• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Bush officials violated Hatch Act, agency concludes

Dr_Patrick said:
:lamo :lamo :lamo

You coined the term "truther"? BTW, you do realize that "trufer" is merely a condescending mispronunciation of the term "truther". Just because you mispronounce it on purpose and in a condescending way doesn't mean that the word changes meaning all of a sudden.
Click to expand...

I coined, "trufer". I never said that I coined, "truther". Just like I coined, "birfer".
 
apdst said:
Yeah, right!!!!!! :lamo
Click to expand...

I've always believed in the rule of law, and that it applies equally to both parties, and I've supported the prosecutions of all the scumbags, whether their last name is Randel or DeLay.

Unlike you, Apdst, I hold my country's ethics above loyalty to a particular party.
 
Catz Part Deux said:
It would be impossible for you to deny that you're a partisan hack.
Click to expand...

That's whhy I don't use my partisan hackery to attack someone for being a partisan hack, like some people on this thread. Again, it would be more hypocrisy than I could stand. I guess some folks don't have a problem with being hypocrites.
 
apdst said:
I coined, "trufer". I never said that I coined, "truther". Just like I coined, "birfer".
Click to expand...

You obviously didn't read my post. Feel free to continue to delude yourself into thinking that you coined a term.

Hang on a sec, maybe you have a point. Take the word "partisan hack" for instance. I'll merely replace the "p" in partisan with an "f". Ooh, fun! Now I can define it however I want. I define it as a reference specifically to you. Fartisan hack! Yay, I'm a genius at coining terms, just like you!
 
Last edited:
Catz Part Deux said:
I've always believed in the rule of law, and that it applies equally to both parties, and I've supported the prosecutions of all the scumbags, whether their last name is Randel or DeLay.

Unlike you, Apdst, I hold my country's ethics above loyalty to a particular party.
Click to expand...

So do I. Show me the crime and I'll tie the noose.
 
apdst said:
That's whhy I don't use my partisan hackery to attack someone for being a partisan hack, like some people on this thread. Again, it would be more hypocrisy than I could stand. I guess some folks don't have a problem with being hypocrites.
Click to expand...

You have used your partisan hackery to attack other posters in this thread, and accused them of being partisan hacks, while doing the same yourself. You did so in the post I quoted.
 
Dr_Patrick said:
You obviously didn't read my post. Feel free to continue to delude yourself into thinking that you coined a term.
Click to expand...

I read it. Perhaps you should re-read it.
 
apdst said:
He wasn't charged with being AWOL, because he wasn't AWOL.
Click to expand...

That may not be true. And we have evidence to support that. Being charged is not all there is too it.
 
Catz Part Deux said:
You have used your partisan hackery to attack other posters in this thread, and accused them of being partisan hacks, while doing the same yourself. You did so in the post I quoted.
Click to expand...

I accused them of being partisan hacks, because they're always beating up on other posters--usually Conservatives--for being partisan hacks. I don't lie about myself, like some folks.
 
Boo Radley said:
That may not be true. And we have evidence to support that. Being charged is not all there is too it.
Click to expand...

Without some document proving that he was AWOL, or his commander swearing that he was AWOL, he wasn't AWOL. You don't have either of those. Just because he, "wasn't there", doesn't mean that he was AWOL.
 
apdst said:
I accused them of being partisan hacks, because they're always beating up on other posters--usually Conservatives--for being partisan hacks. I don't lie about myself, like some folks.
Click to expand...

I didn't realize debating a political topic was the same as "beating someone up." Does your fartisan hackery know no bounds? Yay, I just used my coined term again!!
 
apdst said:
David Axlerod never took a political trip that was paid for with tax money? How many times has Axlerod and Emmanual hitched a ride in Air Force 1, to attend a political rally? More than a couple I bet. Whatcha think?
Click to expand...

apdst said:
Are you? You ready to investigate Obama, too? We all know it happens.
Click to expand...

apdst said:
This is just another trufer witch hunt. The Leftists will be trying prosecute GW for something, anything, 'til long after he's dead.
Click to expand...

apdst said:
Can the Nuremburg defense really fly, here? I'm thinking, no.
Click to expand...

apdst said:
If that's the case, then every president since FDR has violated the Hatch Act, in some way, or another. That would mean that the president would have to hire a private plane, when he went to a political rally, vice using Air Force 1.

I believe this is the most feeble of a long line of feeble attempts to pin something on GW.
Click to expand...
And then, the best...
apdst said:
So, go down the road with your partisan hackery, sir.
Click to expand...

Irony...thy name is Apdst:
apdst said:
I accused them of being partisan hacks, because they're always beating up on other posters--usually Conservatives--for being partisan hacks. I don't lie about myself, like some folks.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
apdst said:
Without some document proving that he was AWOL, or his commander swearing that he was AWOL, he wasn't AWOL. You don't have either of those. Just because he, "wasn't there", doesn't mean that he was AWOL.
Click to expand...

We actually have records. Right? All AWOL means is absence without leave. If he was absent and he wasn't on leave, he was AWOL charged or not.
 
apdst said:
I don't lie about myself, like some folks.
Click to expand...

So, you're publicly proclaiming that you personally are a partisan hack? Duly noted.

If only Jerry were here to record this moment for posterity.
 
Boo Radley said:
We actually have records. Right? All AWOL means is absence without leave. If he was absent and he wasn't on leave, he was AWOL charged or not.
Click to expand...

How many times do you have be told, that a soldier doesn't have to be on leave to be absent?
 
Catz Part Deux said:
So, you're publicly proclaiming that you personally are a partisan hack? Duly noted.

If only Jerry were here to record this moment for posterity.
Click to expand...

At least I'm not a fake.
 
apdst said:
So, now I'm a liar?

Show me where Bush committed a crime and I'll tie the noose.
Click to expand...

It's not at that point, which you'd realize if you'd read the OP. It would be up to the Justice Department to pursue charges against Bush administration officials, at this point. Bush wouldn't be charged for their violations of the Hatch Act, unless he was aware of and encouraged them, in which case he could be charged with conspiracy to violate federal elections laws. We wouldn't know if he and they were guilty of a crime, however, until it had been taken to court, and adjudicated.

Does that help you understand?
 
apdst said:
How many times do you have be told, that a soldier doesn't have to be on leave to be absent?
Click to expand...

He has an obligation. If he doesn't meet that obligation, something has to be presented, like leave, to explain it. If there is no explination, and he is not on leave (an explination), then he's AWOL, charged or not.
 
apdst said:
People like you just can't resist making a thread about a poster, vice the topic. Can you?
Click to expand...

Oh, so your goal here was to post about the topic of the thread? Exactly how many posts have you made ABOUT THE TOPIC?
 
Moderator's Warning:
Personal attacks need to end.
 
Catz Part Deux said:
Oh, so your goal here was to post about the topic of the thread? Exactly how many posts have you made ABOUT THE TOPIC?
Click to expand...

I wasn't posting about anything other than the topic, until you and Doc jumped on the bandwagon. Then, you made it all about me.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom