My undercover evening at a Wesley Clark for President meetup.

Make sure you pay them a visit next November during/after the election and watch all the misery coming down! It should be a fun and exciting night when all their hopes and dreams come crashing down as most of them think one of their loser candidates will prevail.

It definitely was fun bouncing back and forth between here and there during the last election in 2002. 2004 should be GREAT since it'll be a BIG one. Hopefully, everything will go our way and NOTHING will go their way and it'll be TOO much fun!

I agree that family is important. However, my kids are now on their own with lives and activities of their own. At my age, the state of my nation is most important to me. So I spent a little time with the dems to see if I could see what makes them tick. These were nice people who were cordial to me. They care about the future of this country. That's where we part ways. I believe them to be seriously misguided and wrong in what they have in mind for the country.

My family is grown also and I have grandchildren, however, it'd be a cold day in hell right now that I'd be out romping around at the othersides meetings when I know that they'd be passing out the bread because the bologna's on the way.. Did you offer any of your opinions? What happened? How did their ideas/plans differ from yours?

"Actually, it and this followup (and now making it to DU) has been more fun than is allowed by law."

Damned laws! They always try to take the fun out of it!

haha

That is so interesting about their response to Hillary.

Ray,

Just got a heads up on your article while running out the door for work this morning. I've been thinking about it all day and just got the chance to reply tonight. This will be my first and final posting...

I'm amazed and disgusted, Ray. Why weren't you just a STANDUP GUY by letting us know you were being a reporter, blogger--whatever it's called--for Free Republic? Neither I nor anyone else would have cared--I've never heard of this site before. Everyone had figured that at least one conservative columnist from the local paper would drop in and report on the meetup. So why the secretive, undercover-journalist-spy-wannabee baloney? This wasn't a secret campaign meeting, for Pete's sake, it was open public gathering to discuss the candidacy of General Clark. You'd have every right to be there and report on it. Doggone it Ray, this is Pittsburgh, and in this place more than any other, you know you should have been a STANDUP GUY.

I'm the "teacher" from the Clark Meetup. You know, the guy who shook hands with you, looked you in the eye, said it was great having a lively debate with you. You know, the guy who told you that you were a good guy, whatever our differences, when we parted. You know, the guy who thanked you for your service to the country and expressed sympathy for the death of your godson. You know, the guy who disagreed with you wholeheartedly on Iraq but respected you for organizing a local rally for the troops in Cranberry. You know, the guy who said he and his wife (the "nurse" from the meetup)had just attended the Veterans Day Parade in Pittsburgh to honor our fathers--deceased WWII vets--and
all those who make the sacrifice to serve.

And I'll tell you and your friends a little bit more about my wife and me. We work hard, love our careers, stay fit, go to church, pay our taxes, vote in every election and, on our front porch, fly the Stars and Stripes 24/7 in honor of all current and past troops, including you. Now I think we are some pretty darn good Americans...and we're supporting Clark.

As you'd expect, I told you point blank what I thought about the President's performance: He was doing a nice job up until the battle of Tora Bora, but he's been doing a lousy job since. I laid out my arguments for Clark and you, in turn, rebutted with your own. This was good, spirited debate. Yeah, we challenge and sometimes hammer Mr.Bush--we think our candidate is the better leader and we want him to be elected, of course! "Bush Haters! Bush Haters!" C'mon.

And, to be fair, this meetup was one of three going at the very same time around Pittsburgh, and ours was the very first in Cranberry, the area's most conservative community. So nine's not a bad start. (And Toomey's only getting 20 in CRANBERRY? I'd be a little worried.)

Plus, your friends here should appreciate the family values of the Clark event organizer, who is not only a lawyer, but a full-time, stay-at-home mom of three.

In the small steel town where I grew up, folks spoke plainly about the kind of trick you pulled--you're not gonna like it, I'm afraid. They'd call you, at best, downright dishonest; at worst, gutless.

Ray, I'm wondering just where do you "live"? In the Internet world of conservative one-liners and diatribes from faceless contributors you never meet in person, identified only by catchy email names? Or, as you say, in the North Hills of Pittsburgh. In the Pittsburgh where I live, it's flesh and blood that's still for real, and a firm handshake and looking in one's eye still means honesty and integrity. We've got no time for such baloney.

Ray, if you want to reply to me, I want to see it here on this site. An apology to us for not revealing the nature of your visit would go a long way, especially since there was no good reason for you not doing so in the first place.

You'd be a better man for it. If not, the assessment you'd get in my home town stands.

Jim the Teacher

"Did you offer any of your opinions? What happened? How did their ideas/plans differ from yours?"

I don't want to rehash the whole two hours here again - I pretty much answered all of those questions in the original post. Suffice it to say that they were democrats and I'm not and could never be. I can't and don't accept their ideas of what this country is and how it is to be governed.

Thanks for the undercover report. I would have joined you!
In a more 'serious' environment -
I know a woman (blond as can be) who went undercover to the biggest mosque in America in Detroit - cetainly a different situation in terms of numbers of people, extremist views and even perhaps danger.
Farakan (sp?) was speaking...she was covered in the muslim garb etc... whole thing was anti-american talk...
that takes guts...but the truth is revealed. I think she did a story about it in the Detroit news.

Are you sure that you are on the right forum? In order to deny a plaintiff her day in court, the POTUS lied under oath and conspired with others to do the same. That is classic definition of "high crimes and misdemeanors." As you may know "high" refers to the office, not to the crime. And this was the least of his offenses that he SHOULD have been impeached over.

I don't agree that the question should have even been asked. Personally, I don't care if he screwed Monica Lewinsky or not. Had it been Reagan or Bush instead of Clinton, I still wouldn't have cared.

I'd take your word for it because you have never lied to me, but on this forum statements of 'fact' have to be backed up by evidence. Do you have a source for that other than your memory?

"STEPHANOPOULOS: Well, then they – but what gets lost there – wait a second, what gets lost there is that George Bush did oppose a patient's bill of rights in the state of Texas. And he did – and he's not for the Dingell/Norwood bill." Source: http://www.alternet.org/story.html?StoryID=10988

"But in reality, Bush fought both tooth and nail. He vetoed the patient's bill of rights when it first came up, in 1995, and then in 1997, faced with a likely veto-proof majority, he let it pass without his signature. Republican state senators on the floor of the state Senate complained that Bush's key staffer was trying to sabotage the bill." Source: http://dir.salon.com/politics/feature/2000/10/05/lies/index.html

You know for a 'fact' that he only thought about it for 15 minutes? And if it is fact, is that wrong? The person has been through a trial and a series of appeals. Especially in well publicized cases of heinous crimes, why do you need 'days' to decide that someone is deserving of the death penalty? Can you provide info on this 'serial killer' and the decision? I've never heard this accusation before.

"On June 27, 1998 Governor George W. Bush spared Henry's life because of overwhelming evidence proving that Henry was not in Texas when "Orange Socks" was murdered. Although Lucas confessed to killing her, work records and a cashed paycheck indicated he was in Florida at the time of the murder. Bush issued the reprieve on the recommendation of the state parole board. "I can only thank them for believing the truth and having guts enough for standing up for what's right," Lucas said from death row. "Henry Lee Lucas is unquestionably guilty of other despicable crimes which he has been sentenced to spend the rest of his life in prison," said Bush, in Brownsville for a conference of U.S.-Mexico border state governors. "However, I believe there is enough doubt about this particular crime that the state of Texas should not impose its ultimate penalty by executing him." Source: http://www.houseofhorrors.com/lucas.htm

Lucas had also gone through the lengthy Texas appeals process.

That seems quite evident. No further proof is required, but if you don't mind telling - Who did you vote for?

I wrote in John McCain.

Principle? McCain? Only if you are not ascribing Republican principles to him. He is one of the most anti liberty Senators to carry the GOP label. He is a smoking nazi. He is in favor of gun control. He wrote the unconstitutional campaign finance reform law. The Democrats wanted him to run. What does that tell you about his 'principles'?

It doesn't change my mind. I agreed with him on those issues.

It's okay for clinton to get oral sex and force himself on women and lie about - AND GET DISBARRED OVER IT, and that's okay. But Bush reminds you of a 'fraternity boy'? As I said earlier, I am an established Bush basher - for his policies. Your complaints are merely sophomoric. I repeat my earlier question: Are you sure that you are on the right forum?

Clinton lied about getting oral sex, sure. Nobody will argue with you on that...not even the Democrats. However, Bush has a couple of DUIs under his belt. Cheney has one too. I don't trust a man to run the country who has twice been sanctioned for driving while drunk. Sorry. Those are my "principles" rearing their ugly head. I'm the daughter of an alcoholic. I know how alcoholics are...I know all the lies and B.S. stories...and the excuses. I don't trust them.

Revenge? For what? For winning? Or are you one of those who don't understand the Electoral College and thinks he stole the election?

No, I think they feel it's revenge for the 8 year Clinton-hating orgy that distracted lawmakers on both sides from the business of running the country.

Bush has the House and nominal control of the Senate and he is still giving the Dems a lot of what they want. Clinton fought Congress every step of the way and the few things that we got - Welfare Reform, for one - he promised to undo as soon as he could. Clinton didn't give the GOP anything.

Yes he did. The GOP swept into power in the House in 1994 and that power has not yet been threatened. That's a huge gift.

Why did you pull the post by 'Jack Lambert Fan" (#246)?

It wasn't offensive, rude, racist, or violent?

It was directed to me and it didn't bother me. I just haven't had time to respond yet.

Please let me know.

"That is so interesting about their response to Hillary."

I thought so too. I thought that the left loved Hillary.

"I know a woman (blond as can be) who went undercover to the biggest mosque in America in Detroit..."

Now, that IS brave!

"I don't agree that the question should have even been asked. Personally, I don't care if he screwed Monica Lewinsky or not. Had it been Reagan or Bush instead of Clinton, I still wouldn't have cared."

Maybe you don't care because you weren't the paintiff in the suit. His pattern of behavior is most cetainly relevant to the case. If it hadn't been, he wouldn't have been fined and disbarred.

""STEPHANOPOULOS: Well, then they ? but what gets lost there ? wait a second, what gets lost there is that George Bush did oppose a patient's bill of rights in the state of Texas. And he did ? and he's not for the Dingell/Norwood bill." Source: http://www.alternet.org/story.html?StoryID=10988

"But in reality, Bush fought both tooth and nail. He vetoed the patient's bill of rights when it first came up, in 1995, and then in 1997, faced with a likely veto-proof majority, he let it pass without his signature. Republican state senators on the floor of the state Senate complained that Bush's key staffer was trying to sabotage the bill." Source: http://dir.salon.com/politics/feature/2000/10/05/lies/index.html"

You and your sources agree that he opposed the bills (and it sounds like I would too), but I don't see where he said that he supported them. If I missed it and it was a lie. It's wrong. I don't condone it.

"On June 27, 1998 Governor George W. Bush spared Henry's life because of overwhelming evidence proving that Henry was not in Texas when "Orange Socks" was murdered. Although Lucas confessed to killing her, work records and a cashed paycheck indicated he was in Florida at the time of the murder. Bush issued the reprieve on the recommendation of the state parole board. "I can only thank them for believing the truth and having guts enough for standing up for what's right," Lucas said from death row. "Henry Lee Lucas is unquestionably guilty of other despicable crimes which he has been sentenced to spend the rest of his life in prison," said Bush, in Brownsville for a conference of U.S.-Mexico border state governors. "However, I believe there is enough doubt about this particular crime that the state of Texas should not impose its ultimate penalty by executing him." Source: http://www.houseofhorrors.com/lucas.htm

Lucas had also gone through the lengthy Texas appeals process."

It sounds like everyone agrees that this man did not do the killing that he confessed to and for which he was sentenced to death. If he wasn't sentenced to death for the other crimes that he was accused of and either confessed or was convicted of, why shouldn't the sentence be commuted from death to life in prison? He (the convict) sounds like a dispicable human (or sub-human), but under our criminal justice system, we don't execute people for crimes that they didn't commit.

You really are stretching to come up with valid complaints against Bush. And in case you missed it - I am not a Bush fan.

"I wrote in John McCain."

It doesn't surprise me.

"It doesn't change my mind. I agreed with him on those issues."

This doesn't surprise me either. That's why I questioned your presence here. McCain is hardly the ideal of conservatism.

"Clinton lied about getting oral sex, sure. Nobody will argue with you on that...not even the Democrats. However, Bush has a couple of DUIs under his belt."

I heard (possibly true) rumors of ONE DUI some years ago BEFORE he quit drinking, but now you have proof of TWO? I'd like to see it.

"Cheney has one too."

Proof please.

"I don't trust a man to run the country who has twice been sanctioned for driving while drunk.

If true, (and does time since a DUI and a change in lifestyle and behavior mean anything or are we condemned as 'sinners' forever) a DUI is a misdemeanor which doesn't rise to the level of impeachment (to borrow a phrase).

"Sorry. Those are my "principles" rearing their ugly head. I'm the daughter of an alcoholic. I know how alcoholics are...I know all the lies and B.S. stories...and the excuses. I don't trust them."

I'm the son of a drunk. So what? Since you are projecting your anger based on your experience, perhaps if you had someone cheating on you with every woman he could get his hands on, you'd be as angry at lying philanderers as you profess to be at lying drunks. Besides, Bush changed his behavior. Clinton didn't, hasn't, and likely never will. My principles tell me to trust a man who 'repents' more than one who doesn't.

"No, I think they feel it's revenge for the 8 year Clinton-hating orgy that distracted lawmakers on both sides from the business of running the country.

Do you get your talking points from the DNC? That sounds so much like "The people's business" that clinton always claimed to be doing. It's BS. And besides, I rather like when the Congress is tied up and not passing laws. When they 'work', it generally costs us both freedom and money. Let them be tied up all year for all I care.

Yes he did. The GOP swept into power in the House in 1994 and that power has not yet been threatened. That's a huge gift."

That wasn't his intention so it was hardly a gift.

One bright spot, when I mentioned Hillary, there was almost a spontaneous expression of hope that she would just go away. As a candidate, they all thought that she had too many negatives and drew the most intense reactions and that she could sink the democrats chances of taking back the White House.

This is the most interesting thing I have heard in a while

Jim,

I'm not sure that you will take this in the manner intended, but here goes.

I did not set to write a report. I was curious about who was supporting Clark and why. If I am 'guilty' of anything, it is in not disclosing everything, but I didn't lie to you or anyone else there. I am not committed to voting for Bush or even the GOP. I WILL NOT vote for any of the Democrats, but I just don't know who will get my vote. It all depends on how much Bush continues to violate what he professed to be core values that he does share with me.

I am a libertarian/conservative. More accurately a Constitutionalist. My view of government is for a very limited role into the lives of it's citizens. No forced charity, no social engineering. When government is confined to it's rightful role, people can thrive and succeed and government handouts are not needed. There isn't a single Democrat candidate that shares those beliefs and thus I could never vote for them.

As for Clark, I stand by my prediction that he will be the next president along with Hillary as VP - for two years. His military career, from what I've read has been less than stellar. He isn't highly thought of by the command staff or the troops under him. I take an opposite view of his 'brilliance' in Kosovo. He almost started WWIII by ordering British troops to attack the Russians when they didn't do what he wanted them to do. Some brilliance. He was part and parcel of the violation of US law by supplying military equipment and training to federal LEOs to be used at Waco, Texas. Have you heard of Posse Comitatas?

He lists his Economics degree as a source of pride. He'd be better to delete it and then he wouldn't be viewed as harshly for the ridiculous comments that he has made regarding basic economics. Did you hear his response last night to the question by the (son of rich people) college student who complained about high taxes? He responded by saying that he was going to raise taxes. Not only didn't it address the kid's concerns, it was contrary to all sound economic thinking. It also shows that he doesn't listen. He just wanted to get his message out. He heard 'taxes' and he jumped on it. Do you remember when I said that all candidates are coached to do this? And you say that he is doing a good job and getting better. I think not.

There is more, but it would only appear to be beating the proverbial horse who was already taken off life support.

BTW, the Toomey meetup were in the City of Pittsburgh and in Ross Township - both strongly democrat areas. And while those meeting were going on, other Toomey meetups were as well in other areas. We know we have an uphill battle against a 4 term incumbent, but we are also quite optimistic about our chances for success.

I'm understand that you feel misled. I believed that everyone would be less guarded if you didn't know who I was and I was right. Before you condemn me, remember that real reporters do this all the time in many different situations to see what really goes on on the 'inside'. They go so far as to get hired as employees. I am not a reporter. That's probably obvious. It was only after I got home that night that I decided to write it up and even then I didn't expect the attention that it got.

I do remember your comments and I do appreciate your sincere condolences. I didn't question it then or even now. As I repeatedly said, I was treated graciously. Perhaps nothing would have been different had I disclosed what I was doing. We'll never know.

In talking to a friend about the other night and your email to me, he made a suggestion on how to make it up to you if you are interested.

I conduct a monthly meeting in the North Hills. It is my job to determine the topic. If you want, I will turn a meeting over to you. You pick the topic and your group and mine can debate it. Just tell me what you want to talk about and give me two weeks notice so that I can publicize it. Bring as many people as you want. All I ask is that you tell me how many so that I can get an appropriate size room. I normally have 25 or 30 people and use the smaller of the two rooms. The most we can accomodate is about 60 or 70. It's the first Wednesday of the month. This offer will expire January 5th. You can reply here or use the email that I listed Monday night. All my personal info was real.

A final note - - Your post was pulled and I don't know why. I'm trying to get an answer to that and get it put back up.

"This is the most interesting thing I have heard in a while."

Isn't it, though? It surprised me too. But I still don't think that she or Bill are ever going to go away. Ever.

Jim,

I meant to say that you can accept the offer up until January 5th. We can schedule you for January, February, or March 2004.

Or you can send someone 'undercover' to a regular meeting of mine. Or send someone to a Toomey meetup. Those are posted at meetup.com. We will not be having a December meetup because of Christmas. We have new people all of the time so a new face won't be obvious.

Maybe you don't care because you weren't the paintiff in the suit. His pattern of behavior is most cetainly relevant to the case. If it hadn't been, he wouldn't have been fined and disbarred.

It was never proven that he sexually assaulted Paula Jones, and Monica Lewinsky was a very willing participant. So he lied about getting some nooky on the side. So what?

You and your sources agree that he opposed the bills (and it sounds like I would too), but I don't see where he said that he supported them. If I missed it and it was a lie. It's wrong. I don't condone it.

He said he did during his campaign. You have to read the whole story and maybe do a little research of your own (gasp). I don't waste hours doing research for people that call me a liar.

It sounds like everyone agrees that this man did not do the killing that he confessed to and for which he was sentenced to death. If he wasn't sentenced to death for the other crimes that he was accused of and either confessed or was convicted of, why shouldn't the sentence be commuted from death to life in prison? He (the convict) sounds like a dispicable human (or sub-human), but under our criminal justice system, we don't execute people for crimes that they didn't commit.

There were many people that came before Henry Lee Lucas that Bush allowed to be executed...many with evidence of innocence that was just as clear-cut. Henry Lee Lucas was only tried and sentenced on the one count, but he is known to have committed at least 20 murders between Texas and Illinois. So...of every single condemned man that comes before him, the white trash serial killer who may or may have not murdered Orange Socks but who CERTAINLY killed dozens of other women warms his heart, but people like Gary Graham, who I do NOT think was actually guilty, goes to the death chamber. It's arbitrary and stupid. Henry Lee Lucas was a sick, twisted serial killer and was one of the men on Texas's death row that deserved it the MOST...yet Bush commutes his sentence to life. At the time, I thought it REEKED...and I still do.

You really are stretching to come up with valid complaints against Bush. And in case you missed it - I am not a Bush fan.

LOL...sure, keep telling yourself that.

This doesn't surprise me either. That's why I questioned your presence here. McCain is hardly the ideal of conservatism.

I'll vote for who I want, when I want. I don't care what you think or whether you think I deserve to be here.

I heard (possibly true) rumors of ONE DUI some years ago BEFORE he quit drinking, but now you have proof of TWO? I'd like to see it.

Sorry, I confused Bush's number of DUIs with Cheney's. Cheney has two. Bush has one.

Proof please.

I thought this was common knowledge. Next you'll be asking me to prove that the sky is blue. This is the last time I will obtain proof for you. Next time, you will have to do your own research.

"Cheney got a union job laying power lines in the blue-collar town of Rock Springs, Wyo. He stayed in constant touch with Lynne, who was in college in Colorado; he had had to endure teasing from Plotkin for writing her almost daily from Yale. On occasion, he drank too much—a practice that led to two DUI arrests within a year. Cheney told Nicholas years later that the arrests motivated him to get his career on track." Source: http://www.time.com/time/personoftheyear/2002/poycheney2.html

If true, (and does time since a DUI and a change in lifestyle and behavior mean anything or are we condemned as 'sinners' forever) a DUI is a misdemeanor which doesn't rise to the level of impeachment (to borrow a phrase).

Drunk drivers kill thousands of people every year. I don't consider it a minor transgression.

I'm the son of a drunk. So what? Since you are projecting your anger based on your experience, perhaps if you had someone cheating on you with every woman he could get his hands on, you'd be as angry at lying philanderers as you profess to be at lying drunks. Besides, Bush changed his behavior. Clinton didn't, hasn't, and likely never will. My principles tell me to trust a man who 'repents' more than one who doesn't.

I don't know that he changed his behavior. There have been lots of pictures of him drinking published since he was elected. Bush is every bit the unrepentant liar that Clinton was.

Do you get your talking points from the DNC? That sounds so much like "The people's business" that clinton always claimed to be doing. It's BS. And besides, I rather like when the Congress is tied up and not passing laws. When they 'work', it generally costs us both freedom and money. Let them be tied up all year for all I care.

Why don't we just throw out the whole system and have a dictatorship?

"It was never proven that he sexually assaulted Paula Jones, and Monica Lewinsky was a very willing participant. So he lied about getting some nooky on the side. So what?"

I'll go slow so that you can follow along. Paula Jones made the accusation against Clinton. Over the years there were other allegations. There was a pattern of conduct. In front of the grand jury and a Federal judge, he lied. Don't you know by now that the cover up is usually perceived to be worse than the deed being covered up? Because he lied, he was disbarred. Because he lied, he was fined. He agreed to pay Paula Jones $900,000.00. You don't pay that kind of money if you aren't guilty. If you pay ten grand to save on lawyer's fees, maybe you aren't guilty. But not 900 grand.

"He said he did during his campaign. You have to read the whole story and maybe do a little research of your own (gasp). I don't waste hours doing research for people that call me a liar."

I didn't watch every minute of his campaign. I don't know his Texas history. I didn't call you a liar, I just followed standard FR practice - if you make a claim here, you are the one that has to back it up.

"There were many people that came before Henry Lee Lucas that Bush allowed to be executed...many with evidence of innocence that was just as clear-cut.

Then I suggest that you either run for governor so that you can make those decisions or get on the board that makes the recommendations. Do you also believe that Mumia (the convicted cop-killer in Philadelphia) is innocent too?

"Henry Lee Lucas was only tried and sentenced on the one count,..."

It sounds like the prosecution screwed up if he 'was known' to have killed other people in Texas, but was only tried for one death. You may not like it, but if he wasn't guilty of that crime, he can't be executed for it.

"...but he is known to have committed at least 20 murders between Texas and Illinois."

Perhaps the other states will try him and execute him after he gets out of his Texas prison cell, which would be after he dies. If he is already away for the rest of his life, I doubt that anyone else will expend the money to convict him again. Bitch about the prosecutor. From what you describe, Bush had no other choice.

So...of every single condemned man that comes before him, the white trash serial killer who may or may have not murdered Orange Socks but who CERTAINLY killed dozens of other women warms his heart, but people like Gary Graham, who I do NOT think was actually guilty, goes to the death chamber. It's arbitrary and stupid. Henry Lee Lucas was a sick, twisted serial killer and was one of the men on Texas's death row that deserved it the MOST...yet Bush commutes his sentence to life. At the time, I thought it REEKED...and I still do."

What possible reason could he have for commuting his sentence? The man will spend the rest of his miserable life in prison. He's not going to be contributing to any of Bush's campaigns. He certainly didn't win your affection and likely not any one else's heart. He must have seen pretty convincing evidence that the death penalty was wrong in this particular case. Didn't he also not commute the sentence of the woman that killed her husband and girlfriend when she caught them in bed together? This is the woman that 'gave her life to Jesus' while and prison. She didn't ask for leniency, but others did on her behalf. He did the right thing by letting the execution go forward. Do you remember that case? Did you agree with him then?

You need to cool off some of your emotions and look at the facts dispassionately.

"LOL... sure, keep telling yourself that."

Still not very convincing.

"I'll vote for who I want, when I want. I don't care what you think or whether you think I deserve to be here."

I'm sure that you will, but you better only do it on election day. I'm not sure that you don't care because you keep coming back. I didn't say that you didn't 'deserve' to be here. I just questioned if a conservative forum was the right place for you. You don't display many conservative traits.

"Sorry, I confused Bush's number of DUIs with Cheney's. Cheney has two. Bush has one.

Apology accepted.

"I thought this was common knowledge. Next you'll be asking me to prove that the sky is blue. This is the last time I will obtain proof for you. Next time, you will have to do your own research.

Again, you made the claim. You have to support it.

"Cheney got a union job laying power lines in the blue-collar town of Rock Springs, Wyo. He stayed in constant touch with Lynne, who was in college in Colorado; he had had to endure teasing from Plotkin for writing her almost daily from Yale. On occasion, he drank too much?a practice that led to two DUI arrests within a year. Cheney told Nicholas years later that the arrests motivated him to get his career on track." Source: http://www.time.com/time/personoftheyear/2002/poycheney2.html"

DUI while Cheney was in college? My God, that was 40 years ago and even your source says that it motivated him to change his life. I'd say that it did as he as been rather productive and successful since.

"Drunk drivers kill thousands of people every year. I don't consider it a minor transgression."

Stupid sober drivers kill many more. Neither Bush nor Cheney killed anyone. You're making those leaps again. Not everyone who drinks kills people. Ted Kennedy has. But not Bush or Cheney.

"I don't know that he changed his behavior. There have been lots of pictures of him drinking published since he was elected. Bush is every bit the unrepentant liar that Clinton was."

BARBRA STRIESAND! Because you see him with a glass of liquid in his hand at a dinner, you accuse him of drinking and by extension still driving drunk. You are pathological in your hatred too.

"Why don't we just throw out the whole system and have a dictatorship?"

Where did that come from? You need to talk to someone about your emotional outbursts. It's not healthy. Congress spends too much. It's a fact. If they are tied up in impeachment proceedings, then they can't spend more money. BTW, Congress is charged with that duty. It's in the Constitution. Do you need me to send you a copy?

Badray: You really are stretching to come up with valid complaints against Bush. And in case you missed it - I am not a Bush fan.

Pedanic_Lady:LOL...sure, keep telling yourself that.

LOL ! I know Badray and have had NUMEROUS debates about Bush since he was elected. BELIEVE ME ! I can verify his statement ! Maybe you could do some browsing through the archives and look at some of his posts - you might be dining on crow !