Reply With Quote
One of the worst AGs ever, so out of his depth, and memorialized in his disklike of bare aluminum s on Lady Justice. What a jerk.
And then came Puto Gozalez
The sum of these two guys shows what respect the WH has for the legal system.
Should be a good one.
One of the worst AGs ever, so out of his depth, and memorialized in his disklike of bare aluminum s on Lady Justice. What a jerk.
And then came Puto Gozalez
The sum of these two guys shows what respect the WH has for the legal system.
Let the Eagle Soar.......................
...is that aluminum?
...is that steve nash in your avatar?
"aluminum statue" is what I remember.
googling for "aluminum statue ashcroft breasts"
http://www.snopes.com/politics/soapbox/valentine.asp
yep, Steavol Nash. Photoshop is fun.
You forgot about ed meese (under Reagan) whose staff was involved with steering defense contracts to a company more known for bribery than an ability to produce quality engines.One of the worst AGs ever, so out of his depth, and memorialized in his disklike of bare aluminum s on Lady Justice. What a jerk.
And then came Puto Gozalez
The sum of these two guys shows what respect the WH has for the legal system.
Meese was never convicted, but resigned when a large chunk of his staff was fingered in the bribery scandal. Oops
Funny how republican administrations give us either corruption or torturers as guardians of our nations laws.
awright, so that was a cheap shot. Just too tempting sometimes.
I do find the Reagan worship a tad irrational at times tho'. For all the caterwauling from the right about Clinton's administration, it was a paragon of decency and honesty compared to Reagan's.
My favorite part of the interview was when John Stewart asked why people who oppose Bush's policies are labeled as weak. Ashcroft responded that it is possible to exhibit weakness while opposing Bush's policies. His example was if people were to say "Let's not fight back" or "Let us allow the terrorist to attack us." Stewart pointed out that no one was saying those things and Ashcroft response was "Oh, I know."
So basically, Ashcroft admitted that labeling people as weak is based on a straw man that he recognizes as a straw man. Nice.
"Ashcroft admitted"
They all know what they are doing, with the exception of dubya, who is really too dumb a tool and puppet to understand what, eg, a straw man is, or the incredible disaster his Exec branch has been for the world. Any WH politically powered by head and Rove is fundamentally, irredeemably evil.
I know this is a change of the subject but I was watching something last night when they were discussing O'reilly and O'donnel going at it on "the View" yesterday. See, here's the problem for Democrats, they have people like Rosie O'Donnell expressing her view on politics in front of a national TV audience. I don't really like O'Reilly either but when he asked her if she wanted America to lose the war in Iraq, she wouldn't say no. All she had to do was spit out a "of course not, what I want America to do is......", instead she wouldn't reply to the question and tried to change the subject.
Becomes AG after losing election to a dead man.
Bush is genious.
Rosie+Ann= tune them out.
Yeah, it was funny because on the show last night, Ash said that he did very well in his political career in Missouri. If by very well he means he received the most votes among the candidates that were still alive during the election, then I guess he is correct.
The problem with people like O'Donnell is that she is not extreme enough. It sounds ridiculous, but hear me out. If O'Donnell was more extreme, no one would assume that her views represented those of other Democrats. She would be the liberal version of Pat Robertson or Jerry Falwell. The problem is that she still has mainstream appeal and therefore, people give her opinion some credence to the detriment of other liberals.
"of course not"=no You were wrong that she didn't say that. You have allowed conserva-bots o affect your thinking here.
There is a difference between "changing the subject" and not allowing the other side to completely frame the debate, as O'Reilly does. Straw man arguments that he and other Fox "news" jerks do all do the same. They frame the debate as "if you don't support Bush, you support the terrorists" and when that is pointed out as a false dichotomy and a REAL situation and solution is proposed, that is "changing the subject"?
Puh-lease.
Whhhooooaaaa, I agree with you, but she didn't try to point out a false dichotomy by any means but rather sat there and called him names while never saying the simple word, "no". My point really is that people like her continue to give democrats bad names. The general public doesn't enjoy hearing the opinions of actors and actresses as much as they don't enjoy hearing the opinions of most politicians nowadays.
Stewart once again showed how much of a pussy he is. This isn't the first time I've watched him have a chance to really press someone on issues but instead choose to be the gracious host. He's funny, but he's a pussy.
yep, Steavol Nash. Photoshop is fun.
Kirstin Dunst is Jon Stewart's guest tonight. She's a lot hotter than Ashcroft, IMO.
Yeah, but you can't expect him to just be a to these people, he wants the Ashcroft's of the world to keep coming back, even if it means tossing up softballs so that he can make fun of them later on. In the end, he's an entertainer trying to make money, not a politician (which ironically is also just trying to make money). I love John Stewart, his Bush impressions are Will Ferrellesque.
Since when does "of course not" not equal "no"?
There are somethings that don't really deign a response.
You are setting too high a standard for heat-of-the-moment discussions.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
