Some Republicans Idea of Family values .....

[Spider]

Originally Posted by W*GS

And that just strengthens the point that Spider's agenda was nothing more than a cheap smear.

He also delivered cheap shots on those who pointed that fact out to him.

Why ?

[Spider]

Originally Posted by W*GS

Nope. "Smear" means an unjustified connection, with one side being related in some way to the other. Spider was attempting to smear all Republicans with the list of pedophiles.

How ?

That sort of thing appeals to you, naturally - it's one of your standard tactics.

Why ?

Don't think I haven't noticed your deafening silence on the Soros/Carlyle connection.

why ?

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Originally Posted by §Pide®

Just makes it harder to deny , or to Bring up Clinton ...... Remember Clinton ?

Hammer, nail, head.



There's one position you don't ever want to see W*GS placed in:

Warden.

Just imagine his first day on the job:

"OK, all you murderers, bank robbers, and rapists - you're free to go. Now as for you petty thieves and shoptilfters, well, let's just say I'm gonna be your worst nightmare."

[Old Dude]

Originally Posted by W*GS

What about these folks:

http://www.theforbiddenknowledge.com...f_satanist.htm

I have no idea what this thread is about, but here's just a friendly piece of advice to ignore everything that David Icke has ever written, thought, or sang about in the shower...

http://www.publiceye.org/Icke/IckeBackgrounder.htm

[Bronco_Beerslug]

Originally Posted by W*GS

Nope. "Smear" means an unjustified connection, with one side being related in some way to the other.

Nah, here's what smear means...

anoint, apply paint, asperse, aspersion, attack, attaint,
badge of infamy, bar sinister, baton, beat, bedaub, bedizen,
beeswax, befoul, begild, begrime, bend sinister, besmear, besmirch,
besmoke, besmutch, besoil, bespatter, bestain, black, black eye,
black mark, blacken, blackening, blank, bloodstain, blot, blotch,
blow upon, blur, brand, broad arrow, brush on paint, bulldoze,
butter, calcimine, call names, calumniate, calumny, censure,
champain, character assassination, clobber, coat, color,
complexion, cover, cream, dab, darken, daub, deep-dye, defamation,
defamation of character, defame, defeat utterly, defile,
defilement, denigrate, denigration, dip, dirty, disapprove,
discolor, discredit, disparage, disparagement, distemper,
double-dye, dress, drub, dye, emblazon, embrocate, enamel,
engage in personalities, engild, expose, expose to infamy, eyesore,
face, fast-dye, fleck, flick, flyspeck, foil, fresco, frustrate,
gibbet, gild, glaze, gloss, glycerolate, grain, grease,
grease the wheels, hang in effigy, heap dirt upon, hue, illuminate,
imbue, imputation, ingrain, japan, lacquer, lambaste, lard, lay on,
lay on color, libel, lick, lubricate, macula, maculation, macule,
malicious defamation, mark, mark of Cain, muckrake, muckraking,
mudslinging, name-calling, oil, onus, overbear, overlay,
overspread, overwhelm, paint, parget, paste, patch, pigment,
pillory, pillorying, plaster, point champain, pomade, prime,
reflection, reprimand, reproach, repulse, revile, revilement, rub,
salve, scandal, scandalize, schmear, scorch, sear, shade, shadow,
shellac, shut out, singe, skunk, slander, slap on, slather, slick,
slick on, slop on paint, slubber, slur, smear campaign, smear on,
smear word, smirch, smoke, smooth the way, smother, smouch, smudge,
smut, smutch, snow under, soap the ways, soil, soilage, soilure,
spatter, speck, speckle, splash, splatter, splotch, spot, spread,
spread on, spread with, stain, steamroller, stigma, stigmatism,
stigmatization, stigmatize, stipple, sully, taint, tar, tarnish,
thrash, throw mud at, tinct, tincture, tinge, tint, tone, trim,
undercoat, unguent, varnish, vilification, vilify, wash, wax,

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Originally Posted by The O'W*GS Factor

Spider was attempting to smear all Republicans with the list of pedophiles.

Seeking accountability for the repugs on the molester list isn't the same thing as "attempting to smear all republicans."

[W*GS]

Originally Posted by L.A. BRONCOS FAN

There's one position you don't ever want to see W*GS placed in:

Warden.

Just imagine his first day on the job:

"OK, all you murderers, bank robbers, and rapists - you're free to go. Now as for you petty thieves and shoptilfters, well, let's just say I'm gonna be your worst nightmare."

I know you like the drumbeat of "All Clinton did was get a BJ from Lewinsky", but the fact of the matter is that he committed perjury.

Now, shall we bring up those luminaries of the Democratic Party, currently held in high esteem by all good Democrats, Robert Byrd and Ted Kennedy?

Or, dare I say it, that Democratic sugar daddy George Soros (do you even know how much he spent on you guys?) and his investments in the Carlyle Group?

If Republicans can't criticize Clinton because of those Republican pedophiles, then Democrats can't criticize alleged Republican racists because of Byrd, and they can't criticize murderers because of Kennedy.

Applying your logic to your own party is a beeatch, ain't it?

[W*GS]

Originally Posted by L.A. BRONCOS FAN

Seeking accountability for the repugs on the molester list isn't the same thing as "attempting to smear all republicans."

"Seeking accountability"?

Most of those guys have been suitably punished by the court system.

What do you say we start on the Democratic side of the aisle with Ted Kennedy? Or even Mel Reynolds, also a convicted pedophile, whose sentence was commuted by Clinton.

Are you comfortable knowing Clinton got a convicted pedophile out of prison, LABF?

[Spider]

Originally Posted by W*GS

I know you like the drumbeat of "All Clinton did was get a BJ from Lewinsky", but the fact of the matter is that he committed perjury.

Now, shall we bring up those luminaries of the Democratic Party, currently held in high esteem by all good Democrats, Robert Byrd and Ted Kennedy?

Or, dare I say it, that Democratic sugar daddy George Soros (do you even know how much he spent on you guys?) and his investments in the Carlyle Group?

If Republicans can't criticize Clinton because of those Republican pedophiles, then Democrats can't criticize alleged Republican racists because of Byrd, and they can't criticize murderers because of Kennedy.

Applying your logic to your own party is a beeatch, ain't it?

why ?

[W*GS]

Originally Posted by Old Dude

I have no idea what this thread is about, but here's just a friendly piece of advice to ignore everything that David Icke has ever written, thought, or sang about in the shower...

http://www.publiceye.org/Icke/IckeBackgrounder.htm

One bit from the above is a little odd:

"The fact is that some of what Icke says has a resonance in these quarters. He's against world conspiracies, free trade, the MAI, the WTO and corporate globalism. Many of his far right supporters are active in other areas as well: cannabis legalization, alternative health, anti-corporate activism, even support for native sovereignty struggles like Gustavsen Lake."

I don't believe the laundry list of positions above is well-correlated with the term "far right". For example, LABF is very much opposed to "corporate globalism", but he would rather die than be called "far right".

[Blueflame]

Originally Posted by W*GS

Nope. "Smear" means an unjustified connection, with one side being related in some way to the other. Spider was attempting to smear all Republicans with the list of pedophiles.

You might have a point if he omitted the word "some" in the thread title. With that word there, however, he clearly wasn't suggesting that the taint extended to "all" Republicans.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Originally Posted by The O'W*GS Factor

I know you like the drumbeat of "All Clinton did was get a BJ from Lewinsky", but the fact of the matter is that he committed perjury.

Clinton was acquitted by the Senate, and a bipartisan panel of legal scholars concluded that his statements in the deposition didn't meet the criterea for perjury.

However, just for the sake of argument, let's just say Clinton did perjure himself.

Now compare perjury in a deposition about a personal matter (consensual sex between two adults) with perjury about outing a CIA agent and compromising national security.
Or perjury in a hearing on 9/11 ("we couldn't have imagined anyone using aircraft as missles.)

W*GS' hypocrisy and skewed priorities should now be crystal clear.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Originally Posted by Blueflame

You might have a point if he omitted the word "some" in the thread title. With that word there, however, he clearly wasn't suggesting that the taint extended to "all" Republicans.

Bingo.

The real question should be "why does W*GS defend the repugs so tenaciously when he's (supposedly) not a republican?"

[W*GS]

Originally Posted by Blueflame

You might have a point if he omitted the word "some" in the thread title. With that word there, however, he clearly wasn't suggesting that the taint extended to "all" Republicans.

Wrong.

Spider said "Just makes it harder to deny , or to Bring up Clinton ...... Remember Clinton ?"

It's true that if any of the Republicans on the list criticized Clinton, they'd be hypocrites, at the very least. Considering that most of the Republicans (and others) who criticized Clinton (and not just about his adulterous activities) were and are not on the list, what was Spider getting at with his comment?

That "Some" in the title doesn't let him off the hook for what's nothing more than a cheap shot.

[Spider]

Originally Posted by W*GS

Wrong.

Spider said "Just makes it harder to deny , or to Bring up Clinton ...... Remember Clinton ?"

whats your point ?

It's true that if any of the Republicans on the list criticized Clinton, they'd be hypocrites, at the very least. Considering that most of the Republicans (and others) who criticized Clinton (and not just about his adulterous activities) were and are not on the list, what was Spider getting at with his comment?

what about this list ? would they be hypocrits also ? http://www.americaheldhostile.com/cheating.html

That "Some" in the title doesn't let him off the hook for what's nothing more than a cheap shot.

Why ?

[W*GS]

Originally Posted by L.A. BRONCOS FAN

Clinton was acquitted by the Senate, and a bipartisan panel of legal scholars concluded that his statements in the deposition didn't meet the criterea for perjury.

Clinton lied through his teeth. You know that, LABF.

But heaven forfend anyone criticize Clinton.

[Old Dude]

Originally Posted by W*GS

...
I don't believe the laundry list of positions above is well-correlated with the term "far right". For example, LABF is very much opposed to "corporate globalism", but he would rather die than be called "far right".

But you have to remember that Icke is a UK guy, so not everthing that is considered right wing here would necessarily be right wing there and vice versa.

Not to mention that the Brits all drive on the wrong side of the road.

[W*GS]

Originally Posted by L.A. BRONCOS FAN

The real question should be "why does W*GS defend the repugs so tenaciously when he's (supposedly) not a republican?"

Why does LABF ignore the corruption in his own party?

For such a diehard (supposed) Democrat, he sure doesn't have a problem with "his" party sucking up millions of Soros' dirty-by-Carlyle money.

[W*GS]

Originally Posted by §Pide®

what about this list ? would they be hypocrits also ? http://www.americaheldhostile.com/cheating.html

Of course they're hypocrites - just like those incredibly wealthy Democrats.

[Spider]

Originally Posted by W*GS

Of course they're hypocrites - just like those incredibly wealthy Democrats.

why ?

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Originally Posted by W*GS

Spider said "Just makes it harder to deny , or to Bring up Clinton

And he's right.

[Spider]

Originally Posted by W*GS

Of course they're hypocrites - just like those incredibly wealthy Democrats.

So all Democrats are wealthy hey ? Why ? why would X having money effect group Y ?

[Blueflame]

Originally Posted by W*GS

Wrong.

Spider said "Just makes it harder to deny , or to Bring up Clinton ...... Remember Clinton ?"

It's true that if any of the Republicans on the list criticized Clinton, they'd be hypocrites, at the very least. Considering that most of the Republicans (and others) who criticized Clinton (and not just about his adulterous activities) were and are not on the list, what was Spider getting at with his comment?

That "Some" in the title doesn't let him off the hook for what's nothing more than a cheap shot.

Clinton has nothing to do with the list Spider posted, despite the efforts to bring his name into every "indiscretions of politicians" thread. And many of the Republicans who criticized Clinton (the House managers) already fit into the "hypocrite" category in my book due to their own adulterous activities. At any rate adultery is not illegal; pedophilia is.

That "Some" in the thread title means that he was castigating those Republicans whose names were on the list and no one else. How is posting the truth a "cheap shot"?

It is very puzzling why Libertarians seem to take such issue with the (apparently well-justified) criticism of "some" Republicans....

[Spider]

Originally Posted by W*GS

Of course they're hypocrites - just like those incredibly wealthy Democrats.

whats your agenda ? saying Democrats are rich ?

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

For example, LABF is very much opposed to "corporate globalism", but he would rather die than be called "far right".

You think only the far-right opposes "corporate globalism?"