31 replies [Last post]
Offline
Location: Kingston, MI
Joined: 01/16/2007
Posts: 648
Good News About Our Right Wing King

SoCo,

My e mail was meant as a bit of a joke.....and to see if I could rile you up a bit. It certainly did, and you made the quick, knee jerk response that I predicted well before I hit the "submit" button.

You liberal's are just too predictable....and laughable. You fail to debate topics by line item and you have no credibility with your whining and name calling.

Furthermore, there are plenty of Democrats willing to lie.

1. Teddy Kennedy (see expatriate's response)
2. Al Gore (he invented the internet)
3. John Kerry (pretending to be a hunter)
4. BHO pretending to be closer to the middle than he actually is

I'm not saying everyone on the right is right. Just stop trying to be so self righteous with your condemnation of everyone that isn't a Democrat. You've made so many offensive, broad statements of what you think Republican's are, that you've failed to make any legitimate argument.

CVC
CVC's picture
Offline
Grand Slam Challenge Winner!
Location: Kansas
Joined: 03/04/2006
Posts: 3586
Good News About Our Right Wing King

The thing that gets me about Al Gore and others like him is that he preaches energy conservation, but doesn't practice it.

SoCoKHntr's picture
Offline
Location: Pueblo Colorado
Joined: 12/18/2006
Posts: 1776
Good News About Our Right Wing King
expatriate wrote:
SoCoKHntr wrote:
If you mean the Democrats can't find someone who so willingly will lie, slander, and spread hateful propoganda, you are certainly right. I wouldn't want or need a loudmouthed blowhard like either of those two clowns talking for me.

Really now what did you think when O'reilly had to pay all that money for sexual harrasment after he preached against perverts so hard? Or Rush being a drug addict after all his unsympathetic comments about others being addicted to drugs. I just thought more hypocrisy from the self appointed immoral majority myself.

But, no you go on believing your self righteous hyperbole about understanding 'substance'.

Here we go again, SoCo...put up or shut up. If you're going to accuse Limbaugh and O'Reilly of "willingly lying," let's see the evidence of that statement. And I'm not talking about something paraphrased or what someone else claimed they said. If you're going to label them as liars, I'd like to see verifiable quotes to back that statement.

As far as drug addiction goes, the guy got hooked on highly addictive pain meds after a chronic injury -- which I've seen happen to some very good people. That's a whole lot different than a crack addict or meth head running around abusing illegal recreational drugs (or, for that matter, a US Senator killing his mistress in a DUI and then leaving her body trapped underwater in the car for hours before reporting it). It's also worth noting that he admitted he had a problem and paid a price in shame for it. That's far better in my mind than all of those high profile cases on the left who get in trouble and are sainted for it.

You want to talk hypocrisy? How about the left treating every Democrat DUI and addiction as some sort of tragic event that merits pity and compassion, but then attacking Republicans as personal failures? How about defending their sexual indiscretions as "personal matters" that are off limits and irrelevant, but then going after Larry Craig? How about them screaming about alleged Republican corruption, but then circling the wagons behind one of their own that gets caught with stacks of cash in his freezer?

The difference is that the right wing is at least consistent in its condemnation. You won't find them attacking the likes of Bill Clinton or William Jefferson one day and then lining up behind Larry Craig or Duke Cunningham defending them the next.

The reason a broad light has been show on people like Larry Craig is they claim the moral high ground and base their platform on it. Larry Craig was very anti gay and then low and behold he is caught with his pants down soliciting for a gay encounter. You can't get more hypocritical then that! Who was the other guy, his name escapes me at the moment, who was soliciting male interns in the hopes of some gay tryst? The Repubs are the ones who had taxpayers pay untold millions to get the goods on Clintons indiscretion and then cry foul when there guys get caught and there wasn't even a Ken Starr like witch hunt out to get them. They got themselves caught.

Well, being a Democrat I will say this when Jeffords (sp?) the guy with the money in the freezer got caught he should be punished I can't speak for anyone else but that's my view. But, you can understand in the world of politics each group will circle wagons as losing a vote is losing power. Both side do it get over it. But, please tell me and list links to who was made into a saint in recent times in the Democratic party for committing crimes?

Please name a specific link or source where a Democrat got off scott free from a DUI or any other crime. When people get caught for illegal acts whether Repub or Dem and they are in Gov. meaning they have money what do think they will do? The same thing any of us would do in that situation higher a lawyer and minimize the trouble they get into.

Being addicted to drugs is being addicted to drugs period. Rush made many inflammatory and unsympathetic claims about what punishment drug offenders should have while being addicted to and using prescription drugs illegally. If anything that is highly hypocritical! At the very least he should have kept his mouth shut knowing he was just as guilty. Paid a high price in shame which was made up for with a high price in currency. Shame, please!!!

As far as Ted Kennedy and Chappaquiddick hell, this happened how many years ago? Whatever justice he will get from that is between him and his maker.

On O'reilly here goes, but I know you will say there are untruths:

"In 2004, O'Reilly was sued by a former associate producer of his show, Andrea Mackris, for sexual harassment. He denied everything, and described Mackris' lawsuit as "the single most evil thing I have ever experienced, and I've seen a lot." He countersued for extortion, and took a public stance of no compromise. "My career could be ruined", O'Reilly said, "and I'm very well aware of that." Mackris' complaint, however, included such detailed descriptions of O'Reilly's allegedly sexually provocative phone calls, many observers suspected she may have tape-recorded the conversations. And two weeks after she filed her complaint, O'Reilly settled. "It's over, and I'm happy", said Mackris. "I can't say anything else, but I do appreciate everybody." There was no admission of wrongdoing, and the cash settlement was kept quiet as part of the agreement, but the Washington Post had reported a week earlier that Mackris had turned down offers as high as $2 million, so the final figure was presumably higher than that. The settlement also included a stipulation that Mackris would destroy any tapes of O'Reilly's alleged phone calls "if such tapes exist".

"After hearing of the lawsuit O'Reilly said it was all lies, that it was a shakedown for money, that he would fight it to the bitter end with no settlement, and that he would let the courts decide the matter. This was all before O'Reilly found out she had recorded his phone calls. Then Mr. I will fight her lies to the bitter end with no settlement, paid her $10 million dollars to settle the lawsuit, get the tapes, and shut her up.

The out-of-court settlement came on the eve of a courtroom fight over audiotapes, reports CBS News Correspondent Kelly Cobiella. "

"
"I'll tell you what. I've been in combat. I've seen it, I've been close to it... and if my unit is danger, and I've got a captured guy, and the guy knows where the enemy is, and I'm looking him in the eye, the guy better tell me. That's all I'm gonna tell you. The guy better tell me. If it's life or death, he's going first." Speaking metaphorically, of course -- O'Reilly was never in the military."

""I understand working-class Americans" is one of O'Reilly's recurring lines. "I'm as lower-middle-class as they come". His father, he says, "never earned more than $35,000 a year in his life". In reality, while the O'Reillys were not rich, the father was a fairly well-paid oil company executive, and $35k then would be roughly $100,000 a year today. The O'Reilly kids went to private schools, and O'Reilly's father paid his tuition to a private college."

"7-1-08 -- O'Reilly is off for the week so he had another right-wing fill in (John Kasich) on to put out his Republican propaganda for him. Then yesterday Bush signed the new GI Bill into law. But if you watch the O'Reilly Factor for your news you would not know anything. The fill in never mentioned it, and they never told you that it passed the Senate with a 95 to 2 vote, and that McCain never voted for it.

They also never told you that Bush was opposed to the bill, and so was John McCain, they both opposed it. And they never told you of the massive hypocrisy in Bush signing the bill then taking credit for getting it passed, and giving credit to John McCain when he was opposed to it, and did not vote for it.

Yesterday, President Bush signed legislation that included Sen. Jim Webb's (D-VA) 21st Century GI Bill. In his signing speech, Bush praised himself and Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) for "working hard" to pass the legislation:
Bush: The bill is a result of close collaboration between my administration and members of both parties on Capitol Hill. I want to thank members who worked hard for the GI Bill expansion, especially Senators Webb and Warner, Graham, Burr, and McCain.
In reality, Bush and McCain "worked hard" to block the GI Bill. As Webb countered yesterday on MSNBC's Countdown, "Neither of them really did get on board."

"I think it's safe to say there was a good deal of cooperation between Republicans and Democrats. It just didn't include the administration," Webb said.

It's total Republican hypocrisy, and it all went un-reported on the Factor. Senator Webb (DEMOCRAT) created the Bill, then Bush and McCain opposed it, then after it passed the Senate 95 to 2 suddenly they now support it and they take credit for it, when they did not support it, and they opposed it the whole time.

And O'Reilly has ignored the GI Bill story for 4 months, after he reported it, and said he would do everything in his power to help get it passed. But he only started ignoring it after he found out Bush and McCain opposed the bill. This not only shows what lying hypocrites Bush, McCain, and O'Reilly are, it shows that they all put partisan politics ahead of getting the GI Bill passed. Then after they know it's going to pass with a veto-proof margin suddenly these lying hypocrites support it, and then take credit for passing it. "

Well, let's hear you slander and discredit I'm ready.

SoCoKHntr's picture
Offline
Location: Pueblo Colorado
Joined: 12/18/2006
Posts: 1776
Good News About Our Right Wing King
Whelland wrote:
SoCo,

My e mail was meant as a bit of a joke.....and to see if I could rile you up a bit. It certainly did, and you made the quick, knee jerk response that I predicted well before I hit the "submit" button.

You liberal's are just too predictable....and laughable. You fail to debate topics by line item and you have no credibility with your whining and name calling.

Furthermore, there are plenty of Democrats willing to lie.

1. Teddy Kennedy (see expatriate's response)
2. Al Gore (he invented the internet)
3. John Kerry (pretending to be a hunter)
4. BHO pretending to be closer to the middle than he actually is

I'm not saying everyone on the right is right. Just stop trying to be so self righteous with your condemnation of everyone that isn't a Democrat. You've made so many offensive, broad statements of what you think Republican's are, that you've failed to make any legitimate argument.

Your statements are just as broad and often times you will cherry pick comments and place them out of context to bolster your viewpoint regarding Democrats. YOU DO THE SAME THING YOU ACCUSE ME OF.

SoCoKHntr's picture
Offline
Location: Pueblo Colorado
Joined: 12/18/2006
Posts: 1776
Good News About Our Right Wing King

Some further info regarding the moral high ground:

"Louis Beres is a past chairman of the Christian Coalition of Oregon. Three of his family members accuse him of molesting them as children, when they were pre-teens. In an Editor and Publisher article, in August 2006, Beres confessed to the accusations facing him. The Portland Mercury

John Bolton, President George W. Bush's highly contested appointee ambassador to United Nations is suspected of forcing his former wife to be involved in unsavory group sex acts. Corroborated allegations that Mr. Bolton's first wife, Christina Bolton, was forced to engage in group sex have not been refuted by the State Department despite inquires posed by Hustler magazine publisher Larry Flynt concerning the allegations. Mr. Flynt has obtained information from numerous sources that Mr. Bolton participated in paid visits to Plato's Retreat, the popular swingers club that operated in New York City in the late 1970s and early 1980s.

Jim Bunn Congressman of Oregon: Many attribute the success Jim Bunn experienced in great part to support from the Christian Coalition. Congressman Jim Bunn won his congressional seat, and then sources say that he immediately ditched his wife, the mother of his five children, and married a staffer. Jim Bunn is said to have put his new wife on the state payroll for the unheard-of salary of $97,500, thereby becoming one of the biggest waste and spend conservatives from the state of Oregon. Source: Conservative Babylon

President of the United States George W. Bush, was accused in a criminal complaint and lawsuit of raping Margie Schoedinger, who later died in a questionable case of suicide. Bush was also accused by Tammy Phillips, a former stripper, who was quoted in the National Enquirer in 2000 saying she had an affair with Bush that had ended in 1999. Another serious question involves statements from the wife of Red Blount, whom Bush campaigned for, while possibly A.W.O.L from the Air National Guard at age 26. She stated that he was "all over their 14 year old daughter." Multiple Sources

Neil Bush, brother or G. W. Bush, in a March 2003 divorce deposition, admitted repeatedly having sex with strange women who just showed up at his room while on an Asian business trip. Overshadowing the sex scandal at the time was a business scandal. Neal Bush keeps a low profile and is not seen in public very often. He also has questionable ties to the security of the World Trade Towers in the September 11th 2001 attacks on the United States. Source: Washington Post article

Ken Calvert, Congressman (R-California), has been called the champion of the Christian Coalition and its "family values." But in reality, Ken Calvert was sued as an alimony "deadbeat dad" by his ex-wife who said, "We can't forgive what occurred between the President and Lewinsky." In 1993, Calvert was caught by police officers receiving oral sex from a prostitute. He attempted to flee the scene but apparently couldn't move fast enough to get away from police, and was arrested."

This smells or should I say reeks of hypocrisy.

expatriate's picture
Offline
Location: Arizona
Joined: 10/26/2002
Posts: 3207
Good News About Our Right Wing King

SoCo, you're throwing a lot out there, but let's examine the last post. Remember that I accused the Democrats of selective indignation vs Republicans being more consistent.

Louis Breres -- caught being a bad man. Where did you show where any conservatives rallied to his cause?

John Bolton -- accusations don't mean a thing, and State Department to engage on that level doesn't prove guilt. I can accuse the Pope of being a transvestite, and his refusal to lift his robe and prove me wrong doesn't mean it's true. As for "sources", they need to be verifiable to be valid.

Jim Bunn -- again, reference to shadowy "sources" and qualifiers like "is said to have." That doesn't hold up. As for Conservative Babylon, that's a leftist blog that can post anything. Motivation is important -- I wouldn't try to use a neo-Nazi website to discuss Israel, for example. Where's the factual info like verifiable events?

Bush -- again, accusations that went nowhere. That doesn't mean it's true. As for the Guard issue, Dan Rather and his documentation were soundly debunked as cheap forgeries.

Neil Bush -- where is there anything that says he's anything other than a private citizen related to somebody?

Ken Calvert -- again, where is there any evidence that conservatives rallied to his defense?

Bottom line is that you need to back positions with more than innuendo, rumor, and accusations.

CVC
CVC's picture
Offline
Grand Slam Challenge Winner!
Location: Kansas
Joined: 03/04/2006
Posts: 3586
Good News About Our Right Wing King

Do republicans do bad things? Of course, but they are not allowed to become leaders of the republican party. They fade away not to be heard from again.

On the other hand, Kennedy, Frank and Clinton all have committed or been involved in questionable activities (to put it mildly) but the democrats look to them as their leaders.

Clinton disgraced the office of the Presidency by having an affair with an intern in the White House and yet, he is held in high esteem.

You may disagree with Bush's decisions while President, but you can't point to any illegal or immoral actions on his part like you can Clinton. Allegations don't count.

SoCoKHntr's picture
Offline
Location: Pueblo Colorado
Joined: 12/18/2006
Posts: 1776
Good News About Our Right Wing King

Yeah, point taken, I will concede that. But, I personally believe there more accurate then not.

SoCoKHntr's picture
Offline
Location: Pueblo Colorado
Joined: 12/18/2006
Posts: 1776
Good News About Our Right Wing King
CVC wrote:
Do republicans do bad things? Of course, but they are not allowed to become leaders of the republican party. They fade away not to be heard from again.

On the other hand, Kennedy, Frank and Clinton all have committed or been involved in questionable activities (to put it mildly) but the democrats look to them as their leaders.

Clinton disgraced the office of the Presidency by having an affair with an intern in the White House and yet, he is held in high esteem.

You may disagree with Bush's decisions while President, but you can't point to any illegal or immoral actions on his part like you can Clinton. Allegations don't count.

I think lying to your wife about a sexual indiscretion is wrong.

I also believe misleading and or manipulating information to sell a war where thousands have in my opinion needlessly died is wrong.

Can you guess which lie on my scale I see as worse.

A big difference between us and our thinking is this. You hold a belief that your side is clean and if it errors it's totally delt with in an above board and honest way.

I believe man whether a Repub or Dem is just that a man. And, being men we are neither perfect nor above the faults of man.

Clinton is a horn dog and couldn't keep it in his pants. He made some suicidal decisions chasing his lust. That was a very destructive part of his personality. But, as President I for the most part liked the direction this country was going and the economy at that time. I can separate the two sides. Although, I don't worship him or hold him on a pedestal.

Bush in my opinion is a man who isn't very intellectual and very stubborn and lacks the discipline and insight to make decisions that effect millions of people. He himself IMO was manipulated by those around him and wasn't savvy enough to see that. He may be moral in regard to keeping it in his pants, but in my opinion far more dangerous in regard to impulsive and stubborn and incorrect thinking and decision making. The manipulation and deception that was carried out and condoned by him and his admin and resulted in Iraq (you already know how I feel about Iraq) I cannot in good conscience accept as just or right. Quite the opposite.

CVC
CVC's picture
Offline
Grand Slam Challenge Winner!
Location: Kansas
Joined: 03/04/2006
Posts: 3586
Good News About Our Right Wing King

"I think lying to your wife about a sexual indiscretion is wrong."

He also lied in court.

"I also believe misleading and or manipulating information to sell a war where thousands have in my opinion needlessly died is wrong."

Can you prove he did that? Was the information wrong - I believe it was, but did Bush manipulate it? I don't think there is any evidence to substantiate that claim. Plus, Congress and other countries had access to the same information. Both Clinton's stated that Iraq had WMD and a threat to our country.

I am critical of Bush's decision to attack Iraq and I will be the first to condemn him if he intentionally mislead us.

"A big difference between us and our thinking is this. You hold a belief that your side is clean and if it errors it's totally delt with in an above board and honest way."

One, i really don't have a side. Two, neither party is clean. I state this over and over but you never get it.

Related Forum Threads You Might Like

ThreadThread StarterRepliesLast Updated
The "World Record" whitetailCa_Vermonster506/01/2011 00:38 am
Left Wing Terrorismexpatriate806/20/2009 07:32 am
Opinion's On King Buck.ManOfTheFall306/03/2011 03:38 am
.338x.416RMulhern1003/11/2007 22:56 pm
Red Wing Hunterfuzzybear012/19/2005 23:52 pm