Rush rants on DU

Rush ^ | 08 October 2003 | trueblackman

[Trueblackman]

Rush is ripping the Democrats a new one and talking about the DUmmies

[Howlin]

Or, even better, why the White House requested 12 hours to comply with the 'preserve all material possibly related to this request' request? In other words, they said "give us 12 hours before we cant' delete or remove anything, please?"

Obviously you're unaware that nobody asked for that material; the White House did it on its own.

And are you not aware that the special prosecutor law EXPIRED?????

Investigations are tasked to the Department of Justice. Do YOU have a problem with that?

[Marysecretary]

Ah just LOVE the way libs call on the name of "Sweet Jesus" when they need a hug. BARF.

[headsonpikes]

Well, Geez, if you were actually drowning, I suppose I'd throw you a rope.

You do appear earnest.

[carton253]

Okay... we are going to give it a name. Names are cute. Wilsongate.

I don't think an Independent Prosecutor should be assigned to the case because I don't think we've reached that stage. It's too quick an acceleration. The proper chain of command is the Justice Department to investigate. Why not wait until they complete their investigation. If they think an Independent Prosecutor should be assigned, then I'll be for it.

I think your cynical, "give us 12 hours before we cant' delete or remove anything" shows your bias. Unfortunately, you think they need the 12 hours so they can destroy the evidence. I don't think that is true... I think 12 hours turnaround time is very quick and not unreasonable.

Finally, why did it take 10 minutes to say "General Clark never called Karl Rove..." Do you know that to be a fact? I mean, you are pretty certain with the time. Did you hold a stop watch on them so you would know? Karl Rove knows who called him and who didn't.

Next, you write that it will take the WH 2 weeks to review documents before turning them over to Justice. I take it that you believe the review is for nefarious reasons. It doesn't surprise me that the White House is going to go over the documents it sends to the JD. I would think it was irresponsible if they didn't.

Again, by the way you framed the debate... you think the White House is guilty and is in cover-up mode. And the time to gather information is proof of that. I don't believe that.

[wewillnotfail]

Welcome brother! (Insert secret handshake here)
Me too. I love that line but I play a socialist. Can I change it slightly?

[Marysecretary]

The only thing they know what to pray for is that the pubbies lose and they win. They have no deep seated faith as a whole. Their faith is in themselves and the party, surely not a 'higher power' than themselves.

[carton253]

No, I'm not calling in the calvary to gang-up on you as much as I appreciate your openness to debate... I'm just not up to speed on the particulars of the case. I know of Freepers who are.

[Howlin]

I recall the last time I tried posting it was also strongly suggested that I just not do it as this is a 'conservative forum' and it wouldn't be right to allow the opinions / discussions of liberals, even 'polite liberals'

Just a suggestion and some advice: this is NOT DU; and it doesn't help your stance when you start your time at FR with a flat out lie. Opinions aren't banned here; disruptors/baiters are shown the door.

Forgive me for not remembering the poster's name who said that.

Poster do NOT ban people. If you got banned 4 times, it's because a moderator believes you were here to disrupt.

[Howlin]

You admit you're a troll from DU? You've been banned 3 times and yet here you are.

The only way you can get back on FR after you've been banned is to use a bogus ISP.

Enjoy your stay. However long it may be.

[wewillnotfail]

We really do need a secret handshake.

[Marysecretary]

Aw, he looks like my youngest when he was little, all that beautiful blond hair....my.

[carton253]

No, let him stay. He is looking for honest debate. The least we can do is grant him his wish.

[carton253]

Never mind...he's been banned.

[mathluv]

He prefaced his statement that he knew what would happen if he mentioned it, then mentioned it.

[wewillnotfail]

Nice try, thanks for playing.
I think I'll put you on ignore since i am the queen of the ignore list.

[Howlin]

Whoops, you must have missed this part:

"But most Republicans said they were satisfied with Ashcroft remaining in charge, at least for now. "I know Ashcroft very well, and I'm sure he'll go by the book," said Rep. Tom Davis, R-Va., who ran the GOP congressional campaigns in the 2000 and 2002 elections. "

And as long as you're here, I'll try to help you learn how to actually read and digest the articles you read:

This:

"Rep. Dan Burton, R-Ind., a vociferous supporter of Bush, said that while Ashcroft is "a very honest person" and the Democrats were trying to score political points, it might make sense for the White House to look "very closely" at appointing an independent counsel."

does not equal

I also know that certain Republicans are already calling for an Independent Prosecutor.., which is what YOU said. You said they were CALLING for a IP, which is obvious (from your own link) not true.

As I said above, this isn't DU; we expect honesty in posting.

[Howlin]

Well shoot!

[Allegra]

We are planning a 'coming out' party for election night '04. I can hardly wait until the masks are removed.

Oh, this is going to be FUN!!

[Ender Wiggin]

So, the problem is that DU bans for dissenting viewpoints?

Lots of liberal viewpoints here, quite a few liberals. I've been here for a while. You get banned for making threats, for using bad language, things like that. Conservatives get banned too, for breaking the rules.

Stick around, if you can make a cogent arguement, back it up with facts, and not use bad language you can express your point of view here and be accepted.

I got banned on DU for mentioning how much the national debt went up under Clinton- instant ban! Forbidden information!