Comments on: Senator Boxer: Senator, Yes, Senator

By: Mat

Mat — Tue, 23 Jun 2009 01:23:52 +0000

Dave,

True, but they get extremely boring after a while. The conversation eventually turns into “I know you are, but what am I?” I’d much rather have a rational discourse about things than dealing with liberal children.

By: DaveR

DaveR — Mon, 22 Jun 2009 21:19:29 +0000

Actually, he’s more than likely a member of one of the MSM’s surfing blog sites and comments from Conservatives to “catch” that ticking time bomb so they can “report” it first.

I run across them on every site. They are fun to play with though, I will admit.

By: fuster

fuster — Mon, 22 Jun 2009 20:43:52 +0000

Nope, Mat. Send facts, I’ll argue facts. Have never seen Daily Kos.

By: Mat

Mat — Mon, 22 Jun 2009 20:27:33 +0000

DaveR,

Just ignore fuster. He’s just the latest lefty troll (I suppose he’s a replacement for Glynn and Mr. Chuckles) that’s decided to habit this blogsite. You can send facts (your listing was priceless) ’till you’re blue in the face and he/she will never accept it.
The only goal for these people is to screw around and it’s increasingly obvious that this person is one of them (probably sent by DailyKos).

By: fuster

fuster — Mon, 22 Jun 2009 19:43:24 +0000

Dave, you posted a list or people, not administration members. Your bs list includes people who were investors, friends, associates, and even a guy who was a political rival of Clinton’s.
That’s a pile of crap, not a list of administration crimes and it’s not a matter of my believing in the list, it’s just a stupid damn list for the purpose in which you’re trying to use it.

Here, read this stuff. It’s from some site that I don’t know and looks like a guy with a left-leaning grudge, but it’s better than that list you copied.
http://www.bartcop.com/convictions.htm
This guy is not being fair to your side, but he’s got the numbers.

By: DaveR

DaveR — Mon, 22 Jun 2009 19:37:22 +0000

Fust – I showed you just SOME of them. Again, just because you don’t want to BELIEVE the facts, doesn’t make them all-of-the-sudden non-facts.

And just to bring this up to date – how many of the OB Appointee’s from the Clinton Administration seem to have “forgotten” to pay their taxes? But isn’t that against the law?

By: fuster

fuster — Mon, 22 Jun 2009 19:18:44 +0000

Dadgummit, Dave, if you want to keep going, then show the evidence that other administrations were as or more corrupt than Reagan’s. Clinton’s admin doesn’t come close to RRs

By: DaveR

DaveR — Mon, 22 Jun 2009 19:10:09 +0000

It’s not a “joke” to allude that an Administration that is on the opposite side of the aisle than you are is “the most” corrupt, when there is ample of evidence to show otherwise. I find it funny how Lib’s “jokes” tell us more about them, than what they “think” they mean when they type it.

By: fuster

fuster — Mon, 22 Jun 2009 19:04:56 +0000

Dave, we agree about law breaking and not defending those who break the law.
However, my point (somewhere way back) was about people in the administration who were engaging in criminal activity during the administration. That’s all that I was pointing to and that’s all that on the list of 16 convicted and thirty or so forced out of office.
I started this pretty much as a continuation of somebody’s joke about California, and nothing more. You folks started jumping on it and blew it up IIRC.

By: DaveR

DaveR — Mon, 22 Jun 2009 18:56:37 +0000

Works both ways Fuster, even though you can’t seem to SEE it that way. You want to point out that ALL the Reagan ones were Best Buds for Life, and that in a Dem administration they weren’t. I call BS on that right away.

Double standards I guess are your forte since they appear in all your posts. If a Republican or Conservative does something (or an associate), then they MUST be bad and willingly and knowingly broke the law. But if Dem and Liberal do it, well they didn’t know them that well and weren’t in the behind the scenes and are clearly not linked in anyway.

And don’t think that I’m defending any wrong doing by anyone of either party, but don’t claim one is “better” because even though he LOST his law license (because, why? He BROKE the law) and the wimps in the Senate couldn’t follow the Constitution and impeach him – and compare that to political witch hunts and “after the fact interpretations” charges.