Facing the End of Constitutional Democracy

Oh BiR, your too sensitive. But I seem to remember you making a statement similar to that. If you didn't, then I'm mistaken, but I don't see you denying it. And Clinton is the poster boy for most all discussions concerning liberals, after all, he is treated as the father of the dem. party.

And IITim was only using you to illustrate his point. There are things to get ticked at in life, this isn't one.

 

What a drama queen.

 

You didn't answer the question......... how convenient for you to simply disparage someone and not feel compelled to defend your comments.

 

Go back and read where I was introduced into this discussion, and notice that to which I was equated in his post.
As for denying it, I don't have to deny anything. "IITim" made an observation, and I issued a direct challenge to him to provide proof for his assertion. It is not up to me to defend a charge that he cannot even prove.

Regards, hope all is well,
BiR

 

So you don't hate either President or Senator Clinton? What about Teddy Kennedy? Come now. You could have fooled me.

 

Disparage? I only used you as an example because you yourself claim to be on the left and you defend Hillary at times. if you feel I have disparaged you then that is not what I intended to do. If accusing you of being on the left side of politics is incorrect and in fact disparaging let me know. I will rejoice in your move back to the right.

 

Go back and read the sentence prior to introducing me into the topic, not to mention the pathetic "drama queen" comment.

 

I don't have to "fool" you.

You do an outstanding job of doing that yourself.:thumbs:

 

Those nutballs won't have much to do after President Bush hands over the reigns of the Presidency to the next President in January, 2009.

 

Unless you're prepared for another "TEA PARTY", there ain't much the average joe can do re: loss of this country to some form of dictatorship or socialistic or marxist takeover.

I've said for the last several years that the only difference in the two parties is the rapidity of ruining the country and the nicities of same.

The Ds will do it very rapidly, and be nasty in the process, whereas the Rs will take awhile longer and be more civil about it.

End result same - no more USA as we know it today!

I'm ready for Jesus Christ to take over!!!!!

 

You've put your tongue to prophecy.

I'll remember you said that.:laugh:

 

There is a good chance of that! The election of 2000 will be a laughing stock compared to this one.

 

Possible.

But I believe he means that Bush won't give up power peacefully, not that the candidates will squabble amongst themselves.

That's what he has to mean for all the nutballs to be vindicated.

 

Ahhh!.... Well that idea is so foreign to me I would never see that. What a ludicrous thought.

 

"If this were a dictatorship, it'd be a heck of a lot easier, just so long as I'm the dictator." —George W. Bush Washington, D.C., Dec. 19, 2000

One thing I'm confused about. Why would the global elite allow George W. Bush to be dictator? I mean there must be someone better qualified and more charismatic for that job. His administration and their "legal reasoning" has brought us quite a bit closer to that situation with the idea of a unitary decidership and that the CIC is above the law as long as we're at war. And now we're always going to be at war or so it would seem.

As David Cole puts it,

 

"If" is a sometimes huge word.

From his viewpoint, it's a true statement.

If I said it, it would would also be a true statement.

The problem is with that blasted "if". It just won't go away.:laugh: