Pictures of George Bush and Jack Abramoff
- Thread starter Spytheweb
- Start date
I've thought quite a bit about the political comments made at the funeral of C. King. At first, I thought it inappropriate, and maybe some of it was. But then, I thought that if Bush was not the current President I would bet that he wouldn't be there, and wouldn't care too much. Bush Sr is another matter, I consider him to be much more of a statesman and caring than his son. I think that considering who King was and what she and her husband represented, that some political commentary about the plight of minorities, Katrina, etc., probably is something they would TREASURE and be very proud of. I assume - and it's merely an assumption - that the family was fully supportive of this and would consider it more of an honor than a negative thing. What better way to remind people of what Coretta stood for than use this service to keep the dream alive (so to speak) and remind America to protect the rights of all Americans.
Just another viewpoint. I think this situation was probably a little more appropriate than some of the Wellstone speakers themes.
I've heard mentions of some of the political commentary that came out in the Reagan ceremony, but I have not looked at it. I don't think the talking heads like Hannity and O'Reilly have any real business saying what is appropriate for the King family. In manny ways, I think it was completely appropriate, considering who they were.
Just another viewpoint. I think this situation was probably a little more appropriate than some of the Wellstone speakers themes.
I've heard mentions of some of the political commentary that came out in the Reagan ceremony, but I have not looked at it. I don't think the talking heads like Hannity and O'Reilly have any real business saying what is appropriate for the King family. In manny ways, I think it was completely appropriate, considering who they were.
So Carter mention they were wired taped. True story. So what's the riff. And it was not legal. The other dude said no WMD's. He new she was against this war. His statement once again true.
Chit what really could have been said would have lit a big fire. This was not even close. Guys like Hannity had to say something to save there father in case folks took it wrong.
Chit what really could have been said would have lit a big fire. This was not even close. Guys like Hannity had to say something to save there father in case folks took it wrong.
When you consider what MLK meant to the country, the President sorta had to be there as a representative of the United States. I understand that.
The political stuff was embarassing. I suppose it is part of the culture today.
DTB,
You forgot that Clinton had those two kids murdered by train in Arkansas.
The political stuff was embarassing. I suppose it is part of the culture today.
DTB,
You forgot that Clinton had those two kids murdered by train in Arkansas.
gardenweasel said:
So, the solution to this problem is to lie? That's an interesting take.
If a Democratic President ever lied to the American people (not that its ever happened :shrug: ), you'd probably be the first one to cry foul.
heyward...you throw the word "liar" around pretty freely......
bush may have taken pictures with this guy...of course,every president has taken pictures with scores of lobyists,washington elites and media....
in today`s political climate,it "appears" that the b.d.s. crew(democratic hacks,bloggers and m.s.m.) want these photographs to smear bush....to try and establish some sort of guilt by association...
very liberal of you...
wanna bet that when the photos go public,that they`ll be on the front page of the n.y.t.`s,the l.a.times,the boston globe,the atlanta journal constitution et al?....
with no substantive evidence to back up any indication that bush did anything wrong?...
hell,there`s more tying harry reid to this scandal than bush....don`t know whether reid`s done anything....and he should be considered innocent until proven guilty...but,you have to search pretty hard to find the particulars of reid`s situation...
double standard?...you betcha`...
more political tricks...more,"throw it all against the wall and hope something sticks"....
the administration realizes this...and i think they`re smart not to roll over on their backs...
this is what abramoff`s charged with:
defrauding the indian tribes
* tax evasion
* conspiracy to bribe a congressman or congressmen (Bob Ney) with material gifts and lavish trips..
* bank fraud in the purchase of the suncruz casino deal....
if and when there`s evidence that bush is implicated in any of this,i`ll be right with you...
until then,take a valium...
bush may have taken pictures with this guy...of course,every president has taken pictures with scores of lobyists,washington elites and media....
in today`s political climate,it "appears" that the b.d.s. crew(democratic hacks,bloggers and m.s.m.) want these photographs to smear bush....to try and establish some sort of guilt by association...
very liberal of you...
wanna bet that when the photos go public,that they`ll be on the front page of the n.y.t.`s,the l.a.times,the boston globe,the atlanta journal constitution et al?....
with no substantive evidence to back up any indication that bush did anything wrong?...
hell,there`s more tying harry reid to this scandal than bush....don`t know whether reid`s done anything....and he should be considered innocent until proven guilty...but,you have to search pretty hard to find the particulars of reid`s situation...
double standard?...you betcha`...
more political tricks...more,"throw it all against the wall and hope something sticks"....
the administration realizes this...and i think they`re smart not to roll over on their backs...
this is what abramoff`s charged with:
defrauding the indian tribes
* tax evasion
* conspiracy to bribe a congressman or congressmen (Bob Ney) with material gifts and lavish trips..
* bank fraud in the purchase of the suncruz casino deal....
if and when there`s evidence that bush is implicated in any of this,i`ll be right with you...
until then,take a valium...
gardenweasel said:
1. I don't consider the word "liberal" to be an insult. It's a sign of desperation from someone who can't think of something original or meaningful to say.
2. If you read my first post, I said very clearly that the photos were not a sign of any involvement with Abramoff's wrongdoings, only a sign that Bush is lying about not knowing him or a sign that he and his staff are idiots for saying he didn't without checking first.
3. My post was in response to your earlier post, where you tried to justify Bush lying about knowing Abramoff because the "liberals" would try to use this against Bush (and they probably would and will). Your post seemed to suggest that it was OK to lie about knowing Abramoff, because if he admitted it, the "liberals" would crucify him for it. I just thought that was an unusual theory - that a President can lie to everyone if he thinks telling the truth is going hurt his approval ratings. Sounds like something Bill Clinton would be accused of........
They wer buds just say it and let it go. What the hell is wrong with Bush saying it. It's better then all the dancing around is it not. I mean not just anyone gets invited to the Texas ranch. So one is a real crook. Does not make the other one a crook. Just shows made bad choice in friends.
