http://prodtn.cafepress.com/8/32557138_F_tn.jpg

"Show your support for America's ethics posterchild, Tom DeLay, as he wages his Godly battle against a VICIOUSLY FACT-OBSESSED (http://www.cafepress.com/thewhitehouse/866007) conspiracy indictment!"

*

http://politicalhumor.about.com/library/graphics/bush_serving_beer.jpg

"Belly UP, Kids!! The first one's on ME!!!!"

Well there you have it. We finally have definitive proof regarding Bush's national guard service. Those mean ol GOP bastards were trying to cover it up, but now the truth is out about their evilness!

Originally posted by Evil Homer
Well there you have it. We finally have definitive proof regarding Bush's national guard service. Those mean ol GOP bastards were trying to cover it up, but now the truth is out about their evilness!

Ask........and, Ye shall RECEIVE!!!! (http://www.axisoflogic.com/cgi-bin/exec/view.pl?archive=43&num=5089) :D


"According to Cathy Donelson, a daughter of old Montgomery but one of the toughest investigative reporters to work for newspapers in Alabama over the years, the 1960s came to Old Cloverdale in the early 1970s about the time of Bush's arrival.

"We did a lot of drugs in those days," she said. "The 1970s are a blur."

He remembers thinking to himself, "This guy thinks he is such a cuntsman, God's gift to women," he said. "He was all duded up in his cowboy boots. It was sort of annoying seeing all these people who thought they were hot shit just because they were from Texas."

Two books now contain the charge that Bush was arrested for possession of cocaine in 1972 in Texas, most likely in late November or December after his stint in Alabama. Bush was allowed to perform community service in 1973 by working for a minority children's program in Houston, Professionals United for Leadership League (PULL), chaired by his father. The record of that arrest was expunged, meaning he apparently received the equivalent of Youthful Offender status at the age of 26."

:hitout:

Originally posted by Mr. Shaman

Two books now contain the charge that Bush was arrested for possession of cocaine in 1972 in Texas, most likely in late November or December after his stint in Alabama. Bush was allowed to perform community service in 1973 by working for a minority children's program in Houston, Professionals United for Leadership League (PULL), chaired by his father.

Yes, Shaman, but you're forgetting something. Something that renders Bush's cocaine habit meaningless. Something that exonnerates Bush of every crime he ever committed.

And that is.......

CLINTON'S DICK! CLINTON'S DIIIICK!!!

Please keep that in mind when posting dastardly facts about Bush's former drug use, being AWOL from service, influence peddling in Texas and other uncomfortable things in his past.

Thanks FT. :rolleyes:

Originally posted by Vilepagan
Thanks FT. :rolleyes:

Always happy to be of service.

;)

The tom delay indictmen papers show no evidence against him. read them. they may have SOME against the other two people, but none against him.

dont hate me for my difference in opinion :( lol

Originally posted by opinionatedwon

dont hate me for my difference in opinion

What about for your puerile, dogmatic stance and your blind, fawning subservience to the status quo?

Would that be alright?

Would that be alright?

Hating someone you don't know is not right, period
Plus, its not very good to hate someone anyway.

Originally posted by Freethinker
What about for your puerile, dogmatic stance and your blind, fawning subservience to the status quo?


Wow, good debating.

Originally posted by Freethinker
What about for your puerile, dogmatic stance and your blind, fawning subservience to the status quo?

Would that be alright?

Well, let's see, he gave a perhaps poorly stated, but good reason, based on some apparent research, on which his opinion was based. Your opinion seems to be based on "Tom Delay's an asshole, so he must be guilty." Based on the stated reasons, his seems more intelligent and your opinion seems more puerile. A continuance of the status quo isn't a reason for a guilty verdict.

Not that I would mind if Delay got tossed in jail for a while.

Originally posted by LionelHutz
Your opinion seems to be based on "Tom Delay's an asshole, so he must be guilty."

No, actually, my opinion is based on the fact that a grand jury ---after a three-year investigation into illegal use of corporate monies--- leveled a felony indictment against Tom DeLay, the first time in a century that a US House Majority Leader has been indicted.

The grand jury brings charges against the highest ranking member of Congress EVER indicted, and we have to listen to nitwits claiming --"Oh, the indictment papers hold no evidence against DeLay!!".

I'd like to see Mr Don't-Hate-Me-Because-I'm-A-Dimwitted-Rightwing -Cheerleader provide a bit of substantiation for the claim that an indictment was brought against the House leader, but they have **no evidence** against him

Originally posted by opinionatedwon
The tom delay indictmen papers show no evidence against him. read them. they may have SOME against the other two people, but none against him.

dont hate me for my difference in opinion :( lol

None of that matters. Delay has stepped on too many toes in his lifetime and finally he did it to the wrong people. It's payback time
in spades.

Originally posted by Freethinker
What about for your puerile, dogmatic stance and your blind, fawning subservience to the status quo?

Would that be alright?

Wow, that was pretty uncalled for. I really dont see any reason in making things like this personal. I was simply pointing out something that no one else did. Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, and i really dont think that you should be blatantly rude about it. I may not like what you stand for, politically, but i dont resort to totally putting you down.
I believe what i believe, and that is okay with me. I may be a "bush-supporter" but that doesn't mean i dont see the other side of things. I dont like a lot of what he has done, but i deal with it.
As for Tom Delay, he may have stepped on many toes in his time, but if you are going to bring charges a gainst a person with no evidence stated in the indictment, then there is no reason for a case. We are being left in the dark, who is to say that there is actually hard evidence against him?

Originally posted by opinionatedwon
As for Tom Delay, he may have stepped on many toes in his time, but if you are going to bring charges a gainst a person with no evidence stated in the indictment, then there is no reason for a case. We are being left in the dark, who is to say that there is actually hard evidence against him?

Evidence? In the words of the famous mexican bandit in the Sierra Madres "we don't need no steeenkin' evidence."

Where was the evidence when we bombed the crap out of Iraq over WMD's that didn't exist?

And don't be so sensitive and apologetic about being a bush backer ... you should be proud -- there are few of you left.

Where was the evidence? Obviously congress didn't think that we needed evidence! Maybe there weren't any, but there were always threats posed about them from the other side.

Im not unproud, but it seems that whenever i stand up for the man, people attack me personally, which is very immature, but is what happens more times then not.

Originally posted by opinionatedwon
Im not unproud, but it seems that whenever i stand up for the man, people attack me personally, which is very immature, but is what happens more times then not.
Welcome to Allforums, Opinionatedwon.

Originally posted by The Praetorian
Welcome to Allforums, Opinionatedwon.

Lol, thank you...

You're more than welcome. :)

Originally posted by Freethinker
What about for your puerile, dogmatic stance and your blind, fawning subservience to the status quo?
Short of being a dreadfully insufferable scoundrel and a repugnant, sheep-molesting orgy of indecency with a never ceasing predilection for Clinton's penis, you're a really great guy, FT.

See - two can play at that game. ;)

Whatever happened to just having a difference in opinion, you dick?

You're not supposed to be hard on people before they make their 100th post. That's clearly stated in the rules...........or it should be, I don't know, but THAT'S THE WAY IT IS.

Originally posted by opinionatedwon
Im not unproud, but it seems that whenever i stand up for the man, people attack me personally, which is very immature, but is what happens more times then not.

First, the only thing that the people on this board have to judge you by is your oppinions. Secondly, if you state stupid oppinions you are asking to get attacked (at least on this board).

If you post oppinions that follow the reichtwing propoganda machine in the face of overwhelming evidence against said propoganda, people are going to know you cannot think for yourself.

i.e, - A grand jury, people of BOTH political parties picked at random, determined there was enough evidence to idict the man. But in your "oppinion" there was no evidence. Can you back up that reasoning? Are you a lawyer? Have you heard all the evidence that the grand jury heard? Do you understand the case in it's entirety or are you just backing a republican politician because he is republican?

I don't know that much about the case, I have no idea if he is guilty or not, but if a grand jury thinks their is enough evidence to make it worthwhile to look into then we should look into it. If the man is not guilty he has nothing to worry about.

Out of curiosity, why did the republicans push through a law immediatly upon Mr Delay becoming a suspect that would allow congresspeople to stay in office while being investigated? That certainly doesn't sound like it's in the best interest of this country.

First off "oppinions" is actually spelt opinions. Please, if you are going to use the word so much, and mock me by using it, learn how to spell it.
This board isn't about judging people on their opinions, its about discussing political issues. It isn't about attacking people personally, be it their opinions or anything else. If anything, it is about debating. Some people just aren't able to see the other side of issues, and by being on these kinds of boards, you are able to see the other side of arguments. So, people who attack people by calling names, or calling them stupid, they are obviously one sided, and arent very open, versitile people.

Don't bother falling back on the old "bad spelling" argument. It has never worked on these boards and never will. My spelling sucks and my typing also sucks.

You got part of it right, this board is about discussing issues and debating them. However you are wrong to infer that I stated that this board was about judgeing and attacking people. I never said that. I said that that the only thing people on these boards have to judge you by is your opinions. Also, I did not call you stupid. I said that if you are going to "follow the reichtwing propoganda machine in the face of overwhelming evidence against said propoganda" people are going to know you cannot think for yourself.

So show us that you can. Answer the questions. Can you back up your statement that there was "no evidence against him"? Are you a lawyer? Have you heard all the evidence that the grand jury heard? Do you understand the case in it's entirety or are you just backing a republican politician because he is republican?

Don't bother falling back on the old "bad spelling" argument. It has never worked on these boards and never will. My spelling sucks and my typing also sucks.

HaHA *points and laughs* ur bad spelr :D

Can you back up your statement that there was "no evidence against him"? Are you a lawyer? Have you heard all the evidence that the grand jury heard? Do you understand the case in it's entirety or are you just backing a republican politician because he is republican?

Can you back up your statement that there was "evidence against him"? Are you a lawyer? Have you heard all the evidence that the grand jury heard? Do you understand the case in its entirety or are you just attacking a republican while he is in the spotlight because he is a republican? ;)

You replied to a post that i had up. That post was talking about people attacking people personally, so when you replied to that post, and made your comments so general, it didn't help your case.

http://news.findlaw.com/wp/docs/delay/delay92805ind.pdf
There's the indictment in full
You tell me where there is any hard evidence posed against delay.
There are bits about the other parties, but really, nothing hard fact against delay. Are you a juror? Do you know what they were thinking ? No. NONE OF US DO. we are all guessing. So why dont you back off a little, and not think im closed minded when im not the one attacking people's views, and what they believe. i appreciate your opinion, and your side to the story, although i may not agree, i still see where you and other democrats are coming from. Sorry some people just can't see the flipside.

Originally posted by opinionatedwon
i still see where you and other democrats are coming from. Sorry some people just can't see the flipside.

I totally agree with you on that. Some people cannot see the forest through the trees or are unwilling to see it. Others are unwilling to accept that the people they have previously suported were not what they seamed to be. And still others have made up their minds and don't want to be confused by facts.

I see where u are coming from. Some people are so blinded by preceptions, that they dont see the truth.
I know bush isn't perfect, heck no one is...
He has dont wrong, but everyone does
We can not change it now, so we just have to deal with what we have.

Originally posted by Echo2
However you are wrong to infer that I stated that this board was about judgeing and attacking people.
Not only does your spelling suck, your grammar's bad, too. YOU infer something, other people IMPLY things. ;)

Good to have you back, Echo - I missed your dumb ass. :D

(I'm just kidding, but not really.)

Glad to be back. Took a little vacation between switching jobs and went to Hawaii for a week. I missed sparing with you guys. I hope someone took the time to scratch travs itch once in while why I was gone.

Originally posted by Echo2
Took a little vacation between switching jobs and went to Hawaii for a week.
Bitch! :)

I hope you had fun.

Originally posted by opinionatedwon

You tell me where there is any hard evidence posed against delay.

Firstly, YOU ARE THE PERSON MAKING THE CHARGE that ***there is NO evidence contained in the indictment against Tom DeLay***.

Secondly, the indictment clearly states and charges Thomas DeLay --""did enter into an agreement with one or more of each other or with a general purpose political committee known as Texans for a Republican Majority PAC""-- and that they used corporate contrbutions improperly and the indictment shows a photostatic copy of the cancelled CHECK from the Texans for a Republican Majority PAC.

THAT cancelled check, it seems to me, would constitute a bit of goddamned EVIDENCE.

Thirdly, now that you've been called out for making the claim that ***there is NO evidence contained in the indictment against DeLay***, you slyly begin to MODIFY the claim by now stating there are no ""hard facts""" against DeLay.

Every day he gets in deeper ... here's today's indictment ...

http://news.yahoo.com/fc/us/us_congress

If you post oppinions that follow the reichtwing propoganda machine in the face of evidence against said propoganda, people are going to know you cannot think for yourself.

You must be able to back up your statements to get the people on this board to pay attention.

But don't worry, If he is innocent he will be aquited, and if he is guilty, he has friends in high places that will get him out of having to do time.

Originally posted by Echo2
You must be able to back up your statements to get the people on this board to pay attention.


Not really the case.

opinionatedwon has not in any way backed up his allegation that **there is NO evidence to be found against Tom DeLay in the grand jury indictment against him**, yet the Righties here are falling over themselves slapping him on the back.

Originally posted by Echo2
.

You must be able to back up your statements to get the people on this board to pay attention.



Apparently, i have gotten your attention, since you continue to reply to the statements i make.