Discussion:
Fiengold-the gift that keeps on giving.
(too old to reply)
Crescentius Vespasianus
2006-03-17 18:25:45 UTC
Permalink
Republicans are elated that Russ Fiengold is sticking with his censure
Bush position. "Fiengold is the gift that keeps on giving," said an RNC
operative. What Republicans are disappointed about is that Fiengold has yet
to convince even one other Democrat Senator to follow him into the tar pit.
Another disappointment is that the journalists, have now suppressed the
story, even though it was their idea to censure Bush in the first place.

And why does Fiengold want to censure Bush? Because Bush is trying to
defend the citizenry from Islamic terrorist attacks. Russ doesn't have to
worry, he has a whole phalanx of federal government security forces to
protect his precious ass. But the rest of us are on our own, according to
Russ.
Joseph Welch
2006-03-17 18:36:46 UTC
Permalink
Post by Crescentius Vespasianus
And why does Fiengold want to censure Bush? Because Bush is trying to
defend the citizenry from Islamic terrorist attacks.
This statement above all else demonstrates what out of control, out of touch
with reality lunatics you right-wing extremists are.
--
JW
***************
"You've done enough. Have you no sense of decency, sir, at long last? Have
you left no sense of decency?"
http://www.americanrhetoric.com/speeches/welch-mccarthy.html
unknown
2006-03-17 19:31:57 UTC
Permalink
On Fri, 17 Mar 2006 10:36:46 -0800, "Joseph Welch"
Post by Joseph Welch
Post by Crescentius Vespasianus
And why does Fiengold want to censure Bush? Because Bush is trying to
defend the citizenry from Islamic terrorist attacks.
This statement above all else demonstrates what out of control, out of touch
with reality lunatics you right-wing extremists are.
He's fast approaching the "Kurt "hang-up Knicklas"
stupid award.
Brutus
2006-03-17 21:27:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by Joseph Welch
Post by Crescentius Vespasianus
And why does Fiengold want to censure Bush? Because Bush is trying to
defend the citizenry from Islamic terrorist attacks.
This statement above all else demonstrates what out of control, out of
touch with reality lunatics you right-wing extremists are.
--
JW
Yeah, the 3,000 who whre murdered on 9/11 would agree with you - totally.

Brutus
Joseph Welch
2006-03-17 21:47:31 UTC
Permalink
Post by Brutus
Post by Joseph Welch
Post by Crescentius Vespasianus
And why does Fiengold want to censure Bush? Because Bush is trying to
defend the citizenry from Islamic terrorist attacks.
This statement above all else demonstrates what out of control, out of
touch with reality lunatics you right-wing extremists are.
Yeah, the 3,000 who whre murdered on 9/11 would agree with you - totally.
You disagree? How do you figure?

Please explain why Feingold (or any other Democrat) would want to punish
Bush for trying to defend the citzenry against Islamic attacks?

While you're at it - explain why your own sarcastic retort mentions an
example where Bush failed to do so?
--
JW
***************
"You've done enough. Have you no sense of decency, sir, at long last? Have
you left no sense of decency?"
http://www.americanrhetoric.com/speeches/welch-mccarthy.html
Brutus
2006-03-18 00:46:37 UTC
Permalink
Post by Joseph Welch
Post by Brutus
Post by Joseph Welch
Post by Crescentius Vespasianus
And why does Fiengold want to censure Bush? Because Bush is trying to
defend the citizenry from Islamic terrorist attacks.
This statement above all else demonstrates what out of control, out of
touch with reality lunatics you right-wing extremists are.
Yeah, the 3,000 who whre murdered on 9/11 would agree with you - totally.
You disagree? How do you figure?
Please explain why Feingold (or any other Democrat) would want to punish
Bush for trying to defend the citzenry against Islamic attacks?
Why wouldn't he? Bush haters want to punish him for everything he does.
Post by Joseph Welch
While you're at it - explain why your own sarcastic retort mentions an
example where Bush failed to do so?
*IF* we would not have had a stripped down intelligence apparatus (jeepers,
who gutted those agencies?) and if we would have taken the approach that we
were at war BEFORE 9-11 (after all, the radical Islamists HAD declared war
on us) we would have been much more proactive in deterring any attack.

Brutus
Post by Joseph Welch
--
JW
***************
"You've done enough. Have you no sense of decency, sir, at long last?
Have you left no sense of decency?"
http://www.americanrhetoric.com/speeches/welch-mccarthy.html
Paul Mitchum
2006-03-18 09:48:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by Brutus
Post by Joseph Welch
Please explain why Feingold (or any other Democrat) would want to punish
Bush for trying to defend the citzenry against Islamic attacks?
Why wouldn't he?
The question was: Why WOULD he?

Can you answer it?
--
It's often hard to tell: <http://tinyurl.com/9vqpa>
Brutus
2006-03-18 16:30:30 UTC
Permalink
Post by Paul Mitchum
Post by Brutus
Post by Joseph Welch
Please explain why Feingold (or any other Democrat) would want to punish
Bush for trying to defend the citzenry against Islamic attacks?
Why wouldn't he?
The question was: Why WOULD he?
Can you answer it?
Do you really think there is a need to? Surely you could list a few reasons
why yourself - if you dared to be honest.

Brutus
Erik A. Mattila
2006-03-18 18:14:55 UTC
Permalink
Post by Brutus
Post by Paul Mitchum
Post by Brutus
Post by Joseph Welch
Please explain why Feingold (or any other Democrat) would want to punish
Bush for trying to defend the citzenry against Islamic attacks?
Why wouldn't he?
The question was: Why WOULD he?
Can you answer it?
Do you really think there is a need to? Surely you could list a few reasons
why yourself - if you dared to be honest.
Brutus
There are no reasons, Brutus. Your question is flawed on its face.
Feingold will punish Bush for lying. Your approach is to equivocate
"Lying" with "trying to defend the citizenry against Islamic attacks."
It doesn't work. and...

"Islamist attacks" is the term your looking for, unless you believe that
Islam is attacking, instead of terrorists.

"Trying to defend" is an interesting choice or words. Isn't it true
that Bush's critics are saying that Iraq wasn't involved in attacks
against the US? So "lying" to "defend the citzenry [sic] against
Islamic attacks" by attacking Iraq may be "trying" but it doesn't do
much in the way of "defending." That in itself makes Bush look pretty
incompetent. Feingold may be way off base, in fact. He should have
moved to censure for incompetence rather than lying.
Harry Flynt
2006-03-18 18:24:36 UTC
Permalink
Post by Erik A. Mattila
Post by Brutus
Post by Paul Mitchum
Post by Brutus
Post by Joseph Welch
Please explain why Feingold (or any other Democrat) would want to punish
Bush for trying to defend the citzenry against Islamic attacks?
Why wouldn't he?
The question was: Why WOULD he?
Can you answer it?
Do you really think there is a need to? Surely you could list a few
reasons why yourself - if you dared to be honest.
Brutus
There are no reasons, Brutus. Your question is flawed on its face.
Feingold will punish Bush for lying. Your approach is to equivocate
"Lying" with "trying to defend the citizenry against Islamic attacks."
It doesn't work. and...
"Islamist attacks" is the term your looking for, unless you believe that
Islam is attacking, instead of terrorists.
"Trying to defend" is an interesting choice or words. Isn't it true
that Bush's critics are saying that Iraq wasn't involved in attacks
against the US? So "lying" to "defend the citzenry [sic] against
Islamic attacks" by attacking Iraq may be "trying" but it doesn't do
much in the way of "defending." That in itself makes Bush look pretty
incompetent. Feingold may be way off base, in fact. He should have
moved to censure for incompetence rather than lying.
and he would get the same amount of support from dems...ZERO!

Harry
r***@comcast.net
2006-03-18 23:17:20 UTC
Permalink
Post by Harry Flynt
Post by Erik A. Mattila
incompetent. Feingold may be way off base, in fact. He should have
moved to censure for incompetence rather than lying.
and he would get the same amount of support from dems...ZERO!
Harkin has joined him. Barbara Boxer has joined him. And now that the
polls show most Americans favor it, more will likely step up too.

http://americanresearchgroup.com/

Do you favor or oppose the United States Senate passing a resolution
censuring President George W. Bush for authorizing wiretaps of
Americans within the United States without obtaining court orders?

3/15/06 Favor Oppose Undecided
All Adults 46% 44% 10%
Voters 48% 43% 9%
Republicans (33%) 29% 57% 14%
Democrats (37%) 70% 26% 4%
Independents (30%) 42% 47% 11%

Based on 1,100 completed telephone interviews among a random sample of
adults nationwide March 13-15, 2006. The theoretical margin of error
is plus or minus 3 percentage points, 95% of the time.

- - - -
Just another albino black sheep
Harry Flynt
2006-03-19 02:51:28 UTC
Permalink
Post by r***@comcast.net
Post by Harry Flynt
Post by Erik A. Mattila
incompetent. Feingold may be way off base, in fact. He should have
moved to censure for incompetence rather than lying.
and he would get the same amount of support from dems...ZERO!
Harkin has joined him. Barbara Boxer has joined him. And now that the
polls show most Americans favor it, more will likely step up too.
they both had a chance to vote on that last week and didn't. time to stop
dreaming. the dems well never get anything on bush and he will finish his
term so just deal with it.

Harry
Erik A. Mattila
2006-03-19 17:37:36 UTC
Permalink
Post by Harry Flynt
Post by r***@comcast.net
Post by Harry Flynt
Post by Erik A. Mattila
incompetent. Feingold may be way off base, in fact. He should have
moved to censure for incompetence rather than lying.
and he would get the same amount of support from dems...ZERO!
Harkin has joined him. Barbara Boxer has joined him. And now that the
polls show most Americans favor it, more will likely step up too.
they both had a chance to vote on that last week and didn't. time to stop
dreaming. the dems well never get anything on bush and he will finish his
term so just deal with it.
Harry
Let's revisit that question after November, shall we?
Harry Flynt
2006-03-19 17:52:21 UTC
Permalink
Post by Erik A. Mattila
Post by Harry Flynt
Post by r***@comcast.net
Post by Harry Flynt
Post by Erik A. Mattila
incompetent. Feingold may be way off base, in fact. He should have
moved to censure for incompetence rather than lying.
and he would get the same amount of support from dems...ZERO!
Harkin has joined him. Barbara Boxer has joined him. And now that the
polls show most Americans favor it, more will likely step up too.
they both had a chance to vote on that last week and didn't. time to
stop dreaming. the dems well never get anything on bush and he will
finish his term so just deal with it.
Harry
Let's revisit that question after November, shall we?
god you pathetic! then what? the dems won't have any more power or balls 6
months from now.

Harry
Erik A. Mattila
2006-03-20 01:50:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by Harry Flynt
Post by Erik A. Mattila
Post by Harry Flynt
Post by r***@comcast.net
Post by Harry Flynt
Post by Erik A. Mattila
incompetent. Feingold may be way off base, in fact. He should have
moved to censure for incompetence rather than lying.
and he would get the same amount of support from dems...ZERO!
Harkin has joined him. Barbara Boxer has joined him. And now that the
polls show most Americans favor it, more will likely step up too.
they both had a chance to vote on that last week and didn't. time to
stop dreaming. the dems well never get anything on bush and he will
finish his term so just deal with it.
Harry
Let's revisit that question after November, shall we?
god you pathetic! then what? the dems won't have any more power or balls 6
months from now.
Harry
My goodness...is that some sort of evangelical curse? "God you,
pathetic!" (Like the rest of us might say "Fuck you, Pathetic!")
GENERIC BALLOT � U.S. House of Representatives from recent nonpartisan
and partisan national polls

http://www.pollingreport.com/2006.htm#misc

Let's see if this table holds its formatting. The lead number is the
last for each poll. The one with the "D" after it (Hey, there are no
"Rs". None at all. Otherwise go to the URL and read it and weep, bud.


.

Newsweek RV 3/16-17/06 39 50 11 11 D


.
NPR LV 3/12-14/06 37 52 11 15 D


.
CNN/USA Today/Gallup RV 3/10-12/06 39 55 7 16 D


.
FOX/Opinion Dynamics RV 2/28 - 3/1/06 34 48 18 14 D


.
CNN/USA Today/Gallup RV 2/28 - 3/1/06 39 53 7 14 D


.
Democracy Corps (D) LV 2/23-27/06 40 48 12 8 D


.
Diageo/Hotline RV 2/16-19/06 31 46 23 15 D


.
GWU Battleground LV 2/12-15/06 41 46 14 5 D


.
CNN/USA Today/Gallup RV 2/9-12/06 43 50 8 7 D


.
Pew RV 2/1-5/06 41 50 9 9 D


.
ABC/Washington Post RV 1/23-26/06 38 54 9 16 D


.
Democracy Corps (D) LV 1/22-25/06 41 49 10 8 D


.
CBS/New York Times RV 1/20-25/06 34 43 23 9 D


.
Diageo/Hotline RV 1/12-15/06 33 40 27 7 D


.
CNN/USA Today/Gallup RV 1/6-8/06 43 49 8 6 D


.
ABC/Washington Post RV 12/15-18/05 41 51 9 10 D


.
NPR LV 12/15, 17-18/05 37 45 17 8 D


.
Diageo/Hotline RV 12/12-13/05 33 43 25 10 D


.
Democracy Corps (D) LV 12/8-12/05 41 49 9 8 D


.
CBS/New York Times RV 12/2-6/05 33 42 25 9 D


.
Democracy Corps (D) LV 11/30 - 12/4/05 39 49 12 10 D


.
Time RV 11/29 - 12/1/05 36 48 15 12 D


.
Democracy Corps (D) LV 11/16-20/05 41 48 11 7 D


.
Diageo/Hotline RV 11/11-15/05 35 41 24 6 D


.
Newsweek RV 11/10-11/05 36 53 11 17 D


.
Democracy Corps (D) LV 11/2-6/05 40 48 12 8 D


.
ABC/Washington Post RV 10/30 - 11/2/05 37 52 12 15 D


.
CNN/USA Today/Gallup RV 10/21-23/05 43 50 7 7 D


.
Democracy Corps (D) LV 10/19-23/05 39 48 12 9 D


.
Diageo/Hotline RV 10/12-16/05 31 40 29 9 D


.
GWU Battleground LV 10/9-12/05 41 47 13 6 D


.
Democracy Corps (D) LV 10/5-10/05 41 46 14 5 D


.
Newsweek RV 9/29-30/05 42 47 11 5 D


.
Democracy Corps (D) LV 9/19-21/05 39 48 13 9 D


.
Pew RV 9/8-11/05 40 52 8 12 D


.
Newsweek RV 9/8-9/05 38 50 12 12 D

Paul Mitchum
2006-03-18 19:01:16 UTC
Permalink
Post by Erik A. Mattila
There are no reasons, Brutus. Your question is flawed on its face.
Feingold will punish Bush for lying.
Actually, no. Feingold's censure is about breaking the law, not lying.
The President broke the law. It was a very important law, and he broke
it, seemingly without reason. And then he told the nation that he did
it. He bragged about it.

*That's* what Feingold's censure says. Lawless actors shouldn't be in
the President's office.
--
It's often hard to tell: <http://tinyurl.com/9vqpa>
Erik A. Mattila
2006-03-19 01:50:37 UTC
Permalink
Post by Paul Mitchum
Post by Erik A. Mattila
There are no reasons, Brutus. Your question is flawed on its face.
Feingold will punish Bush for lying.
Actually, no. Feingold's censure is about breaking the law, not lying.
The President broke the law. It was a very important law, and he broke
it, seemingly without reason. And then he told the nation that he did
it. He bragged about it.
*That's* what Feingold's censure says. Lawless actors shouldn't be in
the President's office.
Yes - you're correct. I was confusing his call for censure with
Conyer's. A point well taken.
r***@comcast.net
2006-03-19 02:19:34 UTC
Permalink
On Sat, 18 Mar 2006 17:50:37 -0800, "Erik A. Mattila"
Post by Erik A. Mattila
Post by Paul Mitchum
Post by Erik A. Mattila
There are no reasons, Brutus. Your question is flawed on its face.
Feingold will punish Bush for lying.
Actually, no. Feingold's censure is about breaking the law, not lying.
The President broke the law. It was a very important law, and he broke
it, seemingly without reason. And then he told the nation that he did
it. He bragged about it.
*That's* what Feingold's censure says. Lawless actors shouldn't be in
the President's office.
Yes - you're correct. I was confusing his call for censure with
Conyer's. A point well taken.
http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/downloads/finalreport.pdf

Conyers is calling for impeachment based on a 250 page detailed
report.

- - - -
Just another albino black sheep
Erik A. Mattila
2006-03-19 17:36:28 UTC
Permalink
Post by r***@comcast.net
On Sat, 18 Mar 2006 17:50:37 -0800, "Erik A. Mattila"
Post by Erik A. Mattila
Post by Paul Mitchum
Post by Erik A. Mattila
There are no reasons, Brutus. Your question is flawed on its face.
Feingold will punish Bush for lying.
Actually, no. Feingold's censure is about breaking the law, not lying.
The President broke the law. It was a very important law, and he broke
it, seemingly without reason. And then he told the nation that he did
it. He bragged about it.
*That's* what Feingold's censure says. Lawless actors shouldn't be in
the President's office.
Yes - you're correct. I was confusing his call for censure with
Conyer's. A point well taken.
http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/downloads/finalreport.pdf
Conyers is calling for impeachment based on a 250 page detailed
report.
True, but he's also introduced two censure bills, HR 636 (Bush) and HR
637 (Cheney).

http://www.house.gov/judiciary_democrats/iraqrept.html (see bottom of
the page for links).
Paul Mitchum
2006-03-18 19:01:16 UTC
Permalink
Post by Brutus
Post by Paul Mitchum
Post by Brutus
Post by Joseph Welch
Please explain why Feingold (or any other Democrat) would want to
punish Bush for trying to defend the citzenry against Islamic
attacks?
Why wouldn't he?
The question was: Why WOULD he?
Can you answer it?
Do you really think there is a need to? Surely you could list a few
reasons why yourself - if you dared to be honest.
So basically you got nothin' but attitude and willful ignorance.
Feingold *doesn't* want to punish anyone for trying to defend the
country against terrorism. He wants to censure law-breakers, such as
George W. Bush.
--
It's often hard to tell: <http://tinyurl.com/9vqpa>
Joseph Welch
2006-03-19 06:14:39 UTC
Permalink
Post by Brutus
Post by Paul Mitchum
Post by Brutus
Post by Joseph Welch
Please explain why Feingold (or any other Democrat) would want to punish
Bush for trying to defend the citzenry against Islamic attacks?
Why wouldn't he?
The question was: Why WOULD he?
Can you answer it?
Do you really think there is a need to?
Yes.

Please explain why someone who lives in America, has family and friends in
America, and has served America for years would not want to defend the
citizenry of America.
--
JW
***************
"You've done enough. Have you no sense of decency, sir, at long last? Have
you left no sense of decency?"
http://www.americanrhetoric.com/speeches/welch-mccarthy.html
Joseph Welch
2006-03-19 06:13:44 UTC
Permalink
Post by Brutus
Post by Joseph Welch
Please explain why Feingold (or any other Democrat) would want to punish
Bush for trying to defend the citzenry against Islamic attacks?
Why wouldn't he?
Because he, his family, his friends, and a few million constituents all live
here too you dumbfuck.
Post by Brutus
Post by Joseph Welch
While you're at it - explain why your own sarcastic retort mentions an
example where Bush failed to do so?
*IF* we would not have had a stripped down intelligence apparatus
(jeepers, who gutted those agencies?) and if we would have taken the
approach that we were at war BEFORE 9-11 (after all, the radical Islamists
HAD declared war on us) we would have been much more proactive in
deterring any attack.
O.K.

So while you're at it - how about explaining why your own sarcastic retort
mentions an example where Bush failed to address any of those issues?
--
JW
***************
"You've done enough. Have you no sense of decency, sir, at long last? Have
you left no sense of decency?"
http://www.americanrhetoric.com/speeches/welch-mccarthy.html
eldorado
2006-03-18 05:52:09 UTC
Permalink
Post by Brutus
Post by Joseph Welch
Post by Crescentius Vespasianus
And why does Fiengold want to censure Bush? Because Bush is trying to
defend the citizenry from Islamic terrorist attacks.
This statement above all else demonstrates what out of control, out of
touch with reality lunatics you right-wing extremists are.
--
JW
Yeah, the 3,000 who whre murdered on 9/11 would agree with you - totally.
Brutus
You finally got something right brutus! The 3,000 murdered would rather
we tried to capture osama, than go off on our little adventure in iraq.
--
Randomly generated signature --
Favourite pickup line: Hey baby, wanna synchronize sequence numbers? - Warning: Not always effective.
r***@comcast.net
2006-03-18 07:19:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by eldorado
Post by Brutus
Yeah, the 3,000 who whre murdered on 9/11 would agree with you - totally.
Brutus
You finally got something right brutus! The 3,000 murdered would rather
we tried to capture osama, than go off on our little adventure in iraq.
See this movie - the whole things on line:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=1422779427989588955&q=why+we+fight

- - - -
Just another albino black sheep
unknown
2006-03-17 19:31:05 UTC
Permalink
On Fri, 17 Mar 2006 18:25:45 GMT, "Crescentius
Post by Crescentius Vespasianus
Republicans are elated that Russ Fiengold is sticking with his censure
Bush position.
And we're still glad that your lying sack of shit went
to Bob Jones University to help when McCain was kicking
his ass.

Absolutely NO doubt as to the heart of republican
conservatism now, is there DickinHandius?
r***@comcast.net
2006-03-17 19:38:29 UTC
Permalink
Post by unknown
On Fri, 17 Mar 2006 18:25:45 GMT, "Crescentius
Post by Crescentius Vespasianus
Republicans are elated that Russ Fiengold is sticking with his censure
Bush position.
http://americanresearchgroup.com/

Shoot 18% of the GOP favors impeachment. Go figure.

and 47% of independents(only 40% oppose it); 61% of democrats

- - - -
Just another albino black sheep
Clave
2006-03-18 05:35:43 UTC
Permalink
Post by unknown
On Fri, 17 Mar 2006 18:25:45 GMT, "Crescentius
Post by Crescentius Vespasianus
Republicans are elated that Russ Fiengold is sticking with his censure
Bush position.
And we're still glad that your lying sack of shit went
to Bob Jones University to help when McCain was kicking
his ass.
Absolutely NO doubt as to the heart of republican
conservatism now, is there DickinHandius?
Then there's Reagan kicking HIS re-election campaign off in Philadelphia,
Mississippi, a town whose *only* claim to fame was being the site of the
murder of three civil rights workers.

Jim
Erik A. Mattila
2006-03-17 21:21:10 UTC
Permalink
Post by Crescentius Vespasianus
Republicans are elated that Russ Fiengold is sticking with his censure
Bush position. "Fiengold is the gift that keeps on giving," said an RNC
operative. What Republicans are disappointed about is that Fiengold has yet
to convince even one other Democrat Senator to follow him into the tar pit.
Another disappointment is that the journalists, have now suppressed the
story, even though it was their idea to censure Bush in the first place.
And why does Fiengold want to censure Bush? Because Bush is trying to
defend the citizenry from Islamic terrorist attacks. Russ doesn't have to
worry, he has a whole phalanx of federal government security forces to
protect his precious ass. But the rest of us are on our own, according to
Russ.
Are republicans also elated that they don't know how to spell "Feingold"?
Paul Mitchum
2006-03-17 22:42:48 UTC
Permalink
Post by Crescentius Vespasianus
Republicans are elated that Russ Fiengold is sticking with his censure
Bush position.
Yeah, because many Republicans support it. Bush is a motherfucker, and
Republicans are catching on.
--
It's often hard to tell: <http://tinyurl.com/9vqpa>
Loading...