Threads in some sections have NO links for Guests, Register before you can view those threads.
View Full Version : I'm constantly on the look-out for the dirt on Conservatives...
...but all I found was this:
Breaking from NewsMax.com
A new book by a top investigative journalist exposes the blatant hypocrisy of liberals who loudly espouse principles they disregard in their own personal lives.
In "Do As I Say (Not As I Do): Profiles in Liberal Hypocrisy," Hoover Fellow Peter Schweizer reveals the glaring contradictions between the public stances and real-life behavior of prominent liberals including Michael Moore, Ted Kennedy, Al Franken, Hillary Clinton, Nancy Pelosi and Ralph Nader - among others.
"Hypocrisy has proved to be a wonderful weapon for liberals in their war against conservatives," Schweizer writes in the November issue of NewsMax Magazine.
"Yet for all the talk about conservative hypocrisy, there has been very little investigation into the prevalence of hypocrisy on the left."
After two years of research into liberal hypocrisy, Schweizer said, "what I discovered was just stunning."
Schweizer's well-annotated book, published by Doubleday, has just been released and its sure to turn several well-known liberals red with anger.
Among the eye-opening revelations of "Do As I Say":
a.. Filmmaker Michael Moore insists that corporations are evil and claims he doesn't invest in the stock market due to moral principle. But Moore's IRS forms, viewed by Schweizer, show that over the past five years he has owned shares in such corporate giants as Halliburton, Merck, Pfizer, Sunoco, Tenet Healthcare, Ford, General Electric and McDonald's.
b.. Staunch union supporter Rep. Nancy Pelosi (Calif.) has received the Cesar Chavez Award from the United Farmworkers Union. But the $25 million Northern California vineyard she and her husband own is a non-union shop.
The hypocrisy doesn't end there. Pelosi has received more money from the Hotel Employees and Restaurant Employees union than any other member of Congress in recent election cycles.
But the Pelosis own a large stake in an exclusive hotel in Rutherford, Calif. It has more than 250 employees. But none of them are in a union, according to Schweizer, author of "The Bushes: Portrait of a Dynasty" and a regular contributor to the New York Times, Wall Street Journal and other periodicals.
The Pelosis are also partners in a restaurant chain called Piatti, which has 900 employees. The chain is - that's right, a non-union shop.
a.. Ralph Nader is another liberal who claims that unions are essential to protect worker rights. But when an editor of one of his publications tried to form a union to ameliorate miserable working conditions, the editor was fired and the locks changed on the office door.
b.. Self-described socialist Noam Chomsky has described the Pentagon as "the most vile institution on the face of the earth" and lashed out against tax havens and trusts that benefit only the rich.
But Chomsky has been paid millions of dollars by the Pentagon over the last 40 years, and he used a venerable law firm to set up his irrevocable trust to shield his assets from the IRS.
a.. Air America radio host Al Franken says conservatives are racist because they lack diversity and oppose affirmative action. But fewer than 1 percent of the people he has hired over the past 15 years have been African-American.
b.. Ted Kennedy has fought for the estate tax and spoken out against tax shelters. But he has repeatedly benefited from an intricate web of trusts and private foundations that have shielded most of his family's fortune from the IRS.
One Kennedy family trust wasn't even set up in the U.S., but in Fiji.
Another family member, environmentalist Robert Kennedy Jr., has said that it is not moral to profit from natural resources. But he receives an annual check from the family's large holdings in the oil industry.
a.. Barbra Streisand has talked about the necessity of unions to protect a "living wage." But she prefers to do her filming and postproduction work in Canada, where she can pay less than American union wages.
b.. Bill and Hillary Clinton have spoken in favor of the estate tax, and in 2000 Bill vetoed a bill seeking to end it. But the Clintons have set up a contract trust that allows them to substantially reduce the amount of inheritance tax their estate will pay when they die.
Hillary, for her part, has written and spoken extensively about the right of children to make major decisions regarding their own lives. But she barred 13-year-old daughter Chelsea from getting her ears pierced and forbid the teen from watching MTV or HBO.
a.. Billionaire Bush-basher George Soros says the wealthy should pay higher, more progressive tax rates. But he holds the bulk of his money in tax-free overseas accounts in Curacao, Bermuda and the Cayman Islands.
Schweizer writes: "Liberals claim to support affirmative action but don't practice it. They support higher taxes but set up complicated tax shelters to avoid paying them. They claim to be ardent environmentalists but abandon their cause when it impinges on their own property rights.
"The reality is that liberals like to preach in moral platitudes. They like to condemn ordinary Americans and Republicans for a whole host of things - racism, lack of concern for the poor, polluting the environment, and greed.
"But when it comes to applying those same standards to themselves, liberals are found to be shockingly guilty of hypocrisy.
"The media and the American people need to hold them accountable."
Did you ever notice: When you put the two words "The" and "IRS" together it
spells "Theirs."?
clocker
11-03-2005, 02:27 AM
b.. Self-described socialist Noam Chomsky has described the Pentagon as "the most vile institution on the face of the earth" and lashed out against tax havens and trusts that benefit only the rich.
But Chomsky has been paid millions of dollars by the Pentagon over the last 40 years, and he used a venerable law firm to set up his irrevocable trust to shield his assets from the IRS.
Um, why in the world has the Pentagon paid Chomsky anything in the past 40 years?
Is is in the military or collecting a pension?
Oh well, doesn't matter.
Chomsky already showed his lack of credibility by not opting for a "non-venerable" lawfirm to look after his assets.
3RA1N1AC
11-03-2005, 08:22 AM
I'm constantly on the look-out for the dirt on Conservatives...
i suppose it might be possible to be a right-winger and have a fair share of personal scandal, which doesn't negate one's status as a rightist....
but shouldn't a socially or religiously conservative person by definition be so chaste or discreet that finding dirt on his personal life would negate his veneer of conservativism? in so many words, a conservative is only conservative until skeletons are found in his closet, at which point he's revealed to be a liberal.
or a libertine. which "liberal" seems to have become synonymous with, lately. :D
b.. Self-described socialist Noam Chomsky has described the Pentagon as "the most vile institution on the face of the earth" and lashed out against tax havens and trusts that benefit only the rich.
But Chomsky has been paid millions of dollars by the Pentagon over the last 40 years, and he used a venerable law firm to set up his irrevocable trust to shield his assets from the IRS.
Um, why in the world has the Pentagon paid Chomsky anything in the past 40 years?
Is is in the military or collecting a pension?
Oh well, doesn't matter.
Chomsky already showed his lack of credibility by not opting for a "non-venerable" lawfirm to look after his assets.
Quite right about that last; Chomsky issues a blanket rejection of established (venerable) institutions, yet retains their services.
That's ironic just because it's Chomsky.
a.. Barbra Streisand has talked about the necessity of unions to protect a "living wage." But she prefers to do her filming and postproduction work in Canada, where she can pay less than American union wages.I thought this typical of the way facts are distorted to give a false impression. Schweizer implies that she works in Canada to save money. But look at the two statements separately.
She prefers to do her filming and post production work in Canada.
She can pay less than American union wages.
There is no direct suggestion that she goes to Canada in order to pay less, nor that she actually does pay less, but by running the two together Schweizer is certainly trying to make that smear.
a.. Filmmaker Michael Moore insists that corporations are evil and claims he doesn't invest in the stock market due to moral principle. But Moore's IRS forms, viewed by Schweizer, show that over the past five years he has owned shares in such corporate giants as Halliburton, Merck, Pfizer, Sunoco, Tenet Healthcare, Ford, General Electric and McDonald's.I'm pretty sure Michael Moore hasn't insisted that corporations are evil, but Schweizer knows he won't get directly challenged on it. He (Michael Moore) has gone on record as stating that he's bought shares in the above corporations in order to be able to visit the Annual/Extraordinary General Meetings they hold. But of course it doesn't help Schweizer's argument so he keeps that very pertinent fact back from the reader.
I could go on and pick holes (actually, gaping chasms) in just about every snide comment Schweizer vomits up, but what's the point.
Sorry, j2, you've dragged up yet another incompetent hack. I really expect you to be able to do better than this.
GepperRankins
11-03-2005, 01:58 PM
how stupid do you have to be not to find dirt on the conservatives?
Busyman
11-03-2005, 03:58 PM
I thought this typical of the way facts are distorted to give a false impression. Schweizer implies that she works in Canada to save money. But look at the two statements separately.
She prefers to do her filming and post production work in Canada.
She can pay less than American union wages.
There is no direct suggestion that she goes to Canada in order to pay less, nor that she actually does pay less, but by running the two together Schweizer is certainly trying to make that smear.
a.. Filmmaker Michael Moore insists that corporations are evil and claims he doesn't invest in the stock market due to moral principle. But Moore's IRS forms, viewed by Schweizer, show that over the past five years he has owned shares in such corporate giants as Halliburton, Merck, Pfizer, Sunoco, Tenet Healthcare, Ford, General Electric and McDonald's.I'm pretty sure Michael Moore hasn't insisted that corporations are evil, but Schweizer knows he won't get directly challenged on it. He (Michael Moore) has gone on record as stating that he's bought shares in the above corporations in order to be able to visit the Annual/Extraordinary General Meetings they hold. But of course it doesn't help Schweizer's argument so he keeps that very pertinent fact back from the reader.
I could go on and pick holes (actually, gaping chasms) in just about every snide comment Schweizer vomits up, but what's the point.
Sorry, j2, you've dragged up yet another incompetent hack. I really expect you to be able to do better than this.
Nice post lynx.;) I even knew that about Michael Moore.:lol: :lol: j2 read more than what comes in your email.:lol: :lol:
Also it should be noted that the reason much filming goes on in Canada is 'cause the locales charge less to film there.:dry:
3RA1N1AC
11-03-2005, 04:12 PM
There is no direct suggestion that she goes to Canada in order to pay less, nor that she actually does pay less, but by running the two together Schweizer is certainly trying to make that smear.
general view in the film industry is that u.s. producers do pay less by moving their productions to another country, as they're more competitive & eager to get involved with a u.s.-financed film. however besides costs, there's another practical reason for such a move: hollywood is a very busy & crowded workplace. oftentimes there's a surplus of cash, but a shortage of talent and space. the availability of workers & facilities in a foreign country when an equivalent quality might be unavailable in the u.s. due to prior commitments. i.e. suppose you've got money and you want to make a certain type of movie in the u.s., but you can't make that movie because the combination of workers & facilities you'd need to hire are already committed to other films for the next entire year. what would you do, then? start considering those offers coming from toronto, sydney, etc, which all say: "look, over here! we've got people with the requisite level of skill & talent, and adequate stages, that you need in order to get your film made!" as an incentive, they'll usually offer to go lower than u.s. prices.
outdoor locations are important too. some filmmakers go in search of veracity 'cause there's nothing like the real place. others go in search of locations that can be used as substitutes for what they're trying to portray. toronto and vancouver for example have a sort of "generic north american city" appearance that can easily stand in for a number of u.s. cities where it'd be impractical or impossible to film (due to a lack of qualified workers in the region, or due to the city gov't refusing to grant permits to film in public, etc). or for another example, "apocalypse now" was filmed in the philippines because vietnam was unavailable and los angeles just doesn't look like an asian jungle no matter how many potted plants you put in the background.
I thought this typical of the way facts are distorted to give a false impression. Schweizer implies that she works in Canada to save money. But look at the two statements separately.
She prefers to do her filming and post production work in Canada.
She can pay less than American union wages.
There is no direct suggestion that she goes to Canada in order to pay less, nor that she actually does pay less, but by running the two together Schweizer is certainly trying to make that smear.
Look how hard you are working to split the requisite hairs to concoct this tortured attempt at refuting Schweiser's very correct deduction.
Apparently the same "appearances mean everything" precept you use to try to hang others doesn't apply to "other-than-conservatives", huh?
a.. Filmmaker Michael Moore insists that corporations are evil and claims he doesn't invest in the stock market due to moral principle. But Moore's IRS forms, viewed by Schweizer, show that over the past five years he has owned shares in such corporate giants as Halliburton, Merck, Pfizer, Sunoco, Tenet Healthcare, Ford, General Electric and McDonald's.I'm pretty sure Michael Moore hasn't insisted that corporations are evil, but Schweizer knows he won't get directly challenged on it. He (Michael Moore) has gone on record as stating that he's bought shares in the above corporations in order to be able to visit the Annual/Extraordinary General Meetings they hold. But of course it doesn't help Schweizer's argument so he keeps that very pertinent fact back from the reader.
He's gone on record?
Oh, my.
Must be true then, huh?
Once again, your urge to "believe' has you looking like the most gullible bird on this board, Lynx.
Also, I believe Mr.Schweizer's effort qualifies as going on the "record", too, which gives him co-equal status with Mr. Moore.
I could go on and pick holes (actually, gaping chasms) in just about every snide comment Schweizer vomits up, but what's the point.
You haven't picked anything, lynx, don't flatter yourself.
Sorry, j2, you've dragged up yet another incompetent hack. I really expect you to be able to do better than this.
Really.
I must say that your post, given it's whiny tone and inane reasoning, is entirely typical of what I've come to expect from you.
As an aside, I've always been supremely impressed with your knowledge on any number of subjects, but specifically computors.
I remember a while back I developed a curiousity about RAID arrays, and you stepped up with the most comprehensive dissertation on RAID in general, and also it's various incarnations and usages.
I was singularly impressed by that, and continue to be educated by the sum of your posting in the "Hardware" and "Software" sections.
In short, you are one smart fellow indeed, and I salute you for both your knowledge and willingness to share it to the benefit of others.
Funny thing, though:
In here, your distaste for me, as well as what I try to represent, guides your mind at every post, and reveals you as just one more liberal.
I wonder that you post opposite me for no reason apart from some sense of one-upmanship, and, were I not posting, you wouldn't bother.
Busyman
11-04-2005, 08:19 PM
j2 your post was full of bullshit and no shit Sherlock.
It's the old "He's against raising taxes, but raised taxes anyway."
You just posted that Democratic politicians can be dishonest and hypocritical just like anybody else.:lol: :lol: :lol:
It's policies that affect my life that I care about.
Maybe you'll find some dirt on conservatives like you found on liberals in your email inbox.:lol: :lol: :lol:
j2 your post was full of bullshit and no shit Sherlock.
It's the old "He's against raising taxes, but raised taxes anyway."
You just posted that Democratic politicians can be dishonest and hypocritical just like anybody else.:lol: :lol: :lol:
It's policies that affect my life that I care about.
Maybe you'll find some dirt on conservatives like you found on liberals in your email inbox.:lol: :lol: :lol:
Maybe you should check your e-mail inbox.
I don't overlook dirty conservatives, but if you can find for me one who, say, advocates sweat-shop labor, or slavery or some such, and then doesn't practice what he preaches, then you're in business.
Another terrific example is that great love of liberals, the public education system.
Conservative politicians call it what it is-a seriously flawed system-and send their kids to private schools.
Liberal politicians call it the greatest thing since sliced bread, and send their kids to....private schools!
It's about hypocrisy, Busyman.
Find me some good (meaning true) dirt on conservatives and I'll denounce them, just for you.
You'd have to take a pill or something to do the same for the libs though, wouldn't you?
vidcc
11-04-2005, 10:47 PM
I don't overlook dirty conservatives, but if you can find for me one who, say, advocates sweat-shop labor, or slavery or some such, and then doesn't practice what he preaches, then you're in business.
Tony Perkins and his ilk...nuff said
I was going to mention Delay and the Mariana Islands, but then he really does believe in "slave labour" and is trying everything in his power to promote it.
Mind you Tom Delay complaining about "partisan politics":rolleyes:
Perhaps an example we could use is supreme court nominees and the demand for a "fair up or down vote"....conservatives seemed to ignore this mantra when demanding Miers withdraw.
However I will say that both liberals and Conservatives suffer from blindness to their own hypocrisy
Conservatives calling liberals unpatriotic if they are against the Iraq war yet they are unwilling to join up themselves and serve their country.
Another terrific example is that great love of liberals, the public education system.
Conservative politicians call it what it is-a seriously flawed system-and send their kids to private schools.
Liberal politicians call it the greatest thing since sliced bread, and send their kids to....private schools!
I'm not sure why you think that is hypocritical. Just because one thinks something is good doesn't make one hypocritical if one doesn't use it.
I'm also not surprised that you have an incorrect view of what liberals think of public schools. They don't think the schools are "the greatest thing since sliced bread" in fact they realise they have problems and wish to fix them. What they do think is great about them is that they give the opportunity for everyone to receive an education.
Not everyone can afford private schools so liberals wish to make the public schools better.... This would be a lot easier if conservatives stopped trying to put religion into schools and instead let them teach facts. It would be a lot easier if conservatives stopped expecting schools to raise their children for them. Parents are responsible for teaching morals to their children, not the school.:rolleyes:
Busyman
11-04-2005, 10:48 PM
j2 your post was full of bullshit and no shit Sherlock.
It's the old "He's against raising taxes, but raised taxes anyway."
You just posted that Democratic politicians can be dishonest and hypocritical just like anybody else.:lol: :lol: :lol:
It's policies that affect my life that I care about.
Maybe you'll find some dirt on conservatives like you found on liberals in your email inbox.:lol: :lol: :lol:
Maybe you should check your e-mail inbox.
I don't overlook dirty conservatives, but if you can find for me one who, say, advocates sweat-shop labor, or slavery or some such, and then doesn't practice what he preaches, then you're in business.
Another terrific example is that great love of liberals, the public education system.
Conservative politicians call it what it is-a seriously flawed system-and send their kids to private schools.
Liberal politicians call it the greatest thing since sliced bread, and send their kids to....private schools!
It's about hypocrisy, Busyman.
Find me some good (meaning true) dirt on conservatives and I'll denounce them, just for you.
You'd have to take a pill or something to do the same for the libs though, wouldn't you?
Nah. I'm not known for digging dirt or getting dirt sent to me in my email from some con or lib friend.
Many politicians on both sides are dishonest and hypocrits and I don't need to be sent an email or read your posts to know that.
My motto is start a politician at an F.
I am automatically distrustful of them.
They are here to serve me.
Blahblahblah....
J2, you write like a wanker. You also do it publicly. Now I'll run those two together, and ask why the authorities have not arrested you for wanking in public.
That's the equivalent of Schweitzer's writing.
You started this thread to try to imply that the only dirt around was against (what you call) liberals. But all you could actually come up with was a bullshit hack who can't interpret reality.
Most conservatives would distance themselves from your absurd rhetoric. Of course I oppose your apparent views. An agent provocateur (yes that's French, don't worry about it) couldn't do more damage to the conservative cause than your posts do.
If you actually believe a single word that second-rate "journalist" came up with then I feel sorry for you, and hopefully your minders will be a little more generous with your medication next time.
Just to put your mind at ease wrt to Ms Streisand and Mr Moore (neither of whom I particularly like btw). If Schweizer could actually show that Ms Streisand had gone to Canada to save on labour costs, he would have done so. If Schweizer could have shown that Mr Moore had made a fortune from the stocks he purchased, he would have done so. The very fact that he didn't should have told you something. Do you ever think to query what these people seem to be telling you? It certainly doesn't appear so.
Jeez, I said it was Schweizer who couldn't interpret reality, maybe I've picked the wrong person.
GepperRankins
11-05-2005, 02:26 AM
J2, you write like a wanker. You also do it publicly. Now I'll run those two together, and ask why the authorities have not arrested you for wanking in public.
That's the equivalent of Schweitzer's writing.
You started this thread to try to imply that the only dirt around was against (what you call) liberals. But all you could actually come up with was a bullshit hack who can't interpret reality.
Most conservatives would distance themselves from your absurd rhetoric. Of course I oppose your apparent views. An agent provocateur (yes that's French, don't worry about it) couldn't do more damage to the conservative cause than your posts do.
If you actually believe a single word that second-rate "journalist" came up with then I feel sorry for you, and hopefully your minders will be a little more generous with your medication next time.
Just to put your mind at ease wrt to Ms Streisand and Mr Moore (neither of whom I particularly like btw). If Schweizer could actually show that Ms Streisand had gone to Canada to save on labour costs, he would have done so. If Schweizer could have shown that Mr Moore had made a fortune from the stocks he purchased, he would have done so. The very fact that he didn't should have told you something. Do you ever think to query what these people seem to be telling you? It certainly doesn't appear so.
Jeez, I said it was Schweizer who couldn't interpret reality, maybe I've picked the wrong person.
we got yo back holmes http://moderation.invisionzone.com/style_emoticons/default/hiphop.gif
i'm with busy on this. all polititians are arses. it seems most of the left turn right when they get power :dry:
Busyman
11-05-2005, 02:41 AM
J2, you write like a wanker. You also do it publicly. Now I'll run those two together, and ask why the authorities have not arrested you for wanking in public.
That's the equivalent of Schweitzer's writing.
You started this thread to try to imply that the only dirt around was against (what you call) liberals. But all you could actually come up with was a bullshit hack who can't interpret reality.
Most conservatives would distance themselves from your absurd rhetoric. Of course I oppose your apparent views. An agent provocateur (yes that's French, don't worry about it) couldn't do more damage to the conservative cause than your posts do.
If you actually believe a single word that second-rate "journalist" came up with then I feel sorry for you, and hopefully your minders will be a little more generous with your medication next time.
Just to put your mind at ease wrt to Ms Streisand and Mr Moore (neither of whom I particularly like btw). If Schweizer could actually show that Ms Streisand had gone to Canada to save on labour costs, he would have done so. If Schweizer could have shown that Mr Moore had made a fortune from the stocks he purchased, he would have done so. The very fact that he didn't should have told you something. Do you ever think to query what these people seem to be telling you? It certainly doesn't appear so.
Jeez, I said it was Schweizer who couldn't interpret reality, maybe I've picked the wrong person.
I must say that j2 has surprised me of late.
1. I actually admire the fact that he's at least come out with some of his views which mostly were well hidden behind cut and paste. Everyone was probably sick of that.
2. I'm disappointed with the rationale behind those views. It's a damn heartbreak. Both of us are American but are far apart in not necessarily our views, but how we think. It must have been the manner of his posts...like an Old English soliloquy or something. I don't know.
It's like finding out your favorite coworker likes to fuck chickens.:(
J2, you write like a wanker. You also do it publicly. Now I'll run those two together, and ask why the authorities have not arrested you for wanking in public.
That's the equivalent of Schweitzer's writing.
You started this thread to try to imply that the only dirt around was against (what you call) liberals. But all you could actually come up with was a bullshit hack who can't interpret reality.
Most conservatives would distance themselves from your absurd rhetoric. Of course I oppose your apparent views. An agent provocateur (yes that's French, don't worry about it) couldn't do more damage to the conservative cause than your posts do.
If you actually believe a single word that second-rate "journalist" came up with then I feel sorry for you, and hopefully your minders will be a little more generous with your medication next time.
Just to put your mind at ease wrt to Ms Streisand and Mr Moore (neither of whom I particularly like btw). If Schweizer could actually show that Ms Streisand had gone to Canada to save on labour costs, he would have done so. If Schweizer could have shown that Mr Moore had made a fortune from the stocks he purchased, he would have done so. The very fact that he didn't should have told you something. Do you ever think to query what these people seem to be telling you? It certainly doesn't appear so.
Jeez, I said it was Schweizer who couldn't interpret reality, maybe I've picked the wrong person.
I liked you better when you just deleted all my posts.
Too bad they changed the keys on you, but I'm sure you'll dope that out soon, and I'll disappear again, huh?
I must say that j2 has surprised me of late.
1. I actually admire the fact that he's at least come out with some of his views which mostly were well hidden behind cut and paste. Everyone was probably sick of that.
Quite right-I've hidden my views successfully for almost my entire tenure here.
You haven't known until very recently that I am a conservative.
How disingenuous of you to say so.
2. I'm disappointed with the rationale behind those views. It's a damn heartbreak. Both of us are American but are far apart in not necessarily our views, but how we think. It must have been the manner of his posts...like an Old English soliloquy or something. I don't know.
A "damn heartbreak"?
Pshaw.
'Twern't nothin.
It's like finding out your favorite coworker likes to fuck chickens.:(
Busyman at his best.
I imagine your screenplays read the same way.
Busyman
11-05-2005, 12:09 PM
J2, you write like a wanker. You also do it publicly. Now I'll run those two together, and ask why the authorities have not arrested you for wanking in public.
That's the equivalent of Schweitzer's writing.
You started this thread to try to imply that the only dirt around was against (what you call) liberals. But all you could actually come up with was a bullshit hack who can't interpret reality.
Most conservatives would distance themselves from your absurd rhetoric. Of course I oppose your apparent views. An agent provocateur (yes that's French, don't worry about it) couldn't do more damage to the conservative cause than your posts do.
If you actually believe a single word that second-rate "journalist" came up with then I feel sorry for you, and hopefully your minders will be a little more generous with your medication next time.
Just to put your mind at ease wrt to Ms Streisand and Mr Moore (neither of whom I particularly like btw). If Schweizer could actually show that Ms Streisand had gone to Canada to save on labour costs, he would have done so. If Schweizer could have shown that Mr Moore had made a fortune from the stocks he purchased, he would have done so. The very fact that he didn't should have told you something. Do you ever think to query what these people seem to be telling you? It certainly doesn't appear so.
Jeez, I said it was Schweizer who couldn't interpret reality, maybe I've picked the wrong person.
I liked you better when you just deleted all my posts.
Too bad they changed the keys on you, but I'm sure you'll dope that out soon, and I'll disappear again, huh?
:O :O Damn!!!:O :O
edit: again....gotta admire the teeth
Busyman
11-05-2005, 12:19 PM
I must say that j2 has surprised me of late.
1. I actually admire the fact that he's at least come out with some of his views which mostly were well hidden behind cut and paste. Everyone was probably sick of that.
Quite right-I've hidden my views successfully for almost my entire tenure here.
You haven't known until very recently that I am a conservative.
How disingenuous of you to say so.
2. I'm disappointed with the rationale behind those views. It's a damn heartbreak. Both of us are American but are far apart in not necessarily our views, but how we think. It must have been the manner of his posts...like an Old English soliloquy or something. I don't know.
A "damn heartbreak"?
Pshaw.
'Twern't nothin.
It's like finding out your favorite coworker likes to fuck chickens.:(
Busyman at his best.
I imagine your screenplays read the same way.
Knowing someone is conservative and then finally seeing why is two different thangs.
There's a conservative in my crew (black fella) but when I heard his views, I pegged him barely a neocon.
I guess it comes down to wanting to believe something else like. I saw an episode of 60 minutes where the reporter carried a nice interview with a mother of 2. She was a great speaker and calm and collected. Nice interview.
She was a white supremacist. It was weird.
She was damn intelligent but was twisted as fuck.
---My screenplays are quite good. I'm excellent at the twist and character development. Focus on that without being boring and your movie can be anything....a sci-fi, action, horror.......
Now if I can stop writing them simultaneously I'd probably be further along.
GepperRankins
11-05-2005, 01:15 PM
no offence son, but it's for us to judge whether you're an excellent writer. haven't seen any of your work yet so i can't judge.
i see it as j2 is an "english" person not a "maths" person. therefore, he's good at repeating what he's told and sounding clever but is irrational and would sooner die than analyse a situation.
jes my theory on lyfe. take a look back at school. seperate who you like and dislike then try and remember their stronger and weaker subjects. tell me if i'm right :dabs:
JPaul
11-05-2005, 03:25 PM
gepper = busy's dad :O
What is it they say about t'apple not falling far from the tree.
GepperRankins
11-05-2005, 03:30 PM
he is learned by vagueness :unsure:
GepperRankins
11-05-2005, 03:33 PM
my theory could also be down to the fact that as i enjoyed maths and science i was friendly with teh other people who liked it. then in the subjects we didn't like we introverted :unsure:
I'd love to know just how talented you are, B., but I may be too twisted to read what you write, and am no doubt poorer for that.
I'd hate to find out you're talking throught your hat, as you believe me to be.
Oh, well...
GepperRankins
11-05-2005, 04:29 PM
busy may be a fantasist but the way you think is scary
vidcc
11-11-2005, 09:26 PM
In recent years many doctors and politicians have complained that frivolous malpractice lawsuits and disproportionate jury awards are a problem in need of reform.
But when "Primetime" did some investigating, it turned out that at least some of the people in favor of reform — even some of its loudest proponents — have themselves benefited from the current laws.
The Senator's Wife
Sen. Rick Santorum, R-Pa., says that the No. 1 health care crisis in his state is medical lawsuit abuse and in the past he's called for a $250,000 cap on non-economic damage awards or awards for pain and suffering. "We need to do something now to fix the medical liability problem in this country," he declared at a rally in Washington D.C., this past spring.
But Santorum's wife sued a doctor for $500,000 in 1999. She claimed that a botched spinal manipulation by her chiropractor led to back surgery, pain and suffering, and sued for twice the amount of a cap Santorum has supported.
Santorum declined a request for an interview, so "Primetime" caught up with him at the signing of his new book in Pennsylvania this August to ask if he thinks his stance and history are in conflict.
"I guess I could answer that in two ways," he said. "Number one is that I've supported caps. I've been very clear that I am not wedded at all to a $250,000 cap and I've said publicly repeatedly, and I think probably that is somewhat low, and that we need to look at what I think is a cap that is a little bit higher than that."
'Of Course I'm Going to Support My Wife'
But the fact is that Santorum has sponsored or co-sponsored a $250,000 cap on non-economic damages two times — even though he testified in his wife's case against the doctor.
"Of course I'm going to support my wife in her endeavors," he said. "That doesn't necessarily mean that I agree with everything that she does."
But Santorum agreed enough to tell the jury that he had to carry the laundry upstairs for his wife and that, because she suffered humiliation from weight gain, she no longer had the confidence to help him on the campaign trail. The jury was so moved it voted to award Karen Santorum $350,000.
"That's where again you're misled is that a lot of, there was cumulative damages," he said. "The medical bills, lost income, all those other things that were out there."
Those medical bills totaled $18,800, yet she sued for $500,000. And lost income? The judge made no mention of that when he slashed the jury's award in half, saying it was excessive.
The judge noted that the remaining damages "awarded amounted to something in the neighborhood of $330,000 or so for injuries sustained and the effect upon Mrs. Santorum's health, her past and future pain and suffering and inconvenience." source (http://abcnews.go.com/Primetime/story?id=1300271)
In recent years many doctors and politicians have complained that frivolous malpractice lawsuits and disproportionate jury awards are a problem in need of reform.
But when "Primetime" did some investigating, it turned out that at least some of the people in favor of reform — even some of its loudest proponents — have themselves benefited from the current laws.
The Senator's Wife
Sen. Rick Santorum, R-Pa., says that the No. 1 health care crisis in his state is medical lawsuit abuse and in the past he's called for a $250,000 cap on non-economic damage awards or awards for pain and suffering. "We need to do something now to fix the medical liability problem in this country," he declared at a rally in Washington D.C., this past spring.
But Santorum's wife sued a doctor for $500,000 in 1999. She claimed that a botched spinal manipulation by her chiropractor led to back surgery, pain and suffering, and sued for twice the amount of a cap Santorum has supported.
Santorum declined a request for an interview, so "Primetime" caught up with him at the signing of his new book in Pennsylvania this August to ask if he thinks his stance and history are in conflict.
"I guess I could answer that in two ways," he said. "Number one is that I've supported caps. I've been very clear that I am not wedded at all to a $250,000 cap and I've said publicly repeatedly, and I think probably that is somewhat low, and that we need to look at what I think is a cap that is a little bit higher than that."
'Of Course I'm Going to Support My Wife'
But the fact is that Santorum has sponsored or co-sponsored a $250,000 cap on non-economic damages two times — even though he testified in his wife's case against the doctor.
"Of course I'm going to support my wife in her endeavors," he said. "That doesn't necessarily mean that I agree with everything that she does."
But Santorum agreed enough to tell the jury that he had to carry the laundry upstairs for his wife and that, because she suffered humiliation from weight gain, she no longer had the confidence to help him on the campaign trail. The jury was so moved it voted to award Karen Santorum $350,000.
"That's where again you're misled is that a lot of, there was cumulative damages," he said. "The medical bills, lost income, all those other things that were out there."
Those medical bills totaled $18,800, yet she sued for $500,000. And lost income? The judge made no mention of that when he slashed the jury's award in half, saying it was excessive.
The judge noted that the remaining damages "awarded amounted to something in the neighborhood of $330,000 or so for injuries sustained and the effect upon Mrs. Santorum's health, her past and future pain and suffering and inconvenience." source (http://abcnews.go.com/Primetime/story?id=1300271)
Hypocritical bastards, each of them.
They should be punished-capitally, of course, and their estate be distributed equally among the first 5000 poor people who can be found.
vidcc
11-11-2005, 10:27 PM
Hypocritical bastards, each of them.
They should be punished-capitally, of course, and their estate be distributed equally among the first 5000 poor people who can be found.
:D Well done....... now don't operate heavy machinery for 24 hours :D
Busyman
11-11-2005, 10:31 PM
source (http://abcnews.go.com/Primetime/story?id=1300271)
Hypocritical bastards, each of them.
They should be punished-capitally, of course, and their estate be distributed equally among the first 5000 poor people who can be found.
Each of whom?:blink:
clocker
11-11-2005, 10:33 PM
...and their estate be distributed equally among the first 5000 poor people who can be found.
The line forms behind me.
Hypocritical bastards, each of them.
They should be punished-capitally, of course, and their estate be distributed equally among the first 5000 poor people who can be found.
Each of whom?:blink:
Why, Santorum and his wife, of course.
Vid-
Do you suppose Mr. Santorum's stipulation might have been born of his wife's legal experience?
If memory serves, Santorum's idea would have been pre-dated by his wife's suit, and to be termed "hypocritical" would require the fully elastic liberal usage of the word.
In any case, a mere half-mill is, relatively-speaking, a trifling sum when considered against the routine several million-dollar awards thrown about by juries who labor under the misapprehension that they are not (ultimately) paying that bill themselves.
No points for your effort, and Clocker doesn't get the cash.
Sorry.
Busyman
11-12-2005, 02:08 AM
Each of whom?:blink:
Why, Santorum and his wife, of course.
Oh I thought the lawsuit was his wife's alone.
vidcc
11-12-2005, 02:39 AM
Vid-
Do you suppose Mr. Santorum's stipulation might have been born of his wife's legal experience?
.
:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
you must be dizzy after that spin.
Vid-
Do you suppose Mr. Santorum's stipulation might have been born of his wife's legal experience?
.
:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
you must be dizzy after that spin.
It's not spin, vid.
One predates the other, and whatever he eventually proposed as an upper limit for "pain and suffering" had to come from somewhere.
Or do you think he emerged from the womb spouting that figure?
Why, Santorum and his wife, of course.
Oh I thought the lawsuit was his wife's alone.
Yes, but apparently vid would have seen her constrained by her husband's as-yet unannounced stricture.
The bitch should have known.:P
vidcc
11-12-2005, 02:45 PM
I seem to remember outrage and shouts of hypocrisy when democrat presidential candidates suggested holding lawyers to account over frivolous lawsuits. ..why?.... because said candidates were lawyers and filed lawsuits in their past :rolleyes:
One predates the other, and whatever he eventually proposed as an upper limit for "pain and suffering" had to come from somewhere.
Oh let me think....hmm....could it possibly be.....THE INSURANCE INDUSTRY LOBBY:rolleyes:
Come on kev. Read the standard set by the article you posted and the title..Do As I Say (Not As I Do).
But Santorum agreed enough to tell the jury that he had to carry the laundry upstairs for his wife and that, because she suffered humiliation from weight gain, she no longer had the confidence to help him on the campaign trail. The jury was so moved it voted to award Karen Santorum $350,000.
Oh how HE suffered :cry1:
Busyman
11-12-2005, 03:02 PM
Oh I thought the lawsuit was his wife's alone.
Yes, but apparently vid would have seen her constrained by her husband's as-yet unannounced stricture.
The bitch shoud have known.:P
:lol: :lol: QUALITY!!!
Rat Faced
11-12-2005, 07:26 PM
I havent read the thread, however...
I'm constantly on the look-out for the dirt on Conservatives...
Shouldnt be hard, not rare.
Shouldnt be hard to get the dirt on their rivals either... again, not rare.
You really cant get anywhere in politics unless your a hypocritical, cold hearted bastard... no matter which side you profess to represent.
I seem to remember outrage and shouts of hypocrisy when democrat presidential candidates suggested holding lawyers to account over frivolous lawsuits. ..why?.... because said candidates were lawyers and filed lawsuits in their past :rolleyes:
Oh let me think....hmm....could it possibly be.....THE INSURANCE INDUSTRY LOBBY:rolleyes:
Come on kev. Read the standard set by the article you posted and the title..Do As I Say (Not As I Do).
But Santorum agreed enough to tell the jury that he had to carry the laundry upstairs for his wife and that, because she suffered humiliation from weight gain, she no longer had the confidence to help him on the campaign trail. The jury was so moved it voted to award Karen Santorum $350,000.
Oh how HE suffered :cry1:
I shall petition him immediately to increase his ceiling figure to $350,000.
Or would you prefer they give back 100K?
Your choice.
vidcc
11-12-2005, 08:13 PM
I shall petition him immediately to increase his ceiling figure to $350,000.
Or would you prefer they give back 100K?
Your choice.
Oh I am totally against limits for genuine cases. We need to weed out frivolous suits, not limit genuine ones.
Perhaps Mr. Santorum was upset because they didn't get the amount they wanted so want to make sure nobody else gets more than they did ;)
Bob Barr, who wrote the "Defence of Marriage Act," has had three wives so far...a defender of marriage indeed... does that count as "Do As I Say (Not As I Do)" ?
I shall petition him immediately to increase his ceiling figure to $350,000.
Or would you prefer they give back 100K?
Your choice.
Oh I am totally against limits for genuine cases. We
need to weed out frivolous suits, not limit genuine ones.
I believe I have witnessed many "genuine" cases become frivolous when the juries award hilariously large amounts.
Bob Barr, who wrote the "Defence of Marriage Act," has had three wives so far...a defender of marriage indeed... does that count as "Do As I Say (Not As I Do)" ?
Please explain the relevancy of this?
He has had three heterosexual marriages, and this renders his authorship of the DOMA questionable...how?
I havent read the thread, however...
I'm constantly on the look-out for the dirt on Conservatives...
Shouldnt be hard, not rare.
Shouldnt be hard to get the dirt on their rivals either... again, not rare.
You really cant get anywhere in politics unless your a hypocritical, cold hearted bastard... no matter which side you profess to represent.
Just so... :)
3RA1N1AC
11-13-2005, 12:32 AM
does that count as "Do As I Say (Not As I Do)" ?
I DON'T KNOW. but i think it might count as "till divorce do we part... i do."
He has had three heterosexual marriages, and this renders his authorship of the DOMA questionable...how?
an argument could be made that bob parr definitely loves marriage more than the average guy does, since he keeps gettin' married. once more and he might qualify as a serial marrier (because, of course, 3 is the magic number, and 4 is magic plus). :P
vidcc
11-13-2005, 12:42 AM
Bob Barr, who wrote the "Defence of Marriage Act," has had three wives so far...a defender of marriage indeed... does that count as "Do As I Say (Not As I Do)" ?
Please explain the relevancy of this?
He has had three heterosexual marriages, and this renders his authorship of the DOMA questionable...how?
how can he say that gay marriage is destroying marriage? he doesn't take the vows seriously. I wonder how many people that are against gay marriage and want to "protect the sanctity of marriage" are divorced..... look at the divorce rate. Heterosexual people are destroying marriage.
3RA1N1AC
11-13-2005, 12:56 AM
Heterosexual people are destroying marriage.
the u.s. is a hyperconsumerist society, so try seeing it from that perspective. they're not destroying marriage, they're just returning a defective product for a refund.
vidcc
11-13-2005, 01:05 AM
Heterosexual people are destroying marriage.
the u.s. is a hyperconsumerist society, so try seeing it from that perspective. they're not destroying marriage, they're just returning a defective product for a refund.
:D
Heterosexual people are destroying marriage.
the u.s. is a hyperconsumerist society, so try seeing it from that perspective. they're not destroying marriage, they're just returning a defective product for a refund.
Had I attended this thread properly, that line would've been mine.:angry:
:lol:
Rat Faced
11-22-2005, 07:30 AM
http://img516.imageshack.us/img516/2324/bushie6ao.jpg
http://img516.imageshack.us/img516/2324/bushie6ao.jpg
Silly Rat.
A blowjob isn't enough to get you impeached.
Clinton was impeached, but not for the blowjob; in any case, he wasn't removed from office, ergo (the line of thought goes) he wasn't actually impeached.
I give Busyman 10 minutes to respond to this post.
Busyman
11-22-2005, 03:49 PM
http://img516.imageshack.us/img516/2324/bushie6ao.jpg
Silly Rat.
A blowjob isn't enough to get you impeached.
Clinton was impeached, but not for the blowjob; in any case, he wasn't removed from office, ergo (the line of thought goes) he wasn't actually impeached.
I give Busyman 10 minutes to respond to this post.
The House voted to impeach him. Without the Senate it couldn't go through.
Clinton was impeached by the House for perjury to a grand jury and I think obstruction of justice.
Looking underneath that, he lied about a blowjob.:ermm:
There was a gentlemen recently that was banned from Home Depot. He was doing some calculations for a client, and used Home Depot pencil that was lying around to do them. He bought some lumber and inadvertently walked out with the aforementioned pencil. A worker met him in the parking lot and gave him a letter saying he was banned from Home Depot.
He stole that pencil. The bastard.
Sid Hartha
11-22-2005, 04:14 PM
http://img516.imageshack.us/img516/2324/bushie6ao.jpg
Hell, I'll do it if that's all it would take to remove him from office.
Busyman
11-22-2005, 04:46 PM
http://img516.imageshack.us/img516/2324/bushie6ao.jpg
Hell, I'll do it if that's all it would take to remove him from office.
:lol: :lol: :lol: Hilarious!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Silly Rat.
A blowjob isn't enough to get you impeached.
Clinton was impeached, but not for the blowjob; in any case, he wasn't removed from office, ergo (the line of thought goes) he wasn't actually impeached.
I give Busyman 10 minutes to respond to this post.
The House voted to impeach him. Without the Senate it couldn't go through.
Clinton was impeached by the House for perjury to a grand jury and I think obstruction of justice.
Looking underneath that, he lied about a blowjob.:ermm:
There was a gentlemen recently that was banned from Home Depot. He was doing some calculations for a client, and used Home Depot pencil that was lying around to do them. He bought some lumber and inadvertently walked out with the aforementioned pencil. A worker met him in the parking lot and gave him a letter saying he was banned from Home Depot.
He stole that pencil. The bastard.
Slow.
Makin' me look bad, B.
Yeah, heard about that poor fella at Home Depot; a contractor, for fuck's sake!
Home Depot owes him a blowjob, I think.;)
Busyman
11-22-2005, 07:59 PM
The House voted to impeach him. Without the Senate it couldn't go through.
Clinton was impeached by the House for perjury to a grand jury and I think obstruction of justice.
Looking underneath that, he lied about a blowjob.:ermm:
There was a gentlemen recently that was banned from Home Depot. He was doing some calculations for a client, and used Home Depot pencil that was lying around to do them. He bought some lumber and inadvertently walked out with the aforementioned pencil. A worker met him in the parking lot and gave him a letter saying he was banned from Home Depot.
He stole that pencil. The bastard.
Slow.
Makin' me look bad, B.
Yeah, heard about that poor fella at Home Depot; a contractor, for fuck's sake!
Home Depot owes him a blowjob, I think.;)
I only missed it by 5+ hours.:ermm:
The contractor is guilty of stealing and should be punished to the full extent of the law. Just being a contractor shouldn't let him off.:dry:
Slow.
Makin' me look bad, B.
Yeah, heard about that poor fella at Home Depot; a contractor, for fuck's sake!
Home Depot owes him a blowjob, I think.;)
I only missed it by 5+ hours.:ermm:
The contractor is guilty of stealing and should be punished to the full extent of the law. Just being a contractor shouldn't let him off.:dry:
Hmmm.
Very convincing line of reasoning.:P
Busyman
11-22-2005, 09:51 PM
I only missed it by 5+ hours.:ermm:
The contractor is guilty of stealing and should be punished to the full extent of the law. Just being a contractor shouldn't let him off.:dry:
Hmmm.
Very convincing line of reasoning.:P
It sure degraded Clinton in the eyes of many...or was it that we enjoyed the Clinton years and some people had to be "upheavalED" about something 'cause he's was a 2-term Democratic President?:O
1. He lied to Congress!!!!!
2. But what did he lie about?
1. Getting bj from someone other than his wife.
2. Well that's just crazy. You don't lie about stuff like that especially to the world. Now America will fall apart and stuff.
:ermm:
Hmmm.
Very convincing line of reasoning.:P
It sure degraded Clinton in the eyes of many...or was it that we enjoyed the Clinton years and some people had to be "upheavalED" about something 'cause he's was a 2-term Democratic President?:O
1. He lied to Congress!!!!!
2. But what did he lie about?
1. Getting bj from someone other than his wife.
2. Well that's just crazy. You don't lie about stuff like that especially to the world. Now America will fall apart and stuff.
:ermm:
The fact remains that, although history does indeed record Clinton was impeached by Congress, that the Senate didn't follow through causes people like, oh, vid, to ignore the former, as though it never happened.
My only point.
That we will always disagree about Clinton and his activities is of no moment here.
vidcc
11-23-2005, 01:42 AM
The fact remains that, although history does indeed record Clinton was impeached by Congress, that the Senate didn't follow through causes people like, oh, vid, to ignore the former, as though it never happened.
Oh so now My views are assumed.
The fact remains that, although history does indeed record Clinton was impeached by Congress, that the Senate didn't follow through causes people like, oh, vid, to ignore the former, as though it never happened.
Oh so now My views are assumed.
Yes-after mine come yours.
I though you knew that.
I have a distinct memory of you posting to the effect that because Clinton was not removed from office, he hadn't been impeached.
I can't be fussed to do a search for the exact post, so you don't have to hurry, you have plenty of time to do an edit.:P
3RA1N1AC
11-23-2005, 04:25 AM
The fact remains that, although history does indeed record Clinton was impeached by Congress
the objective relevance of impeachment is still open to debate, though. plenty of presidents have been directly responsible for fairly heinous unethical/illegal actions and never been impeached. in practice, the impeachment option boils down to whether or not congress wishes to take issue with the president's actions.
The fact remains that, although history does indeed record Clinton was impeached by Congress
the objective relevance of impeachment is still open to debate, though. plenty of presidents have been directly responsible for fairly heinous unethical/illegal actions and never been impeached. in practice, the impeachment option boils down to whether or not congress wishes to take issue with the president's actions.
You wouldn't be referring to Nixon at all.:D
Busyman
11-23-2005, 12:44 PM
It sure degraded Clinton in the eyes of many...or was it that we enjoyed the Clinton years and some people had to be "upheavalED" about something 'cause he's was a 2-term Democratic President?:O
1. He lied to Congress!!!!!
2. But what did he lie about?
1. Getting bj from someone other than his wife.
2. Well that's just crazy. You don't lie about stuff like that especially to the world. Now America will fall apart and stuff.
:ermm:
The fact remains that, although history does indeed record Clinton was impeached by Congress, that the Senate didn't follow through causes people like, oh, vid, to ignore the former, as though it never happened.
My only point.
That we will always disagree about Clinton and his activities is of no moment here.
Technically, he was not impeached. Only THE HOUSE voted to impeach him. I read how impeached (by the House) and impeached (GTFO) are used the same way.
Laws and actions don't get passed by 1 side.:ermm:
3RA1N1AC
11-23-2005, 02:01 PM
You wouldn't be referring to Nixon at all.:D
actually, no, not specifically. generically speaking, i guess he could be included, if someone were to make a case for it. :P
Busyman
11-23-2005, 02:38 PM
the objective relevance of impeachment is still open to debate, though. plenty of presidents have been directly responsible for fairly heinous unethical/illegal actions and never been impeached. in practice, the impeachment option boils down to whether or not congress wishes to take issue with the president's actions.
You wouldn't be referring to Nixon at all.:D
He wasn't impeached either.
His crimes were particulary heinous in comparison to Clinton's....especially when considering the subject matter.
One was a simple witch hunt....in which Clinton got himself in trouble based on something totally unrelated to Paula Jones.
One was a clear abuse of power.
vidcc
11-23-2005, 02:56 PM
Oh so now My views are assumed.
Yes-after mine come yours.
I though you knew that.
I have a distinct memory of you posting to the effect that because Clinton was not removed from office, he hadn't been impeached.
I can't be fussed to do a search for the exact post, so you don't have to hurry, you have plenty of time to do an edit.:P
Your memory is very bad. It may be possible that someone said that, but it wasn't me. And any edited post gives a date and time of edit..
If you wish to make accusations back them up.
Busyman
11-23-2005, 02:58 PM
Yes-after mine come yours.
I though you knew that.
I have a distinct memory of you posting to the effect that because Clinton was not removed from office, he hadn't been impeached.
I can't be fussed to do a search for the exact post, so you don't have to hurry, you have plenty of time to do an edit.:P
Your memory is very bad. It may be possible that someone said that, but it wasn't me. And any edited post gives a date and time of edit..
If you wish to make accusations back them up.
Either way he was not impeached.
vidcc
11-23-2005, 06:13 PM
Either way he was not impeached.
Oh I am happy to say he was impeached.... but the fact is he was aquitted.
Busyman
11-23-2005, 06:50 PM
Either way he was not impeached.
Oh I am happy to say he was impeached.... but the fact is he was aquitted.
How was he acquitted?
vidcc
11-23-2005, 07:24 PM
Oh I am happy to say he was impeached.... but the fact is he was aquitted.
How was he acquitted?
The prosecution needed a two-thirds majority to convict but failed to achieve even a bare majority. Rejecting the first charge of perjury, 45 Democrats and 10 Republicans voted “not guilty” and on the charge of obstruction of justice the Senate was split 50-50.
You wouldn't be referring to Nixon at all.:D
He wasn't impeached either.
I didn't say he was.
I would have thought that was clear by my lack of note.:huh:
Either way he was not impeached.
Oh I am happy to say he was impeached....
Okay, you two.
Which is it to be?:D
How was he acquitted?
The prosecution needed a two-thirds majority to convict but failed to achieve even a bare majority. Rejecting the first charge of perjury, 45 Democrats and 10 Republicans voted “not guilty” and on the charge of obstruction of justice the Senate was split 50-50.
Boy, you sure have your facts in order.
Been carting that tidbit around since you mis-posted, way back when?
I recall your putting things more-or-less as Busyman is doing now.
You must split that hair even more finely in order to continue your disagreement, I think.:D
vidcc
11-23-2005, 09:41 PM
Boy, you sure have your facts in order.
Been carting that tidbit around since you mis-posted, way back when?
I recall your putting things more-or-less as Busyman is doing now.
You must split that hair even more finely in order to continue your disagreement, I think.:D
Again your memory is incorrect.....again I say back it up if you are going to accuse.
Busy is saying he was not impeached because the senate didn't convict, and I can see his point on this but it is dependent on the definition of "impeach".
I am saying say he was impeached but found not guilty. I am not splitting any hairs on this. He went through the impeachment process and was acquitted. Get over it.
Anti clintons keep saying "clinton was impeached" but keep omitting the fact that he was found not guilty.
On the latter Busy was also correct that it was a witch hunt. Let's be honest about that. When republicans ask how can anyone support clinton, "after all he was impeached", they should really ask how can anyone support clinton after we tried to impeach him but failed.
Busyman
11-23-2005, 10:54 PM
Oic.
Actually fuck it everyone's correct.
When people say, "Well Clinton was impeached." The answer should be, "So what!!"
Impeachment is a process...almost interchangable with indictment (spelling:unsure: )....or for us lesser politically inclined folk, charged.
Clinton was impeached, Andrew Johnson was, and so was Nixon.
None were convicted. So fuck it. (Nixon did resign to avoid it)
vid you're correct. j2 you're correct. I wasn't.
j2 you're correct. I wasn't.
Thank you.:D
Busyman
11-23-2005, 11:29 PM
j2 you're correct. I wasn't.
Thank you.:D
:lol: :lol: :lol:
3RA1N1AC
11-24-2005, 01:17 AM
Impeachment is a process...almost interchangable with indictment (spelling:unsure: )....or for us lesser politically inclined folk, charged.
partly right. the common definition of impeach: to accuse. the definition as concerns the U.S. president is: to complete the impeachment process and vote to approve the Articles Of Impeachment. some people might refer to the process leading up to the vote as impeachment, but it really isn't impeachment until they hold the vote and it succeeds.
as far as the Nixon case goes, he was not impeached. the House Of Representatives carried the hearings to the point that they drew up the Articles Of Impeachment that they needed to vote upon, at which point Nixon decided to dodge the impeachment by resigning. then Gerald Ford pardoned him, to eliminate the possibility of a criminal trial. the resignation and pardon each had a very distinct purpose -- one to block Congress and the other to block the courts.
Clinton and Jackson are the only two who have been impeached, as Congress did vote upon their Articles Of Impeachment and approved them, in both cases.
Impeachment is a process...almost interchangable with indictment (spelling:unsure: )....or for us lesser politically inclined folk, charged.
partly right. the common definition of impeach: to accuse. the definition as concerns the U.S. president is: to complete the impeachment process and vote to approve the Articles Of Impeachment. some people might refer to the process leading up to the vote as impeachment, but it really isn't impeachment until they hold the vote and it succeeds.
Clinton and Jackson are the only two who have been impeached, as Congress did vote upon their Articles Of Impeachment and approved them, in both cases.
I think you meant Clinton and Johnson (Andrew), but, if you are willing to posit this as the definitive word on the matter, I'm with you.
Case closed.
3RA1N1AC
11-24-2005, 03:40 AM
yes, my mistake. andrew johnson not andrew jackson.
yes, my mistake. andrew johnson not andrew jackson.
You don't think I'd go 'round pointing out my own mistakes, do you?:huh:
Busyman
11-24-2005, 12:33 PM
Impeachment is a process...almost interchangable with indictment (spelling:unsure: )....or for us lesser politically inclined folk, charged.
partly right. the common definition of impeach: to accuse. the definition as concerns the U.S. president is: to complete the impeachment process and vote to approve the Articles Of Impeachment. some people might refer to the process leading up to the vote as impeachment, but it really isn't impeachment until they hold the vote and it succeeds.
as far as the Nixon case goes, he was not impeached. the House Of Representatives carried the hearings to the point that they drew up the Articles Of Impeachment that they needed to vote upon, at which point Nixon decided to dodge the impeachment by resigning. then Gerald Ford pardoned him, to eliminate the possibility of a criminal trial. the resignation and pardon each had a very distinct purpose -- one to block Congress and the other to block the courts.
Clinton and Jackson are the only two who have been impeached, as Congress did vote upon their Articles Of Impeachment and approved them, in both cases.
It was Clinton and Johnson (not Jackson). edit: nvm I just saw you guys posts.:ermm:
Damn my history is a little fucked up though. I thought Nixon was impeached by the House and resigned before the Senate could vote.
Sid Hartha
11-29-2005, 01:13 PM
just trying to help with the search...
Calif. Congressman Admits Taking Bribes
By ELLIOT SPAGAT
Associated Press Writer
Published November 28, 2005, 10:51 PM CST
SAN DIEGO -- Rep. Randy "Duke" Cunningham, an eight-term congressman and hotshot Vietnam War fighter jock, pleaded guilty to graft and tearfully resigned Monday, admitting he took $2.4 million in bribes mostly from defense contractors in exchange for government business and other favors.
"The truth is I broke the law, concealed my conduct, and disgraced my office," the 63-year-old Republican said at a news conference. "I know that I will forfeit my freedom, my reputation, my worldly possessions, most importantly, the trust of my friends and family."
He could get up to 10 years in prison at sentencing Feb. 27 on federal charges of conspiracy to commit bribery and fraud, and tax evasion.
Investigators said Cunningham, a member of a House Appropriations subcommittee that controls defense dollars, secured contracts worth tens of millions of dollars for those who paid him off. Prosecutors did not identify the defense contractors by name.
Cunningham was charged in a case that grew out of an investigation into the sale of his home to a defense contractor at an inflated price.
The congressman had already announced in July -- after the investigation became public -- that he would not seek re-election next year. But until he entered his plea, he had insisted he had done nothing wrong.
Cunningham's plea came amid a series of GOP scandals: Rep. Tom DeLay of Texas had to step down as majority leader after he was indicted in a campaign finance case; a stock sale by Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist is being looked at by regulators; and Vice President Dick Cheney's chief of staff was indicted in the CIA leak case.
Cunningham, a swaggering former flying ace with the Navy during the Vietnam War, was known on Capitol Hill for his interest in defense issues and his occasional outbursts.
In court documents, prosecutors said Cunningham admitted receiving at least $2.4 million in bribes paid in a variety of forms, including checks totaling over $1 million, cash, antiques, rugs, furniture, yacht club fees and vacations.
Among other things, prosecutors said, Cunningham was given $1.025 million to pay down the mortgage on his Rancho Santa Fe mansion, $13,500 to buy a Rolls-Royce and $2,081 for his daughter's graduation party at a Washington hotel.
"He did the worst thing an elected official can do -- he enriched himself through his position and violated the trust of those who put him there," U.S. Attorney Carol Lam said.
Cunningham was allowed to remain free while he awaits sentencing. He also agreed to forfeit his mansion, more than $1.8 million in cash, and antiques and rugs.
Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger will have 14 days to set a date for an election to replace Cunningham, the governor's office said.
He is the first congressman to leave office amid bribery allegations since 2002, when former Rep. James Traficant, D-Ohio, was sentenced to eight years in prison after being convicted of racketeering and accepting bribes.
The case began when authorities started investigating Cunningham's sale of his Del Mar house to defense contractor Mitchell Wade for $1,675,000. Wade sold the house nearly a year later for $975,000 -- a loss of $700,000 in a hot real estate market.
Prosecutors said the house purchase was part of Cunningham's guilty pleas.
In addition to buying Cunningham's home at an inflated price, Wade let him live rent-free on Wade's yacht, the Duke Stir, at a yacht club. Wade's company, MZM Inc., also donated generously to Cunningham's campaigns.
Around the same time, MZM was winning defense contracts.
MZM does classified intelligence work for the military. It had $65.5 million of contracts for intelligence-related defense work in fiscal 2004, ranking No. 38 on the Pentagon's list. The company has established a presence in Iraq, fielding a small team of interpreters shortly after the invasion.
Although prosecutors did not name Cunningham's four co-conspirators, details in the plea documents, including business addresses and occupations, make clear that Wade was one of them.
The documents indicate another conspirator was Brent Wilkes, an associate of Wade's who headed a defense contracting company called ADCS Inc. that also provided campaign cash and favors to Cunningham while reaping valuable contracts.
Another co-conspirator appears to be Thomas Kontogiannis, a New York developer. Cunningham interceded with prosecutors on Kontogiannis' behalf when he had legal troubles, and a mortgage company run by relatives of Kontogiannis' helped Cunningham finance a condo in Virginia and his house in Rancho Santa Fe.
Attorneys for Wilkes and Wade declined to comment. Kontogiannis' attorney did not return a call.
Rat Faced
11-29-2005, 09:39 PM
$13,500 to buy a Rolls-Royce
Where from? A Scrap Yard? :blink:
just trying to help with the search...
Calif. Congressman Admits Taking Bribes
By ELLIOT SPAGAT
Associated Press Writer
Published November 28, 2005, 10:51 PM CST
SAN DIEGO -- Rep. Randy "Duke" Cunningham, an eight-term congressman and hotshot Vietnam War fighter jock, pleaded guilty to graft and tearfully resigned Monday, admitting he took $2.4 million in bribes mostly from defense contractors in exchange for government business and other favors.
"The truth is I broke the law, concealed my conduct, and disgraced my office," the 63-year-old Republican said at a news conference. "I know that I will forfeit my freedom, my reputation, my worldly possessions, most importantly, the trust of my friends and family."
He could get up to 10 years in prison at sentencing Feb. 27 on federal charges of conspiracy to commit bribery and fraud, and tax evasion.
Investigators said Cunningham, a member of a House Appropriations subcommittee that controls defense dollars, secured contracts worth tens of millions of dollars for those who paid him off. Prosecutors did not identify the defense contractors by name.
Cunningham was charged in a case that grew out of an investigation into the sale of his home to a defense contractor at an inflated price.
The congressman had already announced in July -- after the investigation became public -- that he would not seek re-election next year. But until he entered his plea, he had insisted he had done nothing wrong.
Cunningham's plea came amid a series of GOP scandals: Rep. Tom DeLay of Texas had to step down as majority leader after he was indicted in a campaign finance case; a stock sale by Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist is being looked at by regulators; and Vice President Dick Cheney's chief of staff was indicted in the CIA leak case.
Cunningham, a swaggering former flying ace with the Navy during the Vietnam War, was known on Capitol Hill for his interest in defense issues and his occasional outbursts.
In court documents, prosecutors said Cunningham admitted receiving at least $2.4 million in bribes paid in a variety of forms, including checks totaling over $1 million, cash, antiques, rugs, furniture, yacht club fees and vacations.
Among other things, prosecutors said, Cunningham was given $1.025 million to pay down the mortgage on his Rancho Santa Fe mansion, $13,500 to buy a Rolls-Royce and $2,081 for his daughter's graduation party at a Washington hotel.
"He did the worst thing an elected official can do -- he enriched himself through his position and violated the trust of those who put him there," U.S. Attorney Carol Lam said.
Cunningham was allowed to remain free while he awaits sentencing. He also agreed to forfeit his mansion, more than $1.8 million in cash, and antiques and rugs.
Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger will have 14 days to set a date for an election to replace Cunningham, the governor's office said.
He is the first congressman to leave office amid bribery allegations since 2002, when former Rep. James Traficant, D-Ohio, was sentenced to eight years in prison after being convicted of racketeering and accepting bribes.
The case began when authorities started investigating Cunningham's sale of his Del Mar house to defense contractor Mitchell Wade for $1,675,000. Wade sold the house nearly a year later for $975,000 -- a loss of $700,000 in a hot real estate market.
Prosecutors said the house purchase was part of Cunningham's guilty pleas.
In addition to buying Cunningham's home at an inflated price, Wade let him live rent-free on Wade's yacht, the Duke Stir, at a yacht club. Wade's company, MZM Inc., also donated generously to Cunningham's campaigns.
Around the same time, MZM was winning defense contracts.
MZM does classified intelligence work for the military. It had $65.5 million of contracts for intelligence-related defense work in fiscal 2004, ranking No. 38 on the Pentagon's list. The company has established a presence in Iraq, fielding a small team of interpreters shortly after the invasion.
Although prosecutors did not name Cunningham's four co-conspirators, details in the plea documents, including business addresses and occupations, make clear that Wade was one of them.
The documents indicate another conspirator was Brent Wilkes, an associate of Wade's who headed a defense contracting company called ADCS Inc. that also provided campaign cash and favors to Cunningham while reaping valuable contracts.
Another co-conspirator appears to be Thomas Kontogiannis, a New York developer. Cunningham interceded with prosecutors on Kontogiannis' behalf when he had legal troubles, and a mortgage company run by relatives of Kontogiannis' helped Cunningham finance a condo in Virginia and his house in Rancho Santa Fe.
Attorneys for Wilkes and Wade declined to comment. Kontogiannis' attorney did not return a call.
Hang his ass.
Seriously.:angry:
Sid Hartha
11-30-2005, 02:22 PM
Hang his ass.
Seriously.:angry:
The sad part is that the guy was a genuine war hero - but I guess that was a long time ago.
Rat Faced
11-30-2005, 04:19 PM
Doesnt make him honest.
The sad part is that the guy was a genuine war hero - but I guess that was a long time ago.
War hero?
I've heard there is no such thing, especially for a Vietnam vet...
Sid Hartha
12-05-2005, 01:30 PM
here's an interesting piece from the biased liberal media:
www.slate.com:
Corrupt Intentions
What Cunningham's misdeeds illustrate about conservative Washington.
By Michael Kinsley
Posted Friday, Dec. 2, 2005, at 7:08 AM ET
It used to be said that the moral arc of a Washington career could be divided into four parts: idealism, pragmatism, ambition, and corruption. You arrive with a passion for a cause, determined to challenge the system. Then you learn to work for your cause within the system. Then rising in the system becomes your cause. Then finally you exploit the system—your connections in it, and your understanding of it—for personal profit.
And it remains true, sort of, but faster. Even the appalling Jack Abramoff had ideals at one point. But he took a shortcut straight to corruption. On the other hand, you can now trace the traditional moral arc in the life of conservative-dominated Washington itself, which began with Ronald Reagan's inauguration and marks its 25th anniversary in January. Reagan and company arrived to tear down the government and make Washington irrelevant. Now the airport and a giant warehouse of bureaucrats are named after him.
By the 20th anniversary of their arrival, when an intellectually corrupt Supreme Court ruling gave them complete control of the government at last, the conservatives had lost any stomach for tearing down the government. George W. Bush's "compassionate conservatism" was more like an apology than an ideology. Meanwhile Tom DeLay—the real boss in Congress—openly warned K Street that unless all the choice lobbying jobs went to Republicans, lobbyists could not expect to have any influence with the Republican Congress. This warning would be meaningless, of course, unless the opposite was also true: If you hire Republican lobbyists, you and they will have influence over Congress. And darned if DeLay didn't turn out to be exactly right about this!
No prominent Republican upbraided DeLay for his open invitation to bribery. And bribery is what it is: not just campaign contributions, but the promise of personal enrichment for politicians and political aides who play ball for a few years before cashing in.
When Rep. Randy "Duke" Cunningham pleaded guilty this week to accepting a comic cornucopia of baubles, plus some cash, from defense contractors, the vast right-wing conspiracy acted with impressive speed and forcefulness to expel one of its most doggedly loyal loudmouths and pack him off to a long jail term. Even President Bush, who possesses the admirable quality of an affable capacity for understanding and forgiveness on the personal level, seized an unnecessary opportunity to wish the blackguard ill. There was no talk of "sadness"—the usual formula for expressing sympathy without excusing guilt.
This astringent response would be more impressive if the basic facts about Cunningham's corruption hadn't been widely known for months. The San Diego Union-Tribune reported last June that a company seeking business from the Pentagon had bought Cunningham's southern California house from him, held it unoccupied briefly, and sold it—in the hottest real estate market in human history—for a $700,000 loss. You didn't need to know that Duke's haul included two antique commodes to smell the stench. Yet all the Republican voices now saying that Cunningham deserves his punishment were silent until he clearly and unavoidably was going to get it.
Like medieval scholastics counting the angels on the head of a pin, Justice Department lawyers are struggling with the question of when favors to and from a member of Congress or a congressional aide take on the metaphysical quality of a corrupt bribe. The brazenness of the DeLay-Abramoff circle has caused prosecutors to look past traditional distinctions, such as that between campaign contributions and cash or other favors to a politician personally. Or the distinction between doing what a lobbyist wants after he has taken you to Scotland to play golf, and promising to do what he wants before he takes you to Scotland to play golf.
These distinctions don't really touch on what's corrupt here, which is simply the ability of money to give some people more influence than others over the course of a democracy where, civically if not economically, we are all supposed to be equal. So, where do you draw the line between harmless favors and corrupt bribery?
It's not an easy question, if you're talking about sending people to prison. But it's a very easy question if you're just talking: The answer is that it's all corrupt bribery. People and companies hire lobbyists because it works. Lobbyists get the big bucks because their efforts earn or save clients even bigger bucks in their dealings with the government. Members of Congress are among the world's greatest bargains: What are a couple of commodes compared with $163 million of Pentagon contracts?
Perhaps conceding more than he intended, former Democratic Sen. John Breaux, now on K Street, told the New York Times that a member of Congress will be swayed more by 2,000 letters from constituents on some issue than by anything a lobbyist can offer. I guess if it's a lobbyist versus 1,900 constituents, it's too bad for the constituents. That seems fair.
I suppose it's easy to pick on the Republicans right now, since they are the ones in control - the argument could be made that it wouldn't be much different if the tables were turned. Still, I miss the good old days when 'political scandal' usually meant marital infidelity or some such.
Busyman
12-05-2005, 01:53 PM
I suppose it's easy to pick on the Republicans right now, since they are the ones in control - the argument could be made that it wouldn't be much different if the tables were turned. Still, I miss the good old days when 'political scandal' usually meant marital infidelity or some such.
Marital infidelity is far worse. That personal shit affects how the country is run.:mellow:
here's an interesting piece from the biased liberal media:
This part's right.
www.slate.com:
Corrupt Intentions
What Cunningham's misdeeds illustrate about conservative Washington.
By Michael Kinsley
Posted Friday, Dec. 2, 2005, at 7:08 AM ET
It used to be said that the moral arc of a Washington career could be divided into four parts: idealism, pragmatism, ambition, and corruption. You arrive with a passion for a cause, determined to challenge the system. Then you learn to work for your cause within the system. Then rising in the system becomes your cause. Then finally you exploit the system—your connections in it, and your understanding of it—for personal profit.
These are things said by Democrats about Republicans.
And it remains true, sort of, but faster. Even the appalling Jack Abramoff had ideals at one point. But he took a shortcut straight to corruption. On the other hand, you can now trace the traditional moral arc in the life of conservative-dominated Washington itself, which began with Ronald Reagan's inauguration and marks its 25th anniversary in January. Reagan and company arrived to tear down the government and make Washington irrelevant. Now the airport and a giant warehouse of bureaucrats are named after him.
Kinsley believes Washington to be "conservative-dominated"?
Just a wee bit out-of-touch; he ignores the entrenched old-line democrat bureaucracies.
By the 20th anniversary of their arrival, when an intellectually corrupt Supreme Court ruling gave them complete control of the government at last, the conservatives had lost any stomach for tearing down the government. George W. Bush's "compassionate conservatism" was more like an apology than an ideology. Meanwhile Tom DeLay—the real boss in Congress—openly warned K Street that unless all the choice lobbying jobs went to Republicans, lobbyists could not expect to have any influence with the Republican Congress. This warning would be meaningless, of course, unless the opposite was also true: If you hire Republican lobbyists, you and they will have influence over Congress. And darned if DeLay didn't turn out to be exactly right about this!
Again, none of this happens when the squeaky-clean democrats are in charge.
Charlie Trie, John Huang, Marc Rich....?
Never heard of them.
No prominent Republican upbraided DeLay for his open invitation to bribery. And bribery is what it is: not just campaign contributions, but the promise of personal enrichment for politicians and political aides who play ball for a few years before cashing in.
Normally, a columnist might consider a proffer of documentation at this point, but, hey-it's Michael Kinsley.
When Rep. Randy "Duke" Cunningham pleaded guilty this week to accepting a comic cornucopia of baubles, plus some cash, from defense contractors, the vast right-wing conspiracy acted with impressive speed and forcefulness to expel one of its most doggedly loyal loudmouths and pack him off to a long jail term. Even President Bush, who possesses the admirable quality of an affable capacity for understanding and forgiveness on the personal level, seized an unnecessary opportunity to wish the blackguard ill. There was no talk of "sadness"—the usual formula for expressing sympathy without excusing guilt.
This is anathema to Democrats; that the Republicans fail to employ the Democrat strategy of "DENY, DENY, DENY" is a cause of much derision.
Such things never happen to Democrats anyway, owing to their inherent goodness.
A little hypocritical, actually; the Dems accuse the Republicans of trying to "bury" the issue by tossing one of their own overboard.
Of course, there is no real cynicism if you're never guilty, right?
This astringent response would be more impressive if the basic facts about Cunningham's corruption hadn't been widely known for months. The San Diego Union-Tribune reported last June that a company seeking business from the Pentagon had bought Cunningham's southern California house from him, held it unoccupied briefly, and sold it—in the hottest real estate market in human history—for a $700,000 loss. You didn't need to know that Duke's haul included two antique commodes to smell the stench. Yet all the Republican voices now saying that Cunningham deserves his punishment were silent until he clearly and unavoidably was going to get it.
Just so-the one thing you don't do is let an investigation run it's course before you reap all the political hay from it that you can.
Like medieval scholastics counting the angels on the head of a pin, Justice Department lawyers are struggling with the question of when favors to and from a member of Congress or a congressional aide take on the metaphysical quality of a corrupt bribe. The brazenness of the DeLay-Abramoff circle has caused prosecutors to look past traditional distinctions, such as that between campaign contributions and cash or other favors to a politician personally. Or the distinction between doing what a lobbyist wants after he has taken you to Scotland to play golf, and promising to do what he wants before he takes you to Scotland to play golf.
Jim Wright?
Can't remember him either, huh?
He was from Texas, too.
These distinctions don't really touch on what's corrupt here, which is simply the ability of money to give some people more influence than others over the course of a democracy where, civically if not economically, we are all supposed to be equal. So, where do you draw the line between harmless favors and corrupt bribery?
Charlie Trie, John Huang, Peter Paul....no, wait, I already mentioned them...
It's not an easy question, if you're talking about sending people to prison. But it's a very easy question if you're just talking: The answer is that it's all corrupt bribery. People and companies hire lobbyists because it works. Lobbyists get the big bucks because their efforts earn or save clients even bigger bucks in their dealings with the government. Members of Congress are among the world's greatest bargains: What are a couple of commodes compared with $163 million of Pentagon contracts?
And everyone knows only Republicans use lobbyists, right?
Perhaps conceding more than he intended, former Democratic Sen. John Breaux, now on K Street, told the New York Times that a member of Congress will be swayed more by 2,000 letters from constituents on some issue than by anything a lobbyist can offer. I guess if it's a lobbyist versus 1,900 constituents, it's too bad for the constituents. That seems fair.
One does not seek commentary from Republicans on such subjects; they might mention Democrats.
I suppose it's easy to pick on the Republicans right now, since they are the ones in control - the argument could be made that it wouldn't be much different if the tables were turned. Still, I miss the good old days when 'political scandal' usually meant marital infidelity or some such.
Yes, and that's all Democrats are ever guilty of.
Charlie Trie, John Huang, Peter Paul, Marc Rich....DAMN! There I go again...:D
Busyman
12-05-2005, 10:17 PM
here's an interesting piece from the biased liberal media:
This part's right.
One does not seek commentary from Republicans on such subjects; they might mention Democrats.
I suppose it's easy to pick on the Republicans right now, since they are the ones in control - the argument could be made that it wouldn't be much different if the tables were turned. Still, I miss the good old days when 'political scandal' usually meant marital infidelity or some such.
Yes, and that's all Democrats are ever guilty of.
Charlie Trie, John Huang, Peter Paul, Marc Rich....DAMN! There I go again...:D
j2 I think both sides pick nitpick when it's convenient.
I, for one, don't always need a conviction to make my mind up. Repubs, when it's one of their own act like they do.
I think many Dems smile when a Repub fucks up 'cause they're were the main ones making a wasted stink about Clinton.
I remember a coupla Repubs having to come out with there adulterous affairs after the Clinton scandal mainly because they had no choice ('cause they were previously outed in the media) and God forbid they do what Clinton did and lie.
I'll hafta admit it's kinda wild that Frist and Delay are in the crosshairs....top Repubs.:happy:
The sooner people realize there is no bad party, as faras corruption goes, the better.
Ideals are an entirely different matter.
Well, it strikes me in such cases that Conservatives believe men to be human, and are less likely to excuse poor behavior without penalty.
The flesh is weak, and solutions created by mere men are not infallible.
Liberals, on the other hand, believe in the anointed intelligentsia...the "expert".
The intelligentsia pay lip-service to utopia and purport to guide those less gifted toward that goal, and dare not confess it as unachievable.
Those who do the Liberals' bidding are not to be criticized, only exalted and never, ever questioned.
Your "nit-picking" comment is well-taken, BTW.;)
krispy82
12-10-2005, 03:51 AM
Some people have entirely to much time on their hands... It's funny how some individuals can put sooo much effort into making one look bad, that they in return make themselves look like pompous assholes...
Some people have entirely to much time on their hands... It's funny how some individuals can put sooo much effort into making one look bad, that they in return make themselves look like pompous assholes...
Just so. ;)
Busyman
01-07-2006, 08:00 PM
Abramoff Pleads Guilty to 3 Counts
Lobbyist to Testify About Lawmakers In Corruption Probe
By Susan Schmidt and James V. Grimaldi
Washington Post Staff Writers
Wednesday, January 4, 2006; Page A01
Jack Abramoff, the once-powerful lobbyist at the center of a wide-ranging public corruption investigation, pleaded guilty yesterday to fraud, tax evasion and conspiracy to bribe public officials in a deal that requires him to provide evidence about members of Congress.
The plea deal could have enormous legal and political consequences for the lawmakers on whom Abramoff lavished luxury trips, skybox fundraisers, campaign contributions, jobs for their spouses, and meals at Signatures, the lobbyist's upscale restaurant.
Jack Abramoff, center, leaves Federal Court in Washington Tuesday, Jan. 3, 2006. The once-powerful lobbyist pleaded guilty Tuesday to federal charges of conspiracy, tax evasion and mail fraud, agreeing to cooperate with prosecutors investigating influence peddling that has threatened powerful members of the U.S. Congress. At right is his attorney Abbe Lowell. (AP Photo/Gerald Herbert) (Gerald Herbert -- AP)
LEGAL DOCUMENTS
FindLaw.com: Abramoff Plea Agreement
U.S. v. Abramoff (pdf file)
Plea Agreement - U.S. v. Abramoff (pdf)
Graphic
Copping a Plea
The long influence-peddling investigation into the activities of lobbyist Jack Abramoff reached a new level with his guilty plea in U.S. District Court on Jan. 3.
TRANSCRIPT
Justice Department News Conference on Abramoff Guilty Plea
Justice Dept., IRS and FBI officials discuss the Abramoff plea agreement.
Special Report
Abramoff, the once-powerful lobbyist at the center of a wide-ranging public corruption investigation, pleaded guilty Jan. 3 to fraud, tax evasion and conspiracy to bribe public officials in a deal that requires him to provide evidence about members of Congress.
• Abramoff Pleads Guilty (Jan. 4, 2006)
• Fast Rise, Steep Fall (Dec. 29, 2005)
• Stacking the Deck (Oct. 16, 2005)
» FULL COVERAGE
Abramoff Lobbying Questioned
A Tribe Takes Grim Satisfaction in Abramoff's Fall
Abramoff and His Vanishing Friends
Fashion:Jack Abramoff, Wearing a Guilty Look
Bush to Give Up $6,000 In Abramoff Contributions
In Florida, Abramoff Again Pleads Guilty
More Stories
Who's Blogging?
Read what bloggers are saying about this article.
The Last Liberal in Central Florida
A Newer World
alternative hippopotamus
Full List of Blogs (272 links) »
Most Blogged About Articles
On washingtonpost.com | On the web
In court papers, prosecutors refer to only one congressman: Rep. Robert W. Ney (R-Ohio). But Abramoff, who built a political alliance with House Republicans, including former majority leader Tom DeLay of Texas, has agreed to provide information and testimony about half a dozen House and Senate members, officials familiar with the inquiry said. He also is to provide evidence about congressional staffers, Interior Department workers and other executive branch officials, and other lobbyists.
"The corruption scheme with Mr. Abramoff is very extensive," Alice S. Fisher, head of the Justice Department's criminal division, said at a news conference with other high-ranking officials of the Internal Revenue Service and the FBI. "We're going to follow this wherever it goes."
Fisher declined to identify the officials under scrutiny. "We name people in indictments," she said, adding: "We are moving very quickly."
Among the allegations in the court documents is that Abramoff arranged for payments totaling $50,000 for the wife of an unnamed congressional staffer in return for the staffer's help in killing an Internet gambling measure. The Washington Post has previously reported that Tony Rudy, a former top aide to DeLay, worked with Abramoff to kill such a bill in 2000 before going to work for Abramoff.
Abramoff's appearance in U.S. District Court came nearly two years after his lobbying practices gained public notice because of the enormous payments -- eventually tallied at $82 million -- that he and a public relations partner received from casino-rich Indian tribes. Yesterday, he admitted defrauding four of those tribal clients out of millions of dollars. He also pleaded guilty to evading taxes, to conspiring to bribe lawmakers, and to conspiring to induce former Capitol Hill staffers to violate the one-year ban on lobbying their former bosses.
Under terms of his plea agreement, Abramoff can expect to receive a prison sentence of 9 1/2 to 11 years, and he is required to make restitution of $26.7 million to the IRS and to the Indian tribes he defrauded. Today he is to plead guilty to fraud and conspiracy counts in a related case in Florida involving his purchase of a casino cruise line.
Standing before U.S. District Judge Ellen Segal Huvelle in Washington yesterday, Abramoff looked sheepish and sad. "Your Honor, words will not be able to ever express how sorry I am for this, and I have profound regret and sorrow for the multitude of mistakes and harm I have caused," he said softly. "All of my remaining days, I will feel tremendous sadness and regret for my conduct and for what I have done. I only hope that I can merit forgiveness from the Almighty and from those I have wronged or caused to suffer."
Abramoff has been in extensive discussions with government lawyers for months leading up to yesterday's plea.
Ney, chairman of the House Administration Committee, is among the first of those expected to feel the fallout. In the court documents -- which identify him only as "Representative #1" -- Ney is accused of meeting with one of Abramoff's clients in Russia in 2003 to "influence the process for obtaining a [U.S.] visa" for one of the client's relatives and of agreeing to aid a California tribe represented by Abramoff on tax and post office issues.
Ney also placed comments in the Congressional Record backing Abramoff's efforts to gain control of the Florida gambling company, SunCruz Casinos, and offered legislative language sought by Abramoff that would have reopened a Texas tribe's shuttered casino.
There's http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/01/03/AR2006010300474.html
vidcc
01-07-2006, 08:24 PM
Oh come on busy....... this is a non story, just a foaming mouth democrat partisan prosecuter run amock:rolleyes:
clocker
01-07-2006, 09:37 PM
Oh come on busy....... this is a non story, just a foaming mouth democrat partisan prosecuter run amock:rolleyes:
Just so (to steal one of j2's favorite phrases....oh the irony!...wait, I'm American...I don't get irony...or was that satire...nm).
You are aware that at some point in history a Democrat did something much worse...let's talk about that instead.
Just move along...these are not the droids you're looking for.......
Pay close attention:
More darts are in flight as we debate this, where they land is yet to be seen.
However this shakes out, they offenders should be shot and kicked for dying.
I have not defended any politician of any stripe during this fiasco, though I'm sure no one remembers the fact.
I have made several comments to the effect that the process ought to be allowed to run it's course, and the media's oversteps have not gone un-noticed.
I await the bottom-line just like you fellows.
vidcc
01-08-2006, 01:40 AM
I await the bottom-line just like you fellows.
While you do that this lot await a line of bottom
http://img230.imageshack.us/img230/8118/pl8zg.jpg
On the plus side congress is donating a lot of money to charity lately....pity the charities are run by Delay :shifty:
Busyman
01-08-2006, 01:46 AM
It'd be nice if Abramoff had dirt on some Dems AND Repubs..
Personally I think Abramoff will conveniently die. It is said he has dirt MANY politicians.
vidcc
01-08-2006, 01:54 AM
It'd be nice if Abramoff had dirt on some Dems AND Repubs..
Personally I think Abramoff will conveniently die. It is said he has dirt MANY politicians.
I have no doubt he could finger a couple of Dems. but it is really a republican problem, partly because they were the ones with the power so they were the ones worth "bribing".
It'd be nice if Abramoff had dirt on some Dems AND Repubs..
Personally I think Abramoff will conveniently die. It is said he has dirt MANY politicians.
I have no doubt he could finger a couple of Dems. but it is really a republican problem, partly because they were the ones with the power so they were the ones worth "bribing".
Then you are certainly aware of the converse situation, and, if Abramoff's history is ever publicized, Democrat names will surely be revealed.
This isn't a game that is played only when Republicans are in ostensible control, is it? ;)
The not-very-cynical-at-all-at-all argument could be made that the reason it wasn't "discovered" when the Dems were in control was that their proficiency after decades of practice in corrupt methods helped them hide these, or, as we all witnessed, when one makes fund-raising an international art, as Clinton did, no one even seems to care.
In the interest of honest debate, though, I won't mention that. ;)
vidcc
01-08-2006, 02:12 PM
Is that going to be the defence?..... "Democrats did things before you know" :rolleyes:
I think every parent that has to punish their child for doing wrong has heard that one..." Soandso did it first !!!!!"
Is that going to be the defence?..... "Democrats did things before you know" :rolleyes:
I promise not to act as if Republicans are pure as the driven snow if you'll agree the Dems ought to be a little more hat-in-hand in questioning things they themselves never stopped doing, and drop the inflammatory rhetoric.
Hell, even you act as if a Democrat is found guilty, it'd be the Republicans' fault. :dry:
I understand none of this will ever be amended, but feel compelled to point it out, nonetheless.
vidcc
01-08-2006, 04:59 PM
I promise not to act as if Republicans are pure as the driven snow if you'll agree the Dems ought to be a little more hat-in-hand in questioning things they themselves never stopped doing, and drop the inflammatory rhetoric.
Hell, even you act as if a Democrat is found guilty, it'd be the Repulicans' fault. :dry:
I understand none of this will ever be a