|
Lawdog on Separation of Church and State | by DesertRat66 | 2009-08-26 07:37:13 |
|
At some point... | by kelli217 | 2009-08-26 08:18:11 |
|
THE DOCTERINE OF RELATIVE FILTH | by SnArL | 2009-08-26 08:46:04 |
|
Nobody SHOULD be doing it. | by kelli217 | 2009-08-26 09:16:50 |
|
[CITATION NEEDED] | by SnArL | 2009-08-26 09:20:55 |
|
Oh, how short the memory. | by kelli217 | 2009-08-26 11:10:20 |
|
How does Snarl saying something equate to | by Classic_Jon | 2009-08-26 11:12:44 |
|
Snarl didn't say what he thought was conjecture. | by kelli217 | 2009-08-26 11:24:58 |
|
Your "picked something", to me at least, | by Classic_Jon | 2009-08-26 11:27:48 |
|
What am I supposed to be advancing? | by kelli217 | 2009-08-26 11:45:30 |
|
My point is that if you want to debate and discuss | by Classic_Jon | 2009-08-26 11:57:11 |
|
I don't want to debate and discuss. | by kelli217 | 2009-08-26 12:12:07 |
|
What good would that do? | by MatthewDBA | 2009-08-26 12:13:14 |
|
One word... | by DesertRat66 | 2009-08-26 12:20:57 |
|
And yet when somebody brings up the death penalty | by SnArL | 2009-08-26 12:22:48 |
|
Exactly. | by kelli217 | 2009-08-26 12:31:27 |
|
Who is "the right"? | by MatthewDBA | 2009-08-26 12:35:11 |
|
Them. | by kelli217 | 2009-08-26 12:46:54 |
|
"Them" isn't very definitive. (n/t) | by MatthewDBA | 2009-08-26 12:51:47 |
|
Of course not. | by SnArL | 2009-08-26 12:55:16 |
|
See, I knew you'd get it. | by kelli217 | 2009-08-26 13:10:31 |
|
So let me make sure I am understanding | by Classic_Jon | 2009-08-26 13:37:53 |
| More or less. |
by kelli217 |
2009-08-26 14:01:56 |
I'm running out of steam now, so let me try to explain a bit more calmly.
Either it's bad for both sides, in which case it should be universally decried when any sort of impropriety occurs, or it's okay for both sides, in which case everyone should be quiet.
Bush could have darned well gone to the big concrete bunker of a church two blocks north of the White House to have his weekly meetings with religious leaders if the nature of the discussion was not political, since the Oval Office should be reserved for official business. If it's too much trouble to have a weekly motorcade for a trip of two blocks, then have such meetings up in the Residence, not in the West Wing.
There are so many things that Bush or his administration did that had at least the appearance of impropriety, but were defended by his supporters at the time as not being actual impropriety in fact, and so not important issues. There are plenty of things that were alleged at the time to BE improper, and are now accumulating even more supporting evidence as being such, that were defended by his supporters as necessary to national security, and therefore not prosecutable offenses despite violating the letter and spirit of the law.
So. Now we have a few instances of the same kinds of things happening, and somehow the politicians and pundits that defended Bush's and his administration's excesses have reversed themselves, in some cases trying to flush their prior statements down the memory hole. Why do they get to do that? Why do they get to take the high road now and expect their opposition NOT to take the low road? |
|
[ Reply ] |
|
Stated that way you are making much more sense | by Classic_Jon | 2009-08-26 14:20:09 |
|
I'm tired of... | by kelli217 | 2009-08-26 14:37:11 |
|
Honestly, if you had said it that way | by Classic_Jon | 2009-08-26 14:45:30 |
|
And a lot of people wouldn't have gotten it. | by kelli217 | 2009-08-26 14:51:18 |
|
I *strongly* disagree. I think you hurt your | by Classic_Jon | 2009-08-26 15:01:18 |
|
Actually, you're agreeing with me. | by kelli217 | 2009-08-26 15:09:26 |
|
No, I think that if that was your end goal | by Classic_Jon | 2009-08-26 15:18:16 |
|
It was not to cause a fight. | by kelli217 | 2009-08-26 15:33:10 |
|
I think there are probably | by MatthewDBA | 2009-08-26 16:30:10 |
|
True, but with the object lesson | by Nightwind | 2009-08-26 19:21:45 |
|
I think most people already knew it. (n/t) | by MatthewDBA | 2009-08-26 19:43:17 |
