I’ve been lurking in this forum for a while now and I think that this Sonny guy and MikeButler are really a couple of assholes.

[quote=sethllanford]I've been lurking in this forum for a while now and I think that this Sonny guy and MikeButler are really a couple of assholes. [/quote]

Why?  Because they both feel strongly about their points of view?

Just read past the digs, and this is an interesting discussion, with valid points from both posters.

[quote=SonnyClips] You offer no source for your claims and then you fail to make a case for why idicting Huthinson was unfounded. <?:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" />

[/quote]

Please try to be serious. He had her indicted during a political campaign season and failed to bring her to trial. You do the math. That’s’ enough to make any rational person (that would be most everyone but you and Molly Ivins) suspicious.

[quote=SonnyClips]

I know none of this to be true other than from your assertions.

[/quote]

I'm not really interested in providing you with a basic education with the facts. If you're unaware of Ronnie Earl's past, of his indictment of, and failure to bring to trial, KB Hutchenson, I simply don't care to bring you up to speed. Perhaps your side can bring a better informed spokesperson.

[quote=SonnyClips] 

I find this to be the case in your posts. No citation and no argument.

[/quote]

Spare me. Again, providing you with a basic education on the facts isn't my job. A simple Google on your part will provide you with the details of the Hutchenson issue. What I'm telling you isn't facts in dispute, they're common, unchallenged information.

You, otoh, link to an op-ed piece where a retired LTC makes the case (unconvincingly, I would add) that every strategist on the ground in Iraq is wrong, and you pretend this is some weighty assertion.

[quote=SonnyClips]

 Why should anyone be swayed by your suspicion especially if you offer no explanation how they were arrived upon?

[/quote]

I detailed Earl's past. Prove me wrong.

[quote=SonnyClips]
Like the NK deal. Where did you find your explanation? Stating your case as if you believe it is common knowledge does not make it so.

[/quote]

It IS common knowledge that NK violated the agreement Carter made with them. The fact that you're unaware doesn't change that.

[quote=SonnyClips]

 I pointed to experts that are in your camp who disagree with your position on the NK deal.

[/quote]

You claimed so, you didn't support your claim.

You STILL have yet to face the fact that an agreement was made in the six party format Bush worked over Democrat objections, and you've yet to defend their claims that unilateral talks were a better idea.

[quote=SonnyClips]

I have offered ennumerable and credible reasons why I believe that the GOP is imploding.

[/quote]

ROFLMAO, you used various quotes from "unnamed GOP strategists" and a quote from a GOP Congressman who said he believed Delay would be eventually exonerated. Somehow you tried to parlay this momentary ethics cloud with Delay and Frist to am "implosion" based on every policy difference, large and small you have with the administration coupled with today's Democrat talking point about "competence" (as if THEY'VE ever demonstrated any).

 Let me help you out here; Delay and Frist will, or will not be exonerated. Either way, neither are a serious loss of a much larger movement. They’re foot soldiers, and while their problems will give Democrats and their friends in the media something to talk about, it would do lasting damage to the GOP. The Democrats simply have nothing to say. They have no agenda other than rabid Bush hatred. That party is currently in the hands of deeply unserious people. People who take Michael Moore seriously. People who take Howard Dean seriously. People who take Al Franken seriously.

The Kerry campaign is a perfect metaphor for the current Democrat party with his “I voted for it before I voted against it” and “You bet we might have” (when asked if he would have taken military action against Saddam). They stand for zero aside from “I’m not Bush”. And as long as that’s all they have, Delay and Frist mean nothing but a passing sideshow.

 [quote=SonnyClips]
Now say something about drugs or some other quaint country truism that you think should impeach my credibility.

[/quote]

Nah, I pretty much leave the job of impeaching your credibility to you. You're much better at it than I am.

[quote=SonnyClips]Bush's nominee for the O'Connor seat is one more indication of that the GOP is flailing in a pit of its own arrogance and rapaciousness. Here is what the conservative pundits have to say.

Republicans Condemn Miers Pick…

October 9, 2005 at 11:06 AM

Sen. Arlen Specter: "She needs a crash course in constitutional law."

Sen. Trent Lott: "Is she the most qualified person? Clearly, the answer to that is 'no'."

Rush Limbaugh: "It seems to me from the outset that this is a pick that was made from weakness.”

Charles Krauthammer: "To nominate someone whose adult life reveals no record of even participation in debates about constitutional interpretation is an insult to the institution and to that vision of the institution."

Ann Coulter: "This shows stunning arrogance by the president and it is absurd."

George Will: "The president's 'argument' for her amounts to: Trust me. There is no reason to, for several reasons."

Jason Garrett Hitzert: "I think it is the latest in a stream of disappointments that have left Conservative activists like myself disgusted with the president."

Best,
Sonny[/quote]

Hmmm, failed to mention how many Democrats support her. The dynamic here, Sonny, is that some on the right wanted an in-you-face fight with a clearly conservative nominee, and Bush didn't give it to them. You can't please everyone....

[quote=SonnyClips]

Spare me. Again, providing you with a basic education on the facts isn't my job. A simple Google on your part will provide you with the details of the Hutchenson issue. What I'm telling you isn't facts in dispute, they're common, unchallenged information.

Some how it eludes me why any educated person would present an argument with facts they can provide no reference for.

[/quote]

If you're in need of the basic, not-in-dispute facts, you're not up to speed enough to be worth the time to chat with. It as if you've walking into a conversation about baseball and you want me to give to a cite that proves that the Yankees really are home based in NYC....

[quote=SonnyClips]
You, otoh, link to an op-ed piece where a retired LTC makes the case (unconvincingly, I would add) that every strategist on the ground in Iraq is wrong, and you pretend this is some weighty assertion.

Here is an example of your pseudosylogistic style that pains me so much. [/quote]

You're young, you'll get over it. You found a critic, wow, there's a real feat. What you fail to grasp is that every expert on the ground disagrees witth him. It's easy to find a critic. The woods are full of critics with theories that don't hold water.

BTW, his "oil spot" theory sounds a great deal like the Vietnam era "pacisifaction" program that moved civilians to villages build behind chain-link fences designed to exclude the VC. The problem was the VC were good at melting into the populace. It's as if they saw themselves as fishes that could blend in with the schools of other fish.

Secondly, the belief that you could even maintain "oil spots" perfectly free of terrorists isn't realistic when you consider the fact that terrorists have been able to sneak into coalition forces mess halls. If that's not a perfectly sealed area, nothing is.

[quote=SonnyClips]You still haven't supported your claim of "every expert on the ground."<?:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" />

[/quote]

Silly me. I assumed that the reference to the chain of command on the ground currently in <?:namespace prefix = st1 ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags" />Iraq would have been clear enough.

 [quote=SonnyClips]

Furthermore I would submit that the critics within the command structure have either been removed or contrary speech has been chilled to the extent that they keep their oppinions to themselves.

[/quote]

In the absence of any proof, you can submit whatever you like. (Do tell us who's been "removed", this should be worth a laugh) I have no doubt in a large command structure you'll find differences of opinion. In the military we don't call it "contrary speech", we call it not knowing enough to stfu when the boss makes a decision you don't like.

[quote=SonnyClips]

I think that your metaphor for why you shouldn't have to back your statements about the Delay indictment shows the level at which you wish to discuss the topic.

[/quote]

See above comment about baseball and the Yankees. What I've said about Earl's comments at a Democrat fundraiser and his indictment of Hutchenson during a political season and then failure to charge her aren't facts in dispute. Oh, and the sky is blue, and I won't be linking you to a source about that either.

[quote=SonnyClips]

I mean Delay may be the proverbial ham sandwich but simply refering to what you believe to be the prosecutors frivolous past performance is not really proving your point.

[/quote]

When the point is the prosecutor's past might not make Delay innocent but it surely does make the indictment questionable, it sure does.

Revelations that have come since we first discussed this, how Earl had to drop the first indictment because he charged Delay with something that wasn't even a crime at the time, how he went back to the GJ that indicted Delay and they refused his second indictment(a fact he withheld) and how he got his latest indictment from a GJ that had only been in session for 3 hours make Earl's conduct even more suspicious.

The rest of your post simply isn’t worth comment…..

[quote=SonnyClips].What I am saying is that f**king with Kay Bailey has about as much to do with Delay being innocent as .....[/quote]

Gee, if only you were really 1/5 as smart as you think you are you'd have properly read my first comment on Earl and Delay and it would have sunk in that I took pains to say Earl's past DOESN'T MEAN DELAY IS INNOCENT, it simply means Earl and his indictment are suspect. Earl's conduct since we started this has proved my point.

[quote=SonnyClips]Hmmm, failed to mention how many Democrats support her. The dynamic here, Sonny, is that some on the right wanted an in-you-face fight with a clearly conservative nominee, and Bush didn't give it to them. You can't please everyone....

I can see now you're starting to get it. Now here is is the question, Why won't Bush go for the in your face fight given that the only supporters he can find is that anemic Democrat Reid. .[/quote]

Let's start with your false assertion that her only Democrat supporter is Reid (who is, btw, hardly weak as he serves as the Democrat LEADER in the Senate.

Senate Dems defend Miers on top court nod

.More unusual is the outright praise from some Democrats for the person who would replace retiring Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, a critical moderate vote on abortion, affirmative action and other close rulings.

"I like what I hear so far," said Sen. Mark Pryor, D-Ark.

Now, to your question "why". It should be obvious given Bush's history of working with Democrats (and thereby driving more conservative types mad with rage) with NCL and a  Medicare Drug benefit. In fact, if you remember the campaigns, Bush enraged some on the right with his "compassionate conservative" label. He saw a chance to push through someone that Democrats had suggested that wouldn't raise a big fight, and at least in his estimation, got the kind of person on the court he wanted. He's simply not as conservative (and he never has been) as Will, Coulter and the others.

BTW, notice how Pat Bucanhan, the guy who ditched the GOP years ago has been adopted by the MSM as a "Republican critic"?   

[quote=SonnyClips]Yea, Reid is about as anemic as David Dreir who lost out on getting Delays post because he is gay. [/quote]<?:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" />

It just never ends with you moonbats, does it?

[quote=SonnyClips]

I can tell that since you never referenced the actual words within Earle's speech ...

[/quote]

I can tell since you had to settle for whimper about me not giving you a link that you Googled it yourself (a quick search of the Houston Chronicle would suffice) and found I was right. Earl DID speak at a Democrat fund raiser, he DID mention an open investigation and Delay BY NAME and he likened him to  a “bully”. Hardly something you’d expect of a prosecutor who’s serious about his job and not just a political hack. You’re also forced to run away from the details of Earl’s attacks on Hutchenson AND his most recent foolishness with indictments and GJs. Most importantly of all you’ve had to back away from the claim that I ever said Earl’s behavior meant Delay was innocent.

[quote=SonnyClips]

Most arguments should teach an individual something this has maybe brought up that some arkie demo supports Meir too.

Best,
Sonny[/quote]

If that’s how you read the article I gave you, fine. Wallow in your delusion….

[quote=SonnyClips]

I'll have to pass on furthering this discussion.

[/quote]

Yeah, go put some ice on that eye, it’s bruising up badly.  You know, getting whipped in these exchanges as often as you have, I would have expected you to learn some humility and perhaps how to lose with grace….

[quote=SonnyClips]You're not going to get me back in you rhetorical hayseed.

Best,
Sonny "left eye" Clips[/quote]

Nobody called you back in, you little puffin jay. Now, go do something for that eye... 

Keeps going and going and going...... This thread..

Hey I think our military should listen to the Democrats on how to run the war.. You know Puff Daddie O, Shawn Penn, Patty Sheehan, Michael Moore and Dan Rather. All of these people know much more then anyone in our government/military.

God bless democracy...

Today I was working as usual with a bunch of high paid anti Bush government employees. I guess they dont like the 3.5% annual raises or something since they work so hard. Well anyways they were talking about how their right for a revolution has been removed. I stated now that we are a civilized society, unlike some African nations where they take axes to womens and childrens heads, we can move forward with political reform.

This person went on to state "political reform is impossible when one party is so powerful." I then stated "from the 80's to the present the Democrats were removed." The guy was aggrivated with my clear and truthful answer, but everyone in the room supported my comment.

It seems to me there are some passionate sides on every issue, but the 50/50 split in support ties to the 01 election. Those who voted for Gore think they were screwed so they hate Bush.

Just thought I would post this. That Scooter Libby is something else. Have at it Gentlemen.

Oh and this is a good one too. Lynne Cheney was a saucy one too.

Hey Seth are you a anti Bush guy?

Either way its kewl… Just today I was listening to a few people who are going to testify that Joe Wilson told many people his wife was a CIA operative. This is such a joke. Joe Wilson is an idiot from the 60s who smoked to much week. The fact that millions went into this case is pathetic. He went to Africa and straight up lied according to the CIA and FBI. Not once was this guy under oath during this investigation.

Maybe all of DC are skum, but MOORE AND WILSON are skum that lie!

I just think that the Republicans write good sex books.

Yeah I hear this book is a bit weird, but I must remember the quote came from the media so its BS. I think I am going to start an ANTI CNN and NBC campaign.

No man you can read the stuff on Amazon. I’m a big L Libertarian by the
way. Used to vote for some Republican until they grew the govnmt to
big. Police state stuff is a little out of control. 

I was a Libertarian until they ran Howard Stern on their ticket.  Just a tad too “fringe element” for my tastes/

no more fringe than the two I mentioned earlier.

Respectfully, it’s rather more bizarre than anything that the other two parties have tried, and that’s saying something.