Do You Still Have Trust . . .

[azazyel]

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: azazyel

Originally posted by: Genx87

If you wish to argue about this fine. If you still think that the Bush Whitehouse is still on track with 'restoring honor and decency' I would love to see examples.

Take the blinders off bunkie

Please enlighten me must have missed something.

obviously

If you're not going to tell me where I missed somethign you might as well just post "post count +1"

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: azazyel

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: azazyel

Originally posted by: Genx87

If you wish to argue about this fine. If you still think that the Bush Whitehouse is still on track with 'restoring honor and decency' I would love to see examples.

Take the blinders off bunkie

Please enlighten me must have missed something.

obviously

If you're not going to tell me where I missed somethign you might as well just post "post count +1"

I pointed it out a few posts above.

I havent defended Bush at all in this thread yet you are implying I have.

 

[doody]

Genx, reading all your post on this thread and its very difficult to get an idea of what you are trying to put across, what are you trying to say?

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: doody
Genx, reading all your post on this thread and its very difficult to get an idea of what you are trying to put across, what are you trying to say?

Originally posted by: Genx87
Just like the previous two administrations,

not much.

 

[doody]

I take it you have nothing to say then? you just want attention?

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: doody
I take it you have nothing to say then? you just want attention?

Yeah that is it.

Where do you people crawl out of?

 

[azazyel]

Originally posted by: Genx87
I pointed it out a few posts above.

I havent defended Bush at all in this thread yet you are implying I have.

Dude, get back on the Riddlen. Your posts are all over the place and I think somewhere you got me confused w/ someone else.

I asked:

"If you wish to argue about this fine. If you still think that the Bush Whitehouse is still on track with 'restoring honor and decency' I would love to see examples."

Then you laughed and told me to 'take my blinders off'. I asked what that meant and you just avoided the question.

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: azazyel

Originally posted by: Genx87
I pointed it out a few posts above.

I havent defended Bush at all in this thread yet you are implying I have.

Dude, get back on the Riddlen. Your posts are all over the place and I think somewhere you got me confused w/ someone else.

I asked:

"If you wish to argue about this fine. If you still think that the Bush Whitehouse is still on track with 'restoring honor and decency' I would love to see examples."

Then you laughed and told me to 'take my blinders off'. I asked what that meant and you just avoided the question.

What grade level is your reading comprehension?

Seriously.

What part of " I am not defending Bush's administration" dont you understand?
Most people can understand that to mean "I dont believe he is".

 

[azazyel]

Originally posted by: Genx87
What grade level is your reading comprehension?

Seriously.

What part of " I am not defending Bush's administration" dont you understand?
Most people can understand that to mean "I dont believe he is".

Then why did you say 'take off your blinders'? Is that too hard of a question. If you don't want to defend Bush, fine but at least defend your own posts.

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: azazyel

Originally posted by: Genx87
What grade level is your reading comprehension?

Seriously.

What part of " I am not defending Bush's administration" dont you understand?
Most people can understand that to mean "I dont believe he is".

Then why did you say 'take off your blinders'? Is that too hard of a question. If you don't want to defend Bush, fine but at least defend your own posts.

Because your ideology is blinding you to the fact I wasnt defending Bush at all. Your blinders said I was when I wasnt.

 

[azazyel]

Originally posted by: Genx87
Because your ideology is blinding you to the fact I wasnt defending Bush at all. Your blinders said I was when I wasnt.

My ideology? You were laughing and using small talking points in reply to my posts, what was I supposed to take that as? If you actually put forth an actual thought I wouldn't have had to waste so much time trying to figure out what you were talking about.

sheesh

 

[arsbanned]

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: CaptnKirk

Originally posted by: RightIsWrong
I put that I haven't trusted been proved right. This is not, per se, because I hate Bush (although I have grown to) but more b/c of my apathy towards pols in general. You have to show yourself worthy of trust. They have never done that IMHO.

So much for restoring 'Honesty and Intergity' to the Whitehouse . . .

It's just baffling.

You think any politician can do that?

Bush Sr may have but he didnt get a 2nd term to screw it up.
Clinton was a failure from the word go. And the current admin is terrible at defining clear goals.

Are we better off now than we were under Clinton? I think NOT. Bush is a huckster surrounded by crooks.

 

[Pabster]

Originally posted by: arsbanned
Are we better off now than we were under Clinton? I think NOT.

Well I think we are. :laugh: :laugh:

 

[rickn]

Originally posted by: Pabster

Originally posted by: arsbanned
Are we better off now than we were under Clinton? I think NOT.

Well I think we are. :laugh: :laugh:

sure we are, if you're a proponent of massive debt, massive casualties & war, in the banking business, in the oil business. you'd be having a grand ol time. :evil:

 

[Agnostos Insania]

I have never, nor will I ever trust a politician. They're despicable, manipulative, lying, selfish, horrible human scum. How people can give them blind trust is far behind my comprehension.

 

[imported_Tango]

Hard to trust somebody who cannot speak his own mothertongue.

 

[OneOfTheseDays]

Originally posted by: Pabster

Originally posted by: arsbanned
Are we better off now than we were under Clinton? I think NOT.

Well I think we are. :laugh: :laugh:

why? please elaborate, this should make for a good laugh.

 

[BBond]

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: Tab

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: CaptnKirk

Originally posted by: RightIsWrong
I put that I haven't trusted been proved right. This is not, per se, because I hate Bush (although I have grown to) but more b/c of my apathy towards pols in general. You have to show yourself worthy of trust. They have never done that IMHO.

So much for restoring 'Honesty and Intergity' to the Whitehouse . . .

It's just baffling.

You think any politician can do that?

Bush Sr may have but he didnt get a 2nd term to screw it up.
Clinton was a failure from the word go. And the current admin is terrible at defining clear goals.

How was Clinton a failure from the start? He did an execellent job of ending hositities with the IRA and Palenstine-Isreali Conflict.

How many scandals a week came out of the whitehouse? And dont give me crap about it being a vast right wing conspiracy. Then the infamous BJ episode and him lying under oath.

Integrity with that administration was not even in their vocabulary. I dont care what he did with the Pally\Isreali situation which doesnt appear to be much to begin with. This thread is about integrity and trust.

How many scandals per week? As many as Ken Starr could fund with $70 million U.S. taxpayer dollars.

How many scandals do you think a special prosecutor could fund against the Bush criminal cabal with $70 million?

As for those Clinton "scandals" -- the only one that Starr or any of you right wing nuts could prove was a lie about a BJ. Not much of a lie in comparison to the scum you keep defending, Genx.

Clinton brought this nation out of the Reagan/Bush depression, balanced the budget, there were GOOD PAYING jobs for just about anyone who wanted one, and he left the treasury with a SURPLUS which Bush squandered immediately after his coup. So please, unless you want to be ignored like your ridiculous compatriot, Pabster, cut the bullsh!t. You people are about as believable as the moron you worship in the White House.

 

[BBond]

The plain fact is that after a seven year non-stop investigato-rama, no senior Clinton White House official was ever even charged with wrongdoing. Much less indicted. Much less convicted. In fact, the highest-ranking Clinton official to be convicted of wrongdoing in connection with his public duties was the chief of staff to the Agriculture Secretary. Betcha five bucks you can't even name the Clinton Agriculture Secretary in question, much less his chief of staff. Unlike Nixon (whose Watergate crimes were manifest), unlike Reagan (whose White House was corrupted by the Iran-Contra crimes), unlike Bush 41 (who pardoned White House aides and Cabinet officers before they could testify against him), Bill Clinton presided over the most ethical White House staff in decades.

Genx? Can you read?

 

[imported_Snagle]

"I Never Trusted Them, and My Feelings Have Proven Right."

 

[foodfightr]

Still?

lol