Orwellian USA

[Phatscotty]

then by all means, keep attacking the messengers and ignoring all the messages.

if the message is trying to push an agenda and is not accurate, I will.

this coming from the guy constantly posting John Stewart clips? If that were true, you would address the message, something you refuse to do. I post an article about the 2012 election and how the IRS scandal directly relates, and you post a Stewart clip that goes on about Reagan and Iran/Contra. Getting pretty bored...

Stewart clips are worse than FOX clips in my opinion. It would be like constantly posting Shawn Hannity clips

[Woodruff]

John Stewart showing how Noonan has no credibility.

oh, did Noonan write an article critical of the Obama machine, and then Stewart does his regularly broadcasted all edited smear job?

how timely

Perhaps you can explain where Jon Stewart was inaccurate?

Yeah...I didn't think you could either.

[Woodruff]

Clinton gets impeached for an affair

Actually, Clinton's impeachment was for lying under oath. A significant difference.

That being said, the Republicans were stupid over the whole Monica Lewinsky thing.

could The Obama administration pursued The Bush white house for its actions?yes.Did They though no. Why?

Why? Because he didn't want to be pursued after his terms were up. It's quid pro quo. It had nothing to do with worrying about ripping apart the country.

[Woodruff]

then by all means, keep attacking the messengers and ignoring all the messages.

This is essentially the sum of your time in these fora.

[Woodruff]

then by all means, keep attacking the messengers and ignoring all the messages.

if the message is trying to push an agenda and is not accurate, I will.

this coming from the guy constantly posting John Stewart clips?

What was that about attacking the messenger and ignoring the message? Huh.

Stewart clips are worse than FOX clips in my opinion. It would be like constantly posting Shawn Hannity clips

Far worse than Fox clips? I suppose if you don't enjoy humor or insight, sure. For those who prefer outright deception, yes...Fox is probably better. Hell, Jon has essentially created a cottage industry out of Fox deception.

And you of ALL people have no right to complain about someone posting videos. Good Lord, man, have you no shame?

[ooge]

then by all means, keep attacking the messengers and ignoring all the messages.

if the message is trying to push an agenda and is not accurate, I will.

this coming from the guy constantly posting John Stewart clips? If that were true, you would address the message, something you refuse to do. I post an article about the 2012 election and how the IRS scandal directly relates, and you post a Stewart clip that goes on about Reagan and Iran/Contra. Getting pretty bored...

Stewart clips are worse than FOX clips in my opinion. It would be like constantly posting Shawn Hannity clips

Newt Gingrich quote."we always used to say the democrats only talk to other democrats,this election showed it is us who are only talking to each other"

[ooge]

[quote="Woodruff"][quote="ooge"]

[Woodruff]

Clinton gets impeached for an affair

Actually, Clinton's impeachment was for lying under oath. A significant difference.

That being said, the Republicans were stupid over the whole Monica Lewinsky thing.

could The Obama administration pursued The Bush white house for its actions?yes.Did They though no. Why?

Why? Because he didn't want to be pursued after his terms were up. It's quid pro quo. It had nothing to do with worrying about ripping apart the country.

I knew one of you guys were going to knit pick that point.

Nit pick what point? The impeachment was specifically for that...it's not a nit being picked.

as for lying under oath,they asked him a question that they already knew the answer for with the sole purpose of getting him to lie about it.

Which is an excellent tactic, and I have no problem with its use. He shouldn't have allowed them to be successful with it. Nobody to blame there but himself.

[ooge]

[quote="Woodruff"][quote="ooge"]

[ooge]

[quote="Woodruff"][quote="ooge"][quote="Woodruff"]

[Woodruff]

Clinton gets impeached for an affair

Actually, Clinton's impeachment was for lying under oath. A significant difference.

That being said, the Republicans were stupid over the whole Monica Lewinsky thing.

could The Obama administration pursued The Bush white house for its actions?yes.Did They though no. Why?

Why? Because he didn't want to be pursued after his terms were up. It's quid pro quo. It had nothing to do with worrying about ripping apart the country.

I disagree. quid pro quo? Clinton gets impeached Bush does not? So now Oboma thinks the republicans wont impeach him Why? does not make sense.

Obama's not thinking in terms of Clinton (and he shouldn't be). Clinton was a choir boy compared to Bush and Obama as far as abusing the Constitution. Clinton is irrelevant to the situation that Obama finds himself in, which is being accountable for the same things he called Bush out on.

[rishaed]

Clinton gets impeached for an affair

Actually, Clinton's impeachment was for lying under oath. A significant difference.

That being said, the Republicans were stupid over the whole Monica Lewinsky thing.

could The Obama administration pursued The Bush white house for its actions?yes.Did They though no. Why?

Why? Because he didn't want to be pursued after his terms were up. It's quid pro quo. It had nothing to do with worrying about ripping apart the country.

I knew one of you guys were going to knit pick that point. Try and think of the bigger picture here woody and the bigger point.if people have to sight all the details behind the point this would get tedious. as for lying under oath,they asked him a question that they already knew the answer for with the sole purpose of getting him to lie about it.

If you ask a question that you know the answer to, and the opposing party knows you know the answer to it makes them less likely to try to BS you, not more b/c the entire reason to BS has disappeared.
fp'd
Obama is in office. Bush is no longer in office.

[Woodruff]

Clinton gets impeached for an affair

Actually, Clinton's impeachment was for lying under oath. A significant difference.

That being said, the Republicans were stupid over the whole Monica Lewinsky thing.

could The Obama administration pursued The Bush white house for its actions?yes.Did They though no. Why?

Why? Because he didn't want to be pursued after his terms were up. It's quid pro quo. It had nothing to do with worrying about ripping apart the country.

I knew one of you guys were going to knit pick that point.

Nit pick what point? The impeachment was specifically for that...it's not a nit being picked.

as for lying under oath,they asked him a question that they already knew the answer for with the sole purpose of getting him to lie about it.

Which is an excellent tactic, and I have no problem with its use. He shouldn't have allowed them to be successful with it. Nobody to blame there but himself.

Then clearly the larger point I am making is beyond you and you really are nothing more than a troll.

Well that's certainly a vast and complete explanation. But good job on the superiority complex...continue with it and eventually you'll be able to convince yourself that you're right about everything.

[ooge]

Clinton gets impeached for an affair

Actually, Clinton's impeachment was for lying under oath. A significant difference.

That being said, the Republicans were stupid over the whole Monica Lewinsky thing.

could The Obama administration pursued The Bush white house for its actions?yes.Did They though no. Why?

Why? Because he didn't want to be pursued after his terms were up. It's quid pro quo. It had nothing to do with worrying about ripping apart the country.

I disagree. quid pro quo? Clinton gets impeached Bush does not? So now Oboma thinks the republicans wont impeach him Why? does not make sense.

Obama's not thinking in terms of Clinton (and he shouldn't be). Clinton was a choir boy compared to Bush and Obama as far as abusing the Constitution. Clinton is irrelevant to the situation that Obama finds himself in, which is being accountable for the same things he called Bush out on.

and this is completely of the point from the answer I was giving.look back in the thread to see the original point I was making and why.

[rishaed]

Unfortunately despite your extreme variance in perspectives,I think that you and PhatScotty are very similar ooge. In the point where you always have to be right like a little kid. Neither of you will listen/consider the other persons side and also neither of you will consider that you are wrong, and maybe the line is somewhere in the middle. As for your point, go back and source it (I know I'm guilty of this as well.) You've said well over 2 pages ago that you were referencing an older point, but considering that you are a major contributor to this thread I'm not sure which one you are talking about.

[ooge]

[quote="Woodruff"][quote="ooge"][quote="Woodruff"][quote="ooge"][quote="Woodruff"]

[ooge]

Unfortunately despite your extreme variance in perspectives,I think that you and PhatScotty are very similar ooge. In the point where you always have to be right like a little kid. Neither of you will listen/consider the other persons side and also neither of you will consider that you are wrong, and maybe the line is somewhere in the middle. As for your point, go back and source it (I know I'm guilty of this as well.) You've said well over 2 pages ago that you were referencing an older point, but considering that you are a major contributor to this thread I'm not sure which one you are talking about.

[Woodruff]

Clinton gets impeached for an affair

Actually, Clinton's impeachment was for lying under oath. A significant difference.

That being said, the Republicans were stupid over the whole Monica Lewinsky thing.

could The Obama administration pursued The Bush white house for its actions?yes.Did They though no. Why?

Why? Because he didn't want to be pursued after his terms were up. It's quid pro quo. It had nothing to do with worrying about ripping apart the country.

I disagree. quid pro quo? Clinton gets impeached Bush does not? So now Oboma thinks the republicans wont impeach him Why? does not make sense.

Obama's not thinking in terms of Clinton (and he shouldn't be). Clinton was a choir boy compared to Bush and Obama as far as abusing the Constitution. Clinton is irrelevant to the situation that Obama finds himself in, which is being accountable for the same things he called Bush out on.

and this is completely of the point from the answer I was giving.look back in the thread to see the original point I was making and why.

The point you were making was that "Clinton was impeached for having an affair". It's right there in the first quote in this very post. Which is inaccurate. That is what spawned this whole branch of the thread.

[Woodruff]

I knew one of you guys were going to knit pick that point.

Nit pick what point? The impeachment was specifically for that...it's not a nit being picked.

as for lying under oath,they asked him a question that they already knew the answer for with the sole purpose of getting him to lie about it.

Which is an excellent tactic, and I have no problem with its use. He shouldn't have allowed them to be successful with it. Nobody to blame there but himself.

Then clearly the larger point I am making is beyond you and you really are nothing more than a troll.

Well that's certainly a vast and complete explanation. But good job on the superiority complex...continue with it and eventually you'll be able to convince yourself that you're right about everything.

And you seem incapable of following the point...if Clinton does not have an affair does he get impeached for lying under oath? I mean really man.ridiculous.All you are is playing some kind of gotcha game.

Huh? If Clinton has an affair AND DOES NOT LIE UNDER OATH, then he does not get impeached. Period. He was not impeached for having an affair.

[Woodruff]

Unfortunately despite your extreme variance in perspectives,I think that you and PhatScotty are very similar ooge. In the point where you always have to be right like a little kid. Neither of you will listen/consider the other persons side and also neither of you will consider that you are wrong, and maybe the line is somewhere in the middle. As for your point, go back and source it (I know I'm guilty of this as well.) You've said well over 2 pages ago that you were referencing an older point, but considering that you are a major contributor to this thread I'm not sure which one you are talking about.

fair enough.I was going to go and post it again,but why? All I can say is it was the back and forth with Scotty before others jumped in and took it of message.And took something I was only using as an example.

Your "example" was not an example because it was a falsehood. It was a false statement...a lie. That's all it was. If you had simply admitted it at the time with a "you're right, my bad, I meant that he was impeached because of his lies under oath", then it would have died off like it should have. But you haven't been willing to do that. Your unwillingness to admit to the false statement is the only thing that has kept this branch of the thread alive.

[ooge]

Unfortunately despite your extreme variance in perspectives,I think that you and PhatScotty are very similar ooge. In the point where you always have to be right like a little kid. Neither of you will listen/consider the other persons side and also neither of you will consider that you are wrong, and maybe the line is somewhere in the middle. As for your point, go back and source it (I know I'm guilty of this as well.) You've said well over 2 pages ago that you were referencing an older point, but considering that you are a major contributor to this thread I'm not sure which one you are talking about.

fair enough.I was going to go and post it again,but why? All I can say is it was the back and forth with Scotty before others jumped in and took it of message.And took something I was only using as an example.

Your "example" was not an example because it was a falsehood. It was a false statement...a lie. That's all it was. If you had simply admitted it at the time with a "you're right, my bad, I meant that he was impeached because of his lies under oath", then it would have died off like it should have. But you haven't been willing to do that. Your unwillingness to admit to the false statement is the only thing that has kept this branch of the thread alive.

[Woodruff]

Unfortunately despite your extreme variance in perspectives,I think that you and PhatScotty are very similar ooge. In the point where you always have to be right like a little kid. Neither of you will listen/consider the other persons side and also neither of you will consider that you are wrong, and maybe the line is somewhere in the middle. As for your point, go back and source it (I know I'm guilty of this as well.) You've said well over 2 pages ago that you were referencing an older point, but considering that you are a major contributor to this thread I'm not sure which one you are talking about.

fair enough.I was going to go and post it again,but why? All I can say is it was the back and forth with Scotty before others jumped in and took it of message.And took something I was only using as an example.

Your "example" was not an example because it was a falsehood. It was a false statement...a lie. That's all it was. If you had simply admitted it at the time with a "you're right, my bad, I meant that he was impeached because of his lies under oath", then it would have died off like it should have. But you haven't been willing to do that. Your unwillingness to admit to the false statement is the only thing that has kept this branch of the thread alive.

Hows the view from the cheap seats..its pretty easy to lie in the weeds and simply troll other peoples posts

I am not trolling, I am correcting a lie. I truly do not understand why you can't simply admit that you made a mis-statement...you've only made yourself look worse by continuing to press it.

The original point was how repubs politicize things more than democrats

I'm not convinced that they do, in general. HOWEVER, I say that with the caveat that certain Republican Congressmen who are currently in office definitely do so.

I used Clinton as an example and instead because you do what you do,you instead highlight the inaccuracy of Clinton being impeached for lying under oath about his Affair over what I said was being impeached for his Affair.

And like I said above...if you had just said "Yep, I said that wrong, good point", this branch of the thread would have ended. You personally have extended it, not me.

But hey you and fox news seem to have a lot in common by quoting only what you choose to respond to, that then takes the original idea out of context.well done pat yourself on the back again.

Stop lying, and I won't need to do it.

[ooge]

My last post explaining why what you did pissed me off so much,see if you are able to follow along.

Ooge says "So John Doe its a nice day today,the sun is out,no clouds in the sky,its 73 degrees". Woodruff comes along "actually its 75 degrees" I respond "What does the temperature matter its still a nice day" Woodruff responds "because you said the temperature is wrong" I respond "that is nit picking and does not take away from the point of it being a nice day" Woodruff responds "your point is based on a LIE of stating the temperature being wrong"....john smith "ooge dont you know anything about temperatures? ooge "Temperatures is not the point of this".........MY last post in the forums thanks for all you do woody to make things so enjoyable. I also had you in a similar situation but I chose not to act like you do. You on the other hand only get enjoyment out of the forums from one upping others and yes I have admitted when I was wrong before I doubt you have. Good Job and good by All.

[Woodruff]

My last post explaining why what you did pissed me off so much,see if you are able to follow along.

Ooge says "So John Doe its a nice day today,the sun is out,no clouds in the sky,its 73 degrees". Woodruff comes along "actually its 75 degrees" I respond "What does the temperature matter its still a nice day" Woodruff responds "because you said the temperature is wrong" I respond "that is nit picking and does not take away from the point of it being a nice day" Woodruff responds "your point is based on a LIE of stating the temperature being wrong"....john smith "ooge dont you know anything about temperatures? ooge "Temperatures is not the point of this".........

Other than the fact that's not what happened, sure. You can go back and review the thread as easily as I can.

I also had you in a similar situation but I chose not to act like you do.

Unlike you, if I make a statement that is not accurate, I don't really mind someone pointing it out.

and yes I have admitted when I was wrong before I doubt you have.

You would be quite wrong there too. Again, it's easy enough to find.