http://www.capitolhillblue.com/artman/publish/article_7779.shtml

If this is true, and there's no reason to think not because no one so far has debunked it (yeah I know, snopes will be along in a minute - LOL), all appearances and reports point toward Bush losing it big time.

While I am no fan of Bushes, I honestly do not believe this fellow. Can you find an original transcript?

It seems though several outlets are reporting this but nothing that would be considered official. The problem for bush is ... no one is refuting it.

I bet if you came out and said bush murdered 5 children no one would refute it either. The problem is, once you refute it you give it some validity.

Bush should defend himself on this one Trav ... otherwise it makes him look like a madman.

As soon as Saddam admits that he was never bitten by batboy...

Originally posted by 00Elf
While I am no fan of Bushes, I honestly do not believe this fellow.

Of course you do not believe him.

He said something that reflects poorly on the Republican standard-bearer, G. W. Bush.

Is there a true blue, red-blooded patriot alive today who could believe such a thunderous pronouncement pouring forth from the lips of our sainted leader??!?!

Never mind that Thompson the reporter published what was said in a newspaper for the world to read, exposing himself to charges of slander if he is in any way making it up or lying about it.

Never mind that three seperate witnesses who were present at the meeting that day have confirmed that they heard Bush say it.

Why!, it MUST be a complete falsehood, fabricated by the dark, unAmerican, leftwing forces who "hate this country"!

It couldn't POSSIBLY be that our ever-cheerful, patriotic Mr Bush uttered such a horrid statement!!

Perish the thought.

[/sarcasm]

you know, the idiot who believes nothing that comes from the government is just as much of an idiot as the idiot who believes everything the government says

Originally posted by Freethinker
Why!, it MUST be a complete falsehood, fabricated by the dark, unAmerican, leftwing forces who "hate this country"!
You say that to poke fun at the standard conservative quip that the left "hates" this country because such a notion is completely ridiculous and entirely off base, but you, yourself, have said, on multiple occasions, just how much you despise the USA. I personally want to deck the next elitist asshole who has an issue with EVERYTHING this country has EVER done throughout history simply because we're not talking about dissent; we're talking about abject hatred. Do you not see why there could be some doubt in your sincerity about wanting the best for America? I mean, let's be honest here, you don’t care about that – you’d rather see it burned from San Francisco to New York because you fucking HATE IT, and there are a lot of liberals just like you. Thank god not all of them are that way.

Freethinkers post up-thread was right on. Dead center in the bullseye.

You have to be in serious denial to refute that much common sense.

Originally posted by The Praetorian
You say that to poke fun at the standard conservative quip that the left "hates" this country because such a notion is completely ridiculous and entirely off base,

True so far.

Except that the people that the vast majority of conservative folk in this country view as being "leftists" are...... Democrats...!!!!!

A political Party that seems to me only slightly less conservative, flag-waving and "fambly values" oriented as the staunchest Republican loyalists.

Originally posted by The Praetorian
but you, yourself, have said, on multiple occasions, just how much you despise the USA.

I have never said it, but you're right that i feel that way about the fascist GOVERNMENT of this country, and those *God-Guns-and-Guts* fanatics who support such a government.

Originally posted by The Praetorian
...... we're not talking about dissent; we're talking about abject hatred.

I leave you to determine what qualifies as *abject hatred*.

Originally posted by The Praetorian
I mean, let's be honest here, you don’t care about that – you’d rather see it burned from San Francisco to New York because you fucking HATE IT, and there are a lot of liberals just like you.

This {especially the italicized part) is where you run off the rails.

And crash.

Badly.

Firstly, there are probably less than 0.001% of the U.S. population as far to the left politically as I am.

And secondly, I doubt that any except a very small percentage of THAT small group feel about this country the way that I do....simply because they are either purposely blind to, or unaware of, or unwilling to face what America truly IS.

And what I mean by --**What America really is**-- is this ---

(paraphrasing what another writer I have quoted here has said)

"Although it hides behind a veneer of self-righteousness, arrogance, and supposed religiosity, the United States is in reality a nation devoid of morality. The extreme Rightwing U.S. government and its supporters don't think their actions fall within the quaint and inconvenient parameters of right and wrong, good and bad. Yet it commits acts of evil daily, because it has no moral center. It commits such acts because it thinks and behaves like a spoiled child - as though it is entitled to do and have anything it wants. America behaves like a sociopath - amoral and without conscience."

Originally posted by Freethinker
Of course you do not believe him.

He said something that reflects poorly on the Republican standard-bearer, G. W. Bush.
[/sarcasm]

Elf stated right up front that he/she was no fan of Bush's, which makes your statement rather pointless.

I read that article yesterday, and until it's reported elsewhere I'll view it with skepticism as well. The source cited can hardly be considered unbiased, but since you have an obvious dislike for Bush I suppose that lends validity to anything Capitol Hill Blue might publish.

I noted as you did that the writer of the piece claims that three seperate sources told him this story, and while it may be true, the fact that all three sources remain unnamed and have not gone on record to confirm this story, does not lend credence to it.

I applaud you pagan. I was about to call you out on what I perceived to be your seemingly blind eye towards all the insane leftist posts, while continuing to post how the right wingers can only talk about the libruls

Originally posted by Vilepagan
Elf stated right up front that he/she was no fan of Bush's, which makes your statement rather pointless.

I read that article yesterday, and until it's reported elsewhere I'll view it with skepticism as well. The source cited can hardly be considered unbiased, but since you have an obvious dislike for Bush I suppose that lends validity to anything Capitol Hill Blue might publish.

I noted as you did that the writer of the piece claims that three seperate sources told him this story, and while it may be true, the fact that all three sources remain unnamed and have not gone on record to confirm this story, does not lend credence to it.

You already know this Vile but I'll give ya a refresher ...

Perception works like this ...

When someone is charged with something and that someone does not defend himself, he is perceived to be guilty of the charge.

That's what we have here.

Look at the Dan Rather case ... they were on him like waterproof on a frog.

Not so this time and this one has been floating around for a few days now.

My guess -- those 3 witnesses are real.

"its the seriousness of the charge"

I guess dop thinks all he has to do is accuse someone of anything he wants and they have to defend themselves r they are guilty. thanks dop, you just gave away 95% of your strategy. Keep throwing shit up agaisnt the wall until something sticks.

Originally posted by Lungdop Philing
You already know this Vile but I'll give ya a refresher ...

Perception works like this ...

When someone is charged with something and that someone does not defend himself, he is perceived to be guilty of the charge.

That's what we have here.

Look at the Dan Rather case ... they were on him like waterproof on a frog.

Not so this time and this one has been floating around for a few days now.

If the story gains some traction in the mainstream media, I expect there will be some response from the administration.


My guess -- those 3 witnesses are real.

As long as you're willing to admit it's a "guess" I have no problem with entertaining the possibility it might be true.

Of course you do not believe him.

He said something that reflects poorly on the Republican standard-bearer, G. W. Bush.

Is there a true blue, red-blooded patriot alive today who could believe such a thunderous pronouncement pouring forth from the lips of our sainted leader??!?!

Never mind that Thompson the reporter published what was said in a newspaper for the world to read, exposing himself to charges of slander if he is in any way making it up or lying about it.

Never mind that three seperate witnesses who were present at the meeting that day have confirmed that they heard Bush say it.

Why!, it MUST be a complete falsehood, fabricated by the dark, unAmerican, leftwing forces who "hate this country"!

It couldn't POSSIBLY be that our ever-cheerful, patriotic Mr Bush uttered such a horrid statement!!

Perish the thought.

[/sarcasm]

For any argument, you need sources. This guy makes the claim that an active President of the United States does not wish to defend the Constitution, his only evidence is the claim that "he talked to three people". Is this being reported on any media networks or in any newspapers? But I know what you are going to say: Corporations control the media. Fine, what about Blogs and foriegn news networks? Magazines? What about Democratic members of Congress? This is the only source, TBMK, that has reported this story.

Oh yes, and to make you happy...

CLINTONS DICK!!!!!!

You already know this Vile but I'll give ya a refresher ...

Perception works like this ...

When someone is charged with something and that someone does not defend himself, he is perceived to be guilty of the charge.

Except when there is no logical reason to accept the arguments presented. If every Congressman/woman had to defend themselves from every crackpot theory of drug use, money laundering, and child molestation that flows into their offices Congress wouldn't have the time to be Congress...not that that would be a bad thing.

That's what we have here.

Look at the Dan Rather case ... they were on him like waterproof on a frog.

That's because a respected journalist with a long and experienced carrer used forged documents to slander a candidate during an election season. There was a logical argument, this is not.

Not so this time and this one has been floating around for a few days now.

My guess -- those 3 witnesses are real.

And yet they remain unnammed...

Excellent response, 00Elf.

Originally posted by Travh20
I applaud you pagan.

Thanks Trav. :)


I was about to call you out on what I perceived to be your seemingly blind eye towards all the insane leftist posts, while continuing to post how the right wingers can only talk about the libruls

Well...there are a lot of those kinds of posts, it would be quite the task to respond to all of them. I do try to respond to different posters from time to time, and to be frank, I think your perception that I don't take liberals to task very often is a bit skewed. There's the whole discussion I had with Dop (twice) on whether or not a plane really hit the Pentagon, and not too long ago in an uncharacteristic moment I told FT to take his condescension and ....stick it (sort of). :D

That being said, I am more liberal than conservative, and I only have so much time to make posts, so I pick and choose which battles to fight just like every other person here. It shouldn't be completely surprising that I would disagree with, and take issue with, conservatives more than liberals.

Originally posted by The Praetorian
Excellent response, 00Elf.

;)

Originally posted by Lungdop Philing
It seems though several outlets are reporting this but nothing that would be considered official. The problem for bush is ... no one is refuting it.
This sounds like the "jews called in sick on September 11th" crap. I think you would demand a higher level of proof on positive President Bush stories.


Free wrote: "Never mind that Thompson the reporter published what was said in a newspaper for the world to read, exposing himself to charges of slander if he is in any way making it up or lying about it."

If it's in a "newspaper" it's true? Is this a standard you will be consistent with no matter who uses it?

Originally posted by Lungdop Philing
Freethinkers post up-thread was right on. Dead center in the bullseye.

You have to be in serious denial to refute that much common sense.

Where is the common sense if all three of the only sources refuse to step forward and go "on the record" to verify the information to let us know it is truth?
I believe it is you who are in some sort of "serious denial".

[QUOTE]Originally posted by 00Elf
For any argument, you need sources.

So you want it both ways? When it was the outing of Plame the wingers said journalist can protect their sources and now suddenly, they can't. WTF? You're so easy to defeat in debate I'm not sure I want to even continue this post.

Is this being reported on any media networks or in any newspapers?

Another easy one -- what journalist working mainstreem wants to be the next Dan Rather? Geeesh ... I hope you're going to present a point sometime here that takes a touch more than DUH! to debate.

Oh yes, and to make you happy...

CLINTONS DICK!!!!!!

Apparently you aren't aware that sarcasm is no longer alive -- that all sarcastic journalists are out of work.

BTW: Clinton's penis is now referred to as CLENIS -- you can find that outlined in a soon to be released book named Everything you need to know to hate Bill, Hillary and Chelsea for dummies

Bonus hint:

Read the thread and see that it was made quite clear that this story was released on the internets [sic] which is worse than telling a woman a secret ... (uh-oh -- I think I just stepped in it). This isn't an article that's privy to just a few people -- the whole world will be reading it. Yet, and still, no refutation by the White House.

Originally posted by Lungdop Philing
Read the thread and see that it was made quite clear that this story was released on the internets [sic] which is worse than telling a woman a secret ... (uh-oh -- I think I just stepped in it). This isn't an article that's privy to just a few people -- the whole world will be reading it. Yet, and still, no refutation by the White House.

Probably for the same reason they haven't bothered to refute your claim that a plane didn't hit the Pentagon. :D

Originally posted by Vilepagan
Probably for the same reason they haven't bothered to refute your claim that a plane didn't hit the Pentagon. :D

You're on top of your game today (night?) Vile -- think I'll wait til you look more vulnerable.

So you want it both ways? When it was the outing of Plame the wingers said journalist can protect their sources and now suddenly, they can't. WTF? You're so easy to defeat in debate I'm not sure I want to even continue this post.

I never expressed my opinion on the whole Valerie Plame case. How would you know my opinion on it?

Another easy one -- what journalist working mainstreem wants to be the next Dan Rather? Geeesh ... I hope you're going to present a point sometime here that takes a touch more than DUH! to debate.

Dan Rather had to resign due to the fact that he used forged documents, if this is a legitimate concern, then it would logically be reported .

Read the thread and see that it was made quite clear that this story was released on the internets [sic] which is worse than telling a woman a secret ... (uh-oh -- I think I just stepped in it). This isn't an article that's privy to just a few people -- the whole world will be reading it. Yet, and still, no refutation by the White House.

On one obscure website, the entire world doesn't read "Capitol Hill Blue".

Originally posted by 00Elf
I never expressed my opinion on the whole Valerie Plame case. How would you know my opinion on it?

Dan Rather had to resign due to the fact that he used forged documents, if this is a legitimate concern, then it would logically be reported .

On one obscure website, the entire world doesn't read "Capitol Hill Blue".

Well here's your chance to post your opinion on Plame.

Rather was the victim of a set up.

Capitol Hill Blue is a major blog and the blogosphere now controls the internets. They break everything before the mainstream media.

Well here's your chance to post your opinion on Plame.

That is irrelevant to this topic.

Rather was the victim of a set up.

Possibly, nevertheless forged documents were used and a legitimate concern arose.

Capitol Hill Blue is a major blog and the blogosphere now controls the internets. They break everything before the mainstream media.

It's been nearly a week, how much time should we give them?

Originally posted by 00Elf
That is irrelevant to this topic.



Possibly, nevertheless forged documents were used and a legitimate concern arose.



It's been nearly a week, how much time should we give them?

Uh ... how much time do we give them before ... ????????
and who is them

Uh ... how much time do we give them before ... ???????? and who is them

The Mainstream Media.

Originally posted by Brooks


Free wrote: "Never mind that Thompson the reporter published what was said in a newspaper for the world to read, exposing himself to charges of slander if he is in any way making it up or lying about it."

Firstly, the legal term is *libel*, not slander. I ws wrong on the terminology.

Originally posted by Brooks
If it's in a "newspaper" it's true?

I did not suggest that -- "If its in a newspaper its true".

And you're a liar to imply that i DID say that.

I will repeat what i DID say that if a reporter gets his story printed in a newspaper leveling an allegation against someone that they made a public statement, he is exposed to being sued for (not "slander) libel.

Thus, it is an integral part of journalism that a reporter get his facts straight before leveling an accusation in print, especially an allegation that directly involves actions of or statments by the president of the US

(note; one exception is made in the US statutes of journalistic liability; Evidently, a little known rule is that a reporter or commentator may print or say anything he pleases and no legal reprimand or charges may be brought to bear against him provided the subject involves a Democratic politician and naughty, naughty sex with a woman other than his wife)

Walden O'Dell ~ CEO of election machine manufacturer Diebold.

FYI Dop, he just got canned.

Originally posted by LionelHutz
FYI Dop, he just got canned.

Yeah I just saw that somewhere ... something about an investigation -- didn't read the whole thing.