chinahill, dan rather made a mistake and was held accountable, him not being on the air and all. fox news has a conservative bias which drives everything they put out. lies may have been too strong of a word, but misinformation and half-truths work. just look at who they have as hosts: bill o’reilly, sean hannity, brit humme. they have bill kristol as a contributer on fox sunday. these people all say reprehensible things and never get called out. its no wonder why foxnews viewers know less about iraq than those who watch the daily show, thinkprogress.org/2007/04/16/daily-show-fox-knowledge/.

maybe its my youth, but its hard to believe someone is so intrenched in their beliefs. but thats a difference between liberals and conservatives. liberals are more open to new things, thinkprogress.org/2007/11/13/entertainment-poll/. that may also be a difference between older people and the current generation. i may not have all of the answers, but at least i’m asking questions and am skeptical. many things are wrong with american culture and politics today and i want to know why.

liberals say many things on this site, but chinahill choses to discuss only some of what is said. if he believes only facts and evidence, i wonder how chinahill believes about other issues: gay marriage, sex-education, global warming, etc.

Fitzgerald had interviewed Armitage and everyone else involved in the leak to include Novak. He knew that Armitage leaked on his own accord because Armitage told him so under oath. What? You now think that Armitage lied and was lying to protect Cheney who is not even in his chain of command? You need to get away from your hatred of Bush and Cheney and think reasonably. Richard Armitage has been around the government for decades. He is no Bush supporter and never has been. Why do you think that Fitzgerald would not believe a man like that who told him what happened under oath. You certainly have the right to believe whatever you want but – this is illogical and it is the reason I and many of my fellow conservatives believe that Fitzgerald had an agenda. He already had the answer to the reason for the special prosecutor which was set up by Bush. Bush stated openly that he wanted to know the identity of the leaker. If Bush ordered the leak or if Cheney ordered the leak, is it logical for Bush to call for the special prosecutor. You see why I believe liberalism is a philosophy of the absurd. Like most federal prosecutors I have known, Fitzgerald has a huge ego. He either has an agenda or he felt that he MUST prosecute someone – anyone no matter how ridiculous. He had the leaker. The leaker told him the circumstances of the leak. The special prosecutor continued with what turned out to be a sham – prosecuting someone who mispoke under oath. Remember Clinton did the same thing and only lost his license to practice law in Arkansas for a year. Maybe you thought it was ok to lie about sex under oath as one of my former federal prosecutor friends tried to say. Lying about anything under oath is illegal.

Am I going to convince you, a liberal, concerning the possible agenda of Fitzgerald? No way. The object of this whole discussion is to show you that we conservatives have just as much reason to believe what we believe as you have what you believe. Yours is one of emotion as you readily admit with your constant references to circumstancial and smoke over the White House.

You know in your heart that Bush in corrupt. Why? I think it has something to do with liberals knowing that their elected officials are capable of corruption and thus they think that our representatives are the same way. Differences in expectations maybe.

If you will notice, I am responding to what liberals are saying here and not the other way around. You state that I “call out” liberals for not addressing issues as if you are not calling me “out” on your issues. I respond to what you liberals are writing. You liberals are driving my responses and not the other way around. So the reality is that YOU chose whatever you wanted to talk about and all I did was respond to the lies that you put forth, trying to show you that you just might be a tad bit biased.

“i’ve always known your ego to be large, but this megalomania is making this debate pathetic”

Isn’t it amazing how you liberals love to attack people you do not even know just because they dare “call you out” for your written statements. I especially loved the use of the word “megalomania.” Seems to me I have couched everything I have written with the concept (foreign to all the liberals I have come to know and laugh at) that I could be wrong. All you got to do is come up with the proof/evidence and I will change my mind. Rumors, smoke, feelings of hate, and such do not qualify as proof but when used as proof makes me laugh.

“you keep finding examples of “liberal lies”, “however small”, and using them to bad mouth liberals;”

Is this an admission that you think that it is ok to tell small lies but not big lies? What do you define as small and what do you define as big? Is it ok to lie about sex under oath if you are the president who is the chief prosecutor of the nation? What can he lie about and what can he not lie about under oath? A lot of questions come up when you make the statement like you did above. Liberals tend to think it is ok for them to lie but no one else. You know the “I did not have sex” thing of Clinton and all. There are many websites that specialize in the Clinton Legacy of lies. So many lies one has to keep a score card just to keep them straight. Bet you think the same thing of Bush, right? Please send me the score card (best not ask me for Clintons as it is readily available).

Also please do not make allegations about anything or anyone without the accompanying evidence. It is very tiresome to try to get such evidence from liberals, especially when it seems never to exist.

Fox lies? Ok, send proof. You want proof of the lies of CNN and others? Go first and explain the phony Dan Rather documents that CBS aired before you do anything else. The proof will follow if you can handle of megabytes.

Once more, read my comments closely. I am an old retired person who has been all over the world several times, seen things you simply have not, done things only a handful of people have done and have more academic education than most. If I do not see hard evidence, I simply do not buy into anything. That is the nature of experience in matters of reason and intellect.
If you wanted to see racism in America, you will see it. That does not necessarily mean that what you saw is really racism. You want to see a corrupt Bush, you can explain your believe to yourself by what you see or think you see. Your question is irrelevant to the reality of the situation of corruption. He is either corrupt or he is not corrupt. A little corruption means he is corrupt. It is a black and white world that we deal in when we deal in politics.

As those who believe in the visibility of ghosts can easily see them, so it is always easy to see repulsive qualities in those we despise and hate. (Frederick Douglass)

As to the email situation, this is what I call “fishing in empty ponds.” For sure all the evil and corruption will be proven with the retrieval of the emails. Yeh right. Kind of what happened with the Al Gore emails right.

Welcome to the real world of computers. I simply will not get excited over such nonsense. If the emails are your last hope of proving something, you have already lost. And so it continues. Remember these:

April 5, 2000 ‘The fix is in’ on e-mail fix? Contractor hired to ‘restore’ records employs 2 senior Clinton officials

June 6, 2000 The White House e-mail audit report:A look at the 500 accounts hit by ‘server glitch’

June 9, 2000 Another tech ‘error’ scrubs Gore e-mail: Congress may subpoena White House aide’s hard-drive cartridge

October 5, 2000 Gore e-mail guru ran afoul of law: Aide who lost records had run-ins with computer staff, Secret Service

Ho-hum. Dealing with liberals never changes. Gotta run. Hang in there with some more of your fun stuff. This egomaniac must go to Leshan Provincial Capital on business. Look it up on google. It is where the world’s largest buddha lives.

and the emails are important. the administration broke the law, presidential records act of 1978. the white house was subpeonaed to release the information from the emails. can you brush that off as a liberal lie? the time period of the emails is also important. it includes the run-up to iraq and katrina. both situations were handled incompitently and it is important to see conversations within the white house and the resulting decisions. and again, they broke the law. is breaking the law not important to chinahill?

you keep finding examples of “liberal lies”, “however small”, and using them to bad mouth liberals; who cares about a turkey. thats a self-fulfilling prophecy. just look at what fox news does and tell me they don’t also lie, and thats not defending the msm. the media seems to care more about clinton’s tips and cackle, edwards’ haircut and obama’s middle name than the issues.

chinahill, i find it also interesting that you call out liberals for not addressing issues that you chose, but only respond to issues that you chose, e.g. the ones you laugh at. so, if i can get this straight, you can chose whatever you want to talk about and i need answer every question you want. i’ve always known your ego to be large, but this megalomania is making this debate pathetic.

you still haven’t addressed why, with all of the circumstantional scandals, bush isn’t corrupt? or even if you think he is corrupt or not? you always defend him, do you think he’s a good president? if anyone else, *cough*liberal*cough*, had these many clouds overhead, conservatives would be outraged. oh wait, they impeached clinton for lying about a sex scandal

Well, at least you have honestly come to the conclusion that there simply is no evidence to prove that Bush is corrupt. A step in the right direction. We both agree on that point.

The concept is “innocent until proven guilty” and does not have the conjunction “but” following it. Either you buy into this concept or you do not. There is no half way positions one can take on this concept. If there is, please correct me.

If I wrote the local newspapers and called you a pedophile (I am not calling you one nor do I even think you are one) without providing any proof, would you be required to prove the negative? If I told everyone that you were a Martian, would you have to prove the negative? The concept of proving the negative is a liberal ploy so they do not have to provide evidence and proof for their allegations. I see it happening all the time. You make the accusations, you are required to provide the proof. There simply is no exceptions, smoke, fog or anything else.

You have the right to believe that Bush is corrupt. I never said you did not have the right. What I am saying and have said from day one on this website is that you do not have any proof of that corruption. The proof simply does not exist, has never been covered up and will never exist because the man is not corrupt. You believe he is because “in your heart you know he is.” You need no proof, you just KNOW he is corrupt. This is why I detest the liberal philosophy so much – emotion over logic.

I have been called a moron by liberals on this site. I have been called insane. I have been called a dufus. Liberals have insulted my wife. I have been called unintelligent. My opinions have been called ignorant rants. I have been called “full of sh*t and a dingbat. I simply repeated the insults that I have acquired in the a short time I have come here. I wanted to emphasize the point that you liberals are not tolerant of others’ beliefs and never have been. This paragraph could be construed as rambling, the following sentence made up of 18 words can in no way be called rambling: “But then again, I could be wrong, being an insane, moronic, full of sh*t, theory-generating, dingbat dufus.”

What has caused this verbal abuse from the “oh, so tolerant liberals?” I dared question their comments and statements of fact. I dared provide evidence for why I believe as I do and always with the caveat that I could be wrong. I dared request evidence for why these same liberals write the things they write. I dared make fun through sarcasm and jokes about their “ignorant rants” and personal insults. I dared set up a “liberal modus operandi” predicting how these liberals will respond to what I see as the truth. I have never used impolite language, never called anyone a dufus, moron, dingbat, full of sh*t or any other name except maybe implying strongly that as a libeal you were fudging the information (a liar).

Dr. Nutslikebush has already gone “stone cold silent” on all my requests for evidence with personal insults and an obvious hate-filled comment. It is not what I believe that he hates, it is me personally! Liberalism at its disgusting core!

You guys don’t just hate the conservative philosophy you hate and despise the conservative. This is not about Bush’s conservative philosophy, it is about Bush personally. Dr. Nutlikebush simply can not define my conservativism and never will so he hates me personally. I am a conservative, with or without his approval or his definition.

I addressed your allegations of the emails missing from the White House. I do not know nor do I care if they are missing or not. I have lost too much stuff on a computer over the course of several decades to try to make something of such a thing. The point I was making was that the CREW did not provide evidence for the allegations. Undisclosed confidential sources are not evidence. Anyone can make a statement and then try to hide behind such undisclosed confidential sources. Politicians do it all the time. I will never buy such nonsense from anyone, conservative or liberal.

I also made the point that if the emails were missing, how did these undisclosed confidential sources know how many were missing? A simple and logical question that begs to be asked? Why not explain to me how they know the number if the emails are missing? This is a very straight up question that deserves a straight up answer.

In fact, I have asked some pretty straight forward questions which you have failed to answer. For example, you stated that Fitzgerald got sidetracked from his investigation as to who leaked the Plame’s name. I asked how this could be since he already knew from day one who leaked the name? Simple question but I got no reply or even a comment.

You state Bush has had such a terrible track record. What track record are we talking about here? He liberated 50 million people from tyrants and murderers. We are now in the 52nd straight month of economic growth and increases in employment. He gave us all (not just the rich) a tax cut that has generated economic growth. Immigration seems to be on the front burner where it belongs. He has brought forward reforming the Social Security System as a topic of discussion. He has signed the education reform bill. He has done many things, some good some bad. Look at the positives and then look at the negatives (discarding our difference of opinion of the Iraq war). I do not see such a terrible track record except as it is made up by the liberals and the liberal press. It is my opinion that the smoke you think you see is from the liberals trying to generate scandals that do not exist simply for political gain. You say it comes from Bush and his corrupt practices and then you admit you have no evidence for thinking that. I, on the contrary, have a lot of evidence for believing the smoke is from liberal lies. I do not need to list these lies as they are readily available on the internet.

One particular lie, however small, is what I think is the classic example of the liberal lie. Remember the photo op the President did in Iraq during his Thanksgiving trip with him holding a turkey for the troops. The liberal MSM claimed the turkey was phoney, a prop, made of plastic. Go back and look what you liberals wrote about it. Such things as the plastic presidency, the phoney presidency and so on. Well, the turkey was indeed real and the liberals made the whole thing up. Small point but it does add to the smoke. BTW, no liberal who bad-mouthed the president over this lie ever admitted it was a lie nor did they apologize to anyone for their blatant lies. The smoke is generated by the liberals IMHO. And as usual, I may be wrong and will admit my mistake with enough evidence.

Now you can go ahead and get into your liberal mode and insult my wife, my mother and father and go stone cold silent to my honest requests for proof of why you believe the way you do. It is not your fault, it is the liberal philosophy you have bought into.

chinahill, you again trivialize a point i make with hyperbole. its between 5 million and 10 million emails, not 200 billion. then you criticize my source. do you actually not believe that there are missing white house emails? or do you just like to attack a liberal so much, that you don’t care about facts? oh, and then you sarcastically ramble on about being an insane, moronic… from reading your posts, i would have say that you would rather attack a liberal than writing something meaningful.

chinahill, just like how you repeat the “liberal motus apperendi”, i’m going to repeat that just because you say its a lie, doesn’t make it a lie. just because you don’t believe something, doesn’t mean its not true. and just because you say it, doesn’t make it the truth.

Does the words “stone cold silence” ring a bell? Do believe I listed it as a typical liberals response to truth piled on their heads. Where are your responses to my queries for the evidence that you use to make allegations against the evil Republicans? I did not defend Abramoff nor did I even bring up Cunningham.

Let me guess on Abramoff. You probably believe with all your heart and all your soul that the Abramoff Corruption Scandal was a Republican scandal only, touching only Republican people in and out of Congress, right? Be careful with your answer because I have already accumulated the “proof of compliance” among several of your, what did you call it “pure as the driven snow” liberals.

Let me make a statement here that I know is absolutely true: Norman Hsu gave only to Democratic candidates while Abramoff was an equal opportunity corruption monger. Care to dispute this statement? Now what was it you were going to say about Jack Abramoff and the concept of “pure as the driven snow.” Oh, BTW, the Hsu deal is several times bigger than the Abramoff scandal or didn’t you know that/

One time my brother made the statement that for every liberal Democrat in Congress I could name with proven ethical problems, he would send me five conservative Republicans with problems. Believed it with all his liberal heart and soul (bless his podunker head). I immediately sent him 50 names of liberal Democrats who had come under investigation or were involved in ethical activities plus listed each of the problems they had gotten involved with in great detail. I also had another 50 names waiting for when he sent me the 250 names of conservatives who had ethical problems. He went “stone cold silent” on the entire issues. Never saw a single conservative name and he refuses to even admit he made the challenge.

Republicans simply do not put up with our representatives doing that kind of stuff. Why else do you see Republicans resigning when busted for ethical problems instead of lying, tap dancing, discounting or rationalizing. Craig, of course, is an exception but his political life is over as the Republicans in his state will kick him out on the next ballot. Integrity is simply not very high on the liberals list of things they expect from their elected representatives. First and foremost is always to gain power and influence. Nothing else matters. “Pure as the driven snow” you say? Compared to liberals, they most definitely are (even though we both know they are not and never will be).

I have very little respect for any politician. You have never read in this website or anywhere else that I think Republicans in Congress or any other political office are as “pure as the driven snow.” I do not now nor have I ever agreed with everything that is going on inside or outside the Republican party and its agenda. If you and your liberal smear mongers would cease the nonsense you put out to discredit, smear and otherwise slander men and women with whom you disagree, we would probably find that we have much in common as Americans. As long as you hold to the lie that Bush is more corrupt than any other politician current or past, I will respond with the truth that he is no different than all the other presidents. Being president is the most difficult job in the world. I did not agree at all with Clinton and still firmly believe that he is the reason we live in the world we now live in. The liberal agenda sucks and causes death and destruction where ever it is applied.

I never called Clinton a hitler as way more than 1% of you liberals do. I did not make up crap just to discredit him. He got into trouble because he was the most immoral and personally corrupt human ever to be the president. He is not stupid and when he moved to the center after his first four disastrous years in office, he was able to get some things done. That is the only thing that saved him from being the worst and most incompetent as Carter is regarded by even liberal historians. The legacies are complete. History has not spoken kindly of Carter and I believe it will not treat Clinton much better. No one knows the legacy of GWB. It is still being written. Anyone who says otherwise is just another liberal fool.

Now what was it you were going to tell me about Jack Abramoff and why have you turned silent on the other issues?

Truth has a way of forcing peopl