I'm constantly on the look-out for the dirt on Conservatives...

[vidcc]

House rejects spending for birth control
DAVID A. LIEB
Associated Press

JEFFERSON CITY, Mo. - An attempt to resume state spending on birth control got shot down Wednesday by House members who argued it would have amounted to an endorsement of promiscuous lifestyles.

Missouri stopped providing money for family planning and certain women's health services when Republicans gained control of both chambers of the Legislature in 2003.

But a Democratic lawmaker, in a little-noticed committee amendment, had successfully inserted language into the proposed budget for the fiscal year starting July 1 that would have allowed part of the $9.2 million intended for "core public health functions" to go to contraception provided through public health clinics.

The House voted 96-59 to delete the funding for contraception and infertility treatments after Rep. Susan Phillips told lawmakers that anti-abortion groups such as Missouri Right to Life were opposed to the spending.

"If you hand out contraception to single women, we're saying promiscuity is OK as a state, and I am not in support of that," Phillips, R-Kansas City, said in an interview.

Others, including some lawmakers who described themselves as "pro-life," said it was illogical for anti-abortion lawmakers to deny money for contraception to low-income people who use public health clinics.

"It's going to have the opposite effect of what the intention is, which will be more unwanted pregnancies and more abortions," said Rep. Kate Meiners, D-Kansas City.

The other alternative is for low-income women to give birth to more children, which is only likely to drive up the state's costs to provide services to them, said Democratic Rep. Melba Curls, also of Kansas City.

The family planning program that was canceled in 2003 had provided state grants for women's health care services. Anti-abortion lawmakers had battled in court for years to try to prevent that money from going to Planned Parenthood, which also provides abortions.

This year's provision, inserted by Rep. Margaret Donnelly, D-St. Louis, would have avoided the Planned Parenthood controversy by only providing contraception through public health clinics. It primarily would have affected women who lack private insurance but who earn too much to qualify for Medicaid, which provides contraception under federal rules.

Donnelly said it was a first step to restoring the services of the deleted program.

"The average Missourian believes that as part of women's health, they should be offered in a medical clinic a voluntary choice of contraception," Donnelly said.

While deleting the contraception language, lawmakers left in tact most of the rest of Donnelly's language also directing money to such things as screenings for breast and cervical cancer and sexually transmitted diseases. But they approved Phillips' additional language specifically preventing the money from going toward family planning services or abortion referrals.

Missouri Right to Life said it was concerned with the contraception language because it was loosely written and could have included emergency contraception - often referred to as the morning-after pill.

The Missouri Catholic Conference also opposed the birth control funding.

"State taxpayers should not be required to subsidize activities they believe are immoral or unethical, relating to contraceptives or abortions," said Larry Weber, executive director of the state Catholic Conference.source (http://www.kansascity.com/mld/kansascity/news/local/14098907.htm)

yup.... best way to prevent unwanted pregnancies............ make contraception harder to get..... what a realistically repsonsible idea :rolleyes:

[j2k4]

House rejects spending for birth control
DAVID A. LIEB
Associated Press

JEFFERSON CITY, Mo. - An attempt to resume state spending on birth control got shot down Wednesday by House members who argued it would have amounted to an endorsement of promiscuous lifestyles.

Missouri stopped providing money for family planning and certain women's health services when Republicans gained control of both chambers of the Legislature in 2003.

But a Democratic lawmaker, in a little-noticed committee amendment, had successfully inserted language into the proposed budget for the fiscal year starting July 1 that would have allowed part of the $9.2 million intended for "core public health functions" to go to contraception provided through public health clinics.

The House voted 96-59 to delete the funding for contraception and infertility treatments after Rep. Susan Phillips told lawmakers that anti-abortion groups such as Missouri Right to Life were opposed to the spending.

"If you hand out contraception to single women, we're saying promiscuity is OK as a state, and I am not in support of that," Phillips, R-Kansas City, said in an interview.

Others, including some lawmakers who described themselves as "pro-life," said it was illogical for anti-abortion lawmakers to deny money for contraception to low-income people who use public health clinics.

"It's going to have the opposite effect of what the intention is, which will be more unwanted pregnancies and more abortions," said Rep. Kate Meiners, D-Kansas City.

The other alternative is for low-income women to give birth to more children, which is only likely to drive up the state's costs to provide services to them, said Democratic Rep. Melba Curls, also of Kansas City.

The family planning program that was canceled in 2003 had provided state grants for women's health care services. Anti-abortion lawmakers had battled in court for years to try to prevent that money from going to Planned Parenthood, which also provides abortions.

This year's provision, inserted by Rep. Margaret Donnelly, D-St. Louis, would have avoided the Planned Parenthood controversy by only providing contraception through public health clinics. It primarily would have affected women who lack private insurance but who earn too much to qualify for Medicaid, which provides contraception under federal rules.

Donnelly said it was a first step to restoring the services of the deleted program.

"The average Missourian believes that as part of women's health, they should be offered in a medical clinic a voluntary choice of contraception," Donnelly said.

While deleting the contraception language, lawmakers left in tact most of the rest of Donnelly's language also directing money to such things as screenings for breast and cervical cancer and sexually transmitted diseases. But they approved Phillips' additional language specifically preventing the money from going toward family planning services or abortion referrals.

Missouri Right to Life said it was concerned with the contraception language because it was loosely written and could have included emergency contraception - often referred to as the morning-after pill.

The Missouri Catholic Conference also opposed the birth control funding.

"State taxpayers should not be required to subsidize activities they believe are immoral or unethical, relating to contraceptives or abortions," said Larry Weber, executive director of the state Catholic Conference.source (http://www.kansascity.com/mld/kansascity/news/local/14098907.htm)

yup.... best way to prevent unwanted pregnancies............ make contraception harder to get..... what a realistically repsonsible idea :rolleyes:


Behavior modification is a proven and well-respected practice. ;)

Edit-

Here's a thought:

What if there were no such thing as birth control, other than some variant of the rhythm method?

If there were literally no way to avoid pregnancy apart from math skills and luck, what would the upshot of such a situation be?

Vid?

[vidcc]

Behavior modification is a proven and well-respected practice. ;)
I never did understand how republicans or conservatives could keep a straight face when claiming to be the "party of limited government and regulation" yet are so obviously true believers in and demanders of social control.

Hey here's a thought.............can you keep it secret? most of those "sinners" having sex are christians or at least believer
Edit-

Here's a thought:

What if there were no such thing as birth control, other than some variant of the rhythm method?

If there were literally no way to avoid pregnancy apart from math skills and luck, what would the upshot of such a situation be?

Vid?



But we do have contraception so it's an Irrelavant question.

[j2k4]

Here's a thought:

What if there were no such thing as birth control, other than some variant of the rhythm method?

If there were literally no way to avoid pregnancy apart from math skills and luck, what would the upshot of such a situation be?

Vid?



But we do have contraception so it's an Irrelavant question.

Yes, it is an irrelevant question you won't answer.

[ilw]

People would have sex less or have more children. Neither sounds appealing to me.


or... men would have sex with old women, young children, other men, animals or inflatable dolls. While women would turn to lesbianism, bestiality or sex toys.

[vidcc]

Yes, it is an irrelevant question you won't answer. Well I guess there will be more unwanted pregnancies. If in this fantasy situation abortion exists then there will be more abortions. other issues such as poverty will also increase. Possibly more deaths of women due to men not wanting to be fathers. maybe more "shotgun weddings" and unhappy marriages (you gave no societal values)...unhappy "resentful" marriages will lead to more divorce and possibly more domestic violence. Aliens will come down from the distant galaxy of fummuma and will destroy the earth.

People will still have sex.......... and nobody can stop it.


Other than that I fail to see any point to answering

BTW. change your quotes please, that was your question, not mine

[j2k4]

People would have sex less or have more children. Neither sounds appealing to me.


or... men would have sex with old women, young children, other men, animals or inflatable dolls. While women would turn to lesbianism, bestiality or sex toys.

Congratulations, Ian; you get it.

Point is, behaviors re: sex would change.

Vid thinks this cannot happen, especially the "less" part.

Over and out. ;)

[ilw]

J2 would you like to live in a world without contraception?




Still, remember the good old days when a single woman that got pregnant would be put in an insane asylum............ah those were the days
Essentially what conservatism is, return things to the good old days (of course without all the bad bits)

[vidcc]

Congratulations, Ian; you get it.

Point is, behaviors re: sex would change.

Vid thinks this cannot happen, especially the "less" part.

Over and out. ;)
so you think beastiality and homsexuality will increase :huh:

Unfortunately we live in a world of realities and not fantasies.
contraception exists, it is safe and proven to all but remove the risk of unwanted pregnancy (nothing is 100% but it's as close to......). So your fantasy situation could only be achieved by making birth control illegal.

So here's some questions to you.

Will making contraception illegal reduce the amount of unwanted pregnancies?

Will making contraception illegal reduce the amount of abortions?

or

Will making contraception more accesable reduce the amount of unwanted pregnancies or abortions?




Social control of moral issues like private sex lives of consenting adults isn't an acceptable solution...... mind you I suppose it depends on if you are the controller or the controlled.

Still, remember the good old days when a single woman that got pregnant would be put in an insane asylum............ah those were the days

[ilw]

woot first ever time traveller, either that or someone just fooked around with the time settings.

[j2k4]

Congratulations, Ian; you get it.

Point is, behaviors re: sex would change.

Vid thinks this cannot happen, especially the "less" part.

Over and out. ;)
so you think beastiality and homsexuality will increase :huh:

Unfortunately we live in a world of realities and not fantasies.
contraception exists, it is safe and proven to all but remove the risk of unwanted pregnancy (nothing is 100% but it's as close to......). So your fantasy situation could only be achieved by making birth control illegal.

So here's some questions to you.

Will making contraception illegal reduce the amount of unwanted pregnancies?

Will making contraception illegal reduce the amount of abortions?

or

Will making contraception more accesable reduce the amount of unwanted pregnancies or abortions?




Social control of moral issues like private sex lives of consenting adults isn't an acceptable solution...... mind you I suppose it depends on if you are the controller or the controlled.

Still, remember the good old days when a single woman that got pregnant would be put in an insane asylum............ah those were the days


You miss the point again.

Behaviors-even those having to do with sexual urges/libido-are changeable.

You believe sexual behavior cannot be altered.

You are wrong.

Simple.

That was my only point...period.

BTW-as to your last:

Recount for me in detail the infamous history of pregnant single women being sent to insane asylums, please.

[j2k4]

J2 would you like to live in a world without contraception?


No, and I don't believe I have suggested I would.

I intended only the intellectual exercise of answering the question.

Please don't spoil your perfect score by failing to recognize the efficacy of my having done so.

[vidcc]

You miss the point again.

Behaviors-even those having to do with sexual urges/libido-are changeable.

You believe sexual behavior cannot be altered.

You are wrong.

Simple.

That was my only point...period.
ok so put your theory into reality and answer my questions. You appear to think that making birth control hard to get ( you must be making this point as we all know it exists) will change sexual habits.
will it reduce the number of unwanted pregnancies and abortions or will they increase? real life, society today
remember...nearly all unwanted pregnancies result from not using birth control.
BTW-as to your last:

Recount for me in detail the infamous history of pregnant single women being sent to insane asylums, please.

http://www.correctionhistory.org/html/chronicl/docs2day/albion.html

http://osulibrary.oregonstate.edu/video/soc1.html
Sex in a Cold Climate

VHS
50 minutes
HV1448 .G72 I737 2003

This historical documentary is a deeply disturbing portrait of Magdalene Asylums run by Catholic nuns in Ireland. For over a hundred years girls and young women were sent to live and work in the Magdalene Asylums' Laundries after they'd had sexual or 'sinful' contact with men. Of the 30,000 women who were imprisoned in them, many never got out. The last one didn't close until 1996. The video features interviews with several women detained in Magdalene Asylums between the 1940s and the 1960s. The purpose of the Asylums - named after the repentant biblical prostitute Mary Magdalene - was to correct the supposed sexual deviance of young women. Getting pregnant out of wedlock and having an illegitimate baby, like Christina Mulcahy, made you an obvious candidate. But the criteria of deviance was so vague and wide ranging that some Magdalenes didn't know why they had been put away. Phyllis Valentine was sent there because she was considered "too pretty" and therefore a moral danger to herself and others. Martha Cooney was put away after she complained that a cousin had sexually molested her. The Asylums were often run by abusive and even sadistic nuns. All the women featured eventually escaped, but the emotional and physical strain these Magdalenes had to endure led to damaged lives.
Actually harder than I expected to find a actual historical site on the subject worldwide. I shall try rephrasing later or you could research a bit yourself...it's actually interesting and I am amazed you have never heard of such practices.

[j2k4]

Actually, I was aware of that, however peripherally; remember, I have some educational background in corrections.

Are you trying to connect modern Conservatism to Public policy in Ireland and a facility in upstate New York which accomodated pregnant women around WWI?

Quite a stretch, I'd say.

We could explore the historical connections between the Democratic Party and the Ku Klux Klan, too, if you'd like. :huh:

[vidcc]

so you are not going to answer the questions then

[j2k4]

so you are not going to answer the questions then

Which questions would these be?

[vidcc]

so you are not going to answer the questions then

Which questions would these be? :rolleyes:

[j2k4]

These?


So here's some questions to you.

Will making contraception illegal reduce the amount of unwanted pregnancies?

I doubt it.

Who wants to make it illegal?

Will making contraception illegal reduce the amount of abortions?

What if abortion is illegal?

or

Will making contraception more accesable reduce the amount of unwanted pregnancies or abortions?

Availability, generally speaking, will reduce those numbers.

Availability to whom, and by what method, are also questions to be answered.

WTF is wrong with these controls?

This sucks...

[j2k4]

so you are not going to answer the questions then

Why don't you re-read this page and answer a few questions yourself?

[vidcc]

These?


So here's some questions to you.

Will making contraception illegal reduce the amount of unwanted pregnancies?

I doubt it.

Who wants to make it illegal?
that is the only way to place your fantasy about birth control not existing into a reality
Will making contraception illegal reduce the amount of abortions?

What if abortion is illegal?
answer the question with an answer please
or

Will making contraception more accesable reduce the amount of unwanted pregnancies or abortions?

Availability, generally speaking, will reduce those numbers.
So the Missouri bill is in fact more likely to increase the number of unwanted pregnancies....
Availability to whom, and by what method, are also questions to be answered.

WTF is wrong with these controls?

This sucks...

So the man that suggests removing the FDA and letting market forces deal with medications is for controls:unsure:

[j2k4]

The editing controls aren't working correctly, so I'll settle for directing your attention to your first reply in red in the prior post:

"that is the only way to place your fantasy about birth control not existing into a reality"

What is this in aid of?

I haven't made any allusions to eliminating birth control.

Or is it simply the clearest indicator yet of your true view of abortion?

[vidcc]

What is this in aid of?

I haven't made any allusions to eliminating birth control.

Or is it simply the clearest indicator yet of your true view of abortion?you said this


Here's a thought:

What if there were no such thing as birth control, other than some variant of the rhythm method?

If there were literally no way to avoid pregnancy apart from math skills and luck, what would the upshot of such a situation be?

Vid?
You said your only point about it was that people can change their sexual habits....well (and I repeat) the only way to test your fantasy situation in reality is to remove birth control and the only way to do that in reality is to make it illegal.

You raised an irrelevant fantasy scenario and complained when I initially gave no reply because it is irrelevant. I gave it possible relevance

It appears in reality by your answer that it's a different answer than the fantasy

[j2k4]

you said this


Here's a thought:

What if there were no such thing as birth control, other than some variant of the rhythm method?

If there were literally no way to avoid pregnancy apart from math skills and luck, what would the upshot of such a situation be?

Vid?
You said your only point about it was that people can change their sexual habits....well (and I repeat) the only way to test your fantasy situation in reality is to remove birth control and the only way to do that in reality is to make it illegal.

You raised an irrelevant fantasy scenario and complained when I initially gave no reply because it is irrelevant. I gave it possible relevance

It appears in reality by your answer that it's a different answer than the fantasy

Really.

So, if I actually say, Pie-in-the-sky, you start scanning the heavens for baked goods?

:rolleyes:

[vidcc]

Really.

So, if I actually say, Pie-in-the-sky, you start scanning the heavens for baked goods?

:rolleyes:

Oh hum.

That would be a clever response but for one thing...... I didn't take your scenario as being anything but fantasy. That's why I didnt answer and that's why I included the "little green men" bit in my answer when you complained that I didn't answer.
However...... you word your scenario to give it any possible bearing on reality....If you can't do it then not only did the scenario bear no relevance but also your point.... which you want me to take seriously.

[j2k4]

Okay, one last and very simple question, then:

Do you regard abortion as merely another method of birth-control?

[vidcc]

Okay, one last and very simple question, then:

Do you regard abortion as merely another method of birth-control?

"Merely"...........no

It is technically that, however much as you like to portray it as being such I doubt that many people think "I don't need to take the precautions.......Abortion is so much more convenient".

Sure people don't act responsibly and have "protection free sex" often there are a few factors involved, drink for example. Plan B is probably the best action to take, pity some want to ban this.

You also like to portray it as being something that often happens right up to delivery day because the woman suddenly decides her career is more important.......... :rolleyes:

Women are not skipping into abortion clinics and demanding with joyous abandon "remove this baby from my body so I can go out and have more unprotected sex.... oh and book me in for a month next tuesday, I'm feeling horny"

But to answer from my personal viewpoint.

I don't view it as an option for us, certainly not as a matter of convenience ( I will pm you later on a point ) I don't like abortion.
I view abortion as a matter of personal moral values and as such we have no right to impose our values.

someone put it best once when they said:

Pro choice advocates are not saying "Do as I do", they are saying "Leave me alone".
Anti-choice quite often are not only saying, "Do as I do", but also "My right is to make you live by my beliefs, and if you resist me, then you are 'intolerant'."


If you don't agree with abortion....don't have one, nobody is forcing you to.

[j2k4]

I would probably never feel compelled to argue the point (apart from the state's rights angle) if abortion was not utilized so often as "birth control", retroactive, or otherwise.

I can't count the occasions I've actually heard a woman say something to the effect of, "Now I've got nine months to convince him to marry me..."

I've never tried to make the case all women take such advantage, but there are many who do.

BTW-Truthfully, I don't regard "drink" as an adequate excuse.

You say people it causes people to engage in incautious sex...so what?

Yes, people do occasionally act stupidly when they've been drinking, but why should that be an excuse?

If they're capable of sex, they're not totally blotto, right?

It's not as if they forget to drop their drawers to take a whiz, is it?

If they did, finding a sexual partner might prove difficult.

[vidcc]

I would probably never feel compelled to argue the point (apart from the state's rights angle) if abortion was not utilized so often as "birth control", retroactive, or otherwise.

as said before ,I don't think it is a state or fed thing, it is a private matter


BTW-Truthfully, I don't regard "drink" as an adequate excuse.

You say people it causes people to engage in incautious sex...so what?

Yes, people do occasionally act stupidly when they've been drinking, but why should that be an excuse?

If they're capable of sex, they're not totally blotto, right?

It's not as if they forget to drop their drawers to take a whiz, is it?

If they did, finding a sexual partner might prove difficult.

I never said it was an excuse, I said it was sometimes a factor in peoples behaviour. many people do things "under the influence" that they would not do sober. I don't condone it, just point out a reality

[vidcc]

The ministry of misinformation is at it again :rolleyes:

RNC Mischaracterizes Feingold's Censure Resolution

A GOP radio ad falsely characterizes Sen. Feingold's censure resolution as reprimanding the President for pursuing Al Qaeda

March 21, 2006

Modified: March 21, 2006

eMail eMail to a friend Print Printer Friendly Version
Summary



A GOP radio ad accuses Democratic Sen. Russ Feingold of Wisconsin of proposing to censure President Bush "for pursuing suspected members of al Qaeda," which isn't true. Feingold has stated he supports wiretapping suspected terrorists. His measure would censure Bush for ordering wiretaps on US soil without a court warrant, for failing to notify all members of the Senate and House intelligence committees, and for "efforts to mislead the American people" about the legality of the program.
Analysis

The Republican National Committee (RNC) released the radio advertisement on March 21. The RNC would not disclose how much they spent on the ad, but an RNC spokesperson said the advertisement is scheduled to run for a week on Wisconsin radio stations.

RNC AD: "Censure"

Announcer: September 11th changed our country.
And it changed how America responds to terrorists.
President Bush is working to keep American families safe.
Passing the PATRIOT Act which has disrupted over one hundred and fifty terrorist threats and cells making sure the US is monitoring terrorist communications.
But some Democrats are working against these efforts to secure our country, opposing the PATRIOT Act and terrorist surveillance program.
Their leader is Russ Feingold.
Now Feingold and other Democrats want to censure the President. Publicly reprimanding President Bush for pursuing suspected members of al Qaeda.
Some Democrats are even calling for President Bush’s impeachment.
Is this how Democrats plan to win the War on Terror?
Call Russ Feingold and ask him why he’s more interested in censuring the President than protecting our freedom.
Paid for by the Republican National Committee not authorized by any candidate or candidate’s committee www.gop.com.
The Republican National Committee is responsible for the content of this advertising.

The ad characterizes President Bush as "working to keep American families safe," while accusing Sen. Feingold of leading Democrats who are "working against . . . efforts to secure our country." The ad claims that "Feingold and other Democrats want to censure the President. Publicly reprimanding President Bush for pursuing suspected members of al Qaeda." That is a false characterization.

Mischaracterizing the Censure Resolution

When Feingold introduced his resolution to censure the president on March 13 he stated clearly on the Senate floor:

Feingold: No one questions -- no one questions -- whether the government should wiretap suspected terrorists. Of course we should and we can under the current law.

He also stated in a March 12 press release :

Feingold: This issue is not about whether the government should be wiretapping terrorists -- of course it should, and it can under present law.

The resolution would censure Bush for the way in which he ordered wiretaps, not for the wiretaps themselves. It would condemn him for "unlawful authorization of wiretaps of Americans within the United States without obtaining the court orders required " (emphasis added), and also for "failure to inform the full congressional intelligence committees," and for "his efforts to mislead the American people" about the legalities of the program.

Feingold and the PATRIOT Act

The radio ad says the PATRIOT Act "has disrupted over one hundred and fifty terrorist threats and cells," a claim that rests solely on statements from the Department of Justice and which hasn't been independently verified. The ad also says Feingold is leading Democrats in "opposing the PATRIOT Act and terrorist surveillance program."

The surveillance program is separate from the Patriot Act, however. It is true that Feingold has twice opposed enactment of the PATRIOT Act. In 2001, Feingold was the only Senator to vote against the original act and in 2006 he was one of ten Senators who voted against the bill that renewed the act with modifications. Feingold says on his website : "the [PATRIOT] Act contains many provisions that are needed to help protect our nation against terrorism," and says he voted against the act because "the bill went too far in allowing the government to obtain personal information about law-abiding Americans and in undermining constitutional rights and protections." As for the surveillance program, as we've noted, Feingold does oppose the nature of Bush's program but not surveillance of suspected terrorist.

Who is Calling for Impeachment?

The ad also says that "some Democrats are even calling for President Bush’s impeachment ." That's true, but there aren't many. Rep. John Conyers introduced a bill last December to create a select committee to "make recommendations regarding grounds for possible impeachment." As of March 21, Conyers had attracted 31 additional sponsors.

Republicans hope to convince voters that Democrats intend to impeach the President if they gain control of Congress. Republican National Committee Chairman Ken Mehlman said March 20 on CNN's Situation Room: "the [impeachment] talk originally came up from a number of different people, including John Conyers, a gentlemen who if the Democrats took control, would be the chairman of the House Judiciary Committee. And what I think is important for people to understand is this is their agenda."

http://www.factcheck.org/article381.html (http://www.factcheck.org/article381.html)

[j2k4]

I could answer that cut-and-paste with a cut-and-paste of my own, but I have foresworn their use in argumentative circumstances.

Unless you'd grant an exception...:huh:

[Skillian]

In the UK, we only get ads like that in the run-up to elections.

Do they play stuff like that all the time in the US? Or just at moments of political controversy etc.?

[vidcc]

it's an election year for senate and congress

[vidcc]

I could answer that cut-and-paste with a cut-and-paste of my own, but I have foresworn their use in argumentative circumstances.

Unless you'd grant an exception...:huh:
go ahead.

factcheck.org. only deals with facts and not partisan rhetoric.....this is the site cheney meant to point to in the edwards debate......it is not a partisan site, go check it out,...

[Skillian]

it's an election year for senate and congress

Oh yeah, sorry. :rolleyes:

[j2k4]

A recent column by Terence Jeffrey-he points out past (and relevant) Presidential practice, which, although you will no doubt object to as water under the bridge, has the effect of begging the question, What is different about Bush's use of the tactic, apart from his doing so in aid of a "war on terrorism"?

Unless, of course, you don't even believe that.

Jeffrey's point remains, nonetheless:

Unlike Sen. Russell Feingold, the Wisconsin Democrat seeking to censure President Bush for ordering the interception of communications in and out of the United States involving persons with suspected links to al-Qaeda, Democratic President Franklin Roosevelt had no qualms about warrantless eavesdropping to protect the United States against attack.

Neither did Harry Truman.

There is a difference, however, between the eavesdropping Roosevelt and Truman authorized and the eavesdropping Bush is doing. Roosevelt and Truman did it in peacetime without congressional authorization. Bush is doing it during a war that Feingold voted on Sept. 14, 2001, to authorize.

Nonetheless, Roosevelt and Truman acted within their constitutional authority to defend the nation against attack. They were doing their duty, as is President Bush.

But in the Senate on Monday, while introducing his censure resolution, Feingold said, "The president's claims of inherent executive authority, and his assertions that the courts have approved this type of activity, are baseless."

FDR could not have agreed. On May 21, 1940, the United States was at peace, but Roosevelt wasn't taking chances. "It is too late to do anything about it after sabotage, assassination and 'fifth column' activities are completed," Roosevelt wrote Attorney General Robert Jackson in a memorandum cited by Senate Intelligence Chairman Pat Roberts in a letter he sent last month to Senate Judiciary Chairman Arlen Specter. "You are, therefore, authorized and directed in such cases as you may approve, after investigation of the need in each case, to authorize the necessary investigation agents that they are at liberty to secure information by listening devices directed to the conversation or other communications of persons suspected of subversive activities against the government of the United States, including suspected spies. You are requested furthermore to limit these investigations so conducted to a minimum and to limit them insofar as possible to aliens." (Emphasis added.)

Truman went further. Testifying before the Church Committee on Oct. 29, 1975, Attorney General Edward Levi quoted a letter that Attorney General Tom Clark sent Truman in 1946. Clark wanted to continue FDR's program. Warrantless eavesdropping, he argued, was needed "in cases vitally affecting the domestic security, or where human life is in jeopardy."

In his letter to Specter, Roberts notes that "Truman broadened the scope of the authorization by removing the caveat that such surveillance should be limited 'insofar as possible to aliens.'"

Federal appeals courts have upheld the authority Roosevelt and Truman used. "(B)ecause of the president's constitutional duty to act for the United States in the field of foreign relations, and his inherent power to protect national security in the context of foreign affairs, we reaffirm ... that the president may constitutionally authorize warrantless wiretaps for the purpose of gathering foreign intelligence," the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit ruled in the 1973 case of United States v. Brown.

Even after President Carter signed the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978, which required warrants for domestic intelligence wiretaps, Carter's Justice Department went into federal court to defend warrantless wiretapping for national security reasons.

Truong Dinh Hung, a Vietnamese national living in the United States, and Ronald Humphrey, a U.S. citizen who worked for the U.S. Information Agency, had appealed their espionage convictions, which resulted from Humphrey passing classified documents to Truong, who sent them to Vietnamese officials in Paris in 1977.

"Truong's phone was tapped and his apartment was bugged from May 1977 to January 1978," explained the Fourth Circuit's 1980 opinion in United States v. Truong. "The telephone interception continued for 268 days, and every conversation, with possibly one exception, was monitored and virtually all were taped. The eavesdropping device was operative for approximately 255 days, and it ran continuously. No court authorization was ever sought or obtained for the installation and maintenance of the telephone tap or the bug. The government thus ascertained that Humphrey was providing Truong with the copies of secret documents."

Lo and behold, Carter's Justice Department claimed Carter had a "constitutional prerogative" to conduct this warrantless wiretap. "In the area of foreign intelligence, the government contends, the president may authorize surveillance without seeking a judicial warrant because of his constitutional prerogatives in the area of foreign affairs," the court explained.

The judges agreed. "First of all, attempts to counter foreign threats to the national security require the utmost stealth, speed and secrecy," they said. "A warrant requirement would add a procedural hurdle that would reduce the flexibility of executive foreign intelligence initiatives, in some cases delay executive response to foreign intelligence threats and increase the chance of leaks regarding sensitive executive operations."

Does Bush have the same "constitutional prerogatives" in an authorized war that Carter had in peace? Feingold claims not, demanding censure of the president -- which ought to earn Feingold the censure of enlightened opinion.

[vidcc]

Does Bush have the same "constitutional prerogatives" in an authorized war that Carter had in peace? Feingold claims not, demanding censure of the president -- which ought to earn Feingold the censure of enlightened opinion. [/COLOR][/I]

has feingold claimed carter had that authority then?.

this is one mans opinion as to the legality of the wiretapping, what does it have to do with feingolds censure motion or the rnc adverts misinformation?

the motion wouldn't even have risen had an investigation on the legality not been blocked.

Btw.... if this program was legal, why the backroom negotiation to change it to make it so? and how can your opinion writer be so sure the wiretapping is legal..... after all the arguement has been made that feingold couldn't possibly know if it is illegal because it is secret and he doesn't know how it works..... is your columist privy to information denied to the rest of us?

[j2k4]

Does Bush have the same "constitutional prerogatives" in an authorized war that Carter had in peace? Feingold claims not, demanding censure of the president -- which ought to earn Feingold the censure of enlightened opinion. [/COLOR][/I]

has feingold claimed carter had that authority then?.

this is one mans opinion as to the legality of the wiretapping, what does it have to do with feingolds censure motion or the rnc adverts misinformation?

the motion wouldn't even have risen had an investigation on the legality not been blocked.

Btw.... if this program was legal, why the backroom negotiation to change it to make it so? and how can your opinion writer be so sure the wiretapping is legal..... after all the arguement has been made that feingold couldn't possibly know if it is illegal because it is secret and he doesn't know how it works..... is your columist privy to information denied to the rest of us?

Who can say for sure?

Odd, though, that of the select few Dems who were kept abreast of the program (I don't recall which ones, off-hand), none of them are making censure/impeachment noises.

As you refer to any effort to quash the prospect of an investigation:

1. Who instigated the investigation?

2. Why do you suppose any previous such activity (Carter's, for instance) failed to prompt talk of an investigation, especially after he signed off on FISA?

EDIT:

I seriously doubt Feingold is even aware of Carter's activities, or if he is, he chooses to ignore the fact for it's inconvenience.

[vidcc]

Tell me.

Is murder legal because OJ is walking free?
What has anything Carter did or didn't do got to do with THIS ?
How many times do we have to say that something cannot be excused because someone tried it before. A wrongdoing then is still a wrongdoing now.

Should Bush get caught in the oval office being blown by condi...then lie about it, would it be a defense to say "well clinton did the same thing"?

So.......I am still waiting for your refute of the facts as presented by factcheck on the claims made in the RNC advert. So far you have gone off on a tangent but nothing on the subject posted.

[j2k4]

Tell me.

Is murder legal because OJ is walking free?
What has anything Carter did or didn't do got to do with THIS ?
How many times do we have to say that something cannot be excused because someone tried it before. A wrongdoing then is still a wrongdoing now.

Should Bush get caught in the oval office being blown by condi...then lie about it, would it be a defense to say "well clinton did the same thing"?

So.......I am still waiting for your refute of the facts as presented by factcheck on the claims made in the RNC advert. So far you have gone off on a tangent but nothing on the subject posted.

How can you overlook the fact that all legal review and oversight so far conducted with regard to similar activities by other Presidents has not wrought any official proceeding?

Answer that first, if you please?

It has been recounted:

Carter, the "author" of FISA, did precisely what Bush did (in peace time!), with nary a peep from his congress nor any legal review, and, in fact, received legal sanction for same.

Is Feingold some sort of political genius?

Don't make me laugh

Don't forget to answer the question, now....

[vidcc]

How can you overlook the fact that all legal review and oversight so far conducted with regard to similar activities by other Presidents has not wrought any official proceeding?

Answer that first, if you please?

It has been recounted:

Carter, the "author" of FISA, did precisely what Bush did (in peace time!), with nary a peep from his congress nor any legal review, and, in fact, received legal sanction for same.

Is Feingold some sort of political genius?

Don't make me laugh

Don't forget to answer the question, now....I will answer to this once you actually respond on the factcheck post which you suggested you could refute. If you wish to change the subject and not talk about the post to which you are replying then you have no right to expect me to respond to that changed subject.

I am guessing the reason you are not refuting the factcheck post is because it is just that....facts.

We are all entitled to our own opinions but not our own facts.

edit:
but then your question was answered before you asked

Tell me.

Is murder legal because OJ is walking free?
What has anything Carter did or didn't do got to do with THIS ?
How many times do we have to say that something cannot be excused because someone tried it before. A wrongdoing then is still a wrongdoing now.

Should Bush get caught in the oval office being blown by condi...then lie about it, would it be a defense to say "well clinton did the same thing"?

edit 2:

btw. feingold voted for the clinton impeachment investigation....in case you missed that....he voted to investigate clinton

[j2k4]

Refute what, exactly?

It is what it is; I don't feel compelled to respond to an RNC characterization of Feingold's motion.

I didn't express a want or need to refute anything, and, as I've posted previously, at length and ad nauseum, I don't see Bush's actions as exceptional, especially when viewed in the historical context my cut-and-paste provides.

Feingold is entitled to make an ass of himself, as are any Democrats and Republicans who agree with him.

As a matter of fact, I wish the Dems would get behind him and his "winning" strategy.

Now, answer my question.

[vidcc]

Refute what, exactly?

It is what it is; I don't feel compelled to respond to an RNC characterization of Feingold's motion.

I didn't express a want or need to refute anything, and, as I've posted previously, at length and ad nauseum, I don't see Bush's actions as exceptional, especially when viewed in the historical context my cut-and-paste provides.

Feingold is entitled to make an ass of himself, as are any Democrats and Republicans who agree with him.

As a matter of fact, I wish the Dems would get behind him and his "winning" strategy.

Now, answer my question.



erm

I could answer that cut-and-paste with a cut-and-paste of my own, but I have foresworn their use in argumentative circumstances. Now you could suggest that you were saying "I could...but I won't"....however then that would look silly as you did just that...pitty it had little to do with the point.

You had your answer...twice.....once before you asked and once after...bolded.

[j2k4]

erm

I could answer that cut-and-paste with a cut-and-paste of my own, but I have foresworn their use in argumentative circumstances. Now you could suggest that you were saying "I could...but I won't"....however then that would look silly as you did just that...pitty it had little to do with the point.

You had your answer...twice.....once before you asked and once after...bolded.

I said "answer"; counter, if you will-not "refute".

Feingold's rationale is selectively applied.

I don't care about the RNC's mis-characterization of his effort.

The inanity of Feingold's motion should be apparent to anyone with even minimal historical perspective.

I don't see what purpose your/their "factcheck" serves, nor do I care; I merely seek to answer Feingold's presumption.

[vidcc]

I said "answer"; counter, if you will-not "refute".
sure....:rolleyes: Well you didn't even do that
Feingold's rationale is selectively applied.

I don't care about the RNC's mis-characterization of his effort.

The inanity of Feingold's motion should be apparent to anyone with even minimal historical perspective.

I don't see what purpose your/their "factcheck" serves, nor do I care; I merely seek to answer Feingold's presumption.


btw. feingold voted for the clinton impeachment investigation....in case you missed that....he voted to investigate clinton
He seems pretty consistant to me..perhaps you disagree
CNN/AllPolitics - Storypage, with TIME and Congressional Quarterly

Democrat bucks party line to vote with GOP in Clinton hearing
January 28, 1999
Web posted at: 1:03 a.m. EST (0603 GMT)

WASHINGTON (AllPolitics, Jan. 28) -- Sen. Russell Feingold broke ranks with fellow Democrats Wednesday when he voted with Republicans in the impeachment trial of President Bill Clinton.

Feingold voted against a motion to dismiss the trial and voted in favor of a motion to allow the deposition of three witnesses.

The 45-year-old Wisconsin Democrat was the only senator to break party solidarity, putting him in the company of the Senate's 55 Republicans while the other 44 Democrats voted the other way.

He stressed his action in no way expressed how he might vote in the final determinations of whether Clinton should be removed from office.

Feingold issued a written statement regarding his votes, but refused to take reporters' questions. In the statement, he said dismissing the case now would "improperly short- circuit this trial."

He added that the House prosecutors must have "every reasonable opportunity" -- including testimony from witnesses -- to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Clinton should be removed from office on charges of perjury and obstruction of justice.
Republican endorsement

Stubbornly independent Feingold did not quite provide the level of bipartisanship Republicans had hoped for, but they were grateful nonetheless.

"We have one Democrat who was willing to stand up to his own caucus," said Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah. "Let me tell you, that was a big-time thing."

Feingold said it was only fair to give House prosecutors more time to attempt to prove the impeachment allegations.

Feingold's move surprised few who know him.

In his hard-fought re-election campaign last year against Republican congressman Mark Neumann, Feingold took the unusual step of ordering negative ads about his opponent taken off the air and rejecting commercials on his behalf paid for with "soft money."

And in the Senate he has been a leading advocate of campaign reform legislation unpopular with many colleagues in both parties.

As for his Senate votes Wednesday, Sen. Joseph Lieberman, D-Conn., said Feingold had indicated that he had concern especially about the obstruction of justice article and "wanted to hear witnesses before he reached his judgment on it."

Feingold had previously sought separate dismissal votes on the two articles and said in his statement that one of them "comes closer to the core meaning of high crimes and misdemeanors."

Lieberman, who stunned the White House in September with a speech highly critical of Clinton's conduct and urged some formal disapproval, said he respected Feingold's position and told him "not to worry about his votes."

Most Democrats avoided direct criticism of Feingold. "I think he voted his conscience," said Sen. John Breaux, D- La. "It's an indication we didn't try to break arms and insist on a caucus vote."

His votes cracked an otherwise straight party line showing by Democrats and Republicans, putting Feingold in the company of the Senate's 55 Republicans while the other 44 Democrats voted the other way.

"My view, as of this moment, is that to dismiss this case would in appearance and in fact improperly 'short circuit' this trial," Feingold said in a statement after the votes.

Feingold said it was possible he could support a motion to adjourn or dismiss at a later stage of the trial, "although I strongly prefer that this trial conclude with a final vote on the articles."

The Senate is considering two articles of impeachment against Clinton, perjury and obstruction of justice, related to attempts to cover up his affair with Lewinsky.

"It would have allowed the Senate to consider the strength of the evidence presented on the two separate articles and the possibility that one of the articles comes closer to the core meaning of high crimes and misdemeanors than the other," Feingold said. source (http://edition.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/stories/1999/01/28/feingold.01/)


Funny how the RNC or any right wing bloggers/columist/commentators never mention any of this in the character assasination process

[j2k4]

Oh, now I get it.

I am obligated to tip my hat to Feingold on account of his honesty and consistancy?

I am supposed to assign to him a degree of gravitas because he voted to impeach Clinton and because he's standing against his own caucus?

Hear this:

I couldn't care less about Feingold's character, much less who's assassinating it, and if you deem the RNC's treatment of him to be pejorative, that's fine; I don't feel any compulsion to rehabilitate him for you.

I don't align myself with the RNC, and you should know that by now.

Answer the question.

[vidcc]

Oh, now I get it.

I am obligated to tip my hat to Feingold on account of his honesty and consistancy?

I am supposed to assign to him a degree of gravitas because he voted to impeach Clinton and because he's standing against his own caucus?
Not at all.... you insinuated that he is selective...I simply "answered; countered, if you will".... am I allowed to do that?......
btw. I was unaware feingold was in office during the carter years, still that's no excuse for not raising a censure motion against him I guess so he must be selective:rolleyes:


Hear this:

I couldn't care less about Feingold's character, much less who's assassinating it, and if you deem the RNC's treatment of him to be pejorative, that's fine; I don't feel any compulsion to rehabilitate him for you.

I don't align myself with the RNC, and you should know that by now.
yet you seem very passionate about it all, but given this why the paste?
Answer the question.

3rd time answering.


How many times do we have to say that something cannot be excused because someone tried it before. A wrongdoing then is still a wrongdoing now.

[Busyman™]

Tom Delay quits congress. Yay!!!

I hope he still gets brought up on federal charges though.

[Tempestv]

Tom Delay quits congress. Yay!!!

I hope he still gets brought up on federal charges though.


How true

then they can charge our scum- Conrad Burns

[j2k4]

Tom Delay quits congress. Yay!!!

I hope he still gets brought up on federal charges though.

Yay, indeed.

Better than the tenterhooks.

Why that last, BTW?

Is it especially important to you for some reason?

[Busyman™]

Tom Delay quits congress. Yay!!!

I hope he still gets brought up on federal charges though.

Yay, indeed.

Better than the tenterhooks.

Why that last, BTW?

Is it especially important to you for some reason?
Yes if he thinks he can quit to avoid any federal charges.

[j2k4]

Yay, indeed.

Better than the tenterhooks.

Why that last, BTW?

Is it especially important to you for some reason?
Yes if he thinks he can quit to avoid any federal charges.

I'm sure we'll find that out, then.

It's not as if they'll stop looking...

[vidcc]

Much as I am enjoying the whole delay ethics saga I am not convicting him before trial, there is enough ideological dirt for me to play with.

I will however say his defense tactics remind me of the mob..... don't want to face trial.... get rid of the prosecution.


delay leaving helps the repubs. and annoys me..... I wanted to see his smile the day after he was voted out :angry: :P

[Busyman™]

Former Illinois Gov. George Ryan, praised by death penalty foes for halting executions but accused of using public office to enrich friends and family, was found guilty on Monday of fraud, racketeering, tax evasion and other charges.

The federal court jury verdict, which similarly found Ryan's friend and co-defendant Larry Warner guilty of all counts against him, is a stern warning that no one in public office is above the law, officials said after the decision.

The jury convicted Ryan, 72, of all 18 felony counts against him, including racketeering conspiracy, mail fraud, tax fraud and making false statements to the FBI.

He had steadfastly denied any guilt for the alleged offenses that took place when he was governor, and before that secretary of state. Each count carried maximum prison sentences of between three and 20 years, plus fines, and prosecutors said they will seek $3 million in restitution from Ryan and Warner. They will be sentenced in August.

Warner, 67, a businessman who won lucrative state lobbying deals while Ryan was in office, was found guilty of racketeering, mail fraud, attempted extortion, money laundering and making unlawful currency withdrawals.

FREE VACATIONS, TICKETS

The bulk of the case involved a web of leases and contracts that benefited friends of Ryan, who prosecutors said had hung a "for sale" sign on his office. Prosecutors portrayed him as a big-spender who accepted free vacations, tickets to events and gifts to his family from friends who brokered deals with the state with Ryan's backing.

Evidence presented at the trial depicted Ryan as a man who spent freely from wads of cash but rarely made bank withdrawals during his time in state office. His lawyers said that evidence was circumstantial at best and no witness had testified that Ryan was actually handed a bribe.

Ryan, a Republican who served one term as governor, said he was disappointed by the convictions but was confident of winning an appeal.


Count it.:happy:

[j2k4]

Former Illinois Gov. George Ryan, praised by death penalty foes for halting executions but accused of using public office to enrich friends and family, was found guilty on Monday of fraud, racketeering, tax evasion and other charges.

The federal court jury verdict, which similarly found Ryan's friend and co-defendant Larry Warner guilty of all counts against him, is a stern warning that no one in public office is above the law, officials said after the decision.

The jury convicted Ryan, 72, of all 18 felony counts against him, including racketeering conspiracy, mail fraud, tax fraud and making false statements to the FBI.

He had steadfastly denied any guilt for the alleged offenses that took place when he was governor, and before that secretary of state. Each count carried maximum prison sentences of between three and 20 years, plus fines, and prosecutors said they will seek $3 million in restitution from Ryan and Warner. They will be sentenced in August.

Warner, 67, a businessman who won lucrative state lobbying deals while Ryan was in office, was found guilty of racketeering, mail fraud, attempted extortion, money laundering and making unlawful currency withdrawals.

FREE VACATIONS, TICKETS

The bulk of the case involved a web of leases and contracts that benefited friends of Ryan, who prosecutors said had hung a "for sale" sign on his office. Prosecutors portrayed him as a big-spender who accepted free vacations, tickets to events and gifts to his family from friends who brokered deals with the state with Ryan's backing.

Evidence presented at the trial depicted Ryan as a man who spent freely from wads of cash but rarely made bank withdrawals during his time in state office. His lawyers said that evidence was circumstantial at best and no witness had testified that Ryan was actually handed a bribe.

Ryan, a Republican who served one term as governor, said he was disappointed by the convictions but was confident of winning an appeal.


Count it.:happy:

Execute him. ;)

[Busyman™]

Another one
House Speaker Dennis Hastert requested Sunday that the Justice Department conduct an investigation into former Rep. Mark Foley's electronic messages to teenage boys - a lurid scandal that has put House Republicans in political peril.

"As Speaker of the House, I hereby request that the Department of Justice conduct an investigation of Mr. Foley's conduct with current and former House pages to determine to what extent any of his actions violated federal law," Hastert, R-Ill., wrote in a letter to Attorney General Alberto Gonzales.

The White House and Democratic leaders in Congress also called Sunday for a criminal probe. White House counselor Dan Bartlett called the allegations against Foley shocking, but said President Bush hadn't learned of Foley's inappropriate e-mails to a 16-year-old boy and instant messages to other boys before the news broke last week.

"There is going to be, I'm sure, a criminal investigation into the particulars of this case," Bartlett said. "We need to make sure that the page system is one in which children come up here and can work and make sure that they are protected."

Foley, R-Fla., quit Congress on Friday after the disclosure of the e-mails he sent to a former congressional page and sexually suggestive instant messages he sent to other high school pages.

Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid of Nevada called the Foley case "repugnant, but equally as bad is the possibility that Republican leaders in the House of Representatives knew there was a problem and ignored it to preserve a congressional seat this election year."

Reid said the case should be handled outside Congress.

"Under laws that Congressman Foley helped write, soliciting sex from a minor online is a federal crime," Reid said. "The alleged crimes here are far outside the scope of any congressional committee, and the attorney general should open a full-scale investigation immediately."

In his letter to Gonzales on Sunday, Hastert asked the Justice Department to investigate "who had specific knowledge of the content of any sexually explicit communications between Mr. Foley and any former or current House pages and what actions such individuals took, if any, to provide them to law enforcement."

The scope of the investigation, Hastert wrote, should include "any and all individuals who may have been aware of this matter - be they members of Congress, employees of the House of Representatives or anyone outside the Congress."

Hastert also sent a letter to Florida Gov. Jeb Bush on Sunday requesting that he "direct the Florida Department of Law Enforcement to conduct an investigation of Mr. Foley's conduct with current and former House pages."

Hastert maintained at first that he had learned only last week about the e-mails. But Rep. Thomas Reynolds, head of the House Republican election effort, said Saturday he had told Hastert months ago about concerns Foley sent inappropriate messages to a teenage boy. Reynolds, R-N.Y., is under attack from Democrats who say he did too little to protect the boy.

Hastert acknowledged over the weekend that his aides had, in fact, referred the matter to the House clerk and to the congressman who was chairman of the board that oversees the page program. Hastert's office said, however, it had not known the e-mails were anything more than "over-friendly."

Majority Republicans engineered a House vote Friday that refers the Foley matter to the House ethics committee, but lets that panel decide whether there should even be an investigation.

Rep. Nancy Pelosi of California, the House Democratic leader, pressed the committee on Sunday to begin investigating and make a preliminary report within 10 days. She demanded to know who knew of the messages, whether Foley had other contacts with pages and when the Republican leadership was notified of Foley's conduct.

"Republican leaders have admitted to knowing about Mr. Foley's outrageous behavior for six months to a year, and they chose to cover it up rather than to protect these children," she wrote.

Congressional pages, a staple of Washington politics since the 1820s, are high school students who serve as temporary gofers in the House and Senate. The program nearly ended in the early 1980s due to alleged sexual misconduct and drug use.

Republican leaders say it is their duty to ensure House pages' safety, and are now creating a toll-free hot line for pages and their families to call to confidentially report any incidents. They also will consider adopting new rules on communications between lawmakers and pages.

House Democrats said that wasn't enough.

"This should be investigated objectively. I think the Democratic leadership should have been told 10 months ago," said Rep. Jane Harman of California, top Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee. "I gather that basically nothing was done except that Foley was warned."

Rep. John Murtha, D-Pa., said the House ethics committee should conclude its work on the Foley case before the November elections, so that voters can "hold people accountable." Doing so, he said, might help restore public confidence, since already "the reputation of Congress under the Republican leadership is lower than used car salesmen."

Foley, who is 52 and single, was co-chairman of the Congressional Missing and Exploited Children's Caucus. In a statement Friday, he said, "I am deeply sorry and I apologize for letting down my family and the people of Florida I have had the privilege to represent."

Harman was on "Fox News Sunday," Murtha appeared on ABC's "This Week" and Bartlett spoke on ABC's "This Week, CNN's "Late Edition" and CBS'"Face the Nation."

[vidcc]

I wonder if we will find out who knew what, when and what they did or didn't do about it before the elections.

That said they will have to try to remember where the ethics committee room is first.....that could take a while, it's been so long since it was last used.

[vidcc]

It's expected that faux would not be able to report on this without trying to point out that Democrats have "scandals"....they use Clinton's name in every sentence they say Foley's name, as if an extra marital affair between consenting adults is the same as a pedophile. However Rush topped faux and managed to spin this so that Foley is just an innocent victim of democratic smear.


"The release of all this (Foley's e-mails) was not to save the children. It was not to take a predator off the streets. This was a strategic move to help the Democrats. They could have known it before the Republicans. It would appear so."

He then blamed the concealing of the e-mails on Nancy Pelosi. :ermm:

[Busyman™]

It's expected that faux would not be able to report on this without trying to point out that Democrats have "scandals"....they use Clinton's name in every sentence they say Foley's name, as if an extra marital affair between consenting adults is the same as a pedophile. However Rush topped faux and managed to spin this so that Foley is just an innocent victim of democratic smear.


"The release of all this (Foley's e-mails) was not to save the children. It was not to take a predator off the streets. This was a strategic move to help the Democrats. They could have known it before the Republicans. It would appear so."

He then blamed the concealing of the e-mails on Nancy Pelosi. :ermm:

I really don't like Rush. From his remarks about McNabb (who went to a handful of NFC Championships in a row and a Superbowl; overrated?) to what just posted above.

To use some forum lingo....he's a fucktard.

Equating an adulterer to a pedophile? What about equating a pedophile to a drug addict?:ermm:

[vidcc]

Hannity is blaming the democrats as well right now. He's angry as hell that this has been released 5 weeks before an election.