Ten most corrupt politicians in the U.S.

[Everose]

As far as a presidential candidate, Skizo, ..........

Well, I remember voting for Dole, but I honestly can't say that was a vote for Dole......more like a vote against the alternative.

I find it odd that when Bush has an advisor or someone on his staff convicted of illegal activities..........that is quite the major indiscretion on his part and points to his stupidity.

But when Hilarious has a staff member that does it, it is purely circumstantial and sensationalism?

[Skiz]

I wasn't aware that I had differentiated between the two or even laid comment.

I'm a staunch Rebublican and would never make any excuse for "Hilarious".

As for comments I did make, I said the article is full of he said, she said nonsense. The article is chock full of "suspected of", "thought to have", "questionable" commentary in order to sensationalize, nothing more.

Just so I'm clear, I do recognize the valid points in the article as well, such as the Norman Hsu annotation and many others.

[Everose]

Okay, thanks for the clarification. I had thought you agreed with Busy and were dismissing the total article as purely speculation and sensationalism.

[bigboab]

Hi Busyman,

I said I wouldn't vote for Clinton because I don't trust her. I have watched her for a few years and I have based my personal opinion on what I have seen, read, etc.

Guess I should have been clearer. I didn't vote for Bush because I don't trust him, either.

I don't necessarily vote along party lines.

Simple as that.

Okay, guys, what is a Swmbo?

Hi Rose.

She Who Must Be Obeyed. Originated in the series Rumpole Of The Bailey. Used by Rumpole(Leo McKern) to describe his wife.

[Busyman™]

Hi Busyman,

I said I wouldn't vote for Clinton because I don't trust her. I have watched her for a few years and I have based my personal opinion on what I have seen, read, etc.

Guess I should have been clearer. I didn't vote for Bush because I don't trust him, either.

I don't necessarily vote along party lines.

Simple as that.

Okay, guys, what is a Swmbo?

I don't trust Clinton either nor do I vote "a party line".

It's just you mentioned you voted Dem before then said you wouldn't vote for Clinton as if she's the only Dem candidate right now.

It sounded weird is all.

The bad thing is that if every other candidate is worse, she will get my vote.

I didn't vote for Bush cuz I thought he was shit. He never gave an inkling there was a reason to vote for him.

[Busyman™]

Okay, thanks for the clarification. I had thought you agreed with Busy and were dismissing the total article as purely speculation and sensationalism.

However, is it proof Hilary's corruption or not?

Me and Skiz are actually on the same page. I don't think the page is not valid.

[Busyman™]

As far as a presidential candidate, Skizo, ..........

Well, I remember voting for Dole, but I honestly can't say that was a vote for Dole......more like a vote against the alternative.

I find it odd that when Bush has an advisor or someone on his staff convicted of illegal activities..........that is quite the major indiscretion on his part and points to his stupidity.

But when Hilarious has a staff member that does it, it is purely circumstantial and sensationalism?

Most of the Hilary stuff was sensationalist. It mucks it up a bit as being proof of corruption is all. The entire page should be taken in for knowledge, however. It just ain't proof.

Also when a member of Bush's cabal leaks an American spy's name due to someone related being critical of a bullshit war that he spearheaded then it is directly related.

I wonder if you were one of those fabled "undecideds" last go 'round.

[j2k4]

I don't particularly like Clinton either but the blurb on her basically has that she's blocking the release of records, there was a complaint filed against her by the website, and her top campaign contributer is a criminal.

Proof of corruption....I think not. It's sensationalist.

Apparently you aren't too familiar with Judicial Watch.

They go after everybody.

In any case, the section of your post I've emboldened interests me, as it indicates you are more admiring of a successful effort to obscure facts than you are curious about why the effort is being made to begin with.

Does the fact that this tactic is and has been the modus operandi of the Clintons for all "35 years" (to use Hillary's description) of her/their "public service" bother you at all?

Do you ever wonder about how one thousand dollars magically becomes one hundred thousand?

Ever been curious about Vince Foster's untimely demise, or the shroud the Clintons threw over it?

How about all of the PRK and Chinese money which flowed into Clinton/democrat coffers?

Ever see the pictures of Hillary confidante Susan Thomases and actress Markie Post jumping up-and-down on the "Lincoln" bed in the Clinton White House?

Are you at all curious about Sandy Berger's theft of top secret documents from the National Archive?

I assume you can grasp the distinct possibility that she might be trying to hide some of these (to use your term) "direct links" to criminal behaviors?

All this (and much, much more), but you can't find it in yourself to denounce Hillary, even though she was broad-ass-deep in the whole mess.

I am gratified to hear, nonetheless, that you won't vote for her...

[Everose]

Okay, guys, what is a Swmbo?[/quote]

Hi Rose.

She Who Must Be Obeyed. Originated in the series Rumpole Of The Bailey. Used by Rumpole(Leo McKern) to describe his wife. [/QUOTE]



Hey bigboab......thanks!

I LIKE that.

[Busyman™]

I don't particularly like Clinton either but the blurb on her basically has that she's blocking the release of records, there was a complaint filed against her by the website, and her top campaign contributer is a criminal.

Proof of corruption....I think not. It's sensationalist.

Apparently you aren't too familiar with Judicial Watch.

They go after everybody.

In any case, the section of your post I've emboldened interests me, as it indicates you are more admiring of a successful effort to obscure facts than you are curious about why the effort is being made to begin with.

Does the fact that this tactic is and has been the modus operandi of the Clintons for all "35 years" (to use Hillary's description) of her/their "public service" bother you at all?

Do you ever wonder about how one thousand dollars magically becomes one hundred thousand?

Ever been curious about Vince Foster's untimely demise, or the shroud the Clintons threw over it?

How about all of the PRK and Chinese money which flowed into Clinton/democrat coffers?

Ever see the pictures of Hillary confidante Susan Thomases and actress Markie Post jumping up-and-down on the "Lincoln" bed in the Clinton White House?

Are you at all curious about Sandy Berger's theft of top secret documents from the National Archive?

I assume you can grasp the distinct possibility that she might be trying to hide some of these (to use your term) "direct links" to criminal behaviors?

All this (and much, much more), but you can't find it in yourself to denounce Hillary, even though she was broad-ass-deep in the whole mess.

I am gratified to hear, nonetheless, that you won't vote for her...

1. I have no quarrel with Judicial Watch. I Captainobviously see Repubs and Dems in there and even mentioned Rudy. I like the info since for me to vote for someone I don't need proof. Nice try.

I said the stuff wasn't proof and it isn't. Period.

2. I never rule out voting for anyone.

3. I have denounced her. I said I don't trust her just like Evey did but yet you single me out cuz I said the stuff wasn't proof or I don't cheerlead and don't make huge efforts to show neutrality. Nice try.

I know the "where there's smoke there's fire" bit. However, I think "where there's smoke there's most likely fire" since smoke isn't proof.

Perhaps you can read a bit better since there was no indication of admiration. You are either spinning or you're a liar.

Either way it sucks.