« Back to story "Bush's Depressing Goodbye Party: One Staffer Gets Job At Abercrombie"

Story Comments

Posted by: soeze_keyser 11 months ago

This page is a permanent archive of the comment below and its replies.
To view this comment in the context of the full discussion for the story, use this link.

All Comments Share Story Report

28%
soeze_keyser11 months ago

This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »

He wasn't uninvted, he was elected. As for just leaving quietly without making a scence, do you mean like the Clinton's did when they removed the W key from over 60 keyboards in the White House, thats classy.

(comment_max_expanded_depth : 55) (comment depth : 3) (recursion depth : 1) (max_comment_reply_depth : 40) (comment_max_render_depth : 55)
Reply
19 Replies

loading ...
- FrauBlucherComment removed: Retracted by user18 Replies
  - 38%
    soeze_keyser11 months ago
    
    This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
    
    Try NY Times 12 June 2002. White House Vandalized in Transition, G.A.O Finds. Or just google it, you will get plenty of hits.
    
    (comment_max_expanded_depth : 55) (comment depth : 5) (recursion depth : 3) (max_comment_reply_depth : 40) (comment_max_render_depth : 55)
    Reply
    17 Replies
    
    loading ...
    - 89%
      wtagg11 months ago
      
      This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
      
      "anything that goes against your ideology is always biased:"
      
      My suggestion would be to refrain from looking in mirrors.
      
      (comment_max_expanded_depth : 55) (comment depth : 8) (recursion depth : 4) (max_comment_reply_depth : 40) (comment_max_render_depth : 55)
      Reply
      0 Replies
      
      loading ...
    - 94%
      CRYMTYPHON11 months ago
      
      This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
      
      Actualy, if you read even that biasd account you will find that the General Accounting Office investigated and found that: some things were broken, some things were missing, and the total was small and no diferent than previous transfers.
      
      The GOA report made the white house furious.
      It made soeze_keyser furious.
      
      Why do these heathen rage?
      
      (comment_max_expanded_depth : 55) (comment depth : 6) (recursion depth : 4) (max_comment_reply_depth : 40) (comment_max_render_depth : 55)
      Reply
      9 Replies
      
      loading ...
      - 100%
        flyonthewallzz11 months ago
        
        This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
        
        "The accounting office said similar pranks were reported in prior transitions, including the one from Mr. Bush's father to Mr. Clinton in 1993. ''We were unable to conclude,'' it said, ''whether the 2001 transition was worse than previous ones.''"
        
        It's almost funny, $78.23 keyboards?
        The pranks should be a little classier, like making a keyboard with all "O"'s.
        But they should spring for it out of their own pocket.
        There is no excuse for the theft of doorknobs and stuff.
        
        "''The real scandal here,'' Ms. Palmieri said, ''is how much time and money the Republicans have wasted in a vendetta against the Clinton administration. It's troubling that the White House cooperated so enthusiastically with this investigation, but refused to provide the G.A.O. with records of the energy task force headed by Vice President Cheney.''"
        
        (comment_max_expanded_depth : 55) (comment depth : 6) (recursion depth : 5) (max_comment_reply_depth : 40) (comment_max_render_depth : 55)
        Reply
        8 Replies
        
        loading ...
        
        18%
        soeze_keyser11 months ago
        
        This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
        
        Sure anything that goes against your ideology is always biased. So what paper or wire service is credible to you?
        
        (comment_max_expanded_depth : 55) (comment depth : 7) (recursion depth : 6) (max_comment_reply_depth : 40) (comment_max_render_depth : 55)
        Reply
        7 Replies
        
        loading ...
        
        90%
        CRYMTYPHON11 months ago
        
        This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
        
        I said the article was biased; I didn't claim the whole
        New York Times was.
        
        I accused this article of being biased (perhaps unfairly) because the GOA investigation was very clear that the accusations of a crazed riot of vandalism and theft were false; were lies; but the article downplays that angle and
        quotes 'unidentified' white house staff.
        
        To answer your question: what paper or wire service is credible ?
        
        All of them are 50% credible.
        If you only use one, you will know half the truth.
        Use several that look at diferent views, and you can find the truth; sometimes.
        
        (comment_max_expanded_depth : 55) (comment depth : 8) (recursion depth : 7) (max_comment_reply_depth : 40) (comment_max_render_depth : 55)
        Reply
        6 Replies
        
        loading ...
        
        30%
        soeze_keyser11 months ago
        
        This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
        
        I accused this article of being biased (perhaps unfairly)
        
        Is there a way to be fairly biased?
        
        (comment_max_expanded_depth : 55) (comment depth : 9) (recursion depth : 8) (max_comment_reply_depth : 40) (comment_max_render_depth : 55)
        Reply
        5 Replies
        
        loading ...
        
        88%
        CRYMTYPHON11 months ago
        
        This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
        
        err, uhm, well yes.
        That is, no, of course not!
        What I meant is that I might be unfair to the article by saying it is biased.
        I probably meant that.
        
        Stop that!
        
        (comment_max_expanded_depth : 55) (comment depth : 10) (recursion depth : 9) (max_comment_reply_depth : 40) (comment_max_render_depth : 55)
        Reply
        4 Replies
        
        loading ...
        
        86%
        crespi11 months ago
        
        This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
        
        soeze
        
        Bush/Cheney and the Neocons', (and your?) ideology was that "the Constitution is just another Goddamned piece of paper."
        
        MY "ideology " is to support our American Constitution.
        
        And I definitely WILL point out that anyone who sh*ts on our Constitution is biased, facist, evil or stupid.
        
        Ya got me there.
        
        (comment_max_expanded_depth : 55) (comment depth : 11) (recursion depth : 10) (max_comment_reply_depth : 40) (comment_max_render_depth : 55)
        Reply
        3 Replies
        
        loading ...
        
        17%
        soeze_keyser11 months ago
        
        This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
        
        The Constituion IS a just piece of paper, the flag IS just a piece of cloth....it is the value that we as a society place on these objects that give them there true worth. If the PATRIOT ACT and other post 911 policies are ******** on the Constitution, then what did FDR do when he federalized US industry on 8 dec 1941? What about the internment of Japanese-Americans? Was that ******** on the Constitution? Remember that AQ attacked NYC and the Pentagon, the Japanese attacked the US fleet at Pearl Harbor when Hawaii wasn't even a state yet.
        
        Why is my ideology the same as Bush/Cheney and Neocons? I am not a registered Republican nor Democrat (though I am right of center).
        
        (comment_max_expanded_depth : 55) (comment depth : 12) (recursion depth : 11) (max_comment_reply_depth : 40) (comment_max_render_depth : 55)
        Reply
        2 Replies
        
        loading ...
        
        86%
        flyonthewallzz11 months ago
        
        This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
        
        http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d02360.pdf
        
        Hi soeze_keyser:
        Sorry it took me so long to respond to you.
        I was a littlte busy stretching canvases with my daughter.
        The link is to the 220 page report prepared by the Government Acountability Office.
        I get a kick out of reading there stuff and they can usually handle complicated stuff in less tha 100 pages.
        It seems this time the White House kept sending back their drafts, in hopes that they would write something that would match the alligations
        I laughed my ass off reading it.
        
        (comment_max_expanded_depth : 55) (comment depth : 13) (recursion depth : 12) (max_comment_reply_depth : 40) (comment_max_render_depth : 55)
        Reply
        1 Reply
        
        loading ...
        
        100%
        flyonthewallzz11 months ago
        
        This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
        
        "For example, in discussing the competency of the oral evidence provided by an EOP employee, the White House described the employee’s overall responsibility for handling telecommunications problems during the first month of the new administration and cited the following excerpt from Government Auditing Standards
        6.54(f): Testimonial evidence obtained from an individual who…has complete knowledge about the area is more competent than testimonial evidence obtained from an individual who…has only partial knowledge about an area. However, in addition to excluding a portion of this standard, the White House did not refer to other parts of standard 6.54 or other factors that
        need to be considered. Other relevant parts of standard 6.54 follow:
        6.54 The following presumptions are useful in judging the competence
        of evidence. However, these presumptions are not to be considered
        sufficient in themselves to determine competence.
        6.54(e) Testimonial evidence obtained under conditions where persons
        may speak freely is more competent than testimonial evidence
        obtained under compromising conditions (for example, where the
        persons may be intimidated).
        6.54 (f) Testimonial evidence obtained from an individual who is not
        biased or has complete knowledge about the area is more competent
        than testimonial evidence obtained from an individual who is biased or
        has only partial knowledge about the area.
        Thus, in considering the competency of oral evidence, other factors besides a person’s level of responsibility, must be considered, such as thecircumstance under which they provide the oral information; whether they are reporting what they observed versus what someone else said they saw; factors that could influence their objectivity; the reasonableness or consistency of the information presented compared to other information or facts; and the extent to which corroborating or contradictory information is provided. We gave appropriate and careful consideration of all of these factors in conducting this review."
        
        This is how the GAO says "liar liar pants on fire!"
        
        (comment_max_expanded_depth : 55) (comment depth : 14) (recursion depth : 13) (max_comment_reply_depth : 40) (comment_max_render_depth : 55)
        Reply
        0 Replies
        
        loading ...
    - 18%
      soeze_keyser11 months ago
      
      This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
      
      Vendetta??? You mean the impeachment hearings for lying in a sworn deposition? One one think that President Clinton (a lawyer) the First Lady (another lawyer) would know that lying in a sworn deposition IS wrong. Unless it depends on what your definition of the word "is" is?
      
      (comment_max_expanded_depth : 55) (comment depth : 7) (recursion depth : 4) (max_comment_reply_depth : 40) (comment_max_render_depth : 55)
      Reply
      5 Replies
      
      loading ...
      - 82%
        CRYMTYPHON11 months ago
        
        This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
        
        Lying in a sworn deposition during a 40-million dollar, years-long investigation into a real-estate deal a decade before,
        - by a partisan prosecutor who put witnesses into shackles for not saying what he wanted to hear,
        - till finaly! they got the man to lie under oath about his sex life .
        And with that triumph they dragged the president of the united states before the world to impeach him.
        
        Gods, that was despicable.
        
        (comment_max_expanded_depth : 55) (comment depth : 8) (recursion depth : 5) (max_comment_reply_depth : 40) (comment_max_render_depth : 55)
        Reply
        4 Replies
        
        loading ...
        
        18%
        soeze_keyser11 months ago
        
        This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
        
        "I did not have sex with that woman...Ms Lewinsky" Lying in a sworn deposition is lying...that it was about his sex life changes that how?
        
        (comment_max_expanded_depth : 55) (comment depth : 9) (recursion depth : 6) (max_comment_reply_depth : 40) (comment_max_render_depth : 55)
        Reply
        3 Replies
        
        loading ...
        
        82%
        CRYMTYPHON11 months ago
        
        This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
        
        That it was about his sex life, tells us that it was entirely personal,
        not about the security or freedom of our nation.
        
        It tells us that those who spent the demonic energy to achieve that judicial triumph
        had no shame, - and no love for the dignity of their country .
        
        It was a posse of clowns pretending to look solemn while committing treason; and history will depict it as such .
        
        (comment_max_expanded_depth : 55) (comment depth : 10) (recursion depth : 7) (max_comment_reply_depth : 40) (comment_max_render_depth : 55)
        Reply
        2 Replies
        
        loading ...
        
        20%
        soeze_keyser11 months ago
        
        This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
        
        That another lawyer couldn't be trusted to tell the truth is how history will depict it.
        
        (comment_max_expanded_depth : 55) (comment depth : 11) (recursion depth : 8) (max_comment_reply_depth : 40) (comment_max_render_depth : 55)
        Reply
        1 Reply
        
        loading ...
        
        89%
        CRYMTYPHON11 months ago
        
        This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
        
        History doesn't expect truth from lawyers.
        History does check in regularly though, to find if people mean what they say.
        Do you love your country? Of course.
        Would you shame your flag to destroy a political enemy?
        
        History asked; and the impeachment was the answer.
        
        When that moment in time is depicted, commedians will act out the parts of your solemn senators;
        clowns in bright red noses will depict the grave judiciary.
        Cartoon mice and cats will depict the lascivious audience of tin-flag pin patriots snickering over sexual details in the 1000 page report.
        
        Shameful of Clinton to do such a thing;
        far, far worse for those who brought it to us.
        
        (comment_max_expanded_depth : 55) (comment depth : 12) (recursion depth : 9) (max_comment_reply_depth : 40) (comment_max_render_depth : 55)
        Reply
        0 Replies
        
        loading ...

Post Reply

You are not signed in to Propeller.com. Please sign in to post a reply.

People Who Liked This Comment (7)

People Who Didn't Like This Comment (19)

Submit a Story

Advertisement