Barbara Streisand calls for Bush impeachment
- Thread starter ylexot
- Start date
gumby
I AM GUMBY DAMMIT
ylexot said:What an idiot... So Babs, ummmm, what has Bush done that is illegal?
.........idiotic f***ing b*tch shut your pie hole 
Dupontster
Would THIS face lie?
Need to put her and Janie Fonda in a big bag with some cement blocks and dump em both...They both just want to be in the spotlight....
Dupontster
Would THIS face lie?
Ken King said:
See, I was being nice...I just wanted to drown them....You all wanted something a little more violent....
Calvert newbie
New Member
i read thourgh her site and she is nuts or really stupid
B
Bruzilla
Guest
I gotta give some 
to Babs as that's one intricately worded memo! She goes to great lengths to tell the truth, but not the whole truth. This memo should be required reading for all Republicans. This is also the first time that I've heard a Lib mention coalition deaths, but they're still not bothering to count Iraqi Security Force deaths as that would add too much nobility to the argument.
I thought her most interesting point was: "With the recent controversy surrounding the potential indictments and charges of perjury against senior members of the Bush administration, some have made comparisons to the perjury charge that was brought against President Clinton. Perjury under any circumstance is wrong. However, in President Clinton’s situation, the matter was concerning an issue that only adversely affected himself and his family." A typical Lib view of "it's always wrong, but it's not always wrong"
to Babs as that's one intricately worded memo! She goes to great lengths to tell the truth, but not the whole truth. This memo should be required reading for all Republicans. This is also the first time that I've heard a Lib mention coalition deaths, but they're still not bothering to count Iraqi Security Force deaths as that would add too much nobility to the argument.I thought her most interesting point was: "With the recent controversy surrounding the potential indictments and charges of perjury against senior members of the Bush administration, some have made comparisons to the perjury charge that was brought against President Clinton. Perjury under any circumstance is wrong. However, in President Clinton’s situation, the matter was concerning an issue that only adversely affected himself and his family." A typical Lib view of "it's always wrong, but it's not always wrong"
Cletus_Vandam
New Member
My favorite has to be:
Why doesn't she mention the 8 years of funding neglect to the military and surveillance community by the great and powerful "Clinton"?
What a TOOL!
Why doesn't she mention the 8 years of funding neglect to the military and surveillance community by the great and powerful "Clinton"?What a TOOL!
Railroad
Routinely Derailed
Of course she's really qualified to make such judgments and statements.
I look at it this way: imagine a winter day when the local temperature is above freezing, and it starts snowing. If it snows hard enough, it will accumulate just a little in the grassy areas, making the go-home-early folks rush away from the office.
The liberals are trying the same type of effect via their tactics, since pushing their point home with the truth won't work (not enough facts are on their side). So enough little smears and rumors and things, the liberals hope, and the national opinion will swing in their direction.
The problem is, their tactics appear to be working among some segments of the population (I haven't been one of those polled that now say Mr. Bush isn't honest, for instance, but some folks apparently believe that now).
Entertainers and liberal arts professors appear to be great sources of tools for broadcasting this type of stuff. Fans are fans, and some will accept and support anything their idols say, right or wrong. I've stopped listening to or reading the comments of entertainers (and some authors) when they say anything off the set or outside a story, which is a shame, because we have had exceptions to the liberal line like Mr. Reagan, Mr. Schwartzenegger (sp?), Mr. Heston, and others.
Who do conservatives have to conter the liberal voices? Elected officials, financiers, and religious leaders. We're too boring, I suppose, for the masses.
I look at it this way: imagine a winter day when the local temperature is above freezing, and it starts snowing. If it snows hard enough, it will accumulate just a little in the grassy areas, making the go-home-early folks rush away from the office.
The liberals are trying the same type of effect via their tactics, since pushing their point home with the truth won't work (not enough facts are on their side). So enough little smears and rumors and things, the liberals hope, and the national opinion will swing in their direction.
The problem is, their tactics appear to be working among some segments of the population (I haven't been one of those polled that now say Mr. Bush isn't honest, for instance, but some folks apparently believe that now).
Entertainers and liberal arts professors appear to be great sources of tools for broadcasting this type of stuff. Fans are fans, and some will accept and support anything their idols say, right or wrong. I've stopped listening to or reading the comments of entertainers (and some authors) when they say anything off the set or outside a story, which is a shame, because we have had exceptions to the liberal line like Mr. Reagan, Mr. Schwartzenegger (sp?), Mr. Heston, and others.
Who do conservatives have to conter the liberal voices? Elected officials, financiers, and religious leaders. We're too boring, I suppose, for the masses.
