|
And now the NEXT Republican Congressional scandal: Randy Cunningham
http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/11/....ap/index.html
Quote:
Some thoughts: 1) It is, and remains, a BAD time to be a Republican. 2) I'm glad to see these dirty, dirty guys get their comeuppance at last. 3) What other rats are in the woodwork? If you can get $2.4 mil for being a senior but not particularly prominent Representative, what can a senior Senator get? Or somebody who chairs a committee or three? You KNOW there are other members of congress who are equally on the take. |
I think it is safe to say that the Republicans to not have a strangle hold on corruption. It's just good to see those who are corrupt get caught, regardless of their political affiliation.
|
Quote:
|
I am very curious as to what Cunningham provided in return. It would be interesting to know what defense contracts Wade may have been awarded during his relationship with Cunningham.
I also agree with Charlatan that slimy politicians can be found in both parties. |
Quote:
We Republicans like to get rid of our bad apples when they are discovered. When it became apparent that the Gov of Il was a crook (and FINALLY indited long after) he was forced to not run again. He paid back the republican party by torpedoing any chance of a Republican in that next election and was a vocal critic of the party. It may have cost us the governorship (first time since the 70's) to a little shit union pawn, but we won't tolerate that type of person in office. Basically Ratbastid all you wanted to do was say 'Republicans Suck' and thats a fine thread I'm sure but its a repeat and you should do a board search. |
Every decent man is ashamed of the government he lives under. (H. L. Mencken)
Corruption crosses party lines. Don't fool yourself into thinking that this is uncommon or restricted to a certain political ideology. |
I found more information on Wade in the full AP article:
http://www.truthout.org/docs_2005/112805X.shtml Quote:
|
Quote:
Yeah. That's why Brownie stayed on the payroll for months after bungling Katrina, and that's why Cheney hasn't had his ass kicked out of office for trying to get authorization to torture people. If you like to get rid of your bad apples, you have a long way to go. |
It's funny how when reps get busted they are quick to point out that dishonesty exists on both sides but if we are talking about Clinton....
That said, I'm all for giving Washington an enema and taking out all of the garbage. The people need to stand up once and for all that we will not tolerate corruption from out leaders. |
This saddens me.
I've grown up around people who greatly admired Randal Cunningham. Being the first American Ace of Vietnam, he was a great man in the pilot community, and grealy respected by everyone else. Not only that, but he took bribes in none other than military contract firms. You'd think this would be the one place where he keeps his morals. Unfortunately he was corrupted, and he needs to get out of government. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
From the Wall Street Journal Editorial Page: Quote:
How is it, while we are, as the POTUS claims, in a state of "war", that Scooter Libby was reported to have missed a daily staff meeting...on the day before he was indicted, because he was attending a "security briefing"? Quote:
Elphaba....here is a report of MZM contracts, and some other interesting points in the same article...... Quote:
|
I don't see any reason other than an "in your face" to say "the NEXT republican blah blah blah." All of you guys really should know better. Dems and repubs are both equally liable to be involved in scandals. So kindly knock of the "you did/they did" shit or the thread is closed. |
Lebell, I believe that the equal culpability of dems and repubs has been well covered in this topic. It is Ustwo, and his typical commentary that deserves your attention. Please tell me that you are not going to close ANOTHER thread due to a Ustwo diversion of the usual kind?
|
From one who just read this thread for the first time, it looks like it to me. I'm starting to see a pattern.
|
This is just utterly astonishing, unbelievable, unimaginable . . . . this has got to be the biggest and most ballsy, shameless payoff arrangment in the entire history of this country. Seriously, has there been anything comparable to this? Ever, by any political party? The total amount that he admitted funnelling was $163 million in just a period of two years, to just one defense contractor, who then gets a chunk of that money back to Cunningham in various ways, e.g. by buying his house at a ridiculously inflated price. I'm dumbfounded that Cunningham could have done this at this scale and gotten away with it for so long.
So the questions this raises are: Why didn't other lawmakers on the appropriations committees see that the same defense company was getting contracts over and over again? How did Cunningham ensure that "his" defense contractor get so much money, for so many vaguely worded projects? What oversights are there in the defense appropriations process? WHY WAS IT SO EASY FOR HIM TO DO THIS? The fact that he got caught is not relevant, it wasn't any evidence from the appropriations committee that caught him, it was his house sale that gave him away. It seems to me that there needs to be a serious "accounting" of the oversight procedures involved in defense appropriations in this country. If Cunningham could do something like this at this unbelievable scale, then I'm sure there are many others doing the same thing at a smaller scale. It is detestable that somebody at this high a level of government could have conceived and carried out such a thing, but it should be deeply disturbing that it was even possible. It really makes you wonder how deep the corruption really goes in our government. I hope this story and those like it sends record numbers of voters to the polls next November. The balls this guy had . . . . . . :crazy: |
Quote:
When someone makes a statement that is patently false (republicans get rid of bad apples) the group should be allowed to call that statement out. I brought up Brown and Cheney because those are two glaringly obvious bad apples that are not being gotten rid of. Ustwo was trying to paint the picture of the virtuous, noble republican party because they got rid of this particular bad apple. But when they allow crooked warhawks who mired our country into Vietnam 2 to remain in office, getting rid of a guy that took a few bribes doesn't exactly restore them to the light. That of course doesn't even bother to point out that the guy pled guilty in district court. Not before congress. But in court. It wasn't a partisan purge here where the republicans got him - This is a justice system catch, not a republican catch. |
What's more, you can't help but notice the pattern here:
DeLay Frist Libby (Alledgedly) Rove Now Cunningham NONE of these bad apples have been outed by their fellow Republicans. In fact, the GOP has done nothing but stonewall and delay action and investigation against these individuals. I'm not saying the Repubs have the market cornered on corruption, not by any means. But it's a patent falsehood to spin this as the Party policing itself. Prominent members of the Party have been caught with their hand DEEP in the cookie jar, and we're headed very soon into campaign season, and however you slice it, it's embarassing. Naturally, conservatives are interested in spinning this as hard and fast as they can spin it. |
Quote:
My post was directed at ALL those who are choose to make it an "us vs them" thread and those who are might turn it personal. Ratbastid as much as said so when he said something about the "moral party". If that continues/happens, then yes, I will close the thread, just like I have closed threads that were nothing but Democrat bashing threads or insult threads. Let's not kid ourselves. This forum is rife with little digs at the other side. It is polarized beyond believe to the point where the rest of TFP avoids it at all costs. Frankly, I hate that. I wish we could discuss the issues without letting our prejudices speak for us, (occasionally ad naseum) but I am beginning to believe that for some of us, that's impossible. So maybe it's best that those sorts of posts gravitate and live here in "Politics". That doesn't however mean that I will like them or won't close them. |
Quote:
You don't LIKE republicans, I don't care, but we are talking about good old fashioned corruption here, making money directly off your office, and yes we get rid of them. Alligations do not equal guilt, and your examples have nothing to do with the topic at hand. |
Quote:
Now wait a second. The republicans do bill themselves as the moral party. The moral majority. They've been claiming the high moral ground in politics for years. If they want to do that, then they'd better make damn sure they're squeaky clean because it sure is ironic that the party of morals spawns politicians who are as morally bankrupt as Cunningham. I see nothing wrong with pointing out the incongruity. If you want to shut down all "us vs. them" threads, you may as well shut down the politics forum, because by definition over 90% of politics is "us vs. them." If however, you want to foster political debate in here, then you have to expect the one side to jump on the other when they screw up. I don't know how many threads I've seen in here where the republican side has been gleefully bashing Clinton, and nothing's been done. If dredging up history in order to bash the democrats is OK, then why is it not OK to use current events to point out republican flaws? As for people avoiding this forum. . . well. . OK. I avoid Trampoline because it doesn't interest me. Are you suggesting that you should rush in there and make drastic changes to the atmosphere in that forum because some users might not be interested in going in there? Some of us like a good rousing debate. That's why we're here. And the politics forum seems pretty active to me - I see new posts in it just about every time I drop by the TFP. And Ustwo, my apologies. I see what you're saying now. You define a bad apple ONLY as someone who did exactly what Cunningham did. Anyone else doing anything wrong is still not a bad apple and therefore doesnt' need to be dealt with by those in power. So we can have the 2nd in command demanding that we torture people and that's OK because at least he didn't get any kickbacks from it. And we can have either Scooter, Cheney, or someone else high up in the white house leak the identity of an undercover agent, thereby potentially getting that agent and everyone that agent talked to killed, but at least they didn't make any cash from it, so they're OK too. I get it now. but BTW you guys still didn't take care of Cunningham - the courts did it for you. |
Quote:
Quote:
|
It is in the nature of every politics board on the internet to have people agrue....and it is expected, if not needed. I would personally ask one thing of every member in here though.....
Please do not push the debate to the borders of the flame, this is what I think Lebell is getting at here. I have noted it as well, but most here are skilled enough to post in such a way that we, as moderators, cant quite call them on it. But it does make the "other" side react (as I believe was the intent), and creates a less than condusive to debate, atmosphere. Sometimes a single word can make a difference.....such as in the title of this thread: The next congressional scandal...vs.....the next republican congressional scandal....likely the former would get more readers....and the post itself will tell the story. All I am trying to say is....lets work together to improve the flow of this board...it belongs to us all. |
I was reading that article earlier and was encouraged by the possibility that voters might do a thorough house cleaning of all politicians with sticky fingers, irrespective of party. I suspect 2006 will be a very interesting year.
|
Quote:
Seems to me a good yardstick would be whether the accusation is true or not. This IS a republican congressional scandal. Why is it wrong to say so? As I said earlier, the republicans profess to be the party of morality. Fine, but then when they get themselves into a scandal, I don't see what the problem is with pointing it out. The point of this thread was NOT to say congress had yet another scandal. It was to say the party that for years now has had a wondreful time beating the crap out of everyone else over morality issues isn't so moral itself. I could understand moderator intervention if the OP had then generalized - i.e "all republicans are crooks." But the OP did no such thing and in fact when wondering about possible other crooks, talked about members of congress, and did NOT specify a party. As the OP said, it IS a bad time to be a republican because a whole lot of republicans are turning out to be crooks. That's simply the truth. And neither the OP nor any reasonable person would say that this means ALL republicans are crooks (even though the public is likely to associate republicans with crooks if enough of them turn out to be crooked). It's not a flame or a slam if you're just reporting the facts, even if the facts put a particular party in a negative light. |
Quote:
I made no mention of "Right..or Wrong", I simply made a request....in an attempt to help the board. It is not a mandate....just a suggestion. |
Quote:
Quote:
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
Quote:
Quote:
|
Quote:
Quote:
And I see you're dredging up Clinton again. The guy, btw, who was NOT convicted of anything. Why would you be doing that if not to attempt to distract from the real topic in here? Or are you just slinging mud? |
This is going somewhere quickly.
|
Ya think? :)
|
What about Noe, Taft, the whole damned Ohio GOP? And those tentacles go all the way to the White House.
I can't wait for Noe to cop a plea and talk about the slush funds. He didn't turn himself in, he ran to Florida. The Ohio GOP worked hard to cover that up, until they could no longer hide the fact $50 MILLION was missing and had been given to Noe to invest in baseball cards and rare coins. Quote:
And you have to love this instead of the politicians giving the money back to thepeople and making sure it gets into the WOrkers Comp pool where it came from.......... They are rebating it to charity. So fuck the taxpayers in Ohio, we'll rebate the money to charities where I have a feeling they'll get tax write offs....... very moral.. + .. what the majority of people would do I guess.. = .. Moral Majority .. I get it now. And you have to love Blackwell who kept the illegally gotten funds political by giving it to an anti-abortion group. At least Schwarzenegger just sent the money back to Noe. Ah yes the GOP they steal from the people's money and when caught still use it for themselves......... Quote:
So there's plenty of GOP scandals right now........ and they all seem to be interrelated somehow. All seem to go directly to the White House..... at least the 3 Wilkes, Noe and Abramoff seem to. |
Quote:
What I'm pointing to is more of a PR problem than a concern about who will actually end up behind bars. In the eyes of the majority of Americans, according to the polls, all five of those gentlemen are dirty as coal miners, and the perception is that there are more rats in the woodpile. Whether it's true or not, that perception is what the Repubs now have to deal with. Quote:
Quote:
I'm also not asserting that the Dems police themselves either, or that every single Democrat is squeaky-clean. Nobody has said that, either, I'm just heading off a likely target of moderator wrath. ;) |
Quote:
|
Quote:
We know you don't like republicans Ratbasid, no one is perfect, but come on. |
Quote:
I don't have a blanket hatred of Republicans, by the way, though I confess, you might not know that by my posts here. I'm registered Independant. To be perfectly honest, if the Repubs nominate McCain in 2008, I'll likely have a very hard time deciding how to cast my vote. Give me a Democrat who's a lying warmongering facist, and I'll oppose him just as strongly as I oppose the current administration. I know what I say here probably sounds pretty partisan (and I confess, the title of this thread was... not cool-headed of me), but it's the individual and their policy I object to, not their party affiliation. |
Guys, guys, guys - you are over complicating this entire issue. You are reading far longer than you need to read in order to determine morality.
You don't look at the letter BEHIND the name to determine if someone is immoral/corrupt. You simply look at the title in FRONT of the name. 'Rep.' or 'Sen.' are dead ringers for corruption. Bar NONE! Our system is set up such that only the corrupt will reach this level of government. I try not to associate the actions of politicians with their party - otherwise no party would suffice. |
when media outlets talk about politicians, or wannabe politicians, they include the campaign donation amounts raised (warchests). it takes money to get elected because we the people allow it to be that way. since money is the root of all evil, is it any wonder that we have this corruption in our elected branches?
|
Quote:
We Have a Winner! To me, saying that it is a new REPUBLICAN/DEMOCRAT scandal is like emphasizing your BLACK friend, when it is the scandal/friend that should be emphasized. I mean, googling "Democrat Scandal" returns over 3,740,000 hits, and I know at least a few of them are the real deal. Hell, we just had a Dem state rep self implode with an illicit affair and possession of meth. And do I even have to drag the Chicago Democrat corruption into the picture. My position is that a vast number of politicians are crooked because the power that comes with the position appeals to the less than virtuous and can also corrupt those with less than stellar morals. |
I think the only reason we are seeing more Republican corruption at the moment is that they are the party in power. The reverse is just as likely to be true if the Dems were in power. Why throw money at someone that can't do anything for you?
"Lobbyist" is a term that is likely surpassing "personal injury lawyers" to describe bottom feeding behavior. :) |
Quote:
The Dem. Senator who ended up enlisting 12 State National Guard Soldiers, 2 trucks, and 2 heloes in order to get items out of his house during the flood instead of allowing them to rescue people. |
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
You're also hairsplitting over the meaning of "convicted." It has been proven that Clinton lied under oath. The Arkansas bar took away his license to practice law. Do you contest either of those? But I'm "slinging mud." Right. |
Quote:
Cunningham: Way guilty DeLay--a politician who really plays hardball, but he may not have broken any laws Frist--Probably guilty Libby and Rove--Trumped up charges over nothing. At least in the CIA spectacle. I can link to several articles that back up my opinion, but it's pretty much a waste of time, since everyone's mind is made up. I think Elphaba hit it on the head--The party in power gets bought off more than the minority party. Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
He was just one of the 5. And of course there's Liddy. And Nixon didn't break in, but after he found out about it he tried to cover it up. Quote:
BTW I said this about Clinton back when he was impeached. If the dumbass had just come out and either said "Yeah I did it. Sorry." or pulled an LBJ and said "none of your goddamn business if I did it or not" he'd not have been impeached. Politicians on both sides of the fence need to learn that they'll be in a lot less trouble if they just fess up to their failings than if they try and hide them. Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Yup. |
Shakran,
Good points and I do agree, Nixon would have been ok if he had just come clean and held those responsible, responsible. Clinton also. Both lied, both covered up. I have said many times, IMHO, Nixon was in some ways the best president in my lifetime, followed by Clinton. |
Quote:
|
I notice how everyone talks like there are only two choices of party. Become a Libertarian! Let's show the great evil two that they are no longer "all that"! The government is FULL of corruption on every side. The politicians are only in it for the money and the power! It is WE who need to remind them WHO THEY WORK FOR! The only way we can do that is to be aware of what is going on, write to our congress people and other politicians, and VOTE VOTE VOTE!
It is good to see people paying attention! |
Umm, killinspiders?
Partner, around these here parts, ya done threadjacked the topic. T'aint no killin' offense, but we shore do ask newcomers to town to read up on the rules and such. PS: Love your sig line. :) |
i don't try to foray into this forum too much but, in my humble opinion, Dwight David Eisenhower was the last republican president who upheld the ideals of his party...
|
Quote:
Happy birthday, "Duke"! It's great to see the GOP "stand by" even their extinguished members; the ones who plead guilty to compromising pentagon procurement of goods and services, for their own massive personal gain, during a time of war. You can view Duke's "presents" here: Quote:
Quote:
Please show us an argument that the oft demonized William Jefferson of N.O. has committed high crimes that rise to the level of Cunningham's or of this offense to our sensibilities: Quote:
The stench is coming predominently from the one party in power. The party that controls the decisions of who to investigate, and who to censure of to prosecute. Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
<b>I know....I know....I can read it already; host...yer posting toooo much information !!! I don't make this stuff up...</b>.and you have to know it to discuss what is going on, unless you post here to disrupt the threads. C'mon....buckle down...get up to speed....question and challenge whatever I might have wrong here. Is anyone else outraged, and of the belief that Hastert should resign.....now? Tell me again that this is all about "bi-partisan" corruption, in congress, in the white house, and in governor's mansions, all over the USA. That is what some of you....and much of the MSM, want the rest of us to believe. Your house speaker, Dennis Hastert, wants to keep the House of Representatives closed for an extra two weeks at the start of the 2006 session, so this scumbag can have a better shot at regaining his house majority "leader" spot. Two questions for Hastert: 1.) Dennis, do you read the newspapers, watch TV news, or surf the net? 2.) What does it say about you...when you back "leaders" in you house, and in your party, like Delay and Pombo? Some background....Bush fired the DOJ prosecutor, Mr. Black, who was investigating Abramoff's activities in the Northern Marianas in 2002. Karl Rove is said to have approved prosecutor Black's replacement. The replacement is a cousin of one the local politicians who Black was investigating, and the investigation ended. Congressman George Miller kept demanding that republican committee chairman Richard Pombo, launch an investigation into the Northern Marianas situation, and Pombo refused, until 5 months ago. Pombo received $326,100 in campaign contributions from Indian tribes, apparently via Abramoff. The Abramoff/Delay preservation of the Northern Marianas as a minimum wage/labor law exempt "sweat shop" zone, was reported to include these quotes by Delay and countered by republican senator Murkowski, who went to the Marianas to view the worker's conditions for himself. The "deal" is that garments made there can be labeled, "Made In USA", and thus garner higher prices than garments from other low wage countries. Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
Quote:
I will need to restate what I said earlier--the part about the "LARGE majority." Here's my source. I highlighted what I thought was particularly appropriate, although for accuracy, I will state that calling it a "majority" is inaccurate. Link Quote:
|
Quote:
No, and to paraphrase Politicophile, I will not put up with the current liberal hypocrisy, namely, that Bush should be removed from office for doing a tenth (maybe) of what Clinton got away with, namely, but not limited to: His "wife" trying to nationalize 17% of the nation's private economy through her heavy-handed plan for socialized medicine. Major Democratic campaign contributors sold and transfered vital American nuclear, missile, and satellite technology to avowed enemies of freedom, and of the United States. [This was the WORST offense, in my opinion, and I can't think of another politician particularly a president, who would have even CONSIDERED such a thing.] There were wholesale violations of basic campaign finance laws. Then we saw the Democrats and the Clintonistas engage in a concerted effort to make sure that none of these campaign finance law violations were subject to a serious criminal investigation. Five members of Clinton's Cabinet came under criminal investigation. Thirty-three connected to the Clinton administration were convicted of crimes. The Lincoln bedroom in the White House was turned into a high-priced five-star hotel almost 600 times, with the basic rate being a huge campaign donation to the Democrats. Seats on government overseas trade missions were sold to the highest bidders --- for campaign donations. Monica. The president groped and fondled a woman who came to him for help in securing a White House job --- wrapping up the sordid episode by taking her hand, and forcing it into his crotch. Forty-five witnesses in criminal investigations or critics of the Clinton administration were subjected to IRS audits. Five women who were said to have been associated with Bill Clinton complain publicly of physical threats having been made against them. Hillary Clinton issued a 42 paragraph sworn statement to a House investigating committee investigating Clinton wrongdoings, and in those 42 paragraphs, she used the phrase "I don't recall" or its equivalent no less than 50 times. Even Randy Cunningham didn't feed us THAT crap. Bill Clinton said "I don't recall" or its equivalent in portions of his testimony about Paula Jones 271 times. Other Clinton administration friends and officials said the words "I don't recall" or its equivalent a total of 6,125 times before various investigating committees --- for a grand forgetfulness average of 235 times per person. He lied under oath - several times. He used the powers of his office to obstruct justice and to deny a private American citizen her constitutionally guaranteed right to a day in court. American servicemen were scattered to nearly 100 foreign nations to serve as glorified cops, and cafeteria workers in various international "meals on wheels" schemes. Aspirin factories in foreign countries were bombed to divert attention from presidential scandals. Bodies of dead American servicemen were dragged through the streets of half assed inconsequential foreign dog-patch nations by mobs of people who aren't fit to utter the phrase, "would you like french fries with that." He agonized over what the definition of "is" is. He refused to personally respond to a very credible accusation of a violent rape. Almost one thousand confidential FBI files of those not friendly to the president's political agenda were gathered by former bar bouncers working in White House security positions --- with absolutely no consequences. [Yet people complain about the Patriot Act.] [My second-place winner of worst offenses] In 1996 the Democrats rushed to naturalize tens of thousands of [some sources say 650,000] illegal aliens, while ignoring the legal requirement for background checks, in time for them to vote Democratic in the election. In the process they included thousands of violent felons ... for their votes. There is also evidence that the perpetrators of 9/11 were allowed to enter the country then. ======================================================== I give credit to Neal Boortz for compiling this partial list. I give very little credit to Clinton for what he did during his term in office. |
Quote:
You've now done precisely what you were just accused of: rather than dealing with the issues in front of you, you've launched six-plus years back in time to drag the last president through the mud. It's a total non-sequitur, but it neatly changes the focus of the discussion. We're not TALKING about Clinton. He's on the lecture circuit now. Who the hell cares? We're talking about CURRENT malfeasance. The current round of felons happens to largely be Republican. But you're not interested in talking about THAT, are you? I'm now quite convinced you have no defense for your sullied golden boys. The only thing you can do is say, "Yeah, well..... Clinton!" |
Quote:
You reap what you sow. |
Host,
I have pretty much decided to pass on further discussion with you, but I cannot believe what you have said about corruption being somehow beholden to one party, specifically the Republicans. Quote:
http://boycottliberalism.com/Scandals.htm Quote:
This is a log of a Rush Limbaugh show. Interestingly, I believe it relates to what you have posted. http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1531544/posts Quote:
I already know you will not agree and that you feel Bush is the devil incarnate, but I simply could not let such a bald faced statement stand. |
Lebell, your response implies that you did not read, or if you did read, you did not consider the point in the first parts of my post:
http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showpos...2&postcount=53 You posted "bingo" earlier, as if it is obvious that we are currently experiencing a wave of "bi-partisan" scandal. It isn't obvious. We aren't. If you want to go back five years, ten, fifty, or one hundred, for the purpose of comparing scandals, propose doing that yourself. I compared what the talking points in the media today are, with the reality of the current situation. Quote Rush, quote a long list from a site that is sending out a smokescreen of "damage control" in response to current and recent MSM reports. They hardly rise to counter what I pointed out was coming from a WaPo reporter who had set a comparsion criteria of elected officials, federal and in governor's mansions, who had been tainted by corruptionj scandals <b>in the past year</b>. The point that he confirmed was that the current reports of scandals are so skewed towards current and very recent republican office holders, that <b>his editor had to depart from the comparison criteria of timeframe to add a fallen democrat whose scandal and resignation did not even take place in that time frame.</b> He admitted that a WaPo editor had inserted the out of timeframe democrat to balance the survey. Republican CT governor Rowland, who is currently in federal prison and resigned in the same timeframe as the democrat who was inserted "for balance", was not added to the survey. Rush Limbaugh and you seem to have a strikingly similar agenda.....a spin that we are currently in a period of bi-partisan scandal. I submit that this cannot be possible if the overwhelming majority of those recently indicted, convicted, or who have resigned, as well as those reported to be targets of criminal investigation, are of <b>one party</b>. I solicited posts that counter the premise that current and recently identified scandal suspects and convicts are overwhelmingly republican, and you resorted to targeting me personally, and citing Rush's talking points about past scandals. I suspect that you resorted to responding that way because that was all you had to go with. The American electorate has gotten as far down to the bottom of historical scandals as we are likely to get. The current ones need attention; if for no other reason, than to examine, via, as in the past, congressional ethics and other committee investigations where targets are subpoenaed and questioned under oath. Thus far, it is unprecedented that this process is not taking place. It is vital to find the depth and breadth of the dereliction of duty taking place, as the Cunningham guilty plea and to some extent, the Libby indictment, exemplify. How does a media that picks up and repeats Rush's talking points that highlight historic scandals, do anything but downplay and mislead us as to the seriousness of what prosecutors are investigating, and congress, the white house, and republican dominated state houses are not; so far, at least. I'm not talking about exaggeration by the media that would beat up on one party. I'm simply observing that the media is not calling it as it is unfolding in a contemporary setting......or do you, Lebell, think that it is fair to all of us that there are no ethics hearings taking place in congress, and no relevant committee investigations into activities like Cunningham's admission of taking $2.4 million in bribes to influence defense spending, or of Libby's and Rove's involvment in the deliberate outing of Plame? Will we get closer to dealing with current scandals and getting a sense of who is at fault by printing Rush's talking points as news, or by printing the survey linked early in my post that was accurate, but, in the view of a WaPo editor, needed an out of timeframe former democratice congressman named "Ballance", added to the survey in an attempt to "balance" it. Just like Rush's talking points, that WaPo editor's effort obscured the public's view to what is going on.....the scope of the scandals that justice must respond to...the ones that are relevant and where much is still unknown and can hurt the national security, finances, welfare, and integrity of the government. Lebell, you went around or missed my first question, here's another for you: How does....well....Bill Clinton wagged the dog in 1998, help us meet today's scandals head on.....identify and investigate them, exonerate or punish those accused, and fix the problems that are identified in the process? |
Host:
Replicrat........Demicon You are missing the point. the European monarchy have "kept it in the family", since Alexander the great. You may have forgotten that. The Elite has not. 36 of the 43 presidents are related. http://www.familyforest.com/Kerry_Bush_Cousins.html In fact most of the elite is of the royal families Politicians Actors CEO's http://www.wargs.com/political/ http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/...in604163.shtml http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2004/08/294770.shtml http://www.chickenmcnugget.com/pics/bushkerry.htm http://www.illuminati-news.com/royal-trees.htm Thought we were free of the criminal monarchs in 1776? We almost did it. The biggest difference is we have a new king every 4-8 years, rather then a lifetime. Is a criminal more or less of a criminal if he...... 1. is represented by an elephant...... 2. is represented by an ass....... |
Marv, you posted a lot of trash on Clinton but if we use the same stick the the conservitives on this board to measure (conviction not allegations or indictments) there is nothing on Clinton. So please point out where Clinton was convicted of wrong doing. Remember he was impeached by the house but not the senate. Please point out to me where Clinton was indicted? You can bitch all day long about Clinton giving evasive testimony but at least he was willing to testify under oath. It is easy not to have to give evasive testimony when you refuse to testify under oath.....
And lebell do you think a website called boycottliberalism.com might be a little biased? The scandals people are bringing up on the republican party are found on foxnews not killalltheevilconservatives.com. |
Quote:
The natural progression, after pointing out to Republicans that their party has egg on its face, is to be railroaded into a conversation about the ancient past. I'm checking, but... yep, that sure seems to be the natural progression. I've already addressed the "I hate republican's" (sic) thing. Any time you want to stop putting words in my mouth and engage in a substantive discussion of the issues would be just fine with me, Ustwo. Your endless stream of cheap shots does no honor to yourself or anyone else. |
Quote:
|
yet another lesson in "personal responsbility" republican style.
rule number 1: whenever and wherever scandal erupts that injures your side, any and all types of dissociation are permitted. correlate: it is preferred if the dissociation you choose to indulge dovetails with the talking points of that mighty conservative intellectual dynamo limbaugh (or another reactionary talking head take your pick--the characteristic feature of conservative politics is centrally co-ordinated talking points---this leaves the servility set with a number of talking heads to choose from--rifling through these options can be comfortably confused with thinking.) so now your dissociation has a structure. indulge at will. you might wonder about occaision. well, here's a scenario in q and a form that outlines a rationale for dissimulation conservative style: Q. what justifies dissociation? A. justification can be found via any disengenuous reading of material critical of the right---so you have a far right administration that generates scandal atop scandal.clearly any discussion of such scandal is carried out by people who are opposed to conservative politics. this oppostion cannot possibly have a rational basis. so it follows that opposition=hatred. so any and all critiques of bushworld, or of conservative politics in general, can be reduced to "you just hate republicans." from here, content-free non-discussion can be caried out across a series of facile one-liners. note: from an outside perspective, this line of reasoning can appear to be totally abject---from a conservative viewpoint, it is a simple mapping of servility from one space into another. because committment to right ideology is a matter of faith to begin with, argument occupies a secondary status. it can always be dispensed with. indulge projection---claim the following: there is nothing specific about conservative scandal--everyone and everything is involved with scandal--once you make this move, time, space, logic--all are unnecessary---what matters is dissolving conservative-generated scandal into a generalized morass. discussion becomes impossible. in the breakdown of discussion, conservatives find solace. by finding solace, they imagine victory. when confronted with yet another sequence of facts that appear to cast conservatives in a bad light, deploy your sense of being-persecuted. at all costs, refuse to accept any responsibility. why? because reality is often ugly. it is best to run away. |
Quote:
Host, I think that the point was made to those who want to hear. I understand that the majority of current scandals are related to the party in power, but my point was and is that this is nothing new. Is that reason not to investigate and prosecute? No. Nor do I think it is reason for this demonizing of Republicans. And on a last note, this "agenda" that you have now twice accused me of having regarding the Republicans belongs in Paranoia, not here. |
Quote:
I really don't care what Clinton did. Why? Because Clinton isn't in office any more. I'm getting awfully tired of you guys using Clinton to excuse everything Bush has done and is doing. It doesn't matter what Clinton did as far as whether or not it excuses what Bush is doing. Nothing Clinton could possibly have done gives Bush a free pass to do whatever wrongs he wants to do. The sooner the liberals get that through their heads the better. Yes, I did say liberals. The "conservatives" (btw, if you side with bush, you're not a conservative) already know that - they're just trying to bullshit the liberals to distract from the inadequacies of their president. Quote:
And second, you might want to stop there. You're displaying a shocking lack of knowledge about the healthcare system. Or are you suggesting that it's a much better system to have millions without insurance, millions more with inadequate coverage, and the rest of us largely dependant on HMO's who say things like cancer treatments are medically unnecessary, while at the same time companies across the country are struggling to meet mounting benefits costs? Quote:
And that's campaign CONTRIBUTORS. Saying that's Clinton's fault is rather like saying I'm guilty of murder because I met a murderer once. Let's get just a touch realistic in our arguments, shall we? Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
I'm cutting a bunch of the crap you wrote because it's just not worth replying to, but this one I HAD to address. Quote:
What planet are you on? Have you noticed we're at war in Iraq, with over 2000 soldiers dead, countless Iraqi civilians dead, many more from each side permanently maimed, and NOTHING to show for it as far as enhanced national security? Pot, meet kettle. Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Now, let's start getting grounded in reality. This idea that "well he did it so I should be able to do it" is complete and total horseshit, and anyone older than 8 who tries to use it should be ashamed of themselves. The crimes of another does not excuse the crimes of everyone else. Instead of responding to accusations of Bush's wrongdoing with "well HE DID IT TOOOO!" let's try and elevate our arguments beyond preadolescence and try actually responding to the facts in the accusations. |
Quote:
http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showthr...t=96647&page=1 http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showthr...t=96647&page=2 ......helps to illuminate the gulf that seperates us. That thread I linked above was sidetracked by your posts that advocated Victoria Toensing and her husband, Jospeph DiGenova as reliable sources on the subject of whether any law was broken in the "outing" of Valerie Plame. Toensing and DiGenova, both former federal prosecutors of conservative political sympathies, if this <a href="http://www.google.com/search?svnum=10&as_scoring=r&hl=en&ned=us&ie=UTF-8&q=fitzgerald+DiGenova+OR+toensing&btnmeta%3Dsearch%3Dsearch=Search+the+Web">link</a> is any indication, have polluted the internet with their unceasing propagandist self-promotion, masked as authoritative comment. It might even seem convincing as a "public service" message, if not for it's frequency and repetitiveness. Does it never occur to you, Lebell, to inventory all of your politcial opinions to assess how they have been influenced by other "Toensing/DiGenova style, talking point "Ops"? Do you think that your taking notice and then acting to distribute Toensing's "material, was a one-time incident in your continuous processing and filtering of current events and political information? Another example that comes to mind were our discussions of David Horowitz. When you post something on here as a citation, you end up "owning" it. How much slack did you cut for me, when I erroneously posted a fictional article from the whitehouse.org website. I apologized for my mistake as quickly as I could, in the sincerest way that I could convey via this medium. Did you let it go at that, or did you remind everyone about my whitehouse.org mistake, again, later? (To your credit, you soon deleted the post that contained that criticism, but you did not apologize for it, or for the Toensing referrals that you've made on other threads. I don't "hate Bush", and I don't "hate" conservatives or republicans. I attended a Southern Baptist sunday service this a.m. because it pleases my wife when I accompany her. I politely listened to a Bush supporter in our congregation, when we shared a noon meal after the service, as he stated that Bush has done everything right, except for secruing the borders and is now on the right track, there, too! I kept silent and smiled as he told us that the military acadmey where his son attends is rife with the influence of "atheist democrats". (All I could think of is the conservative christian takeover of the Air Force academy.) He went so far as to declare that christians were outnumbered and "put upon", here in America. What I "hate" Lebell, is hypocrisy, and the confident assertions of those who mistake popaganda and misinformation, for "fair and balanced" reporting. We are living on the other side of the '94 "Contract" that republicans used to take over the first branch of congress, on their way to a coup that now includes all three. They promised a higher standard, an ethical, moral, accountable government. Term limits..... How do any of those "promises" square with what has actually happened? Why are you not more outraged than I am? You drank their kool-ade, and you apparently still have some appetite for more of it. On the ride home earlier, I asked my wife what she thought that southern baptists, since theri break from other American baptists, in 1845, have been right about? They believed that "the bible says", it is not a sin for one race to enslave another. Segregation was not a sin. Relegating women to a subservient role, of "submitting" to their husband, and demonizing homosexuals, is all in a day's work for these folks. I'll put the question to you , Lebell, what have you been right about as far as the war in Iraq, and about Bush's and his congress's other policies and actions. Was the new $95 billion tax cut passed by the house last week, as the debt grows, Iraq festers, N.O. rots, Bush rants on endlessly about "staying the course", and Hastert pushes back the start of the "peoples' business" in the next congress by two weeks, next month, in an effort to accomodate the ambitions of one disgraced man, Delay, enough, even for you, to say enough is enough? Evidently not....judging from your continued defense and obfuscation of the indefensible....the republican breach of contract with America. |
Host, I will do something I will likely never do again: take the time to respond point for point to your posts and questions.
Quote:
Quote:
I find your claim that I “sidetracked” the thread to be outrageous. I posted something that directly related to the case, but because it did not follow the original poster’s assumption that a crime was committed, you call it “sidetrack(ing)”. I am very aware of the power of words and I strongly suspect you are doing exactly what you bemoan, i.e., putting your own spin on stories and words for the benefit of your own arguments. Do I blame you? No. We all do it. But when I call into question the basic assumption, you act hurt and attacked, or you call it “sidetracking” or call sources into question, blah blah blah. The fact is that what I posted was VERY relevant, you just didn’t like it. It called into question the basic assumption of that a crime was committed, which contrary to what you may think, I still haven’t seen you post strong evidence that it has, nor that my basic article was faulty. All you did post was that the writers were conservative and somewhat attention whorish. If it helps, I will concede that point. But IMO, no one ever did adequately disprove the points they raised. And last time I checked, being an attention whore was not a crime. Quote:
Again, I think the truth is that you are amazed that after all the “evidence” you produce, all from “msm”, that not everyone is on your bandwagon. That we are not, can only be ascribed to some mental deficiency, “sheeple” tendencies, or propaganda brain washing. The other possibility, that the truth is probably somewhere in between and that you yourself may be suffering from a case of leftist propaganda doesn’t even occur to you. Again, if it helps, I’ll concede that these days I tend to give more weight to conservative talking points than liberal ones. Can you admit the opposite? Quote:
This is the danger, because some of what you say is very important, but unfortunately, the messenger is turning off the ears of the “sheeple” with the apparent and I mean apparent unreasoning hatred of the Republicans. As to the “Toensing referrals”, I have nothing to apologize for. I cannot even believe you are equating them with a bogus website article you posted in your rush to pile on “irrefutable” proof of wrongdoing. Quote:
Quote:
You are a one note Johnny, and you need to realize it. Quote:
Quote:
Let’s settle this once and for all. 1) I am not a Democrat, yet I voted for Clinton. 2) I am not a Republican, yet I voted for Bush. 3) I am more of an Independent with a libertarian bent. 4) I do not support slavery or the Southern Baptists. Quit mentioning them. 5) I do not support everything the Republicans do, nor do I decry everything the Democrats do. To use party as the demarcation instead of studying the issues intelligently to make a decision is the height of foolishness. Quote:
1) War in Iraq. My God, yet again, we talk about this. Here is my position, which you can quote or link as much as you like. The war was right because a) Saddam was an evil megalomaniac mass murder who b) showed no hesitation to start wars in the region and c) had a distinct liking of WMD’s. He also d) repeatedly ignored UN sanctions and e) shot at coalition planes, that in itself an act of war. Need me to admit that we didn’t find any? Ok. Can you admit that the UN report said that he had several “dual purpose” facilities that. Need me to admit that Bush “lied”? No, sorry. I agree that it’s possible, but I also see that it was probably bad data. Need me to admit that Bush “sold us” the war? Sure. That’s what all leaders do. (queue Hitler quotes). But yes, I support the general idea of our going to war in Iraq. 2) $95 billion tax bill. Sorry, not read up on it. 3) Debt growing. No, I don’t like this. I am actually kind of pissed about it. I did like the fact that Clinton balanced the budget, but I didn’t like the fact that he gutted the military to do it. Is that enough rage? 4) Iraq festers. Sorry, but I actually think we’re doing a damn good job. Amazed? Knowing the history of the region, and knowing the history of warfare, I think we can pull this one off…IF we don’t let people like you convince us to cut and run, leaving the job half done and leaving every crack pot insurgency group to fight over the crumbs. 5) N.O. rots More of your spin…as if Bush is responsible for N.O. Oh sure, he could have set up FEMA better, but do we really need to bash this dead horse again? Face it, I disagree with your basic premise that Bush shoulders the majority of responsibility for the NO response. Show me how you’ve talked about the responsibility of the LA legislature, or even NO’s mayor, or how the levees were badly designed and then we can talk about Bush’s share of blame. Quote:
I will state one last time that I think it is [b]you[b] that obfuscate the issues, that of how to get viable third party candidates elected, that of how to eliminate government waste and pork barrel spending, that of accountability for all politicians regardless of party, with your monotonous attack on the Republicans. I never bought into the “contract with America” (again, keep for future linkage), but neither am I buying into what you are trying to sell. Finally, I have wasted approximately an hour of my day responding to you, whom I do not see any chance of changing your mind and opinion. I did so because I am tired of your constant misrepresentation of my views. Was it worth it? I doubt it. Again, I have no doubt that you are retired or on disability, which would allow you the several hours a day it must take you to research, read, assemble, and post your material. I also don't doubt that few of our other members do not have this time, so I am putting on my mod hat when I say this: it is not your place to decry the discussion, nor to try to direct it the direction you would like. All our members are free to post in the forums so long as they follow forum rules. Also, all of our mods are people as well. That means that they have their personal predjuces, and feelings and sometimes they can get carried away. I am painfully aware that I am not exempt. But I am also mighty damn proud of our crew of volunteers for the way they try to evenly apply the rules for a usually thankless task. |
Quote:
In my last post, I don't think that I directed any comments towards you that took into account that you are a mod. I admire you for your efforts at moderating this forum. Your final comments in your last post, have a restricitive effect on my response now , though, because you added the authority of your "mod hat", to your post. I am not convinced that your intent is to accomplish more than to "moderate" the underlying tone of my anticipated comment, but it has a muzzling influence on what I'm going to write. I do not think that my comments created a provocation on the scale of your reaction. I was not attempting to associate you or your comments with Southern Baptists. I was trying to persuade you that I am not the "rabid", irrational, "Bush hating" menace, that you accused me of being. I tried to show you that I live in a world where I compromise, I am polite, and I hold my tongue much of the time. I wanted you to try to understand that I see the effects of the influences of the religious right's politcal manipulation on the people in my community ,and the effect of the disinformation bombardment that comes from Rush, Hannity, Dobson, Rove, <a href="http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/persuaders/interviews/luntz.html">Frank Luntz</a>, Toensing, and "my job is to catapult the propaganda", Bush, et al. on the people who are in my life, wife....two stepsons...and how similar the influence of it shapes their opinions, as I see it doing to your opinions and to those of other conservatives who post here. Please suggest a better way, if you can propose one, than the way I describe this propagandist effect on people, especially on some fundamentalist christians and political conservatives, as I see taking places. The "kool-ade" reference was intended to be generic, if I had given it's use more thought, maybe I would have omitted it. My use of that term came from influences on my vocabualry that pre-dated Jim Jones........ Quote:
what I originally suspect is accurate, vs. what I end up standing behind in my post content. The constant government, RNC, and yes....news media and DNC "spin" and misinformation, are usually a good first indication that the opposite of what they transmit is probably true. This is a hobby that is becoming a second full-time job, with loss of sleep as a consequence. I post a lot because I am unsure of what I start out believing, and my process only makes me confident of one thing. I end up reaching more accurately predictive outcomes of events, in hingsight, and I gain an incentive to be more skeptical, and to work even harder. I know how this looks, but I believe it, so I'll write it: It is an unending source of wonder, amusement, and frustration to me, that folks here who have expended the greatest effort to find and share independent sources of information, closest to their unfiltered origins, seem to be ostracized because they post ideas and citations that do not fit with the belief systems of the majority here. roachboy is probably the most politcally educated participant here, and too many folks deride or dismiss what he posts. Don't you wonder how he got the way he is? How can it be so easy to dismiiss what he has to say? I do not presume to be in roachboy's class of aptitude or ability, but explain to me how it follows that you admit that I sepnd too much time at this, post too many citations to back what I have to say, largely confining those citations to "newspapers of record" ,and first hand reports from usually reliable sources, yet so little of the content of my posts ends up seeming to you to be reliable or accurate? |
I may be a jackass, but I find your comments hilarious Lebelle.
Not going to say anything further because of the mod - stick. |
Quote:
Mods may participate in discussions with others--may disagree with them right out loud from time to time. But they're pros through and through. Major moderation actions (punishments, bans, etc) don't happen unilaterally just because you pissed off a particular moderator with your response to his political views. Those actions are thorougly discussed before they're taken. That's not to say you may not be a jackass. If you're a jackass--and you act like a jackass--you'll get what's coming to you. :thumbsup: |
Quote:
I agree with much of what you have to say. Sadly however, you sound like those bush supporters that call CSPAN Durring a show about a zoo, just to slam liberals. are you sure you are not a republican in disguise? sent here to make liberals look foolish? After reading your one sided, copy and paste, 5 mile long post, I think: "Wull Clinn-ton did stuf too" sounds intelligent in compairison. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
I'm with ratbastid on this one. That's pretty chickenshit of you to attack Lebelle's comments and then excuse the fact that you have no justification to back your attack up by hiding behind the "I'm afraid of the Big Bad Mod" argument. Pretty transparent if you ask me. And Rat, Ustwo's not going to respond to the content of your post because to do so would require him to either a) lie so obviously that everyone here would catch it or b) admit he's wrong. He's not going to do either. |
Quote:
Quote:
|
Quote:
A worker received $100 too much pay one week. His boss, realizing his error, withheld $100 the next week. The worker walked into his boss's office and said, "Hey, my pay is $100 short." His boss said, "Yeah. I notice you didn't come in last week when it was $100 too much." The worker replied, "Well, I figure anyone can make a mistake once, but when it happens twice, it's time to say something." ======================================================= So let's do what you say: give Clinton a free pass, and hang all Republicans out to dry for offenses that aren't even on the radar when compared to the Clinton administration. |
Quote:
Here is the first post in that thread:</b> Quote:
IMO, and you drove it home with this assertion. There were no "ifs" in your point that "no crime was committed", and you cited "an article written by the authors of the law", with no disclaimer that it was an op-ed piece from a highly partisan source:</b> Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
<b>The following are excerpts from my posts on that thread. I've edited out most of my citations that do not speak directly to the issue of Toensing's partisanship and publicized ties to Robert Novak. Quote:
Quote:
<b>In a followup post, I added more linked references concerning the backgrounds of Victoria Toensing and her husband, Joseph DiGenova.</b> Quote:
indictment, which was made a day or two after our orignial discussion. I originally provided much detail as to the wide scope of Fitzgerald's investigative authority, because Toensing's "Op" was to convince the public that the investigation was limited to whether a criminal offense had been committed, related to the one act that she had co-authored. As you can see below, you failed to acknowledge the core issues that compromised Toensing's "article" to the point that it cannot be defended, when I raised them at the end of October, or even now, if you re-examined them before defending her article again. IMO, the core issues are that Toensing enjoyed a personal friendship with Robert Novak, and did not disclose that fact in an op-ed piece that masquerades as a neutral piece of news reporting that purports to offer expert opinion of points of law as they pertain to an ongoing, highly publicized, criminal investigation. The "neutral piece of news reporting" was exposed by me to be a spirited, partisan defense of Robert Novak that was a vehicle for a Rovian talking point Op. Quote:
close friend....</b> Quote:
Quote:
Finally, Lebell....Iraq is an "effing" mess...a disaster. My comments or opinion won't be a contributing factor to the failed policy we experience there. Greatly informative ongoing study of the Bush debacle: http://www.brookings.edu/fp/saban/iraq/index.pdf Most recent is Dec. 8, 2005: page 28.... Average amount of electricity generated (In Megawatts) <b>November 2005</b> - 3742 MW <b>August 2004</b> - 4707 MW <b>June 2003</b> - 3193 MW <b>Est Pre War </b> - 3958 MW <b>Stated Goal </b> - 6000 MW by July 1, 2004 page 36........ <center><img src="http://me.to/svr052.gif"><br> Non-Partisan International Republican Institute , Board of Directors: http://www.iri.org/board.asp <img src="http://me.to/svr051.gif"></center> |
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
I start by saying this is not personal Marv, hopefully you learn something..... or you'll blast me and choose to take it as personal.
If you want to persuade people to see your side persuade, and debate. If you want a pissing contest then your post succeeded. I know you can do better I've seen it. Quote:
2 Wrongs do not make a right no matter what. To let someone go for partisan reasons or because "your guy did worse" is pathetic, bullshit and destroying the nation. If you went after Clinton, you should go after Bush equally hard or it was all partisan bullshit. To me what Clinton did wasn't that big of a deal, it didn't affect me. If Bush lied, if Bush played or fudged with info, then it is our business, and has affected my life. I think there is enough evidence to justify investigations. There was less evidence in evrything Clinton did, but the GOP wanted him investigated to death. This isn't sour grapes, this is there is evidence out there and we should get to know the truth. Otherwise we show that as long as it's the party in charge and we are of that party, that politician can get away with anything...... it's bullshit.... it's time to call politicians on their shit and hold them to the high standards the GOP said we should.... or the GOP has no right to EVER again bitch about another Dem. I thought when the GOP went after Clinton it was because they had higher standards of what the office of the president stood for....... your reply show that if in fact you believe this going after Clinton was 100% partisan and not for the good of the country. And that it's ok whatever Bush does because he is from the same party as you so he gets a free pass. Time to either admit the truth or start holding ALL politicians regardless of party to the same standards. Quote:
Quote:
If you don't then it's bullshit to refer it as a "sham". Because unless you know for a fact and have evidence to show.... you lost credibility with me. Not because of your partisan views but because you label what you do not have justification to label. And you do so in bitterness and it's bullshit. I don't call the Bush's marriage a sham even though the daughter's kind of look like Bush's but were "adopted". See how nasty that sounds. You are willing to upset and would rather start a fight, lose your debate and take cheap shots by saying "their marriage is a sham" ..... than to stick to facts and deabte the true issues. Quote:
So again because Clinton was "slime" it's ok for Bush to be? And this proves your party is better how?????????? And if Clinton is ancient history why do you keep bringing him up to "ok" what your party's president does? Quote:
Quote:
That because Clinton was bad and Reno "stonewalled" it's ok for Bush to be bad and stonewall? You call personal attack and then make one. And you showed nothing in support of Bush, just that Clinton was bad, and that makes it ok for Bush to be. Redundant are my respnoses in here because you're whol post was basically Clinton did this, so Bush gets a free pass. And you want everyone to believe the GOP is the "Moral" party???????? Doesn't sound like it to me. Moral would be to hold Bush above those Clinton standards..... which in this post you have shown you refuse to do. |
Quote:
OK, so we each think the other is out of touch with reality. Hardly surprising considering we're on opposite poles of the political spectrum. Did you have a point with that? BTW, you DID disparage journalists in that thread (if they had any useful skills. . . ), so your retort in the journalist thread was pretty meaningless. Especially since I didn't come straight out and say that YOU had disparaged journalists. My first sentence was directed at you, and I stand by it. My second sentence was a completely seperate paragraph and addressed "so many in this thread" that disparaged journalists. If you read into that sentence that I was referring directly to you, then perhaps it is because you DID disparage journalists, and you KNOW that you disparaged them. Of course, the fact that you failed to note that I wasn't directing that comment at you, and then told me to get some basic reading comprehension primers, is rather sweetly ironic, don't you think? |
Quote:
It caused a firestorm when I mentioned Clinton's transgressions, but you're allowed to bring up Reagan. I don't see Ratbastid wringing his hands about that--apparently, you two have no problem with bringing up 20-year-old scandals, as long as they're REPUBLICAN ones. So let's compare a little. Reagan said, "Give them everything they ask for." Clinton said, "Deny, deny, deny." Cunningham said, "The truth is I broke the law, concealed my conduct and disgraced my office." He resigned. As far as is known, he didn't cause anyone to die. Janet Reno said, "I take full responsibility." She should have added that she took the responsibility as long as she wasn't tried for frying 80 people, and as long as she didn't have to leave office. One more little detail on Iran-Contra: At the time, helping them was in our country's interest. It involved conventional weapons. However, no one has yet explained to me why Clinton and Jimmy Carter gave the North Koreans nuclear material. It's now a huge problem , but you've clearly said you don't give a damn, and you would rather concentrate on the supposed "outing" of a CIA agent who was known worldwide. Thanks for posting this. It was very helpful. |
Quote:
(Boy that was fun. After listening to all of the Bush-Hitler blather, it REALLY felt good to send some of it back.) |
Quote:
well marv in this post you have opened up two cans of worms. first it is now ok to compair our leaders to hilter and second we can now say indictments do matter so delay is guilty and so is libby. Perhaps rove will be guilty in a month. |
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Apparently not - - you're still not getting the message. |
Quote:
http://i7.photobucket.com/albums/y25...liadragged.jpg But since that was all the way back in 1993, I'm sure you couldn't care less. |
That big long post where I tore up your arguments, and claiming you know someone who was "there" is the best you can come up with? I don't care who you know, it doesn't change what happened. And I already said we shouldn't have been there. Whether they dragged our pilots around or not, we shouldn't have been there. It wasn't our business.
Now that we've established that, yes, Clinton did make a mistake are you FINALLY going to address the point about previous politicians' actions not being an excuse for current politicians to do whatever they want? Don't worry, I already know you won't. |
| All times are GMT -8. The time now is 01:50 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Search Engine Optimization by vBSEO 3.6.0 PL2
© 2002-2012 Tilted Forum Project