You are playing the moral equivalency game, and it adds nothing.
Yes we are... and it was you that invited us all to play when you asked us to imagine if Bush had a convicted criminal picking out his tie every morning. I then pointed out that the Bush administration has what most people consider criminals doing much more important things in our government than just picking out ties. And since you obviously knew nothing about the law breakers who have been put in positions of authority under Bush and you made a comment that suggests that Bush doesn't have criminals working for him I then corrected this misinformation. So... it does add to this discussion.
you haven't named a single person who was convicted, except maybe Poindexter,...whom you didn't name anyway. (who had his convictions overturned in a court of law, and he never advised President Bush44, anyway.) ...you've named no one that equates to hiring Sandy to the exact same post he was fired from in the last campaign for stealing documents from the national archives.
I pointed out that Bush has hired people who have broken the law. So what if it wasn't exactly the same situation? So what if I didn't name all the law breakers by name? I provided an article that described who and what these people did. It isn't my fault you chose to not read the article. It looks to me like you don't want to face the facts.
And don't forget that most of the people that article talks about actually destroyed original documents and/or were successful in covering up much of the facts concerning the Iran/Contra scandal.
And so what if these criminals had their convictions over turned on technicalities? That doesn't make them any less of a law breaker.
You state Berger did not steal original documents as if fact.
There you go again... misstating the facts... I did not say that Berger did not steal original documents. I said their is no evidence or proof of this and that all we know for sure is that he stole copies.
and you condemn Bush41 "the criminal" as fact. What crime have you convicted him of?
I haven't convicted anyone. There are lots of crimes that go unprosecuted in this country. Just because Bush Sr. wasn't convicted doesn't mean he didn't do anything illegal. And don't forget that when all this was coming out Bush was president and as such was protected from prosecution. Now if you think that he didn't do anything wrong then tell us all why I am wrong. Good luck with that.
I say that: "Sandy recieved a misdemeanor on the condition he take a ploygraph test, which he never did."
You say: "Not true. Berger agreed to take a polygraph test as PART OF a plea deal.
What's your point Buzz, do you have one?
My point is that a polygraph test was not required for the plea deal. You are misstating the facts again. Is that really so hard to understand?
I say that Berger was a lobbyist who worked for the Chinese government...Not true! you say, he was a worker who lobbied for the government of China.
What's your point Buzz? do you have one?
Again... you are misstating facts. Berger worked for a law firm who represented China.
Have you ever spent one word here criticizing Clinton, or Praising Bush?
What does that have anything to do with this discussion? Proving that I am biased doesn't disprove a thing I am saying. Try again!
Oh... and by the way I have criticized Clinton.
I say Clinton hires a convicted criminal as a high-level policy advisor.
What the fudge are you saying? ?
And again you are misstating the facts. Berger is not "high level". And that is what I am saying. You are trying to hype this whole issue up as if it is a big deal when it is in fact not. And as I have shown you do this by constantly misstating the facts.
