The title says it all...

Flintore · Post by **Flintore** » Fri Jan 21, 2005 5:29 am

I am just wondering this...if he is in office already..why have an inauguration? I am a Bush supporter...just a thought thhough.

Rsak · Post by **Rsak** » Fri Jan 21, 2005 9:02 am

He still has to be sworn into office for the term regardless of whether he was the president for the previous term or not.

Eidolon Faer · Post by **Eidolon Faer** » Fri Jan 21, 2005 10:06 am

You know, I'm getting serious cases of the giggles whenever I see a Democrat scream "Bush is a Divider, not a Uniter" and then launch a random series of baseless and irrelevant attacks on Republicans in general and Bush in specific.

It reminds me of the Peace Riots we had in San Francisco, for some reason...

Post by **Ddrak** » Fri Jan 21, 2005 10:17 am

Bush is both a uniter and a divider - just like Clinton was. He united the Dems against him and the Republicans for him but failed in his 2000 election promise to bridge the gap between the two.

I think Bush and Clinton have far more in common that most partisans would believe.

Dd

Eidolon Faer · Post by **Eidolon Faer** » Fri Jan 21, 2005 4:56 pm

Actually, I'm more bemused by the fact that it takes two to tango.

The Dems have spent four years doing unprecedentedly petty things in Congress filibustering judges, trying to muckrake impeachment charges out of nothing, making absurd assertions regarding Bush "lying" about WMD's when the Democrats on the Senate Intelligence Committee saw the same data and are on record as concurring with the President's assessment at the time. Oh, yeah, and of course that four years of whining about Gore losing all those recounts...

And of course, the Democrats' poor behavior and lack of self control are ALL BUSH'S FAULT for winning the election. Twice.

Yeah, I thought Clinton was unfit for the office he held. But I didn't try to blame him for MY OWN misbehavior.

Partha · Post by **Partha** » Fri Jan 21, 2005 5:04 pm

Eidolon Faer wrote:Actually, I'm more bemused by the fact that it takes two to tango.

The Dems have spent four years doing unprecedentedly petty things in Congress filibustering judges, trying to muckrake impeachment charges out of nothing, making absurd assertions regarding Bush "lying" about WMD's when the Democrats on the Senate Intelligence Committee saw the same data and are on record as concurring with the President's assessment at the time. Oh, yeah, and of course that four years of whining about Gore losing all those recounts...

And of course, the Democrats' poor behavior and lack of self control are ALL BUSH'S FAULT for winning the election. Twice.

Yeah, I thought Clinton was unfit for the office he held. But I didn't try to blame him for MY OWN misbehavior.

Filibustering judges is not unprecedented, and Bush has a better rate of them getting through then Clinton did. You would know this if you actually did some research instead of taking someone else's words for gospel.

The Senate Intelligence Committee did NOT see the same data. This is documented.

Muckraking impeachment charges? Does the sight of this blue dress jog your memory?

As far as recounts go, you're half right - he lost them all but the last one. That one was stopped by the SC.

Post by **Relbeek Einre** » Fri Jan 21, 2005 5:08 pm

("All" in this case being "One".)

Eidolon Faer · Post by **Eidolon Faer** » Sun Jan 23, 2005 12:59 am

Ah yes...the blue dress. Everybody lies about sex blah blah blah...

Clinton was not impeached for boinking Monica Lewinsky. Clinton was impeached for Perjury in a sexual harassment suit brought by Paula Jones. The blue dress was merely pretty darned good evidence that the President had, in fact, lied under oath in court.

On the other hand, the 9-11 Commission went over the records of the intelligence the President saw, went over his Daily Briefings, and VINDICATED his statement that to the best of his, or anyone's, knowledge at the time, his statements about WMD's were completely accurate.

Thus, in one case, we have a panel concluding that Bush DID NOT lie, and Democrats babbling about impeachment. In the other case, we have evidence that Clinton definitely had sex WITH THE DRESS, and eyewitness reports that Monica was probably wearing it at the time, thus contradicting his sworn court testimony. Which impeachment case is genuine and which is bullshit, I ask you?

Post by **Ddrak** » Sun Jan 23, 2005 2:32 am

Actually, the 9-11 commissioin didn't say that at all Eid, but don't let the truth get in the way of your partisan beliefs.

Dd

Partha · Post by **Partha** » Sun Jan 23, 2005 4:02 am

Actually, Eidolon is either deliberately or forgetfully misstating the truth. The 9/11 commission did NOT examine Iraq WMD capabilities. The Senate Foreign Intelligence Committee did.

And, of course, they say otherwise from conclusion 1, to say nothing of conclusions 78, 113, and 114.

What color is the sky in your world again, Eid?

Post by **Relbeek Einre** » Sun Jan 23, 2005 9:37 am

I like being able to credibly say I'm definitely not the most blindly, rabidly partisan person on this board.

Rsak · Post by **Rsak** » Sun Jan 23, 2005 10:44 am

What a hinderance that imagined crediblity must be?

Post by **Relbeek Einre** » Sun Jan 23, 2005 11:33 am

You'd know.

Excuse me while I repair my language parser, you broke it.

Brell Rants

The title says it all...

Re:

Re: