stevendedalus stevendedalus

Condoleezza Rice

▼

Condoleezza Rice

from JoeUser Forums

The no vote against Condoleezza Rice was not so much to protest her appointment as it was to signal disappointment in Bush’s unprecedented habit of rewarding unabashed loyalty; particularly when it was clear that Colin Powell was the president’s worst nightmare. Perhaps now that she has a “real” position, rather than advisory, she may prove to be a feisty independent woman.

Copyright © 2005 Richard R. Kennedy All rights reserved. Revised: February 3, 2005.

http://stevendedalus.joeuser.com

politics
11,496 views 41 replies
Reply #26 from PolMach Forums Top
Now you are claiming the Swifties lied,


Not to necessarly defend squrrl here, (they should be able to do it themselves,) but the Swifies DID lie...maybe not about Kerry (that has not been proven) but they did sign the names of veterans to letters without their permission, producing fradulent support. That shoots their credibilty to hell.

And since when is rewarding loyalty in politics "unprecedented"?


Daiwa's right. It's like punishing your enemies out of revenge. You see a lot of that in politics too.
Reply #27 from JoeUser Forums Top

The red dress was stained by his oozing mayonnaise from a Big Mac.

So clinton has the DNA of Mayonnaise? (Which is made from Eggs, CHICKEN eggs)? 

DeskScapes - Bring your desktop background to life.
Reply #28 from JoeUser Forums Top

Not to necessarly defend squrrl here, (they should be able to do it themselves,) but the Swifies DID lie...maybe not about Kerry (that has not been proven) but they did sign the names of veterans to letters without their permission, producing fradulent support. That shoots their credibilty to hell.

Well, then Kerry is a liar, and Bill Clinton a worse one. Seems both claimed support from people who did not know what the hell was going on.

Reply #29 from JoeUser Forums Top

Not to necessarly defend squrrl here, (they should be able to do it themselves,) but the Swifies DID lie...maybe not about Kerry (that has not been proven) but they did sign the names of veterans to letters without their permission, producing fradulent support. That shoots their credibilty to hell.


Since when and says who? Proof please.
Reply #30 from JoeUser Forums Top
drmiler: you have successfully replaced Madine as the site's watchdog.
Reply #31 from PolMach Forums Top
Well, then Kerry is a liar, and Bill Clinton a worse one. Seems both claimed support from people who did not know what the hell was going on.


Since when and says who? Proof please.


Yeah, maybe so, but I don't think they've included a mini forgery to their list of 'crimes', Dr. Guy. Dr. Miler...you cheerlead for them and you didn't know about this? Go here: Link I had to do some research to find that.
Reply #32 from JoeUser Forums Top

Yeah, maybe so, but I don't think they've included a mini forgery to their list of 'crimes', Dr. Guy.

No, but Moveon sure did.

Reply #33 from JoeUser Forums Top
Well, then Kerry is a liar, and Bill Clinton a worse one. Seems both claimed support from people who did not know what the hell was going on.


Since when and says who? Proof please.


Yeah, maybe so, but I don't think they've included a mini forgery to their list of 'crimes', Dr. Guy. Dr. Miler...you cheerlead for them and you didn't know about this? Go here: Link I had to do some research to find that.


Well by my count that's 5 out of over 300. Not a very large percentage, is it?
Reply #34 from JoeUser Forums Top
Hope so. But Condy is no Madeline Allbright!
Reply #35 from JoeUser Forums Top
But Condy is no Madeline Allbright!
Maybe she'll hire her as a consultant--fat chance.
Reply #36 from JoeUser Forums Top

Hope so. But Condy is no Madeline Allbright!

Thank god for that! It is refreshing to have some competancy in the position after 8 years of clowns.

Reply #37 from JoeUser Forums Top
Thank god for that! It is refreshing to have some competancy in the position after 8 years of clowns.
Perhaps true, except Bush's circus tent is even larger.
Reply #38 from JoeUser Forums Top

Perhaps true, except Bush's circus tent is even larger.

So far On Bush's watch, we have not armed NK with Nukes, provided the guidance system so that Chinese Nukes can rain down on us, Bombed a Chinese Embassy, gone into a country for a year, and 6 years later we are still there, Bombed an empty camp in Afghanistan and an aspirin factory in Sudan.

But Under Bush's watch we have eliminated 2 terrorist regimes, liberating 50m people, got another country to disavow Nukes (without firing a shot).

Guess your definition of funny is not the same as mine.

Reply #39 from JoeUser Forums Top
Perhaps true, except Bush's circus tent is even larger.

So far On Bush's watch, we have not armed NK with Nukes, provided the guidance system so that Chinese Nukes can rain down on us, Bombed a Chinese Embassy, gone into a country for a year, and 6 years later we are still there, Bombed an empty camp in Afghanistan and an aspirin factory in Sudan.
But Under Bush's watch we have eliminated 2 terrorist regimes, liberating 50m people, got another country to disavow Nukes (without firing a shot).
Guess your definition of funny is not the same as mine.


More like your definition of "stupid" matches his definition of funny.
Reply #40 from JoeUser Forums Top
Guess your definition of funny is not the same as mine.
Yours is much funnier. The "50m" did not come without a tragic price. I know of no causalty list in Bosnia, nor Kosova.
Reply #41 from JoeUser Forums Top
More like your definition of "stupid" matches his definition of funny.
Thanks, pal, I needed that to make clearer that your "definitions" are indeed lacking.