Sorry. I should have used the "strong" tag instead of "b" -- force of habit.

"Saddam involved in 9/11 is the lie they ascribe to."

Prove it's a "lie".

So you want us to prove a negative?

Prove he wasn't, yes.

So you really want us to prove a negative?

If you're going to accuse someone of lying, you'd better be able to back it up.

Just say the words "I want you guys to prove a negative."

Prove it's a "lie".

Delicate Thunder provided me proof that I was wrong in my reply to Russ.

STOP_George you are a moron. Haven't you been told about the bold tag before?

Androminos, you've missed my point entirely. Stop for a second. Put aside and forget about whether or not the 'distrust' the public feels for the Bush administration is well warranted, for a moment, and look at how the democrat talking heads have gone about promoting that point of view and the methods and language they use.

Does the public distrust the administration? Yes. Are they hot on the GOP? Nope. But, are they hot on the democrats? No. Do they trust democrat leaders? No. Do they think they're abusing national security issues for political gain? The same polls say yes.

The same polls also say there is a momumental disconnect between the public and the press, the public distrusts the press, and the public and academia.

What we have here is distrust sown everywhere. No one much likes anyone right now.

So....I find it somewhat absurd to see DKOS declaring 'VICTORY IS MINE!'

Yes, you've drowned Bush, but warranted or otherwise aside, you've done it by sinking the whole damn ship to the sea floor and your leaders are drowning with him.

Bush drowned himself Fuckface.

He drowned in an ocean of his own lies.

Jonah Goldberg hits a good nail right on the head at NRO.

"People forget now, but President Bush's compassionate conservatism was never intended to be radical, it was meant to be the Republican version of feel-your-pain Clintonism. If Bush's domestic spending were a Broadway musical, reviewers would call it "Lavish!" and "Spectacular!" His big first-term domestic initiatives — aside from tax cuts — were an education bill cosponsored by Ted Kennedy, campaign finance "reform" favored by the sensible-shoes types and the biggest expansion in entitlements (prescription drug benefits) since the Great Society."

"many liberals are more angered by the fact Republicans are running the government than they are about Republican policy. It just seems wrong! Republicans don't even like government!"

"Liberals will shriek about GOP radicalism and conservatives will whine about the lack of it."

"Bush drowned himself Fuckface."

For the sake of the argument let us say he did. And let us agree that I am a 'fuckface'. Ok.

The democrats are still down there with him. Mince words all you like, 'he drowned himself and took you with him/you drowned yourself to take him with you', the disconnect people have with the government right now is universally applied and not particular to Bush.

If you trust the polls that show Bush and the GOP hurting, they say the same about the democrats.

It's hardly a victory for anyone. Any way you slice it it appears to be a horribly pyrrhic fiasco.

MJ:

Oh, he's drowning alright! In the blood of 10's of thousands of innocent lives (thousands of them being American).

And why are you such a dick? I explained and apologized for this reprehensible act of using a "b" instead of the "strong" tag. This is the only site that I post on that doesn't allow a "b" tag -- ass!

DT, Saddam was committing to many attrocities in Iraq to be involved in the Sept 11, 2001 terroist attack. His attention span wasn't long enough and radical fundamentalist were not his tea. Support the PLO, yes!

Nothing presented by the "W" admin has proven to be correct/true to date, so why the hang up over Saddams connection with OSB other than the fact that it's in your bag of lies.

"So Russ, you admit it wasn't a "technical error"..."

I never stated that it was a tech error. If you want to reflect on something, ask yourself why anyone would want to put an "X" across Cheney's face? I was just tossing out the idea that an X makes a good target, in a figurative sense. Dick was the front man for the war lies and now he's trying to cover his ass and someone might have tried to cover his face.

Is that all you guys can do is spew talking points?

Nope, just respond to yours.

Hmm, interesting, cite the "talking point" that I continuously spew...

Yours? "Bush lied, Cheney lied, war for oil..." blah blah blah, none of which can you back up.

All three are easy. The first two, they continue to do commit daily. Deny or Lie, your pick. The oil was suppose to pay for the war and rebuild Iraq, It hasn't!

>>And let us agree that I am a 'fuckface'.

Not just "a" you are THE Fuckface. Fuckface incarnate even.

>>Yes, you've drowned Bush, but warranted or otherwise aside,

This is what I was reffering to.

As if it was some monumental play by Democrats. Bush collapsed under the weight of his own lies.

" The oil was suppose to pay for the war and rebuild Iraq, It hasn't! "

You are delusional, aren't you?

First YOU said he was gonna steal the oil...now your complaing he didn't steal the oil like you pretended he said he said he would.....

Liberals have oil issues. They're obsessed with it.

"Liberals have oil issues. They're obsessed with it."

Yeah. Like those crazy liberals at Halliburton. Jeezus, man! Think before you write!

>>>>All three are easy. The first two, they continue to do commit daily. Deny or Lie, your pick. The oil was suppose to pay for the war and rebuild Iraq, It hasn't!

Glad to see that you, at least, believe in your talking points. However, they're still *only* talking points, not legitimate arguments.

>>However, they're still *only* talking points, not legitimate arguments.

Do you listen to conservative talk radio or watch Fox?

Would you say this is where you get your news from?

One has nothing to do with the other. No matter where I get my "news" from, I can still argue my point instead of spouting baseless "talking points". Do you even know what a "talking point" is, genius?

>>One has nothing to do with the other.

Fox News and Conservative talk radio have quite a lot to do with talking points.

How does what I listen to or watch on TV have anything to do with how I argue a point? I hear talking points all day long from Russ, am I running around spouting them unsupported? If I hear them all day on Fox or Hannity, does that mean that I am automatically using them to argue a point, unsupported?

You want to sit there and call the President and his administration liars, back it up. You don't just go around flinging baseless accusations against someone, it's called defamation of character.

Unlike you guys, I don't run around repeating only what I hear from my favorite cable news network or Airhead America program without having an iota of fact to support what I say. You can USE the talking points, but be ready to back them up.

>>How does what I listen to or watch on TV have anything to do with how I argue a point?

Because thats where you normally get talking points.

I read what you write.

Maybe no one else does but you do nothing but spout right wing drivel. You are ignorant. No shame in that except if you choose to stay in the dark.

>>You want to sit there and call the President and his administration liars, back it up.

Ive done so. If you would like for me to do it AGAIN.

Answer me one simple question. Are you saying W and his administration was completely honest with the case they made for the Iraq?

I refuse to hear another round of "He didnt lie he is a just an incompetent ninny who didnt know any better" or "He was just amazingly wrong" and "He didnt lie just bullshited and mislead".

I await your answer.

Unfortunately, I believe too many folks apply the same "mustard seed" mentality to their political leaders as they do to their faith. Confidence in their leader of choice is based purely on blind "faith". Or worse, that because they are of the same party/ideology/religion etc. that that automatically means they are moral, ethical, and righteous. (This applies to ALL parties).

Androminos, I am getting to like your posts more and more. You are hitting nails on heads.

But, are they hot on the democrats? No. Do they trust democrat leaders? No. Do they think they're abusing national security issues for political gain? The same polls say yes.

MJ's got a very good point, too. The democrats are pathetic, incapable of looking like they actually believe what they are saying. It's gotten to the point where you don't even really know what they REALLY believe and what they say to make people happy. Or if they really believe anything at all.

On the other hand, that doesn't change the fact that I think the administration is terrible and mendacious. When you step outside both parties, you realize how horribly pathetic our politics have become. Once again, I blame it on our overall lackluster education. It comes down to stupid people who will settle for bullshit, it's that simple. I think almost everyone was playing games with the truth in the lead up to war, including the public. I think the majority of Americans had nothing more complicated in mind than putting there boots up some Arab ass. In my mind, the public was totally complicit.

Liberals have oil issues. They're obsessed with it.

This is on the wrong track. EVERYONE has oil issues, because it's the most valuable resource on the planet. We'd be stupid as a country if we didn't orient our policies according to our energy needs. If you really think that oil had nothing to do with Iraq (and I don't know if you've said that, but you've made me think you believe that), then you have little appreciation of the importance of this resource.

One more thing. This post topic. Talk about weak...for a minute I thought I was reading some admission that the 'X' had been intentional. Instead, it's some phone operator who probably had no direct contact with the producers of the show. I don't know how anyone can claim that this story substantiates Aaron's beliefs. It doesn't disprove it, either, it says nothing at all about it. Whether or not you call Aaron a "journalist" is unimportant to me...I'd rather just point out that his proof is extremely weak.

"Instead, it's some phone operator who probably had no direct contact with the producers of the show."

I think the jist we can gleam from that operator, the reason why he was fired, is the same thing a few leftists are essentially saying in this very thread. The point here easily being that a plethora of moonbats would in no way put themselves above such behavior.

The comment boils down to : No, it wasn't intentional, it was just an accident. It wouldn't have been though, if I'd have thought of it first.

"Glad to see that you, at least, believe in your talking points. However, they're still *only* talking points, not legitimate arguments."

Talking points that are not legitimate arguments:

1) WMDs in Iraq.

2) No Sir Boss, we didn't have any part in outing Mr. Wilsons wife.

3) The party of ethics, morals and "family values."

4) Rampant corruption in the GOP.

5)Tom DeLay

6) More? How much?

Did you have a particular thought in mind DT, or was your comment a unique way of expressing your naivete?

Hey, dumbass, am I running around spouting any of the above? Instead of arguing with what I'm saying, you attack "my party" or "my people" or however the hell you want to think of it. Like answering a question with a question.

Once again, spouting "Bush lied" without ever backing up the claim, is a talking point. You also assume that I am a Republican... Once again Russ, assuming something with no facts...

"I think the jist we can gleam from that operator, the reason why he was fired, is the same thing a few leftists are essentially saying in this very thread. The point here easily being that a plethora of moonbats would in no way put themselves above such behavior."

I love how people, no matter what the facts are, twist them to fit their own view of the world.

One person was fired for unprofessional and rude behavoir is turned into "a plethora of moonbats would in no way put themselves above such behavior."

You and steve should think about merging worlds.

I have to agree with Tom. The only thing that this article tells us about is that one guy. It doesn't establish anything about cnn's culture. I wouldn't be the least bit surprised if the majority of cnn employees were liberal. But that's about all I can comfortably say on the matter, and I didn't get it from the article.

Well you can start by reading the part you quoted entirely, Tom.

"...is the same thing a few leftists are essentially saying in this very thread."

Some Fella is right. All the article tells us is about this one guy.

But I come here not just for the articles but the comments, and I get the same vibe from several commenting above. I can probably go to DU or DKOS and find the same.

"The comment boils down to : No, it wasn't intentional, it was just an accident. It wouldn't have been though, if I'd have thought of it first."

It was an accident, pure and simple. If you want to believe it was otherwise then you may think so. Even after seeing, and thinking, few would have acted on this in the manner that you speak.

"These are the examples of moral values the GOP puts forth. It's time to take a look as to why the "X" was being projected. Maybe CNN was preparing the VP for things to come." - Russ

You're one of the dipshits I was talking about.

Then you say -

"few would have acted on this in the manner that you speak."

I don't beleive you. Even if I did, you would be one of that few.

You reap what you sow, Russ. I half expect your delusional tinfoil-wrapped moonbat ass to show up on the 9:00 news for trying to assassinate the president.

I half expect your delusional tinfoil-wrapped moonbat ass to show up on the 9:00 news for trying to assassinate the president.

OK, that was funny. But in all seriousness, that would probably warrant interrupting current programming, not waiting until 9. Get real, MJ. Clearly you know nothing about television journalism.

SF, please tell me that was sarcasm... (about MJ knowing nothing about journalism because of what he said)

DT, I've never been more serious in my life, or anyone else's.

that would probably warrant interrupting current programming, not waiting until 9.

Unfortunately that's true. It would be analysed and excused ad-nauseum inevitably making Rusty some kind of fringe cult-hero.

Maybe I shouldn't give Rusty's fifth-rate and underused head any ideas.

Pretty sad that you judge his knowledge of journalism based on a smartass comment that he made.

Since when do we all have to be television journalism experts?

"I don't beleive you. Even if I did, you would be one of that few."

OK, Maybe you should think about your tires.

Since when do we all have to be television journalism experts?

Jesus, anyone who hasn't taken a couple of courses at their local broadcasting school is a complete moron.