Peter_Puget

PP

Ok Your consistant refusal to answer my repeated requests for your evidence supporting this assertion:you [PP] dismiss false statements made while justifying a very costly war (human and financial costs) to a cautious public, while you consider impeachment for lying about an aspect of one's personal life a good thing” And I would add you comment here as well:are you going to challenge me to a duel now? Ah the idignities I have suffered. PP

Or here J-B:: “i did not bring up clinton. i brought up the fact that you dismiss false statements made while justifying a very costly war (human and financial costs) to a cautious public, while you consider impeachment for lying about an aspect of one's personal life a good thing” Again ask you to provide evidence supporting your assertions about my beliefs. From your consistent refusal to provide this evidence a simpleton would think I would have to make the choice between “lying” and “incompetence” but I say it is both! PP

Sorry J-b your insults are BS. You made clear claims that I believe something that I do not. (eg while you consider impeachment for lying about an aspect of one's personal life a good thing ) I asked for evidence supporting your assertion and you reply with an insult. I call BS on that. I am not playing semantics [sic] games but have tried to stick close to the issue. Others, you included, have consistently confused the arguement by bringing in issues and facts outside of the discussion at hand. Fine, you can widen the argument as somekind of tactic but when I challenge one of your assertions and you respond in the manner of your last response to me, I can only view it as a childish whine. Again I ask you to show me your evidence supporting this claim - you [PP] consider impeachment for lying about an aspect of one's personal life a good thing. Until you can reveal the evidence indicating I feel this way, your comment remains merely a gratuitous insult. I was a bit mocking in my response but you have assigned beliefs to me that are not only wrong but created out of thin air. That assignation and creation is certainly a greater insult to the public discourse than my gentle mocking. So come up with the supporting proof or kiss my ass and shut the fuck up. (See trask I do deserve to be part of your good guy list) PP

It varies but by now you should have figured out that I am always right.

What'cha bringin to the table, Swab? It'll be party size!

Hey you left me off the list! PP

Well let me help you become "unconfused." i did not bring up clinton. By bringing up the impeachment and "blow job" you did bring him into the discussion. i brought up the fact that you dismiss false statements made while justifying a very costly war (human and financial costs) to a cautious public, I believe I said at least a couple times I am addressing only the quote by Ian. Once I even agreed for the sake of argument that Cheney and others lied on many occasions. If you would show me where you came to your conclusion that I have been dismissing more than one misstatement perhaps I can formulate a less confusing response. while you consider impeachment for lying about an aspect of one's personal life a good thing. Where did you get this belief? Show me and I believe it will help us to at least reduce your confusion. I clearly said I wanted him impeached for misuse of the US military. PP

J-B – Not sure why you brought Clinton up but since you did: I wanted to impeach the man because of his contemptible use of military force to distract public attention from “Monica Gate” Truly pathetic don’t you agree.

Jim –Let’s agree to disagree. And by the way thanks for being so Russert like and ignoring the error in my last post (see highlight – Cheney’s name was used instead of Russerts.)

Cheny is a very astute political player. You present no evidence he made an error. Did the White House Press office offer a retraction of this later? No. Did Cheny change his statement? No. Did it fit in well with the fairy tale they were constructing? Yes. I agree Cheney is astute. I disagree that I provided no evidence. I provided the transcript and two examples one preceding the quote and one subsequent to the quote. I also brought up Cheney's non repsonse to the erroneous comment suggesting they had Nuc Weapons. Even more amazing: for Cheney's statement to be true they [the Iraqis] would have had to have been in possesion of Nuclear Weapons before in order to resonstitute them! That Russert would ignore this is more evidence that it was merely an error. One thing that you all seem to hold in common is a contempt for the general population's intelligence. It must be lonely living in rarified air of liberal elite. PP

J-b - That is a bit harsh but I am glad you see the goofiness of the "lie" camp. Your conclusion of incompetence is ridiculous and is part of the sad state of political discourse these days.

Jim - Since I was responding to a specific quote taken from an interview the broader perspective you offer is merely a chance to spew and does not seem germain to the point I was making. For arguments sake I am willing to agree that they were all lieing at various times, but given the context of the interview, I find it very unlikely that he was guilty of anything but a inadvertent error in the example given.

Ok I wont argue with you. Although since I never disputed the quote, merely the context, I am surprised you expanded the quote a bit but not enough to improve the context. Esp given my attempts to provide a context which you ignore completely. Do you really think your expanded quote provided a better sense of context?Again interested parties can read the entire transcript and judge for themselves. PP

What I am saying and honestly I thought it was quite clear whas that the example given was not supportive of Ians contention in any meaningful way. Many times (often while on a climbing trip) I have been in a discussion and mispoke or had a friend say something in error but given the context of our discussion we let it pass because we took the error for what it was. I believe this is the same situation. That is what I am saying. PP

LOL You crack me up. I say read the entire interview buy a video. You make assertions based on nothing. I say provide evidence. I have linked the transcript and will let others decide.

Please point out this back pedaling (what you smell). Show in specific detail and in the context of the interview.

Joshk - Excuse this idiot but are you just making a simple declaration and not specifically addressing my previous point? PP

Your Cheney quote is so out of context the it must either reflect ignorance or a willing lie. Transcript From the transcript, it seems clear that Russert did not even blink. This is because Cheney mis-spoke, and Russert knew it. Russert had asked whether Iraq had a nuclear program; earlier in the interview, Cheney had asserted his belief that Saddam had "reconstituted these programs since the Gulf War." With this response, Cheney managed to substitute "weapons" for "programs," but it is clear from the context what he meant. Later in the show, Cheney also said this: " ... over time, given Saddam’s posture there, given the fact that he has a significant flow of cash as a result of the oil production of Iraq, it’s only a matter of time until he acquires nuclear weapons." PP

Well J-B we for once are in complete agreement - your last line is the absolute truth. If we are relatively silent, we are screwed. I do not think that the anti-tax people are responsible for this phenomenon. Their presence has simply accelerated the acknowledgement of the problem. The problem results from the process of government finance. User fees were in play long before Eyman was around. Go to the Parks website and read the financial info there. What was surprising to me was the small amount of money that was actually spent by the Parks department. PP

Jim is correct that tax burdens can be calculated in various ways. I would add that one should be willing to do some research on ones own - you may decide to find Jims figures less menaingful than one would think at first blush. eg the tax burden rank for WA as a % of Y including state, local and Feceral taxation results ion the following rankings: 2003 - 12 2002 -5 2001 -5 2000 -6 1999 -5 Clearly not the middle of the pack. Link: www.taxfoundation.org

Dru - Why must you make fun of my sexuality? Honestly it's kinda fucked. Answer the polls or not PP

Freinds V

Friends IV

Friends III