a liar Bush is is a waste of time. How about some posts about what liars Miss Nancy and ‘SellOut’ Reid are?

Some and analysis about how their cherished ’super-majority’ is apt to disappear once McSame starts his ‘Straight Talk Express’ right over Miss Nancy with comments such as:

‘The Democrats talk about doing things but what, honestly, have they done with their majority? My good friends the answer to that question is…Not so much.’

I understand why Barry and his followers are delusional but does that mean we have to be also?

I think me not.

By: dosido

dosido — Fri, 11 Apr 2008 16:46:55 +0000

I know I’m late, but yes, Bush is all about bait and switch.

The only thing he is honest about is lying. As when he explained to reporters after midterm elections that he “had to” lie about Rumsfeld’s imminent resignation so it wouldn’t affect elections.

Worst “President” Ever. POS.

By: earlofhuntingdon

earlofhuntingdon — Fri, 11 Apr 2008 16:07:53 +0000

What would successful haberdasher Harry Truman think of Mr. Bush’s salesman’s “bait and switch”?

This beautiful suit is on sale at 20% off its regular price. But not to anyone in the store now or anyone who comes in before August, when it will be out of stock, out of style, and in someone else’s inventory.

I think Harry would send this Walter Mitty of a Commander in Chief to the Aleutians to count the daisies in December.

By: merkwurdiglieber

merkwurdiglieber — Fri, 11 Apr 2008 15:46:56 +0000

Krugman does not interest me, I would rather form my own opinion. The
story about the hospital episode sounded credible to me, even if it were
a conflation of events, because of my own experiences with hospital
and emergency room entries, which is why I think she told the story to
connect with just that experience base many share. That is not enough to
shift my support from Obama to HRC, it is more a matter of character
and outlook plus a desire to turn the page and give another candidate
and cohort a chance. The Bush “restoration” was a total disaster and I
fear a Clinton risorgiamento would not fare any better, too much of it
is nostalgia for the false prosperity of the 1990’s created by Clinton
implementing the Republican scheme of total deregulation that has caused
so much current damage… time to move on.

By: Juno

Juno — Fri, 11 Apr 2008 15:46:06 +0000

Btw, why should anyone get bruised on a blog, whether or not they wear their heart on their sleeve? And how do you reconcile that with Obama’s message?

By: Juno

Juno — Fri, 11 Apr 2008 15:35:35 +0000

I don’t think offering a different perspective is tutoring anyone. And I’m not sure how arguing the Krugman was making a legitimate point is wearing my heart on my sleeve.

By: Juno

Juno — Fri, 11 Apr 2008 15:32:46 +0000

It’s you who is insisting on adopting the more virulent interpretation of what Clinton said, not I. Republicans also insisted that Gore said he’d invented the Internet.

I think there is too much of a movement in this country to ascribe the worst possible meaning to what a political opponent says and no acceptance of explanations or clarifications if they do not bolster the hatred the other side wants to feel for their opponent.

By: merkwurdiglieber

merkwurdiglieber — Fri, 11 Apr 2008 15:19:20 +0000

If you cruise the blogs with your heart on your sleeve you will get
bruised… the unforeseen ascendancy of the Obama phenomenon has made
the contest exciting for the first time in years and also irritating
as well. Too much instructing others comprises the content of your
posts on the matter of HRC vs Obama. I started with Edwards, had to
choose between HRC and Obama, chose Obama in an effort to leave the
early boomer birth cohort and their tendency to lie their asses off
about whatever it takes to advance themselves. It could be that HRC
is paying for her spouse’s serial lying or has absorbed the tendency
by cohabitation, I am ready to leave that question and the people it
refers to in the past with Bushes, Reagans and Nixons. Vote your own
views, save the tutorial for your memoir.

By: Crosstimbers

Crosstimbers — Fri, 11 Apr 2008 15:12:00 +0000

I heard what she said and saw her say it. I was a Clinton apologists at the time and was in the habit of rationalizing accusations against her until I saw that. I’ve been a voter since 1964, have a college degree, and think I’m capable of interpreting what I hear and say. For you to accuse me of being dishonest and placing “Republican-like spin” on what I observed speaks for itself in terms of partisans making false and unfair accusations.

I voted for Bill Clinton twice and supported him throughout his ordeal. I argued in favor of Hillary Clinton against what I considered unfair accusations until I observed what I noted. I spoke respectfully of Hillary Clinton during this discussion, and tried to speak politely to you. However, if you represent Clinton supporters, it appears there is no possible reconcilliation.