You May Have Missed

Onceler said:
What about this story is inconsistent with the m.o. of this administration?

When did Superfreak become such an unabashed apologist?
Click to expand...

Oh it's all a big conspiracy. It's not that SF is an apologist, he's a warrior on the side of truth and justice. Everyone is telling the biggest lies in the world about the poor bushies. Even other Republicans! Other republicans lying under oath just to make bush look bad. Someone has to do something. Thank god for SF.
 
Darla said:
Oh, well that makes the highest medical authority in the land being unable to talk about anything the religious right has deemed "OFF LIMITS IF YOU WANT TO POLITICALLY LIVE" ok.

Thanks for putting it in perspective for us.
Click to expand...
It is pretty much the same for him. However it wasn't perspective, it was again just pointing out that it happens, when you are speaking for an official government position, to more than just the Surgeon General.

Basically I was telling SF, that yes, sometimes they can limit what you say at a private forum.

What is up with you today? Friday the 13th getting to you? Everything I say is not an accusation. Or more accurately, Not everything I say is an accusation.
 
Damo.... I meant could they tell him he could or could not attend a private event.... but screw it, I guess I got labeled as an apologist again anyway...

Friday the 13th... did not even think about that until you mentioned it. Now I have to look out for a those damn black cats for the rest of the day.
 
Superfreak said:
That is kind of what I was thinking as this whole thing smelled insanely bad. But I knew if I said the guy was full of shit I would have to hear all about being a bush enabler or something along those lines. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...


I can't tell; did SF miss the sarcasm, or was he one-upping the sarcasm?
 
Damocles said:
It is pretty much the same for him. However it wasn't perspective, it was again just pointing out that it happens, when you are speaking for an official government position, to more than just the Surgeon General.

Basically I was telling SF, that yes, sometimes they can limit what you say at a private forum.

What is up with you today? Friday the 13th getting to you? Everything I say is not an accusation. Or more accurately, Not everything I say is an accusation.
Click to expand...

Am I being nasty to you? Sorry.

You know I think it's because I"m repressing an outburst. I really bit down hard on it, because it goes against my grain to curse out an 80 year old person, no matter how nasty they might be. Or, it could also be because I want to leave work and make myself a pina colada and put on my bathing suite and lay out on my deck, but I dont think I'll be able to sneak out today like I did last Friday. It's not PMS this time, that's all I can say for sure.
 
Today....!

Damocles said:
It is pretty much the same for him. However it wasn't perspective, it was again just pointing out that it happens, when you are speaking for an official government position, to more than just the Surgeon General.

Basically I was telling SF, that yes, sometimes they can limit what you say at a private forum.

What is up with you today? Friday the 13th getting to you? Everything I say is not an accusation. Or more accurately, Not everything I say is an accusation.
Click to expand...


It's everyday with her...anyone who disagrees with her is either a liar...a drunk or whatever little word she assigns as punishment...:cof1:
 
Superfreak said:
Damo.... I meant could they tell him he could or could not attend a private event.... but screw it, I guess I got labeled as an apologist again anyway...

Friday the 13th... did not even think about that until you mentioned it. Now I have to look out for a those damn black cats for the rest of the day.
Click to expand...
They could make it clear that such attendance can be detrimental to their advancement of their career.

Usually this is done for such things like... oh... KKK meetings. While it is a private event, such attendance made public could muck up more than your own career and they would simply drop you like a hot rock.

In this case they use more subtle means to ensure your compliance.
 
Darla said:
Am I being nasty to you? Sorry.

You know I think it's because I"m repressing an outburst. I really bit down hard on it, because it goes against my grain to curse out an 80 year old person, no matter how nasty they might be. Or, it could also be because I want to leave work and make myself a pina colada and put on my bathing suite and lay out on my deck, but I dont think I'll be able to sneak out today like I did last Friday. It's not PMS this time, that's all I can say for sure.
Click to expand...
Well, I can take it. Get your aggressions out.... At least you know I won't spend hours telling you how unladylike it is to do so.
 
Darla said:
Oh it's all a big conspiracy. It's not that SF is an apologist, he's a warrior on the side of truth and justice. Everyone is telling the biggest lies in the world about the poor bushies. Even other Republicans! Other republicans lying under oath just to make bush look bad. Someone has to do something. Thank god for SF.
Click to expand...

Please explain the above... what have I done that has made you think I am defending "lies people are telling about Bush"?
 
Superfreak said:
Please explain the above... what have I done that has made you think I am defending "lies people are telling about Bush"?
Click to expand...

Why would your first reaction be to jump on this guy's claims, and express skepticism about his testimony?

What has this admin done to give you any faith whatsoever that this kind of behavior is not consistent with what they regularly do?
 
Darla said:
Your first post on this thread. You sure sounded like you were calling BS on the whole story.
Click to expand...

and that somehow makes me a Bush apologist? Asking why he did not tell us WHO said it? By saying a senior official or some such bullshit... it means no one can address this with whomever supposedly said it to him. Which is bullshit. He is not protecting a source, he is making a blind accusation.
 
Onceler said:
Why would your first reaction be to jump on this guy's claims, and express skepticism about his testimony?

What has this admin done to give you any faith whatsoever that this kind of behavior is not consistent with what they regularly do?
Click to expand...

I did not defend the administration. I simply asked WHO the guy is referring to. What does he have to fear from revealing WHO said it? Nothing. He is not protecting a source. He is already out of the position. What possible reason would he have for NOT telling us?

That was my point. Do you not care who it was?
 
Superfreak said:
and that somehow makes me a Bush apologist? Asking why he did not tell us WHO said it? By saying a senior official or some such bullshit... it means no one can address this with whomever supposedly said it to him. Which is bullshit. He is not protecting a source, he is making a blind accusation.
Click to expand...


It's the kind of 1st reaction an apologist would have. There could be a variety of reasons why he wouldn't name someone; why is the immediate reaction to cast doubt on his testimony?

Same kind of reactions we have heard from the Bushies on evidence that intel was cherrypicked for Iraq: O'Neil - he must be lying. Clarke - liar. Powell's aide - liar. It gets to a point where a whole lotta people have to be lying for Bush to be telling the truth.

I have no reason to doubt this guy. His testimony is perfectly consistent with other revelations that have come out about this admin...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top