• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Bush is a sleezy ba$tard!

Page 3 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.


<< god, I think that when Bush does something as drastic as that, he shouldn't hide behind headlines that he creates to throw America's attention away from what he is doing >>



Get a Clue brother he is a Politician! Don't you remember Clinton bombing Osama same day as the Cigar fiasco Hello do not be so niave. None the less He's our Prez so back 'em don't be a flake...

sleezy is way over doing it bub.

my $.02
 
I supported Clinton as did the majority of this country that voted for him not once,but twice. And he was elected twice, in the face of twits liike your kind digging up B.S. and putting the country through a relentless witch hunt called monicagate and whitewater. Not once have you ass holes agnologed the fact this bitch went to Washington for the express purpose of "using her presidential kneepads". That from her own mouth on tape before she went to the whitehouse.

You now continue to try and show Bushlite in the shadow of Clinton, the most popular President since FDR and JFK. Not anyone I know has condoned Clintons actions in covering up the slobjob, but anyone with half a brain would do the same to keep from hurting his Family. How many lot lizards have you been with Tom, and did you tell your wife about every episode? I doubt it.

A democrat can talk about values just as loudly as you so called conservatives who think you are so self rightous . What a bunch of friggen hypocrites.

Tominator, you are just practicing the same old time proven "conservative" tactic.

"Liberals deny history and the past. They only want it brought up after they are sure it has become so vague that they feel safe in distorting it.

Substitute Liberals with conservatives and you will get the same result. Only conservatives don't wait to start their distortions. In fact, they have a hard time distiguishing truth from fiction, reality from the dream world they think all America should live in,as long as they control every damn thing.

Nothing new here.
😉
 


<< Red, how come he get's away with that and I get the dogsh!t hammered out of me? >>

Because I actually take the time to read your posts. Plus I had mistaken you for an idiot instead of a Patriotic l Cheif Petty Officer in the US Navy who just happens to feel differently about that subject than I do🙂
 


<< digging up B.S. and putting the country through a relentless witch hunt called monicagate and whitewater. >>





<< Not anyone I know has condoned Clintons actions in covering up the slobjob, but anyone with half a brain would do the same to keep from hurting his Family. >>



Triple,
Believe it or not there are people in this country who can criticize clinton and not be a hypocrite. There are actually people who don't lie, don't cheat on their wives and don't break laws. You can say it's BS if you want. It's not. I personally don't have a problem with people who supported Clinton, I'm pretty sure my wife voted for him twice. My problem is with people who don't think he did anything wrong. There are plenty of people on this board and elsewhere that still think it was all about the sex. I don't think it was. It was about lying. He lied to us on TV. When he was caught, he lied again. He lied under oath. He was impeached. He was disbarred. He settled out of court and paid hefty fines. This is what we judge him by. No one here has ever said "this is what Clinton did well, this _____ is his legacy". I don't think he had anymore effect on the economy than any other Pres. What will the history books say he did? As for GWB we'll just have to wait and see won't we. So far I think he's doing a decent job (although if he says "evil-doer" one more time I'll puke for distance).
 


<< How many lot lizards have you been with Tom, and did you tell your wife about every episode? I doubt it. >>



That is easy. NEVER been with a whore! I've related every instance to my wife of being approached by one. Do not judge me by your own obvious lack of morals.

Seems Tripleshot has reverted to personal attacks again. ANOTHER Liberal tactic! LOL!

I've gone over history many times in these forums and called your bluff as many times stateing what happened. You've judged Clinton by nothing but popularity. Bush is more popular as most polls show. How come that was headline news throughout Clinton's eight years of shame and barely makes the news now?
 
<< Get a Clue brother he is a Politician! Don't you remember Clinton bombing Osama same day as the Cigar fiasco Hello do not be so niave. None the less He's our Prez so back 'em don't be a flake... >>

Politicians are a certain way so that they can stay in buisiness. All politics has dirty areas. So back the guy he is the Prez!! Go Bush!!!
 
the ABM treaty actually got rid of most anti-ballistic missles, which people were working on back in the 1970s as well as now. the thing they realized back then was it was far cheaper to build more missiles than defend against them, so the treaty limited anti-ballistic missiles to 2 installations, one of which could protect a city.

reagan thought that MAD was immoral, so he came up with SDI as a way to protect people. at one point when he and gorby were talking about the INF elimination treaty gorby proposed that all nuclear forces be eliminated if the US gave up SDI. reagan really wanted to go for it but his advisors talked him out of it.

the SDI office remained open until about 1998, when it was replaced by this new ABM office.

heres the thing: this missle system doens't give us disarming first-strike capabilities against russia. even if out own nukes could take out 90% of theirs they would still have 500 left (and i doubt it would even take out 90%... hardened bunkers are hard to penetrate, and we'd need to get their boomers as well, and the rail launched and truck borne ones are nightmares to pin down). a few decoys easily passes many true warheads through thousands of ABMs, and then theres no more united states.

russia really doesn't have a beef militarily.

russia just sees the abandoning of a treaty as disrespectful to them. the USSR was a superpower, and russia a successor state to that power. the people were proud of being a superpower (even if it gave them refrigerators that didn't work and shoes that didn't fit) and that pride carries over to today.
 


<<

<< . Judge your village idiot not against history, but against your own set of moral values. >>



A little bias maybe?

This is a time proven Liberal tactic. Clinton nor Bush are idiots, but many of the voters that voted for Clinton were. Many of them wised up when they saw Gore coming and voted Bush in.

Liberals deny history and the past. They only want it brought up after they are sure it has become so vague that they feel safe in distorting it.

If you supported Clinton, you HAD no values! Now the same persons that defended Clinton, the guy that made the term blow-job a household word, are talking about morals.

Don't be surprised if you get laughed at. >>


You are an absolutely ignorant ass. You make glittering generalities about "Liberals" that are A: without substance, and B: without merit. Please elaborate on this and other supposed "Liberal" tactics. You are a paranoid child that runs around screaming his little lungs off when he doesn't like the truth that he sees. I am not assigning this quality that you present to conservatives, whose views you representatively espouse, but rather just to you. In all of your posts, you have yet to make a cogent argument based on fact, or anything even resembling one. If you can present a viable argument based on historical context of fact, then maybe you can be taken seriously. Until then however, you do nothing but caterwaul your paranoid attitudes.

Number of voters that wised up and voted for Bush over Gore = -539,947

I personally supported Clinton, and I am willing to bet you that my morals and values are stronger than yours. (Although this may be a subjective area, if you wish to bat qualifications, I am up to the challenge.) I supported Clinton as he was a stronger candidate for the Presidency than anyone else running. I vote for a presidential candidate on the grounds of his ability to effectively discharge the duties of office and nothing more. As head of the executive branch, he is not to be an object of divinity. Clinton's sexual misdealings may give you charge to assail him on a moral level, not on a level of execution of duty.

You seem very keen on condemning Clinton for his moral behavior. Yet now you feel that this is just cause to withhold these same levels of morality from those who share your party affiliation? Seems to give your rationale the pungent odor of hypocrisy.
 
Tominator

my lack of morals? Since when do you have any knowledge what so ever of MY morals?


Clue, you don't. And the crack about lot lizards is sarcasm that only you and I would know about, but you choose to illuminate it. It is no more personal than your encesant attacks on any one who challenges your description of moral high ground that only "conservatives' are allowed to walk on. That is pure Bull pocky and you know it. Conservatives have no more claim to moral principles than anyone else. To claim so is hypocracy in action. The very fact you try to paint that picture I find morally reprehensable. It is youe utter lack of tolerence for anyone who disagrees with your statements,and you constant liberal bashing. Your credibility is worthless. You are only effective when you are surounded by like minded people.

I would take you more seriously if you could lay off the liberal bashing bullsh!t because it does not resonate.

Again, it was a damn conservative Republican Dan Dornan who challenged Bush ,and the whole damn congress, both parties, who are calling B.S. on the Bush tactic of executive privalage. It is Bush and his ties to Enron and the fact the justice department has allowed those executives to stonewall congressional investigations that most people find morally reprehensible.

When you take the high ground,at least do it with something more to support it than Bush. He willl let you down hard.

And don't be so stupid as to think Bush popularity is any factor. We are at war. That is the only reason he is high in the polls. When it comes to domestic policy,he is woefully lacking,and his actions lately demand congressional oversight, the very thing he is using executive privlage on. You, in your blind bias ,think thats an OK thing. Well, some disagree. Like about 75% of congress.

Get a grip. Its not a personal attack. Its an attack on your bias. Lose it and you may get my respect. Challenge my morals, and you can kiss my ass.
 
My comment is rather off topic, but when I compare Bush as a Commander In Chief to Clinton, well there simply is no comparison. One of the reasons I left the military was because in that capacity, Clinton was a pure embarrassment. When his conduct is less acceptable than that of a lowly derelect Private in the Army, when he holds the highest position over all the military leaders it was purely disrespectfull to all who wore the uniform. It got so bad that we were formally threatened of severe consequences if we spoke anything negative about the "Commander In Chief". That, in the modern US Armed Forces of today is absolutely shamefull.. IMHO.
 
TripleShot wrote:

"Again, it was a damn conservative Republican Dan Dornan who challenged Bush ,and the whole damn congress, both parties, who are calling B.S. on the Bush tactic of executive privalage. It is Bush and his ties to Enron and the fact the justice department has allowed those executives to stonewall congressional investigations that most people find morally reprehensible."

Get your facts straight. It was actually Rep. Dan Burton, who has been investigating Clinton's abuse of the Pardon. Dornan? He's just along for the ride.

I'm guessing you also attacked Clinton when he used the Executive Order to cover up and protect himself? Of course you didn't.

Bush's "ties" to Enron have been a liberals' dream for attack. Too bad they didn't see any reason to mention Gore-Whore's "ties" to several petroleum enterprises.
 
mastertech01

>>>It got so bad that we were formally threatened of severe consequences if we spoke anything negative about the "Commander In Chief". <<<

That has been around longer than you have. The same was said in 68,69,70,71 when Nixon promised an end to the war.


And how is it you can fault Clinton and exonerate Bush,who, when I was fighting in a foreign war,he obtained a special treatment to be in the F.A.N.G. (the F. is what I thought of the "legal draft dodgers")and was awol for a year from his assignment in Louisiana? And what about his flamboyant party animal lifestyle you have no problem with.





With your power of judgement, perhaps it was a good thing you left the military.

Edit.....

Pabster,

>>>Get your facts straight. It was actually Rep. Dan Burton, who has been investigating Clinton's abuse of the Pardon. Dornan? He's just along for the ride.<<<

Thank you. I was not sure when I typed it. I do not memorize republican names other than Hatch,Army,and Delay.😉
 


<< With your power of judgement, perhaps it was a good thing you left the military. >>



I see you are a man who respects the opinions of others. I was also in the military when Nixon resigned. I wasnt comparing what Bush did as a civilian, only as Commander in Chief. Perhaps if you served when Clinton was in office you would not be as happy about him. I was neither happy about the conduct of Nixon while I was in the service either. In either case it doesn't take one as humbly intelligent as you to see the truth and the facts and speak with all honesty.
 


<< I personally supported Clinton, and I am willing to bet you that my morals and values are stronger than yours. (Although this may be a subjective area, if you wish to bat qualifications, I am up to the challenge.) I supported Clinton as he was a stronger candidate for the Presidency than anyone else running. I vote for a presidential candidate on the grounds of his ability to effectively discharge the duties of office and nothing more. As head of the executive branch, he is not to be an object of divinity. Clinton's sexual misdealings may give you charge to assail him on a moral level, not on a level of execution of duty.

You seem very keen on condemning Clinton for his moral behavior. Yet now you feel that this is just cause to withhold these same levels of morality from those who share your party affiliation? Seems to give your rationale the pungent odor of hypocrisy. >>



Absolutely true. It's very shallow for all those Bush supporters to criticize not only the last administration but also our supposed lack of morals... People forget that Clinton was a much more accomplished president, and personally, I have not agreed with a single decision the guy has made outside of the two months following 9/11...
 


<< No one here has ever said "this is what Clinton did well, this _____ is his legacy". >>



Anyone care to? I'm still curious to know what everyone thinks Clinton did that will be remembered besides the obvious *gate's. Come on now, someone just said he was much more accomplished than .... Elaborate please.
 


<<

<< No one here has ever said "this is what Clinton did well, this _____ is his legacy". >>



Anyone care to? I'm still curious to know what everyone thinks Clinton did that will be remembered besides the obvious *gate's. Come on now, someone just said he was much more accomplished than .... Elaborate please. >>



What a shallow way of defining a presidency... Personally, at the least I'll remember him as making fewer dispicable decisions in his eight years than Bush did in his first eight months...
 


<< What a shallow way of defining a presidency... Personally, at the least I'll remember him as making fewer dispicable decisions in his eight years than Bush did in his first eight months... >>



that makes him a more accomplished pres? I'm curious too, what exactly did clinton get done in 8 years??
personally, i remember bush doing more in 2 months than clinton did in 2 terms
 
I guess I don't fall to "party" lines as I choose my candidates by their actions, but wasn?t this a Bush is a sleaze thread? He has been very open about this, and hasn?t had to have anyone sit in jail for a few years to cover it up. Nothing underhanded has happened in regards to this extraction from a treaty that should have no relevance, as the other party it was made with no longer exists. (There isn?t even a U.S.S.R in the UN anymore?. GET IT?)

And why would anyone in this particular thread compare Clinton to Bush? It doesn't matter other than to expose hypocrisy on the side of a Democrat (or Socialist because at this point, what's the difference?). And Oh my goodness, Clinton lied! </fake surprise> Face it, "Slick-Willie" Clinton is gone and the world is a better place for it, now everyone get over it!

Tomek makes a good point about not being able to intercept all ICBM?s. But his reasoning is a little far fetched to assume that EVERY warhead Russia (or any other country that is now in control of them) would be launched at once. At that point, we should just look for a new planet. The US sub fleet alone could reduce this whole thing we now call existence to a barren rock.

To further add to the fact that nothing underhanded is happening here (and I may be mistaken), didn?t the US offer to work together with Russia (by that I mean, the powers that are now running this NEW government) on these ABM projects to try and maintain a ?balance of power??

I would have to think the most dangerous option is the Russian mafia selling these things to a zealot who has no intercontinental missile capability (we can detect those launches and at least try to respond), and having this group park it in a truck someplace downtown (any town, it wouldn?t matter which one)
 


<< What a shallow way of defining a presidency... Personally, at the least I'll remember him as making fewer dispicable decisions in his eight years than Bush did in his first eight months... >>



How in the hell is that shallow? How else would you define a Presidency? I guess that's what the history the history books will say- " In addition to the various and assundry "gates" President Clinton will best be remembered for making very few dispicable decisions" In other words you got nothing.
 
bush has been talking up missile defense, tax cuts, and opening of ANWR since his campaign. this is the platform for which he was elected. why are people shocked/angered when he takes steps in achieving these directives? i may not agree with some of his policies, but the exit from the ABM treaty should have come as no surprise. indeed, even the russians have had a very tempered response, at least in public.
 
Tripleshot

You are all talk and no action. You use the attack and then backoff and call name tactic everytime. Your post have little substance ever.

Lucky for you I'm going away for 9 days or I'd skin you and make a rug out of you. Besides there are many other Members knocking the crap out of your posts with relevance you can rarely muster.
 
Bush is a sleezy ba$tard!

You outta learn to grammar check my friend! You're in school and you don't even catch the TRIPLE redundancy here??? 😉

This is one of the best spin control administrations I know of.

(not that others tried any less hard tho, they just weren't as successful)

 
Oh yeah, he tried to slip that one past all of us "abm treaty pullout". Haha..where have you been? I am a scumbag myself and have known about it for months. hahaha
 
Lucky for you I'm going away for 9 days or I'd skin you and make a rug out of you.

You want an address so you can exercise this threat mofo? I'll be happy to send it to you.:|
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top