Become a part of one of the fastest growing adult communities online. We have something for you, whether you’re a male member seeking out new friends or a new lady on the scene looking to take advantage of our many opportunities to network, make new friends, or connect with people. Join today & take part in lively discussions, take advantage of all the great features that attract hundreds of new daily members!
The moral relativism of the left is laughable. You might as well add Hillary Clinton and John Kerry to your calculation because they actually voted to go to war in Iraq, unlike Condi.
That would be an interesting calculation...we know Hillary's speaking fees are a lot higher than Condi's by at least a factor of 4x. Applying your outrage, Hillary is 4 times as egregious...or worse, since she actually voted to go to war and fund all those casualties you speak of.
First, I am far from "outraged". Disillusioned, yes. But living in the swamp of DC politics I became that long before the Bush-2 circus, or the Clinton one. Different clowns, different snake-oil sales jobs, same lack of integrity by too many (not all) in both camps.
Second, for you to say that everyone in Congress who voted to fund the war is as culpable as the core Cheney/Rice team that put the plan together and sold the stupid idea that the Iraqis would flock to US democracy with open arms and flowers is stretching the comparison beyond the breaking point. No, Congress does share some blame, but the blame falls squarely on the key parts of the administration that aggressively pushed it with insufficient thought, knowledge, or vetting.
Third, HC gets bigger speaking fees because she has name recognition for many other things as well, and I really doubt anyone is paying her an honorarium for that particular vote. Other than here Rasputin-like influence on Bush-2, hardly anyone had a clue who CR was.
Again, I am not defending any of these. I think the idea of paying any of them based upon the bad choices they made turns my stomach. All I was pointing out is the same evils infect both sides of the political chasm--something most people on here remain intentionally blind to. Just look at shaum's post this morning. In his case a liberal, especially a black liberal, can do no wrong. In IB's and Gonad's and IIFFy's case, a conservative can do no wrong. Both sides are blind in one eye.
Hey, Mr. Well-endowed (with insecurity), don't leave me out of any proposed request for a mass banning!
A few days back, in response to my mockery of one of your ridiculous posts, you claimed that I must have an 'agenda' against you. Doesn't that violate board rules?
Go ahead, Well-endowed (with insecurity), think big!
First, I am far from "outraged". Disillusioned, yes. But living in the swamp of DC politics I became that long before the Bush-2 circus, or the Clinton one. Different clowns, different snake-oil sales jobs, same lack of integrity by too many (not all) in both camps.
Second, for you to say that everyone in Congress who voted to fund the war is as culpable as the core Cheney/Rice team that put the plan together and sold the stupid idea that the Iraqis would flock to US democracy with open arms and flowers is stretching the comparison beyond the breaking point. No, Congress does share some blame, but the blame falls squarely on the key parts of the administration that aggressively pushed it with insufficient thought, knowledge, or vetting.
Third, HC gets bigger speaking fees because she has name recognition for many other things as well, and I really doubt anyone is paying her an honorarium for that particular vote. Other than here Rasputin-like influence on Bush-2, hardly anyone had a clue who CR was.
Again, I am not defending any of these. I think the idea of paying any of them based upon the bad choices they made turns my stomach. All I was pointing out is the same evils infect both sides of the political chasm--something most people on here remain intentionally blind to. Just look at shaum's post this morning. In his case a liberal, especially a black liberal, can do no wrong. In IB's and Gonad's and IIFFy's case, a conservative can do no wrong. Both sides are blind in one eye.
There's no blindness in seeing that Slick Willie the Perjuring Sexual Predator's justification for renewing hostilities against Saddam were almost identical to those proffered by Bush43, Old-THUMPER. You'd have to be blind not to see those commonalities, Old-THUMPER.
We now know that Hillary was behind regime change in Libya without giving any thought to the aftermath, or telling the American people that is what we were doing. So she removed a benign dictator who was afraid of US power and installed a murderous regime that kills it's own people and our ambassador.
I B Moron, you see no difference between strategic strikes on key targets and a regime change? Really?
U B a Moron, Old-THUMPER. War by any other name is still war, Old-THUMPER, and Bush43 almost verbatim cited the same justifications used by Slick Willie the Perjuring Sexual Predator, Old-THUMPER. Only an ignorant blind man like you cannot see the commonalities, Old-THUMPER.
Wot's that ! Is WE ANOTHER closeted peter puffer ? ! woomby, shammy and assup will be inviting him to their next bukakke party as a fellow swishy walker !! Hope he can figure out their "agenda" for him before they take him over the sodomite cliff .
Wot's that ! Is WE ANOTHER closeted peter puffer ? ! woomby, shammy and assup will be inviting him to their next bukakke party as a fellow swishy walker !! Hope he can figure out their "agenda" for him before they take him over the sodomite cliff .
Take yourself over the sodomite cliff, you swishy-walking bastard.
Wot's that ! Is WE ANOTHER closeted peter puffer ? ! 
woomby, shammy and assup will be inviting him to their next bukakke party as a fellow swishy walker !! Hope he can figure out their "agenda" for him before they take him over the sodomite cliff .
