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, 03:27 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, 09:22 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, 02:58 PM
how stupid do you have to be not to find dirt on the conservatives?
Busyman
11-03-2005, 04:58 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, 05:12 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, 09:19 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, 11:47 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, 11:48 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, 03:26 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, 03:41 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, 01:09 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, 01:19 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, 02:15 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, 04:25 PM
gepper = busy's dad :O
What is it they say about t'apple not falling far from the tree.
GepperRankins
11-05-2005, 04:30 PM
he is learned by vagueness :unsure:
GepperRankins
11-05-2005, 04:33 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, 05:29 PM
busy may be a fantasist but the way you think is scary
vidcc
11-11-2005, 10:26 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, 11:27 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, 11:31 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, 11:33 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, 03:08 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, 03:39 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, 03:45 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, 04:02 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, 08:26 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, 09:13 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, 01:32 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, 01:42 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, 01:56 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, 02:05 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, 08:30 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, 04:49 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, 05:14 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, 05:46 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, 08:59 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, 10:51 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, 02:42 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, 05:25 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, 01:44 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, 03:01 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, 03:38 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, 03:56 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, 03:58 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, 07:13 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, 07:50 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, 08:24 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, 10:41 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, 11:54 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
11-24-2005, 12:29 AM
j2 you're correct. I wasn't.
Thank you.:D
:lol: :lol: :lol:
3RA1N1AC
11-24-2005, 02:17 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, 04:40 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, 01:33 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, 02:13 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, 10:39 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, 03:22 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, 05:19 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, 02:30 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, 02:53 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, 11:17 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, 04:51 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, 09:00 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, 09:24 PM
Oh come on busy....... this is a non story, just a foaming mouth democrat partisan prosecuter run amock:rolleyes:
clocker
01-07-2006, 10:37 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, 02:40 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, 02:46 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, 02:54 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, 03:12 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, 05:59 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 amended, but feel compelled to point it out, nonetheless.
I have no doubt he could finger a couple of Dems WHat part of this suggest that i think Democrats are "guilt free"? :unsure: I have stated in other threads that if Dems. do wrong they should be punished.
How am i blaming republicans for Democrat misdeeds :blink:
Busyman
01-08-2006, 06:52 PM
I kinda think of it as "I want all the dirty motherfuckers fingered".:sick:
It will be mostly Repubs 'cause that's who Abramoff was cuddled with but I wouldn't mind some dirty Dems getting fucked over too.
They were fucking over us. :snooty: I don't give a fuck about their party.:ermm:
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.
Sorry man, the Repubs are the main culprits in that department. No one has yelled loudest than the Republican party. They are good at it and sadly Democrats are not....even with the easy-to-see fuck-ups and the current (of) shit we are in.
How am i blaming republicans for Democrat misdeeds :blink:
Never mind me, I'm just being pissy.
I wonder, though, if you can imagine how much it galls me, after watching Clinton's fund-raising machinations (which drew no comment from these same people), to hear such fulminations about Republicans-who I have no problem disavowing.
I have my moments, and I'm having one now.
vidcc
01-17-2006, 12:13 AM
Tom Delay MP3 (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/video/dbbq.mp3)
An official vidcc production, no doubt....
3RA1N1AC
01-17-2006, 11:49 AM
have we found any dirt on conservatives yet???
vidcc
01-17-2006, 02:21 PM
have we found any dirt on conservatives yet???
It takes an Archeological dig to find the conservative under the dirt :P
vidcc
01-18-2006, 07:06 PM
Tom DeLay Denies All Charges (As Told by Dr. Suess)
That Abramoff!
That Abramoff!
I do not like that Abramoff!
"Would you like to play some golf?"
I do not want to play some golf.
I do not want to, Abramoff.
"We could fly you there for free.
Off to Scotland, by the sea."
I do not want to fly for free.
I do not like Scotland by the sea.
I do not want to play some golf.
I do not want to, Abramoff.
"Would you, could you, take this bribe?
Could you, would you, for the tribe?"
I would not, could not, take this bribe.
I could not, would not, for the tribe.
"If we strong armed corporations
Into giving you donations?
They'd be funnelled to your PAC.
Would you then cut us some slack?"
I would not, could not, cut you slack.
I do not care about my PAC.
I do not want to play some golf.
I do not want to, Abramoff.
"A plane! A plane! A plane! A plane!
Would you, could you, for a plane?"
I could not, would not, for a plane.
Not for a bribe, not for the tribe.
Not for donations from corporations.
Not for my PAC, not for some slack.
Not from any schmoe named Jack.
"Would you help us buy some ships
Perfect for quick gambling trips?
Talk to people in the know
For a little quid pro quo?
Oh come now, don't be a snob.
Let us give your wife a job."
I will not help you buy some ships.
I do not wish for gambling trips.
My wife does not need a job
Even if she is a snob.
We do not like bribes, can't you see?
Why won't you just let me be?
"You do not like bribes, so you say.
Try them, try them, and you may.
Try them and you may, I say."
Jack. If you will let me be
I will try them, then you'll see.
Say.... I do like playing golf!
I like it, I do, Abramoff!
I do like Scotland by the sea.
It's such a thrilling place to be!
And I will take this bribe.
And I will help the tribe.
And I will take donations
From big corporations.
And I will help you buy some ships.
And I will take quick gambling trips.
Say, I'll give anyone the shaft
As long as it involves some graft!
I do so like playing golf!
Thank you! Thank you,
Abramoff!
source (http://witlist.blogspot.com/2006/01/tom-delay-denies-all-charges-as-told.html)
Funny, my brother-in-law, who was tribal chairman here and was THE pioneer in tribal gaming (in fact, yours truly lost the first dollars to tribal gaming in the whole, wide world), always said that, of the last several Presidents, he liked Nixon best, 'cuz there was always lots of money available for tribal causes during his administration.
I wonder if we'll discover a local connection with Abramoff? :huh:
Here's one for you libs-
Google "Barrett Report" and see what does or does not come up.
You might find conservative reportage to the effect it is "a bombshell", but you'll never find major media stories 'cuz it's about the abuses of the Clinton adminisration.
The unredacted version runs over 400 pages, I hear.
The redacted version is thick enough for 2-3 people to have a paper-airplane fight.
It must be pretty bad, huh? ;)
manker
01-20-2006, 11:59 PM
Equally, the unredacted version might have been almost entirely unsubstantiated - or ramblings about the Boro of the Amazon Basin.
Difficult to tell without actually reading it :dabs:
vidcc
01-21-2006, 01:29 AM
If we use anything other than google our searches will be monitored by the government..... hold out google...hold out.
As to Barret I suggest Clinton be voted out of office....oh wait.........
If we use anything other than google our searches will be monitored by the government..... hold out google...hold out.
As to Barret I suggest Clinton be voted out of office....oh wait.........
Oh, so if the one makes it to the end of one's term before being properly sorted, one skates?
A novel view.
Anything to preserve that legacy, huh? :P
Equally, the unredacted version might have been almost entirely unsubstantiated - or ramblings about the Boro of the Amazon Basin.
Difficult to tell without actually reading it :dabs:
But if it holds up?
manker
01-21-2006, 03:07 AM
Equally, the unredacted version might have been almost entirely unsubstantiated - or ramblings about the Boro of the Amazon Basin.
Difficult to tell without actually reading it :dabs:
But if it holds up?If it held up, or was thought to be solid enough to hold up - I presume it would have been in the redacted version.
That would be the general premis behind any redaction, yes?
Maybe the redacters are corrupt and decided to protect Clinton.
By my way of thinking, it has to be one or the other.
I kinda think it's probably the former - but then my understanding of how these things work in America is limited.
vidcc
01-21-2006, 03:15 AM
If we use anything other than google our searches will be monitored by the government..... hold out google...hold out.
As to Barret I suggest Clinton be voted out of office....oh wait.........
Oh, so if the one makes it to the end of one's term before being properly sorted, one skates?
A novel view.
Anything to preserve that legacy, huh? :P
On the contrary, I have stated many times before if Clinton broke the law he is not above it.
But I thought you would approve of sending the IRS after people...after all if they did no wrong.......
To this I will add that I dislike the presidential pardons
But if it holds up?If it held up, or was thought to be solid enough to hold up - I presume it would have been in the redacted version.
That would be the general premis behind any redaction, yes?
Maybe the redacters are corrupt and decided to protect Clinton.
By my way of thinking, it has to be one or the other.
I kinda think it's probably the former - but then my understanding of how these things work in America is limited.
The redactions are fruit of the labors of scads of lawyers disposed to protect Clinton.
No security stuff involved.
[
But I thought you would approve of sending the IRS after people...after all if they did no wrong.......
Awfully disingenuous of you, vid.
manker
01-21-2006, 02:35 PM
If it held up, or was thought to be solid enough to hold up - I presume it would have been in the redacted version.
That would be the general premis behind any redaction, yes?
Maybe the redacters are corrupt and decided to protect Clinton.
By my way of thinking, it has to be one or the other.
I kinda think it's probably the former - but then my understanding of how these things work in America is limited.
The redactions are fruit of the labors of scads of lawyers disposed to protect Clinton.
No security stuff involved.So, it's the former reason. They wouldn't hold up.
Thought so :)
The redactions are fruit of the labors of scads of lawyers disposed to protect Clinton.
No security stuff involved.So, it's the former reason. They wouldn't hold up.
Thought so :)
You don't know enough to rod on the subject, so I'm left with naive or smartass as choices.
Both, more likely.
vidcc
01-21-2006, 02:53 PM
[
But I thought you would approve of sending the IRS after people...after all if they did no wrong.......
Awfully disingenuous of you, vid.
Well you seem unconcerned about privacy re. wiretapping without warrants, only the guilty have something to worry about. So yes it may be a calculating statement but I am giving you the credit of not having double standards :P
manker
01-21-2006, 03:07 PM
So, it's the former reason. They wouldn't hold up.
Thought so :)
You don't know enough to rod on the subject, so I'm left with naive or smartass as choices.
Both, more likely.I already said that I don't know how these things work in America. By all means, look upon that as a lack of sophistication if you like. However, I put forward what I logically thought to be the case.
You appeared to confirm what I thought.
Are you intimating that this is not the case? If so, please expound upon how a lawyer, no matter by whom he was dispatched, can be corrupt and illegally cover-up bonafide, 100% confirmed factiods in a high profile report such as this.
The way I see it, if something happened and was uncovered by the report compilers - and evidence supported the claim - the lawyers would not be able to cover it up. Unless corruption is in evidence.
Awfully disingenuous of you, vid.
Well you seem unconcerned about privacy re. wiretapping without warrants, only the guilty have something to worry about. So yes it may be a calculating statement but I am giving you the credit of not having double standards :P
Oh, thank you, thank you.
please expound upon how a lawyer, no matter by whom he was dispatched, can be corrupt and illegally cover-up bonafide, 100% confirmed factiods in a high profile report such as this.
You also suffer a knowledge deficit as re: the "art" of American lawyering.
I haven't the time to explain that.
manker
01-21-2006, 03:24 PM
please expound upon how a lawyer, no matter by whom he was dispatched, can be corrupt and illegally cover-up bonafide, 100% confirmed factiods in a high profile report such as this.
You also suffer a knowledge deficit as re: the "art" of American lawyering.
I haven't the time to explain that.It probably works in much the same way as it does over here.
The people who complied the Barret Report didn't have enough evidence to release all of their findings. They wouldn't have held up under the scrutiny of people employed to find fault within them.
Some of their assertions must have been watertight - hence the redacted report getting published. It appears that a lot of their other assertions were not watertight, since they weren't published along with the watertight stuff.
Hence their relagation to fodder for Conservative conjecture in the unpopular press.
You also suffer a knowledge deficit as re: the "art" of American lawyering.
I haven't the time to explain that.It probably works in much the same way as it does over here.
The people who complied the Barret Report didn't have enough evidence to release all of their findings. They wouldn't have held up under the scrutiny of people employed to find fault within them.
Some of their assertions must have been watertight - hence the redacted report getting published. It appears that a lot of their other assertions were not watertight, since they weren't published along with the watertight stuff.
Hence their relagation to fodder for Conservative conjecture in the unpopular press.
Rest assured, there are those who have seen it intact and have made allusions to it's contents, but are legally constrained from quoting with specificity.
I guess we'll have to wait and see.
manker
01-21-2006, 03:55 PM
I guess we'll have to wait and see.Indeed, it would be churlish to draw conclusions at this juncture.
As was my initial point in post 116 (http://www.filesharingtalk.com/vb3/showpost.php?p=1240974&postcount=116).
I guess we'll have to wait and see.Indeed, it would be churlish to draw conclusions at this juncture.
As was my initial point in post 116 (http://www.filesharingtalk.com/vb3/showpost.php?p=1240974&postcount=116).
Indeed; I was merely throwing out a teaser:
Why would the lawyerists waste such flipping great wodges of cash for no reason?
Forgive my counting on your ability to read between the lines. ;)
manker
01-21-2006, 07:17 PM
Indeed, it would be churlish to draw conclusions at this juncture.
As was my initial point in post 116 (http://www.filesharingtalk.com/vb3/showpost.php?p=1240974&postcount=116).
Indeed; I was merely throwing out a teaser:
Why would the lawyerists waste such flipping great wodges of cash for no reason?
Forgive my counting on your ability to read between the lines. ;)This condescension tactic frequently works on fifteen year olds who cannot go a complete sentence without a 'lol', and it's to your credit that you've not yet failed. However, when put into practice against folk who are somewhat older, I've noticed that you end up looking like a bit of a smug twat.
From the above, I infer that you're suggesting that they shouldn't have bothered with lawyers and left the whole thing to chance.
'Ah, that Barret Report is probably utterly unbiased so having a legal team check it over would be a complete waste of money'.
I have my lawyer check over even the smallest detail which I believe could impinge upon my professional standing, don't you? I imagine a gentleman such as Mr. Clinton would place himself firmly to the left of the caution threshold in matters such as these.
I think you're many things, j2. A tightwad, probably - but not an ostrich.
However, one lives and one learns.
This condescension tactic frequently works on fifteen year olds who cannot go a complete sentence without a 'lol', and it's to your credit that you've not yet failed. However, when put into practice against folk who are somewhat older, I've noticed that you end up looking like a bit of a smug twat.
From the above, I infer that you're suggesting that they shouldn't have bothered with lawyers and left the whole thing to chance.
I infer someone "older" should think twice ere presenting with the smug sophistication of a fifteen-year-old.
That is what I think.
manker
01-21-2006, 08:48 PM
This eresion tactic frequently works on fifteen year olds who cannot go a complete sentence without a 'lol', and it's to your credit that you've not yet failed. However, when put into practice against folk who are somewhat older, I've noticed that you end up looking like a bit of a smug twat.
From the above, I infer that you're suggesting that they shouldn't have bothered with lawyers and left the whole thing to chance.
I infer someone "older" should think twice ere presenting with the smug sophistication of a fifteen-year-old.
That is what I think.lol 'ere'.
You sure put me in my place :lol:
I infer someone "older" should think twice ere presenting with the smug sophistication of a fifteen-year-old.
That is what I think.:lol: 'ere'.
You sure put me in my place :lol:
Why would I do that?
I never leave my place, and do not allow others to direct me.
Your "place" is yours to seek, monkey-boy, and you end up there by your own hand.
If you don't like it, don't blame me.
manker
01-21-2006, 09:48 PM
It appears your place involves obfuscation when confused. This time including insults.
How is that working out for you. I trust the reparation is worth the indignity.
'Monkey boy' ... really, you'll be calling me gay next.
It appears your place involves obfuscation when confused. This time including insults.
How is that working out for you. I trust the reparation is worth the indignity.
'Monkey boy' ... really, you'll be calling me gay next.
You're the one with the attitude, manker.
I don't know what started it.
Or perhaps you'd prefer to wear the "condescension" crown for yourself?
My claim on it seems to have made you a bit pissy.
manker
01-21-2006, 10:10 PM
It appears your place involves obfuscation when confused. This time including insults.
How is that working out for you. I trust the reparation is worth the indignity.
'Monkey boy' ... really, you'll be calling me gay next.
You're the one with the attitude, manker.
I don't know what started it.
Or perhaps you'd prefer to wear the "condescension" crown for yourself?
My claim on it seems to have made you a bit pissy.
If I recall, I was the one who placed that particular albatross around your neck. So that's hardly likely to perturb me.
Just read back thro' your posts for clues, discern for yourself which comments could have possibly made me take umbrage.
If your difficulty in ascertaining exactly what caused this continues, I suspect a smug fifteen year old could do it for you, because it's not difficult.
Just read back thro' your posts for clues, discern for yourself which comments could have possibly made me take umbrage.
Which thread, please?
manker
01-21-2006, 10:37 PM
Just read back thro' your posts for clues, discern for yourself which comments could have possibly made me take umbrage.
Which thread, please?Take your pick, flowe :schnauz:
Nah, just this one.
So, it's the former reason. They wouldn't hold up.
Thought so :)
You don't know enough to rod on the subject, so I'm left with naive or smartass as choices.
Both, more likely.
This?
manker
01-21-2006, 11:40 PM
Hint: Look at what you wrote just before I made the 'smug twat' comment.
I really was quite benevolent before that :)
Hint: Look at what you wrote just before I made the 'smug twat' comment.
I really was quite benevolent before that :)
So I mistook your genuine ignorance on the matter for a parsing deficit?
You don't have the slightest idea what the Barrett Report is?
You can't read between lines that aren't there, but if you knew what it was to begin with, we wouldn't be having this disagreement.
In short, a Special Prosecutor was appointed to investigate the actions of a former Clinton cabinet official named Henry Cisneros, who was asked to resign over financial wrongdoing.
In the process of the investigation, the prosecutor (Barrett) discovered a cornucopia (as the story goes) of IRS abuses, intrusions, persecutions, ruinations, etc., along with a laundry-list of other financial trespasses, all at the behest of the Clinton administration or in aid of their cause.
The Clintons stonewalled the investigation while Bill was in office, and have continued to successfully fight release of the document since he's been gone.
The redacted version is nothing but a collection of words like "the", "and", "is", "were", and such with the nouns and verbs gone missing.
Lawyers only fight so hard over genuinely damaging information, manker.
Anyway, if you have been lacking this information, I apologize for causing your ferment, but you sounded more interested in denunciations than the real story.
After all, that is what I'm used to, and no matter our good relationship, you've not been shy with the tweak previously.
manker
01-22-2006, 02:07 AM
Hint: Look at what you wrote just before I made the 'smug twat' comment.
I really was quite benevolent before that :)
So I mistook your genuine ignorance on the matter for a parsing deficit?
You don't have the slightest idea what the Barrett Report is?
You can't read between lines that aren't there, but if you knew what it was to begin with, we wouldn't be having this disagreement.
In short, a Special Prosecutor was appointed to investigate the actions of a former Clinton cabinet official named Henry Cisneros, who was asked to resign over financial wrongdoing.
In the process of the investigation, the prosecutor (Barrett) discovered a cornucopia (as the story goes) of IRS abuses, intrusions, persecutions, ruinations, etc., along with a laundry-list of other financial trespasses, all at the behest of the Clinton administration or in aid of their cause.
The Clintons stonewalled the investigation while Bill was in office, and have continued to successfully fight release of the document since he's been gone.
The redacted version is nothing but a collection of words like "the", "and", "is", "were", and such with the nouns and verbs gone missing.
Lawyers only fight so hard over genuinely damaging information, manker.
Anyway, if you have been lacking this information, I apologize for causing your ferment, but you sounded more interested in denunciations than the real story.
After all, that is what I'm used to, and no matter our good relationship, you've not been shy with the tweak previously.See, now how hard was that. You giving me reasons as to why you think that the Barrett Report contains some pretty damning stuff.
I'd not heard of it before you invited us to Google for it, I did so as I wondered what it was. I read a bit and decided that since no-one (well, no-one that's talking) really knows what's in there, any judgment upon the content is premature - which is what I posted.
Further, it seemed to me on my swift perusal that no amount of 'stonewalling' could have stopped at least some of the allegations purported to lurk within from coming to light, at least after Clinton's tenure, but Barrett shut his Grand Juries down many years ago.
That appeared to me as him signaling defeat. Surely, if there was something there that could be proven, he would not have done that.
As I've stated, I really am not up on how Americans conduct these affairs - but I was offering my opinion on the matter. It got a bit tiresome after several flippant answers from yourself - so I fired a few back meself.
Good relationship unaffected :geptard:
Good relationship unaffected :geptard:
I am glad of it. :)
vidcc
01-30-2006, 05:13 PM
Doesn't it seem a little odd that after 2 years in charge of the investigation and as soon as the "crap is starting to hit the fan" Bush has offered the Abramoff prosecutor, a federal judgeship thus taking him off the case.
Nixon 2 the movie anyone?
Doesn't it seem a little odd that after 2 years in charge of the investigation and as soon as the "crap is starting to hit the fan" Bush has offered the Abramoff prosecutor, a federal judgeship thus taking him off the case.
Nixon 2 the movie anyone?
For sure.
Everyone knows he takes the evidence with him when he goes, and there's no way they'd start from scratch...:dry:
Busyman
01-30-2006, 11:26 PM
Doesn't it seem a little odd that after 2 years in charge of the investigation and as soon as the "crap is starting to hit the fan" Bush has offered the Abramoff prosecutor, a federal judgeship thus taking him off the case.
Nixon 2 the movie anyone?
For sure.
Everyone knows he takes the evidence with him when he goes, and there's no way they'd start from scratch...:dry:
It is still uncanny timing.
I loved Bush's reaction when he was questioned about Abramoff during a morning press conference.
vidcc
01-31-2006, 12:09 AM
Doesn't it seem a little odd that after 2 years in charge of the investigation and as soon as the "crap is starting to hit the fan" Bush has offered the Abramoff prosecutor, a federal judgeship thus taking him off the case.
Nixon 2 the movie anyone?
For sure.
Everyone knows he takes the evidence with him when he goes, and there's no way they'd start from scratch...:dry:
But it certainly would hinder the process would it not ? (In an election year)
Bush seems to want to put someone else in his stead, someone HE wants. Surely at this stage justice would better be served by delaying any change of prosecutors.
At this stage I am not really convinced of any mischief in the act but it does seem odd to me with the timing
vidcc
02-06-2006, 05:05 PM
do they honestly think this looks ethical?
Specter Off To A Bad Start
At the beginning of the hearing with Attorney General Gonzales about Bush’s warrantless domestic surveillance program, Sen. Arlen Specter (R-PA) announced:
1. Attorney Alberto Gonzales won’t be sworn in, even though the last time he testified under oath he misled the committee about the program. Leahy noted he was sworn the other two times he appeared before the committee. Leahy appealed the ruling of the chair and asked for a roll call vote.
2. Specter won’t allow videos to be shown during the hearings of the President and Attorney General Gonzales misleading Congress and the public about the program
I like Specter, I don't always agree with his politics but I have always held him up to be an principled and honest man. This is such a shame and not expected.
The other republicans on the comitte did as expected
Busyman
02-06-2006, 05:15 PM
do they honestly think this looks ethical?
Specter Off To A Bad Start
At the beginning of the hearing with Attorney General Gonzales about Bush’s warrantless domestic surveillance program, Sen. Arlen Specter (R-PA) announced:
1. Attorney Alberto Gonzales won’t be sworn in, even though the last time he testified under oath he misled the committee about the program. Leahy noted he was sworn the other two times he appeared before the committee. Leahy appealed the ruling of the chair and asked for a roll call vote.
2. Specter won’t allow videos to be shown during the hearings of the President and Attorney General Gonzales misleading Congress and the public about the program
I like Specter, I don't always agree with his politics but I have always held him up to be an principled and honest man. This is such a shame and not expected.
The other republicans on the comitte did as expected
...holding the line.
I like Specter, I don't always agree with his politics but I have always held him up to be an principled and honest man. This is such a shame and not expected.
The other republicans on the comitte did as expected
Specter sucks donkey balls and always has.
He'd make a passable liberal, though.
I must also say it was funny watching him slap down Ted Kennedy during the Alito hearings. :naughty:
vidcc
02-06-2006, 09:45 PM
I like Specter, I don't always agree with his politics but I have always held him up to be an principled and honest man. This is such a shame and not expected.
The other republicans on the comitte did as expected
Specter sucks donkey balls and always has.
He'd make a passable liberal, though.
I must also say it was funny watching him slap down Ted Kennedy during the Alito hearings. :naughty:
I'm not great big fan of Kennedy ( politics aside I have greater respect for Specter) but he did win that one.
Specter sucks donkey balls and always has.
He'd make a passable liberal, though.
I must also say it was funny watching him slap down Ted Kennedy during the Alito hearings. :naughty:
I'm not great big fan of Kennedy ( politics aside I have greater respect for Specter) but he did win that one.
Kennedy won?
Uh-uh.
Specter hadn't read the memo, but Kennedy's staff (among many others) had already parsed the papers Kennedy wanted to "subpoena", and the dumb bastard didn't even know it.
Specter wins points for telling him off, nothing more.
vidcc
02-07-2006, 01:58 AM
I'm not great big fan of Kennedy ( politics aside I have greater respect for Specter) but he did win that one.
Kennedy won?
Uh-uh.
Specter hadn't read the memo, but Kennedy's staff (among many others) had already parsed the papers Kennedy wanted to "subpoena", and the dumb bastard didn't even know it.
Specter wins points for telling him off, nothing more. Well yes, it turned out that specters office had indeed recieved the memo and kennedy's office had a confirmation of receipt. Specter admitted he had discussed it with his Chief-of-Staff on the phone and agreed to get the records.
Kennedy won?
Uh-uh.
Specter hadn't read the memo, but Kennedy's staff (among many others) had already parsed the papers Kennedy wanted to "subpoena", and the dumb bastard didn't even know it.
Specter wins points for telling him off, nothing more. Well yes, it turned out that specters office had indeed recieved the memo and kennedy's office had a confirmation of receipt. Specter admitted he had discussed it with his Chief-of-Staff on the phone and agreed to get the records.
No; I realize that was the favored story the next day, but it is as I described it.
The documents were requested by Kennedy from the archive, which forwarded the request to Bill Rusher, who had founded CAP, and to whom the documents belonged before Rusher deposited them with the archive at it's request.
Rusher refused Kennedy's request, but acquiesced to other committee members who openly shared the documents with Kennedy's staff, with Rusher's consent-he had spurned Kennedy's request just to tweak EMK, knowing full well Kennedy would get a look through other channels.
The documents had been vetted some time before the committee even convened, and Kennedy's people hadn't mentioned it to the boss because there was nothing there.
Imagine that...
vidcc
02-07-2006, 02:59 AM
Well yes, it turned out that specters office had indeed recieved the memo and kennedy's office had a confirmation of receipt. Specter admitted he had discussed it with his Chief-of-Staff on the phone and agreed to get the records.
No; I realize that was the favored story the next day, but it is as I described it.
The documents were requested by Kennedy from the archive, which forwarded the request to Bill Rusher, who had founded CAP, and to whom the documents belonged before Rusher deposited them with the archive at it's request.
Rusher refused Kennedy's request, but acquiesced to other committee members who openly shared the documents with Kennedy's staff, with Rusher's consent-he had spurned Kennedy's request just to tweak EMK, knowing full well Kennedy would get a look through other channels.
The documents had been vetted some time before the committee even convened, and Kennedy's people hadn't mentioned it to the boss because there was nothing there.
Imagine that...
interesting...got a source?
even so how does this relate to the specter/kennedy tiff?
No; I realize that was the favored story the next day, but it is as I described it.
The documents were requested by Kennedy from the archive, which forwarded the request to Bill Rusher, who had founded CAP, and to whom the documents belonged before Rusher deposited them with the archive at it's request.
Rusher refused Kennedy's request, but acquiesced to other committee members who openly shared the documents with Kennedy's staff, with Rusher's consent-he had spurned Kennedy's request just to tweak EMK, knowing full well Kennedy would get a look through other channels.
The documents had been vetted some time before the committee even convened, and Kennedy's people hadn't mentioned it to the boss because there was nothing there.
Imagine that...
interesting...got a source?
even so how does this relate to the specter/kennedy tiff?
The source is Rusher himself.
It serves to indicate Specter was wrong, but entertaining, while Kennedy was ignorant as well as wrong, pompous and, well, Kennedyesque.
He is a total caricature; a bad joke.
vidcc
02-07-2006, 03:18 PM
Looks like someone is trying to "influence" the outcome of another investigation :rolleyes:
The White House has been twisting arms to ensure that no Republican member votes against President Bush in the Senate Judiciary Committee’s investigation of the administration's unauthorized wiretapping.
Congressional sources said Deputy Chief of Staff Karl Rove has threatened to blacklist any Republican who votes against the president. The sources said the blacklist would mean a halt in any White House political or financial support of senators running for re-election in November.
source (http://www.insightmag.com/Media/MediaManager/Rove2.htm)
Looks like someone is trying to "influence" the outcome of another investigation :rolleyes:
The White House has been twisting arms to ensure that no Republican member votes against President Bush in the Senate Judiciary Committee’s investigation of the administration's unauthorized wiretapping.
Congressional sources said Deputy Chief of Staff Karl Rove has threatened to blacklist any Republican who votes against the president. The sources said the blacklist would mean a halt in any White House political or financial support of senators running for re-election in November.
source (http://www.insightmag.com/Media/MediaManager/Rove2.htm)
OMG!
Politics as usual!
So unfair, too, when the dems have been playing beanbag...:rolleyes:
vidcc
02-07-2006, 08:59 PM
Republican lawmakers with all the present ethics concerns should stand in front of the cameras and state "that I will not be bribed, I will not be bullied, I will stand for the truth no matter what it may be."
Of course for that to happen we would need that useless magic wand you onced offered ;)
I await your next "but, but the democrats.........:tease:" retort with great anticipation :P
Busyman
02-07-2006, 11:37 PM
Looks like someone is trying to "influence" the outcome of another investigation :rolleyes:
source (http://www.insightmag.com/Media/MediaManager/Rove2.htm)
OMG!
Politics as usual!
So unfair, too, when the dems have been playing beanbag...:rolleyes:
Predictable response from you.
"Everyone else does it."
OMG!
Politics as usual!
So unfair, too, when the dems have been playing beanbag...:rolleyes:
Predictable response from you.
"Everyone else does it."
Not quite, but I'm not built to echo the undifferentiated plaints you and vid come up with.
I've said many times the whole game needs a flea-bath, but perhaps you two weren't paying attention.
Busyman
02-08-2006, 02:00 AM
Predictable response from you.
"Everyone else does it."
Not quite, but I'm not built to echo the undifferentiated plaints you and vid come up with.
I've said many times the whole game needs a flea-bath, but perhaps you two weren't paying attention.
Who doesn't say the whole system needs changin'?:dry:
Saying everyone else does it makes you a sheep....but you must know this. You are highly transparent.
You can harp on the undifferentiated plaints all you want.
The plaints are valid, however. (I love synonym talk)
vidcc
02-09-2006, 02:01 AM
I hear now that Tom Delay has claimed a seat on the subcommittee overseeing the Justice Department, which is currently investigating Jack Abramoff and his dealings with lawmakers. :frusty:
No reason to suspect anything there :rolleyes:
Busyman
02-09-2006, 02:11 AM
I hear now that Tom Delay has claimed a seat on the subcommittee overseeing the Justice Department, which is currently investigating Jack Abramoff and his dealings with lawmakers. :frusty:
No reason to suspect anything there :rolleyes:
You've got to be fucking kidding me.:huh:
vidcc
02-09-2006, 03:33 PM
I hear now that Tom Delay has claimed a seat on the subcommittee overseeing the Justice Department, which is currently investigating Jack Abramoff and his dealings with lawmakers. :frusty:
No reason to suspect anything there :rolleyes:
You've got to be fucking kidding me.:huh:
you couldn't make this up (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060208/ap_on_go_co/delay_appropriations;_ylt=AkPc7IcFEINjwxZdiLuRqfqs0NUE;_ylu=X3oDMTA3OXIzMDMzBHNlYwM3MDM-) :unsure:
Busyman
02-09-2006, 04:16 PM
You've got to be fucking kidding me.:huh:
you couldn't make this up (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060208/ap_on_go_co/delay_appropriations;_ylt=AkPc7IcFEINjwxZdiLuRqfqs0NUE;_ylu=X3oDMTA3OXIzMDMzBHNlYwM3MDM-) :unsure:
:no: SDRAWKCABSSA :no:
Allowing Tom DeLay to sit on a committee in charge of giving out money is like putting Michael Brown back in charge of FEMA — Republicans in Congress just can't seem to resist standing by their man
I doubt that's just a Republican thing but it is right now.
I hear now that Tom Delay has claimed a seat on the subcommittee overseeing the Justice Department, which is currently investigating Jack Abramoff and his dealings with lawmakers. :frusty:
No reason to suspect anything there :rolleyes:
Hmmm.
That's like Jamie Gorelick sitting on the 9/11 committee.
No conflict there, and curiously, no outrage, either. :dry:
Busyman
02-09-2006, 09:06 PM
I hear now that Tom Delay has claimed a seat on the subcommittee overseeing the Justice Department, which is currently investigating Jack Abramoff and his dealings with lawmakers. :frusty:
No reason to suspect anything there :rolleyes:
Hmmm.
That's like Jamie Gorelick sitting on the 9/11 committee.
No conflict there, and curiously, no outrage, either. :dry:
Explain please. Who's Jamie Gorelick?
Was he related to one of the hijackers?
Hmmm.
That's like Jamie Gorelick sitting on the 9/11 committee.
No conflict there, and curiously, no outrage, either. :dry:
Explain please. Who's Jamie Gorelick?
Was he related to one of the hijackers?
SHE is an ex-Clintonista who is largely responsible for the lack of intelligence-sharing which apparently kept us from doping out the plot for 9/11.
She delineates and erects the barriers between the CIA and FBI, then sits on the committee that bitches about it.
Busyman
02-10-2006, 06:19 AM
Explain please. Who's Jamie Gorelick?
Was he related to one of the hijackers?
SHE is an ex-Clintonista who is largely responsible for the lack of intelligence-sharing which apparently kept us from doping out the plot for 9/11.
She delineates and erects the barriers between the CIA and FBI, then sits on the committee that bitches about it.
Yeah that is fucking ass backwards.
Do have any examples of what she's done?
What barriers did she erect and what DID we have on the 9/11 hijackers?
Why the fuck she is even on the committee if she is even possibly one of the fuck ups?
You would think the committee be comprised of people that aren't trying to cover their ass. :dry:
edit: Yeah she's trying to cover her own ass and should DEFINITELY not be on the committee.
I did see her same policies were ratified by Ashcroft in Aug of '01 but that's besides the point.
Alot of this stuff is hindsight but wtf shit logic is having her as a commissioner?
Who picked these people? Shouldn't step down now this stuff about her has come to light?
I read she doesn't want to testify in public.
SHE is an ex-Clintonista who is largely responsible for the lack of intelligence-sharing which apparently kept us from doping out the plot for 9/11.
She delineates and erects the barriers between the CIA and FBI, then sits on the committee that bitches about it.
Yeah that is fucking ass backwards.
Do have any examples of what she's done?
What barriers did she erect and what DID we have on the 9/11 hijackers?
Why the fuck she is even on the committee if she is even possibly one of the fuck ups?
You would think the committee be comprised of people that aren't trying to cover their ass. :dry:
edit: Yeah she's trying to cover her own ass and should DEFINITELY not be on the committee.
I did see her same policies were ratified by Ashcroft in Aug of '01 but that's besides the point.
Alot of this stuff is hindsight but wtf shit logic is having her as a commissioner?
Who picked these people? Shouldn't step down now this stuff about her has come to light?
I read she doesn't want to testify in public.
You see, this is one of the examples of "digging up the past as an excuse for Bush's activities" and "they did it, too" that are are usually ridiculed by yourself and vid; it's "news" to you, because the media hasn't hung somebody out to dry over it.
I mentioned it several times, but no one here was the least impressed. :dry:
Busyman
02-10-2006, 01:48 PM
Yeah that is fucking ass backwards.
Do have any examples of what she's done?
What barriers did she erect and what DID we have on the 9/11 hijackers?
Why the fuck she is even on the committee if she is even possibly one of the fuck ups?
You would think the committee be comprised of people that aren't trying to cover their ass. :dry:
edit: Yeah she's trying to cover her own ass and should DEFINITELY not be on the committee.
I did see her same policies were ratified by Ashcroft in Aug of '01 but that's besides the point.
Alot of this stuff is hindsight but wtf shit logic is having her as a commissioner?
Who picked these people? Shouldn't step down now this stuff about her has come to light?
I read she doesn't want to testify in public.
You see, this is one of the examples of "digging up the past as an excuse for Bush's activities" and "they did it, too" that are are usually ridiculed by yourself and vid; it's "news" to you, because the media hasn't hung somebody out to dry over it.
I mentioned it several times, but no one here was the least impressed. :dry:
I don't watch news much. I might catch something in passing but that's about it. When vid posts some news it's usually the first I hear of it.
Sorry to say it but he also posts news better than you. It's the way you talk ya see. I don't really care for what you think of as eloquent prose when trying to convey information. I'm a direct kinda guy and am normally doing 3 things at once. I was around folks that sounded like you in high school and college and they would sound "impressive" but they also put my instructors to sleep while I did not. I hope you don't talk this way irl. Even this time I had to ask who Jamie Gorelick was when in contrast, vid would just be out with it.
You also keep grouping me with vid ON EVERY OCCASION. I don't bring up "they did it too" as often as you're making. Is this simply 'cause I mentioned Ashcroft signed off on the same stuff Jamie Gorelick did and the person before her did the same (and so on...)?:idunno:
I've seen more bullshit and spin from you than vid. You'll excuse me if the boy that cried wolf was thought to be crying wolf yet again.
vidcc
02-10-2006, 03:05 PM
I await your next "but, but the democrats.........:tease:" retort with great anticipation :P
I've already addressed J2s responses.
Stated many times before it is no defense saying "but someone else did it as well".But I enjoy them anyway.
BTW I read right wing blogs and know all about ms. Gorelick
When vid posts some news it's usually the first I hear of it.
Sorry to say it but he also posts news better than you. It's the way you talk ya see. I don't really care for what you think of as eloquent prose when trying to convey information. I'm a direct kinda guy and am normally doing 3 things at once. I was around folks that sounded like you in high school and college and they would sound "impressive" but they also put my instructors to sleep while I did not. I hope you don't talk this way irl. Even this time I had to ask who Jamie Gorelick was when in contrast, vid would just be out with it.
You also keep grouping me with vid ON EVERY OCCASION. I don't bring up "they did it too" as often as you're making. Is this simply 'cause I mentioned Ashcroft signed off on the same stuff Jamie Gorelick did and the person before her did the same (and so on...)?:idunno:
I've seen more bullshit and spin from you than vid. You'll excuse me if the boy that cried wolf was thought to be crying wolf yet again.
I don't beg a response from you, B.
If you don't like my posting, then, well....just STFU about it, OK?
Sorry to steal your phrase, but it seems appropriate.
Put me on "ignore".
Vid is known for spin-free posting and news?
Great...I have no problem with that.
If you feel I lump you in with him too often, it's because that's where you end up most often.
If it makes you feel better, though, I'll stop.
Busyman
02-10-2006, 09:30 PM
When vid posts some news it's usually the first I hear of it.
Sorry to say it but he also posts news better than you. It's the way you talk ya see. I don't really care for what you think of as eloquent prose when trying to convey information. I'm a direct kinda guy and am normally doing 3 things at once. I was around folks that sounded like you in high school and college and they would sound "impressive" but they also put my instructors to sleep while I did not. I hope you don't talk this way irl. Even this time I had to ask who Jamie Gorelick was when in contrast, vid would just be out with it.
You also keep grouping me with vid ON EVERY OCCASION. I don't bring up "they did it too" as often as you're making. Is this simply 'cause I mentioned Ashcroft signed off on the same stuff Jamie Gorelick did and the person before her did the same (and so on...)?:idunno:
I've seen more bullshit and spin from you than vid. You'll excuse me if the boy that cried wolf was thought to be crying wolf yet again.
I don't beg a response from you, B.
If you don't like my posting, then, well....just STFU about it, OK?
Sorry to steal your phrase, but it seems appropriate.
Put me on "ignore".
Vid is known for spin-free posting and news?
Great...I have no problem with that.
If you feel I lump you in with him too often, it's because that's where you end up most often.
If it makes you feel better, though, I'll stop.
Make me STFU.
If I don't like your posting, I'll say it sucks donkey ass, say it is shit Shakespeare with a thesaurus, say it is transparent "hold the Repub line", and say it is from a little boy that couldn't quite cut it who's grown into a teenager that still can't. You are the one whining about "your mention missing attention."
If I lump you in with piss, it's because shit usually ends with up piss.
Oh and Ashcroft signed off on the same shit Jamie Gorelick did....right in Aug. '01. Did I say that before?:unsure:
Besides that, I thought this thread that you made was about conservatives. :1eye: Don't get pissed when those in "The Party Of God" turn out to be lawbreaking, scandal-ridden, slimey, weaseling men that seem to play a great role in fucking up the country (while you clap and wave a flag).....and are posted in the appropriate thread. :crazy:
I don't beg a response from you, B.
If you don't like my posting, then, well....just STFU about it, OK?
Sorry to steal your phrase, but it seems appropriate.
Put me on "ignore".
Vid is known for spin-free posting and news?
Great...I have no problem with that.
If you feel I lump you in with him too often, it's because that's where you end up most often.
If it makes you feel better, though, I'll stop.
Make me STFU.
If I don't like your posting, I'll say it sucks donkey ass, say it is shit Shakespeare with a thesaurus, say it is transparent "hold the Repub line", and say it is from a little boy that couldn't quite cut it who's grown into a teenager that still can't. You are the one whining about "your mention missing attention."
If I lump you in with piss, it's because shit usually ends with up piss.
Oh and Ashcroft signed off on the same shit Jamie Gorelick did....right in Aug. '01. Did I say that before?:unsure:
Besides that, I thought this thread that you made was about conservatives. :1eye: Don't get pissed when those in "The Party Of God" turn out to be lawbreaking, scandal-ridden, slimey, weaseling men that seem to play a great role in fucking up the country (while you clap and wave a flag).....and are posted in the appropriate thread. :crazy:
So peaceful and tolerant (heavy on the 'rant).
So liberal.
To be blunt, then:
I don't give a fuck what you think of my posting, Busyman, and if you take exception, please so state.
I wouldn't think of even trying to shut you up, 'cuz I'm for free speech, see?
I just thought you might exercise your right to choose not to respond; it seems, though, that you can't resist.
Busyman
02-10-2006, 10:04 PM
Make me STFU.
If I don't like your posting, I'll say it sucks donkey ass, say it is shit Shakespeare with a thesaurus, say it is transparent "hold the Repub line", and say it is from a little boy that couldn't quite cut it who's grown into a teenager that still can't. You are the one whining about "your mention missing attention."
If I lump you in with piss, it's because shit usually ends with up piss.
Oh and Ashcroft signed off on the same shit Jamie Gorelick did....right in Aug. '01. Did I say that before?:unsure:
Besides that, I thought this thread that you made was about conservatives. :1eye: Don't get pissed when those in "The Party Of God" turn out to be lawbreaking, scandal-ridden, slimey, weaseling men that seem to play a great role in fucking up the country (while you clap and wave a flag).....and are posted in the appropriate thread. :crazy:
So peaceful and tolerant (heavy on the 'rant).
So liberal.
To be blunt, then:
I don't give a fuck what you think of my posting, Busyman, and if you take exception, please so state.
I already did. RIF. :1eye: dUh :1eye:
I wouldn't think of even trying to shut you up, 'cuz I'm for free speech, see?
Sure didn't seem that way from your post.:dry:
I just thought you might exercise your right to choose not to respond; it seems, though, that you can't resist.
Oh 'cause you say so?
"See I figured out Deebo. When Deebo says STFU I STFU...but when he leaves, I'll be talkin' again.":wacko:
vidcc
02-11-2006, 10:01 PM
Well the abramoff / bush photos are appearing online. I think they may be fakes though.
This one has been published.
http://img495.imageshack.us/img495/5779/abramoffbushred3ul.jpg
this looked too familiar so i did some research and guess what.
http://img495.imageshack.us/img495/2599/abramoffbushred29wf.jpg:unsure:
Well the abramoff / bush photos are appearing online. I think they may be fakes though.
This one has been published.
http://img495.imageshack.us/img495/5779/abramoffbushred3ul.jpg
this looked too familiar so i did some research and guess what.
http://img495.imageshack.us/img495/2599/abramoffbushred29wf.jpg:unsure:
Paying court to the Burger King?!??!
Pretty damning stuff...:huh:
vidcc
02-12-2006, 11:13 PM
Kind of reminds me of when the "bosses" were trying to get off charges in the movie "casino" (http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2006-02-12-cheney-hunting_x.htm):unsure: :D
That or scarface
http://img131.imageshack.us/img131/3664/scarface4fl.jpg
hope the victim recovers though
Skillian
02-13-2006, 01:12 AM
http://www.grouchyoldcripple.com/archives/10ways-thumb.jpg
http://www.grouchyoldcripple.com/archives/10ways-thumb.jpg
He studied under G. Gordon Liddy.
He's a baaaaaad man.
vidcc
02-15-2006, 11:16 PM
So here's the transcript of the open and honest, fair and balanced cheney interview on Foxnews:-
BRIT HUME: Thank you for joining us this afternoon, Mr. Vice President.
VICE PRESIDENT CHENEY: Thank you, Brit.
BRIT HUME: I love you.
VICE PRESIDENT CHENEY: Well, it was the worst experience of my life -- what was that?
BRIT HUME: I love your soul, Mr. Vice President.
VICE PRESIDENT CHENEY: I love you, too, Brit. So...
BRIT HUME: Tell us about Saturday.
VICE PRESIDENT CHENEY: I had a beer for lunch then me and the fellas went hunting for retarded birds on the Armstrong ranch.
BRIT HUME: You have a masculine voice.
VICE PRESIDENT CHENEY: Yes, well, Harry got a couple of birds, then a few jumped out at me like a goddamn wolf man. I flat-lined, was revived with those zappy paddles, and then--
BRIT HUME: You were almost killed by the retarded birds? You're like a Norse God. And this was Gotterdammerung!
VICE PRESIDENT CHENEY: I don't know what that is. Anyway, this bastard bird jumped up and I fired away. That's when one of the fellas shouted, "You shot Harry!"
BRIT HUME: Which fella shouted that?
VICE PRESIDENT CHENEY: (incomprehensible)
BRIT HUME: Who?
VICE PRESIDENT CHENEY: One of the guys, you know. One of my hunting buddies. Big guy. Hairy.
BRIT HUME: Okay.
VICE PRESIDENT CHENEY: Pam Willeford. Who is a guy.
BRIT HUME: Some people are saying that's true. And without pressing you any further, I will agree and chalk it up as confirmed.
VICE PRESIDENT CHENEY: Stop grilling me on details, Brit. So I ran up to Harry. I didn't run, actually. I kind of lurched. I like to lurch. Harry was conscious, happy, and joking. He was also unconscious, severely injured, and not talking.
BRIT HUME: That makes so much sense. I just peed myself it made so much sense.
VICE PRESIDENT CHENEY: Right.
BRIT HUME: Can I kiss the fleshy area above your elbow?
VICE PRESIDENT CHENEY: What? No. (whispers) Later. Anyway, hospital -- recovery -- heart attack -- and here I am. Fully complying with my obligation to the American people to be forthcoming and honest.
BRIT HUME: Most honest Veep ever. Thank you for choosing Fox News to tell your story, Mr. Vice President. Sorry if I had to ask the hard questions, but I'm a journalist.
VICE PRESIDENT CHENEY: It's your job. Thank you, Brit.
BRIT HUME: Do my saggy eyes make me look sleepy?
END TRANSCRIPT
Personally, although the whole shooting saga is just funny (with the exception of the victims suffering) I think Cheney should be a man and face the whole press and answer their questions about the affair............................ The first question should be "So what about the Scooter Libby trial and your involvement in outing a covert agent?" ;)
So here's the transcript of the open and honest, fair and balanced cheney interview on Foxnews:-
BRIT HUME: Thank you for joining us this afternoon, Mr. Vice President.
VICE PRESIDENT CHENEY: Thank you, Brit.
BRIT HUME: I love you.
VICE PRESIDENT CHENEY: Well, it was the worst experience of my life -- what was that?
BRIT HUME: I love your soul, Mr. Vice President.
VICE PRESIDENT CHENEY: I love you, too, Brit. So...
BRIT HUME: Tell us about Saturday.
VICE PRESIDENT CHENEY: I had a beer for lunch then me and the fellas went hunting for retarded birds on the Armstrong ranch.
BRIT HUME: You have a masculine voice.
VICE PRESIDENT CHENEY: Yes, well, Harry got a couple of birds, then a few jumped out at me like a goddamn wolf man. I flat-lined, was revived with those zappy paddles, and then--
BRIT HUME: You were almost killed by the retarded birds? You're like a Norse God. And this was Gotterdammerung!
VICE PRESIDENT CHENEY: I don't know what that is. Anyway, this bastard bird jumped up and I fired away. That's when one of the fellas shouted, "You shot Harry!"
BRIT HUME: Which fella shouted that?
VICE PRESIDENT CHENEY: (incomprehensible)
BRIT HUME: Who?
VICE PRESIDENT CHENEY: One of the guys, you know. One of my hunting buddies. Big guy. Hairy.
BRIT HUME: Okay.
VICE PRESIDENT CHENEY: Pam Willeford. Who is a guy.
BRIT HUME: Some people are saying that's true. And without pressing you any further, I will agree and chalk it up as confirmed.
VICE PRESIDENT CHENEY: Stop grilling me on details, Brit. So I ran up to Harry. I didn't run, actually. I kind of lurched. I like to lurch. Harry was conscious, happy, and joking. He was also unconscious, severely injured, and not talking.
BRIT HUME: That makes so much sense. I just peed myself it made so much sense.
VICE PRESIDENT CHENEY: Right.
BRIT HUME: Can I kiss the fleshy area above your elbow?
VICE PRESIDENT CHENEY: What? No. (whispers) Later. Anyway, hospital -- recovery -- heart attack -- and here I am. Fully complying with my obligation to the American people to be forthcoming and honest.
BRIT HUME: Most honest Veep ever. Thank you for choosing Fox News to tell your story, Mr. Vice President. Sorry if I had to ask the hard questions, but I'm a journalist.
VICE PRESIDENT CHENEY: It's your job. Thank you, Brit.
BRIT HUME: Do my saggy eyes make me look sleepy?
END TRANSCRIPT
Personally, although the whole shooting saga is just funny (with the exception of the victims suffering) I think Cheney should be a man and face the whole press and answer their questions about the affair............................ The first question should be "So what about the Scooter Libby trial and your involvement in outing a covert agent?" ;)
Very nice.
What covert agent, BTW? :dry:
vidcc
02-15-2006, 11:50 PM
Very nice.
What covert agent, BTW? :dry:
You mean to say that foxnews didn't cover that bit of fitzgeralds report released so far :rolleyes:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11179719/site/newsweek/
funny how the right wing media was soooooooooooo silent on this (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=Plame+Was+Still+Covert&btnG=Google+Search) :rolleyes:
Very nice.
What covert agent, BTW? :dry:
You mean to say that foxnews didn't cover that bit of fitzgeralds report released so far :rolleyes:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11179719/site/newsweek/
funny how the right wing media was soooooooooooo silent on this (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=Plame+Was+Still+Covert&btnG=Google+Search) :rolleyes:
FFS-I know what you're talking about.
I haven't changed my mind on the matter.
What right-wing media, pray?
Busyman
02-16-2006, 12:28 AM
So here's the transcript of the open and honest, fair and balanced cheney interview on Foxnews:-
BRIT HUME: Thank you for joining us this afternoon, Mr. Vice President.
VICE PRESIDENT CHENEY: Thank you, Brit.
BRIT HUME: I love you.
VICE PRESIDENT CHENEY: Well, it was the worst experience of my life -- what was that?
BRIT HUME: I love your soul, Mr. Vice President.
VICE PRESIDENT CHENEY: I love you, too, Brit. So...
BRIT HUME: Tell us about Saturday.
VICE PRESIDENT CHENEY: I had a beer for lunch then me and the fellas went hunting for retarded birds on the Armstrong ranch.
BRIT HUME: You have a masculine voice.
VICE PRESIDENT CHENEY: Yes, well, Harry got a couple of birds, then a few jumped out at me like a goddamn wolf man. I flat-lined, was revived with those zappy paddles, and then--
BRIT HUME: You were almost killed by the retarded birds? You're like a Norse God. And this was Gotterdammerung!
VICE PRESIDENT CHENEY: I don't know what that is. Anyway, this bastard bird jumped up and I fired away. That's when one of the fellas shouted, "You shot Harry!"
BRIT HUME: Which fella shouted that?
VICE PRESIDENT CHENEY: (incomprehensible)
BRIT HUME: Who?
VICE PRESIDENT CHENEY: One of the guys, you know. One of my hunting buddies. Big guy. Hairy.
BRIT HUME: Okay.
VICE PRESIDENT CHENEY: Pam Willeford. Who is a guy.
BRIT HUME: Some people are saying that's true. And without pressing you any further, I will agree and chalk it up as confirmed.
VICE PRESIDENT CHENEY: Stop grilling me on details, Brit. So I ran up to Harry. I didn't run, actually. I kind of lurched. I like to lurch. Harry was conscious, happy, and joking. He was also unconscious, severely injured, and not talking.
BRIT HUME: That makes so much sense. I just peed myself it made so much sense.
VICE PRESIDENT CHENEY: Right.
BRIT HUME: Can I kiss the fleshy area above your elbow?
VICE PRESIDENT CHENEY: What? No. (whispers) Later. Anyway, hospital -- recovery -- heart attack -- and here I am. Fully complying with my obligation to the American people to be forthcoming and honest.
BRIT HUME: Most honest Veep ever. Thank you for choosing Fox News to tell your story, Mr. Vice President. Sorry if I had to ask the hard questions, but I'm a journalist.
VICE PRESIDENT CHENEY: It's your job. Thank you, Brit.
BRIT HUME: Do my saggy eyes make me look sleepy?
END TRANSCRIPT
Personally, although the whole shooting saga is just funny (with the exception of the victims suffering) I think Cheney should be a man and face the whole press and answer their questions about the affair............................ The first question should be "So what about the Scooter Libby trial and your involvement in outing a covert agent?" ;)
Hilariousness-icity.:lol: :lol:
vidcc
02-16-2006, 12:40 AM
You mean to say that foxnews didn't cover that bit of fitzgeralds report released so far :rolleyes:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11179719/site/newsweek/
funny how the right wing media was soooooooooooo silent on this (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=Plame+Was+Still+Covert&btnG=Google+Search) :rolleyes:
FFS-I know what you're talking about.
I haven't changed my mind on the matter.
So it doesn't matter what the facts are, you won't accept she was covert :unsure: The CIA said she was covert, fitzgerald found that she was covert, the judge agreed...... yet because some right wingers tried to deny this........Her status was questioned and has been confirmed so what is puzzling you? .:blink:
What right-wing media, pray?
the ones that neglected to report this. The ones that so prominently reported the questioning of her status. foxnews, nro etc.
and I will not pray
FFS-I know what you're talking about.
I haven't changed my mind on the matter.
So it doesn't matter what the facts are, you won't accept she was covert :unsure: The CIA said she was covert, fitzgerald found that she was covert, the judge agreed...... yet because some right wingers tried to deny this........Her status was questioned and has been confirmed so what is puzzling you? .:blink:
What right-wing media, pray?
I've already said, if Libby is found to have violated the law, he should suffer the punishment meted out.
You require something more?
the ones that neglected to report this. The ones that so prominently reported the questioning of her status. foxnews, nro etc.
The "ones"?
What "ones", exactly?
and I will not pray
God forbid...
vidcc
02-16-2006, 01:17 AM
I've already said, if Libby is found to have violated the law, he should suffer the punishment meted out.
You require something more?
I thought you were questioning Valery plame status when you asked "what covert agent".where did libby come into that?:blink:
Do you at least accept that she was indeed covert?
Libby is not on trial for outing her. he is on trial for perjury. Fiztgerald stated he has been hindered by lack of co-operation and refusal to hand over document and missing E.mails. So to the point of if an agent has been outed that isn't in dispute. It is proving that it was deliberate and therefore a crime that has been hindered.
Libby has said that cheney told him who plame was and what to do with the information
Libby is not on trial for outing her. he is on trial for perjury.
Perjury?
You mean like...oh, nevermind.
Busyman
02-16-2006, 01:39 AM
Libby is not on trial for outing her. he is on trial for perjury.
Perjury?
You mean like...oh, nevermind.
:lol: :lol: :lol: Good one!!!
Perjury for.....
Clinton lying
subject: dick suck
Libby lying
subject: outing a covert agent
vidcc
02-16-2006, 01:43 AM
Libby is not on trial for outing her. he is on trial for perjury.
Perjury?
You mean like...oh, nevermind.
Do you at least accept that she was indeed covert? :blink:
Do you at least accept that she was indeed covert?
Fitzgerald didn't have sufficient evidence to charge Libby-there was no statement to the effect he "knew" Libby was aware but juuuuuuust couldn't scrape together the evidence to charge him.
What of that, then?
Do you feel sanguine inferring such on your own, absent anything from Mr. Fitzgerald?
What does my "acceptance" of her covert status have to do with the price of eggs?
Are you going to endict me?
Libby lying
subject: outing a covert agent
This is incorrect.
Re-read the link.
BTW-
He still hasn't been convicted of anything; does this matter to either of you?
Busyman
02-16-2006, 02:31 AM
Libby lying
subject: outing a covert agent
This is incorrect.
Re-read the link.
BTW-
He still hasn't been convicted of anything; does this matter to either of you?
Of course.
I think it matters that no one will be convicted.
I didn't read the link it the first time. Doesn't change the subject matter, however.
Of course.
I think it matters that no one will be convicted.
Um...what?
Busyman
02-16-2006, 02:37 AM
Of course.
I think it matters that no one will be convicted.
Um...what?
Oh sorry.....convicted of the actual leak (not the perjury or false declarations).
vidcc
02-16-2006, 02:47 AM
Do you at least accept that she was indeed covert?
Fitzgerald didn't have sufficient evidence to charge Libby-there was no statement to the effect he "knew" Libby was aware but juuuuuuust couldn't scrape together the evidence to charge him.
What of that, then?
Do you feel sanguine inferring such on your own, absent anything from Mr. Fitzgerald?
I haven't made any case for guilt as to libby knowing she was a covert agent, I even said he is on trial for perjery not "outing the agent" even though he did. I even pointed that fitzgerald has been hindered in his investigation. It is a very hard case to prove at the best of time but probably impossible when evidence is withheld or destroyed.
It is very possible that libby (or rove) did not know her status but highly unlikely that cheney didn't.
A covert agent was outed, this is fact. But as you said it has to be proven they knew she was covert when they outed her. I have never denied this. The perjery charge has nothing to do with this.
What does my "acceptance" of her covert status have to do with the price of eggs?
Are you going to endict me?
you said this
Originally Posted by j2k4
What covert agent, BTW? implying you don't believe she was covert. It would be nice to know if you believe still. It has nothing to do with libby, cheney, rove or any other. It is a simple question and I can't think why you are avoiding answering it.
Fitzgerald didn't have sufficient evidence to charge Libby-there was no statement to the effect he "knew" Libby was aware but juuuuuuust couldn't scrape together the evidence to charge him.
What of that, then?
Do you feel sanguine inferring such on your own, absent anything from Mr. Fitzgerald?
I haven't made any case for guilt as to libby knowing she was a covert agent, I even said he is on trial for perjery not "outing the agent" even though he did. I even pointed that fitzgerald has been hindered in his investigation. It is a very hard case to prove at the best of time but probably impossible when evidence is withheld or destroyed.
It is very possible that libby (or rove) did not know her status but highly unlikely that cheney didn't.
A covert agent was outed, this is fact. But as you said it has to be proven they knew she was covert when they outed her. I have never denied this. The perjery charge has nothing to do with this.
What does my "acceptance" of her covert status have to do with the price of eggs?
Are you going to endict me?
you said this
Originally Posted by j2k4
What covert agent, BTW? implying you don't believe she was covert. It would be nice to know if you believe still. It has nothing to do with libby, cheney, rove or any other. It is a simple question and I can't think why you are avoiding answering it.
I think she had a special covert/overt status.
If this is not true, she should have shot her husband for outing her, too.
Her status was not a secret to any who knew her, apparently...that this didn't bear on the Libby investigation is no doubt the reason for it's lack of inclusion in Fitzgerald's report.
You say that, although Libby is not charged with "outing" Plame, he is certainly guilty of it.
By what standard do you arrive at this conclusion?
vidcc
02-16-2006, 03:18 AM
You say that, although Libby is not charged with "outing" Plame, he is certainly guilty of it.
By what standard do you arrive at this conclusion?
He did out her, he told the press, this is public record and he admitted it. The big question is did he know her status ? and as this is hard to prove it is unlikely he will be charged with this.
Subtle technicalities don't remove facts as you constantly remind us with Clintons aquittal
Her status was not a secret to any who knew her, apparently...
Hmm something suggested and repeated in the conservative bloggsphere..must be true
He did out her, he told the press, this is public record and he admitted it. The big question is did he know her status ? and as this is hard to prove it is unlikely he will be charged with this.
He "admitted" outing her?
If he knew he was "outing" her (your words) he would, by default, have had to know her status...yet Fitzgerald did not charge him?
How does that work?
Subtle technicalities don't remove facts as you constantly remind us with Clintons aquittal
I have reminded you, but you've given no indication you're convinced.
Clinton was not acquitted.
The Senate did not support his impeachment, which does not change the fact of his guilt; it merely means he was not removed from office for the offense.
Don't play semantic games.
Her status was not a secret to any who knew her, apparently...
Hmm something suggested and repeated in the conservative bloggsphere..must be true
I saw/read/became extremely bored with the repetitive nature of the fact having been reported in the major/main (that is to say, LIBERAL) media.
You know what's really odd?
I don't read any blogs, conservative or otherwise... :huh:
vidcc
02-16-2006, 04:00 PM
He "admitted" outing her?
If he knew he was "outing" her (your words) he would, by default, have had to know her status...yet Fitzgerald did not charge him?
How does that work?
Splitting hairs again I see. OK..... he admitted he gave the press the information, he admitted he named her (ok another technicality he said he never used her name but instead said it was wilsons wife :rolleyes: ) He admitted he told them she works for the CIA. as an agent. so in doing that an agent was "outed" deliberately or by accident and it seems disingenuous of you to make such a thin arguement on technicalities.
I have reminded you, but you've given no indication you're convinced.
Clinton was not acquitted.
The Senate did not support his impeachment, which does not change the fact of his guilt; it merely means he was not removed from office for the offense.
Don't play semantic games. Either way he was not convicted even though he admitted the falsehood. I am not playing games but it appears you are ;)
I saw/read/became extremely bored with the repetitive nature of the fact having been reported in the major/main (that is to say, LIBERAL) media.
You know what's really odd?
I don't read any blogs, conservative or otherwise... :huh: But you regularly (not so much recently) post conservative bloggs.... hold on they are not bloggs when you read them...they are columns or articles :rolleyes:
Splitting hairs again I see.
Yes; it's allowed in judicial courts, though not in courts of public opinion, where views like yours are rampant.
Another example of the politics of reason vs. the politics of feeling.
vidcc
02-16-2006, 10:01 PM
Yes; it's allowed in judicial courts, though not in courts of public opinion, where views like yours are rampant.
And what would those views be ?
Another example of the politics of reason vs. the politics of feeling.
By that i take you mean your views are reasonable and dissenting views are emotional
And what would those views be ?
That even though Fitzgerald could find no basis for charging him with outing Plame, we should not shrink from concluding Libby is guilty.
Another example of the politics of reason vs. the politics of feeling.
By that i take you mean your views are reasonable and dissenting views are emotional
Insofar as my views about examples such as the one above differ from yours?
YES. ;)
vidcc
02-17-2006, 12:23 AM
That even though Fitzgerald could find no basis for charging him with outing Plame, we should not shrink from concluding Libby is guilty. I'm wondering if your paranoyer is setting in again. I wonder what it is in your defense mechanism that makes you conclude such things.
However as you missed it before (or just ignored it). By his own admission he did tell the press about plame. so he did do it.
Where you are getting defensive is because this little fact having been pointed out automatically makes you assume that I am convicting him of a crime. You are correct that Fitzgerald could find no basis (or was able to prove) for charging him with outing Plame, he has to prove it did it knowingly. I already said it is entirely possible that libby didn't know her status, so he may not have comitted a crime when he did it but that doesn't change the fact that he did do it........... there is a difference.
I state this with no poiltical agenda, simply the facts.
Insofar as my views about examples such as the one above differ from yours?
YES. ;) Oh how the insanely frothing mind works :P
I state this with no poiltical agenda, simply the facts.
Oh, puhleeeeeeze....:D
vidcc
02-18-2006, 04:02 PM
The oath of office
I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter: So help me God.
UH oh sen. dewine
You know, there’s been some controversy about whether or not this program is legal or is not legal. I think we need to get beyond that. And the vast majority of American people believe these calls need to be listened to. But we don’t want to have any kind of debate about whether it’s constitutional or not constitutional. So I think we need to put that beyond us.
The oath of office
UH oh sen. dewine
You know, there’s been some controversy about whether or not this program is legal or is not legal. I think we need to get beyond that. And the vast majority of American people believe these calls need to be listened to. But we don’t want to have any kind of debate about whether it’s constitutional or not constitutional. So I think we need to put that beyond us.
He apparently had just taken his stupid pill...:rolleyes:
vidcc
02-18-2006, 06:37 PM
He apparently had just taken his stupid pill...:rolleyes:
I hear Merck have been handing them out for free in both houses an the whitehouse............... saves them a fortune in lobby money :P
The liberal media :rolleyes: must have been taking them too because even though they report and often misrepresent the "on the edge" comments of gore, hilary, sheehan etc. and are suggesting that bin laden is a democratic spokesperson, there is almost no coverage of this.
Mind you he said it on foxnews so they probably never heard it :naughty:
Cheney must have them crapping their pants :lol:
vidcc
02-21-2006, 07:21 PM
no scandal, just ironic (http://www.nysun.com/article/27794)
The school favored to host the George W. Bush Presidential Library, Dallas's Southern Methodist University, may encounter a snag next week in the form of a lawsuit alleging that the school has improperly seized local homes in order to secure land for the proposed library site. Eminent Domain used to take land to build dubyas library:lol:
no scandal, just ironic (http://www.nysun.com/article/27794)
The school favored to host the George W. Bush Presidential Library, Dallas's Southern Methodist University, may encounter a snag next week in the form of a lawsuit alleging that the school has improperly seized local homes in order to secure land for the proposed library site. Eminent Domain used to take land to build dubyas library:lol:
A political "career" is a string of acts/statements committed for the sake of appearance or in aid of circumstance.
Such a circumstance makes a pretty sorry statement, and other coincidental circumstances (Supreme Court-wise) are less-than-fortuitous.
I'm sure you agree.
Busyman
02-22-2006, 02:08 PM
no scandal, just ironic (http://www.nysun.com/article/27794)
The school favored to host the George W. Bush Presidential Library, Dallas's Southern Methodist University, may encounter a snag next week in the form of a lawsuit alleging that the school has improperly seized local homes in order to secure land for the proposed library site. Eminent Domain used to take land to build dubyas library:lol:
THAT'S FUCKED UP!!:angry:
I'd like to know what ISN'T Eminent Domian now. (what's funny is that if that library is open to the public then it fits)
Fucking dumbass Supreme Court.
Someone Joe Blow Shmoe could take my land and house to build a bigger house and it would ok by their fucking logic.
That's not wtf "public use" is.
When I told a redneck friend of mine about this, he fucking lost it until he talked to his father. He felt just like me where someone would get shot before taking his land.
His father said, "Boys, boys. I have always told you to think about what you are doing. Get paid for the land and house then dump mercury in the basement. You'd get your money and they'd have to condemn the land."
:lol: :lol:
:unsure:
:ph34r:
vidcc
02-22-2006, 05:50 PM
His father said, "Boys, boys. I have always told you to think about what you are doing. Get paid for the land and house then dump mercury in the basement. You'd get your money and they'd have to condemn the land."
WIll any queen album work or just the bad ones like "Innuendo" ? :unsure:
vidcc
02-24-2006, 03:41 PM
Lawyers for Vice President Dick Cheney's former top aide asked a federal judge Thursday to dismiss his indictment on grounds that the special prosecutor in the CIA leak case lacked authority.
In a court filing, lawyers for I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby said his indictment violated the Constitution because Special Counsel Patrick Fitzgerald was not appointed by the president with the consent of the Senate.Source (http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/02/23/libby.charges.ap/index.html)
I didn't think we were using the constitution anymore...... Oh hold on, it might be that any investigation of the administration is unconstitutional :shifty:
vidcc
02-24-2006, 09:57 PM
Q: What outrages Joe Barton?
A: The poor getting discount fuel.
When oil prices were at an all time high, Citgo had the gaul to start a program that offered heating oil to the poor in the Northeast at rates up to 60% below market price. Citgo, and only Citgo, started an oil-for-the-poor program so those less fortunate than others could heat their home this winter
Barton is demanding that Citgo produce all records, minutes, logs, e-mails and even desk calendars related to the program
So while all the other oil companies were making record profits and consumers were wondering if there was price gouging, Barton goes after the one company that offered discounted oil to those who needed help the most this winter. :dry:
Rep. Joe Barton, the powerful Texas Republican who is chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, launched a bizarre investigation last week into possible antitrust violations by a major oil company.
You will be surprised to learn that Barton, one of the top recipients in Congress of campaign donations from the energy industry, is not probing whether ExxonMobil or Chevron or any of the other oil giants engaged in price gouging when gasoline and heating oil costs skyrocketed the past few years.
No, the good congressman has set his sights on the only oil company that actually dared to lower its prices last year - at least for the poorest Americans.
In a Feb. 15 letter to Citgo, the Houston-based company owned by the Venezuelan government, Barton demanded that company officials produce by tomorrow all records, minutes, logs, e-mails and even desk calendars related to Citgo's novel program of supplying discounted heating oil to low-income communities in the United States.
The Citgo program, which kicked off late last year in Massachusetts and the South Bronx, provides oil at discounts as high as 60% off market price.
Since its inception the program has expanded to low-income communities in Delaware, Pennsylvania, Vermont, Maine and Rhode Island. Local politicians, desperate for ways to reduce energy costs for their constituents, have welcomed it with open arms.
Here in New York, Harlem Congressman Charles Rangel will soon announce an expansion of the Citgo program into upper Manhattan.
All of this unexpected corporate philanthropy has made Barton and other House Republicans furious. Citgo's oil-for-the-poor program, after all, was the brainchild of Hugo Chavez, the fiery populist president of Venezuela who has become one of the most strident opponents of the Bush administration.
"The bellicose Venezuelan decided to meddle in American energy policy, and we think it might prove instructive to know how," Larry Neal, deputy staff director for Barton's committee, said yesterday.
Barton's letter lists a bunch of questions he wants Citgo to answer, including "how and why were the particular beneficiaries of this program selected" and whether the program "runs afoul of any U.S. laws, including but not limited to, antitrust laws."
Rep. Ed Markey, a Massachusetts Democrat, is flabbergasted by Barton's investigation.
"The Republicans are on another planet when it comes to energy policy," Markey said.
Instead of doing something about skyrocketing oil prices, Markey said, the Republicans are probing "a charitable donation of heating oil to relieve the suffering of a few thousand American families."
Barton, however, is not as nutty as he sounds.
He is well aware that Citgo's limited discount program will have no influence on American energy policy. But it has created a huge public embarrassment for Barton's friends in the major oil companies, all of which recently announced record-shattering profits for 2005.
ExxonMobil, for example, reported $36 billion in earnings last year. That's the largest profit ever recorded by any company in the history of modern commerce. It works out to an average of $98 million in profit for every day of last year.
Oil profits have gotten so obscene that a lot of Americans are getting fed up, and pressure is mounting on Congress to do something.
That's where Barton comes in. He's the closest thing on Capitol Hill to a mouthpiece for Big Oil.
During the last election cycle, he was second only to fellow Texan Tom DeLay in the amount of oil industry contributions. During two decades in the House, Barton has raked in nearly $2 million in campaign donations from oil and electric companies.
He is such a rabid defender of the energy industry that when a group of scientists issued a damning study last year about the growing danger of global warming, Barton immediately launched one of his shotgun investigations. He fired off letters to each of the scientists and demanded that they list all the sources of their funding and provide him with their research data and notes.
Now Barton is after Citgo, the oil company that dared to do the unthinkable - lower oil prices for poor Americans.
source (http://www.nydailynews.com/news/wn_report/story/393803p-333918c.html)
Busyman
02-24-2006, 11:01 PM
Q: What outrages Joe Barton?
A: The poor getting discount fuel.
When oil prices were at an all time high, Citgo had the gaul to start a program that offered heating oil to the poor in the Northeast at rates up to 60% below market price. Citgo, and only Citgo, started an oil-for-the-poor program so those less fortunate than others could heat their home this winter
Barton is demanding that Citgo produce all records, minutes, logs, e-mails and even desk calendars related to the program
So while all the other oil companies were making record profits and consumers were wondering if there was price gouging, Barton goes after the one company that offered discounted oil to those who needed help the most this winter. :dry:
Rep. Joe Barton, the powerful Texas Republican who is chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, launched a bizarre investigation last week into possible antitrust violations by a major oil company.
You will be surprised to learn that Barton, one of the top recipients in Congress of campaign donations from the energy industry, is not probing whether ExxonMobil or Chevron or any of the other oil giants engaged in price gouging when gasoline and heating oil costs skyrocketed the past few years.
No, the good congressman has set his sights on the only oil company that actually dared to lower its prices last year - at least for the poorest Americans.
In a Feb. 15 letter to Citgo, the Houston-based company owned by the Venezuelan government, Barton demanded that company officials produce by tomorrow all records, minutes, logs, e-mails and even desk calendars related to Citgo's novel program of supplying discounted heating oil to low-income communities in the United States.
The Citgo program, which kicked off late last year in Massachusetts and the South Bronx, provides oil at discounts as high as 60% off market price.
Since its inception the program has expanded to low-income communities in Delaware, Pennsylvania, Vermont, Maine and Rhode Island. Local politicians, desperate for ways to reduce energy costs for their constituents, have welcomed it with open arms.
Here in New York, Harlem Congressman Charles Rangel will soon announce an expansion of the Citgo program into upper Manhattan.
All of this unexpected corporate philanthropy has made Barton and other House Republicans furious. Citgo's oil-for-the-poor program, after all, was the brainchild of Hugo Chavez, the fiery populist president of Venezuela who has become one of the most strident opponents of the Bush administration.
"The bellicose Venezuelan decided to meddle in American energy policy, and we think it might prove instructive to know how," Larry Neal, deputy staff director for Barton's committee, said yesterday.
Barton's letter lists a bunch of questions he wants Citgo to answer, including "how and why were the particular beneficiaries of this program selected" and whether the program "runs afoul of any U.S. laws, including but not limited to, antitrust laws."
Rep. Ed Markey, a Massachusetts Democrat, is flabbergasted by Barton's investigation.
"The Republicans are on another planet when it comes to energy policy," Markey said.
Instead of doing something about skyrocketing oil prices, Markey said, the Republicans are probing "a charitable donation of heating oil to relieve the suffering of a few thousand American families."
Barton, however, is not as nutty as he sounds.
He is well aware that Citgo's limited discount program will have no influence on American energy policy. But it has created a huge public embarrassment for Barton's friends in the major oil companies, all of which recently announced record-shattering profits for 2005.
ExxonMobil, for example, reported $36 billion in earnings last year. That's the largest profit ever recorded by any company in the history of modern commerce. It works out to an average of $98 million in profit for every day of last year.
Oil profits have gotten so obscene that a lot of Americans are getting fed up, and pressure is mounting on Congress to do something.
That's where Barton comes in. He's the closest thing on Capitol Hill to a mouthpiece for Big Oil.
During the last election cycle, he was second only to fellow Texan Tom DeLay in the amount of oil industry contributions. During two decades in the House, Barton has raked in nearly $2 million in campaign donations from oil and electric companies.
He is such a rabid defender of the energy industry that when a group of scientists issued a damning study last year about the growing danger of global warming, Barton immediately launched one of his shotgun investigations. He fired off letters to each of the scientists and demanded that they list all the sources of their funding and provide him with their research data and notes.
Now Barton is after Citgo, the oil company that dared to do the unthinkable - lower oil prices for poor Americans.
source (http://www.nydailynews.com/news/wn_report/story/393803p-333918c.html)
Great post, vid.
Barton sounds like a total fuck-wit.:angry:
I'm really liking this thread j2 started.:D
vidcc
02-25-2006, 12:48 AM
Great post, vid.
Barton sounds like a total fuck-wit.:angry:
I'm really liking this thread j2 started.:D
Actually I'm thinking J2 will be with me on this one. He is after all a strong believer in market forces.
To Balance things out I think Clinton was an ass for the oil royalties payment waiver........... perhaps it had something to do with not taxing "gushers" :pinch:
Busyman
02-25-2006, 02:05 AM
Great post, vid.
Barton sounds like a total fuck-wit.:angry:
I'm really liking this thread j2 started.:D
Actually I'm thinking J2 will be with me on this one. He is after all a strong believer in market forces.
To Balance things out I think Clinton was an ass for the oil royalties payment waiver........... perhaps it had something to do with not taxing "gushers" :pinch:
Explain your last, please.
vidcc
02-25-2006, 03:19 PM
Explain your last, please.
The government may waive up to $7 billion in royalty payments from companies pumping oil and natural gas on federal territory in the next 5 years.
The waiver started in 1996, when energy prices were low. Congress wanted to encourage more exploration and drilling in the deep waters of the Gulf of Mexico.
So as an incentive the waiver was signed into law. The incentive IMO wasn't needed in the first place and certainly isn't needed when oil is at it's price today.
edit:
or did you mean explain clinton's "gusher" :lol:
Busyman
02-25-2006, 06:20 PM
Explain your last, please.
The government may waive up to $7 billion in royalty payments from companies pumping oil and natural gas on federal territory in the next 5 years.
The waiver started in 1996, when energy prices were low. Congress wanted to encourage more exploration and drilling in the deep waters of the Gulf of Mexico.
So as an incentive the kickback was signed into law. The kickback IMO wasn't needed in the first place and certainly isn't needed when oil is at it's price today.
edit:
or did you mean explain clinton's "gusher" :lol:
:lol: :lol:
I made corrections in bold, pneub.
vidcc
02-25-2006, 08:14 PM
I made corrections in bold, pneub.
Are you one of those left wing conspiracy making tin foil hatted activists :unsure:
I mean really, how could such a theory enter anyones head ;)
vidcc
02-28-2006, 12:13 AM
It appears conservatives were right about the pointlessness of the UN and the weapons inspectors in Iraq. Well this particular inspector.......
Bill Tierney, who served as a U.N. weapons inspector in Iraq in the late '90s, told National Review Online this week that he would look to God to direct him to possible WMD sites. "God is my intel," Tierney told NRO. His belief in the existence of a uranium-enrichment plant near Tarmiyah was supported, he said, by the fact that a friend had seen it in a dream.source (http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/6720.html)
It appears conservatives were right about the pointlessness of the UN and the weapons inspectors in Iraq. Well this particular inspector.......
Bill Tierney, who served as a U.N. weapons inspector in Iraq in the late '90s, told National Review Online this week that he would look to God to direct him to possible WMD sites. "God is my intel," Tierney told NRO. His belief in the existence of a uranium-enrichment plant near Tarmiyah was supported, he said, by the fact that a friend had seen it in a dream.source (http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/6720.html)
How could the sectarian U.N. have failed to vet this fellow?
They're usually so competent...:huh:
vidcc
02-28-2006, 12:41 AM
This must have been the point when saddam said "And they think the Middle East is full of religious nuts". http://www.emutalk.net/images/smilies/newsmilies/saddam.gif
I think just this alone would be justification to question the validity of the inspectors.
This must have been the point when saddam said "And they think the Middle East is full of religious nuts". http://www.emutalk.net/images/smilies/newsmilies/saddam.gif
I think just this alone would be justification to question the validity of the inspectors.
Sure, why not.
vidcc
03-03-2006, 05:56 PM
same clip wmv (http://movies.crooksandliars.com/cnn_ld_tori_clark_forgives_america_0600302a.wmv) quictime (http://movies.crooksandliars.com/cnn_ld_tori_clar.mov)
:lol: :lol:
Busyman
03-03-2006, 07:27 PM
same clip wmv (http://movies.crooksandliars.com/cnn_ld_tori_clark_forgives_america_0600302a.wmv) quictime (http://movies.crooksandliars.com/cnn_ld_tori_clar.mov)
:lol: :lol:
:lol: Gotta love it!
Busyman
03-04-2006, 12:02 AM
I found this recently and it seemed perfect for this thread. This comes from an earlier story.
Duke Cunningham got much less than he deserves.
Fuckin' prick.
He should be shot and kicked for dying.
He even had a "rate card" for bribes.
Unreal.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,186720,00.html
I found this recently and it seemed perfect for this thread. This comes from an earlier story.
Duke Cunningham got much less than he deserves.
Fuckin' prick.
He should be shot and kicked for dying.
He even had a "rate card" for bribes.
Unreal.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,186720,00.html
You are quite right, of course, although it deserves marquee treatment as well.
vidcc
03-06-2006, 09:16 PM
made up headlines (http://www.factcheck.org/article378.html).
Perhaps the GOP has been making up things for so long they no longer know truth from fiction
made up headlines (http://www.factcheck.org/article378.html).
Perhaps the GOP has been making up things for so long they no longer know truth from fiction
You are wielding quite a broad brush, lately.
Question:
Can a true "independent" (as you advertise yourself) afford to denigrate half the political spectrum and still call himself independent?
Remember-too many nails will spoil even your sturdy liberal coffin.
vidcc
03-07-2006, 09:29 PM
You are wielding quite a broad brush, lately.
Question:
Can a true "independent" (as you advertise yourself) afford to denigrate half the political spectrum and still call himself independent?
Remember-too many nails will spoil even your sturdy liberal coffin.
Credit where it's due, the GOP are masters, I mean they can't even stop the practice against one of their own :rolleyes: . The democrats suck at it and their voices are not heard "in the liberal press". ;)
As to the coffins I feel yet again you are ignorant of what a liberal is. Obviously liberal coffins have no nails as even in death they show support for their lesbian "sisters" and thus coffins are constructed entirely using "tounge and groove":pinch:
Credit where it's due, the GOP are masters, I mean they can't even stop the practice against one of their own :rolleyes: . The democrats suck at it and their voices are not heard "in the liberal press". ;)
What will happen if/as/when those "missing" pages of the Barrett Report somehow appear?
Sounds like easy fun to me; we'll have a better picture of the Dem's capabilities, won't we? :)
vidcc
03-08-2006, 12:33 AM
What will happen if/as/when those "missing" pages of the Barrett Report somehow appear?
Sounds like easy fun to me; we'll have a better picture of the Dem's capabilities, won't we? :)
I appreciate that supressing parts of reports into the present republican administration is not an issue (November elections not taken into account) as they just don't have investigations and accountability to start with. :whistling
Ok next... another funny
After all the hoo har about the march of the penguins showing "true christain family values" ( yes they know soooo much about nature) conservative activists make me laugh yet again.
'Gay' penguins book frozen out in Missouri libraries
March 5, 2006
SAVANNAH, Mo. -- A children's book about two male penguins who raise a baby penguin has been moved to the nonfiction section of two public library branches after parents complained it had homosexual undertones.
The illustrated book, And Tango Makes Three, is based on a true story of two male penguins, named Roy and Silo, who adopted an abandoned egg at New York City's Central Park Zoo in the late 1990s.
The book, by Peter Parnell and Justin Richardson, was moved from the children's section at two Rolling Hills' Consolidated Library's branches in Savannah and St. Joseph in northwest Missouri.
Two parents had expressed concerns about the book last month.
Barbara Read, the Rolling Hills' director, said experts report that adoptions aren't unusual in the penguin world. However, moving the book to the nonfiction section would decrease the chance that it would "blindside" readers, she said.
AP think of the children....THINK OF THE CHILDREN :rolleyes:
suppose I had better give a source (http://www.suntimes.com/output/news/cst-nws-flap05.html)
Rat Faced
03-11-2006, 05:44 PM
To help you on your continuing quest J2...
Is there any of Bush's mates not a crook?
Claude A. Allen, who resigned last month as President Bush's top domestic policy adviser, was arrested this week in Montgomery County for allegedly swindling Target and Hecht's stores out of more than $5,000 in a refund scheme, police said.
Allen, 45, of Gaithersburg, has been released on his own recognizance and is awaiting trial on two charges, felony theft scheme and theft over $500, said Lt. Eric Burnett, a police spokesman. Each charge is punishable by up to 15 years in prison.
Allen could not be reached for comment last night.
His attorney, Mallon Snyder, said last night that his client denies wrongdoing. The lawyer disputed the police account of Allen's actions. "It's his reputation. Obviously, he's very concerned about it," Snyder said.
Snyder said he feels confident that Allen will be able to prove that the incidents were "a series of misunderstandings."
Allen, a former deputy secretary in the Department of Health and Human Services, was nominated in 2003 to a federal appeals court seat. He was appointed the president's top domestic policy adviser last year at the start of Bush's second term. That made him the highest-ranking African American on the White House staff.
Working out of a small office on the second floor of the West Wing, Allen shaped administration policy on such issues as health care, space exploration, housing and education.
He came to the attention of Montgomery police after a manager at a Gaithersburg Target store called the department about an incident Jan. 2. Montgomery detectives were able to document other alleged crimes from Oct. 29 to Jan. 2, some of which were captured on camera, Burnett said.
Allen resigned from the White House on Feb. 9, saying he wanted to spend more time with his family
In a statement that day, Bush said: "Claude is a good and compassionate man, and he has my deep respect and gratitude. I thank him for his many years of principled and dedicated service to our country."
Burnett said Montgomery police contacted the White House to verify Allen's identity after the Jan. 2 incident. He said that was the extent of their communication with the administration. He said he could not immediately determine the date of that contact, or whether police informed the White House that Allen had been charged Jan. 2 and was still under investigation.
White House spokesman Scott McClellan said last night that if the allegation is true, "no one would be more disappointed, shocked and outraged" than the president. McClellan said Allen had told White House Chief of Staff Andrew H. Card Jr. and White House counsel Harriet Miers that the matter was a misunderstanding.
This is what police said happened Jan. 2:
Employees at the Target store at 25 Grand Corner Ave. in Gaithersburg spotted Allen putting merchandise in a shopping bag. He then walked over to the guest services desk, produced a receipt and received a refund for the items.
After getting the refund, Allen left the store without paying for additional merchandise in his shopping cart.
A store employee stopped him, and police were called to the store. Officers issued a citation charging him with theft under $500 but did not arrest him. Court records show prosecutors dropped the misdemeanor charge, which is not unusual in cases in which detectives are considering filing more serious charges.
Detectives from the county's retail crime unit soon learned that the incident was not an isolated event, Burnett said.
He said investigators were able to document 25 fraudulent refunds for items including a Bose home theater system, stereo equipment, clothes, a photo printer and items worth as little as $2.50.
Allen would purchase an item, take it to his car, return to the store, select the same item, take it to the counter and get a refund based on the receipt for the merchandise in his car, Burnett said. "He would get the money back or the credit" on his credit cards.
Allen's arrest was first reported yesterday afternoon by the online magazine Slate.
At the time of his resignation, Allen denied reports that he was leaving to protest military guidelines that required chaplains to perform only nondenominational services.
As Bush's top domestic policy aide, he frequently briefed the president and traveled with him on Air Force One, and he sat in first lady Laura Bush's box during the president's State of the Union address Jan. 31. Two days, later he traveled with the president to Minnesota, briefing reporters about Bush's education and alternative energy proposals.
At the Department of Health and Human Services, where he became a strong advocate for abstinence-only AIDS prevention programs, Allen focused on homeless issues and racial health disparities.
Democrats in Congress blocked his nomination to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit in 2003, citing his relative lack of legal experience. The court, based in Richmond, covers Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina and South Carolina.
Allen, a native of Philadelphia, spent much of his childhood in a working-class section of Northwest Washington, attending Archbishop Carroll High School. He later attended the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill and Duke Law School.
Allen is a self-described born-again Christian who got his start in politics working for Jesse Helms (R), the conservative former North Carolina senator.
Allen stirred controversy as Helms's campaign spokesman in 1984 by telling a reporter that then-Gov. James B. Hunt Jr. -- Helms's opponent -- was politically vulnerable because of his links to the "queers." He later explained that he used the word not to denigrate anyone but as a synonym for "odd and unusual."
Before that, Allen worked for the Virginia state attorney general's office and as state health and human resources secretary. In that job, he earned a reputation as a staunch conservative; once he kept Medicaid funds from an impoverished rape victim who wanted an abortion.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/03/10/AR2006031002328_pf.html
To help you on your continuing quest J2...
Is there any of Bush's mates not a crook?
Thank you, and no, there are not.
Busyman
03-11-2006, 06:18 PM
Sometimes I like a thread that backfires.:happy:
Sometimes I like a thread that backfires.:happy:
To the contrary, I think it has been a rousing success, though not in precisely the way I had intended.
Busyman
03-11-2006, 07:42 PM
Sometimes I like a thread that backfires.:happy:
To the contrary, I think it has been a rousing success, though not in precisely the way I had intended.
I'm constantly on the look-out for the dirt on Conservatives...
...but all I found was this:
.....story on about liberals.:mellow:
Yeah, surrrrrre you think it's a success.:happy:
I do too.:)
vidcc
03-11-2006, 10:06 PM
Uber conservative model wannabe.mov (http://movies.crooksandliars.com/JimmyKimmel-uber.mov) :blink: :lol:
http://movies.crooksandliars.com/JimmyKimmel-uber.mov
vidcc
03-14-2006, 08:03 PM
Why do blacks continue to support Democrats?
By Adele Fergusen
One of these days before I die, I hope to see a shift in the attitudes of so many of my black brothers and sisters in this great country we share, from perpetual victimhood, to pride in their achievements on the road from slave to American citizen.
Remember Ronald Reagan’s story about the kid who had to shovel a huge pile of manure? He went about it with such joy he was asked why and said, “With all that manure, there’s got to be a pony in there somewhere.”
The pony hidden in slavery is the fact that it was the ticket to America for black people. I have long urged blacks to consider their presence here as the work of God, who wanted to bring them to this raw, new country and used slavery to achieve it. A harsh life, to be sure, but many immigrants suffered hardships and indignations as indentured servants. Their descendants rose above it. You don’t hear them bemoaning their forebears’ life the way some blacks can’t rise above the fact theirs were slaves. source (http://www.kpbj.com/opinioneditorial/articles/2006-03-13-EDT-02.html)
So slavery was a "gift from god" to Africans
He wanted them kidnapped, branded as property with red-hot irons, packed into ships (I recommend watching Amistad), living in their own excrement while sailing to the “promise of America” where they were treated like property, their families broken-up, their women rapped, children taken away and sold, where they were beaten sometimes to death, finally to have freedom granted to them—freedoms with no education, few possessions, no land ownership and no right to vote.
I appreciate todays decendents didn't go through that but to describe it as gods work to get them here................
Busyman
03-14-2006, 08:33 PM
Why do blacks continue to support Democrats?
By Adele Fergusen
One of these days before I die, I hope to see a shift in the attitudes of so many of my black brothers and sisters in this great country we share, from perpetual victimhood, to pride in their achievements on the road from slave to American citizen.
Remember Ronald Reagan’s story about the kid who had to shovel a huge pile of manure? He went about it with such joy he was asked why and said, “With all that manure, there’s got to be a pony in there somewhere.”
The pony hidden in slavery is the fact that it was the ticket to America for black people. I have long urged blacks to consider their presence here as the work of God, who wanted to bring them to this raw, new country and used slavery to achieve it. A harsh life, to be sure, but many immigrants suffered hardships and indignations as indentured servants. Their descendants rose above it. You don’t hear them bemoaning their forebears’ life the way some blacks can’t rise above the fact theirs were slaves. source (http://www.kpbj.com/opinioneditorial/articles/2006-03-13-EDT-02.html)
So slavery was a "gift from god" to Africans
He wanted them kidnapped, branded as property with red-hot irons, packed into ships (I recommend watching Amistad), living in their own excrement while sailing to the “promise of America” where they were treated like property, their families broken-up, their women rapped, children taken away and sold, where they were beaten sometimes to death, finally to have freedom granted to them—freedoms with no education, few possessions, no land ownership and no right to vote.
I appreciate todays decendents didn't go through that but to describe it as gods work to get them here................
Damn I thought she was black by the writing.
But....http://www.kpbj.com/images/mugs/adele.jpg
She has some minor good points in the rest of the article. From the quote above though, she sounds like a bitch that needs some teeth knocked out.:)
I'm going to guess her point was that to get wrapped up in the eternal bitterness over the horror of slavery is counter to a happy life.
Every cloud has a silver lining, etc.
I can't count the times in my life I'v heard the designation, "...angry young black man...".
All I know is, if he's mad, I didn't piss him off, and, generally speaking, "angry young black men" have high blood pressure and tend to die young because of it.
It may take a bit of a change of outlook, but I never saw the point in constant anger for it's own sake.
I could go on, but this white boy shouldn't spend too much time belaboring the obvious.
Busyman
03-14-2006, 11:30 PM
Well much the splintering of black the race in America is a direct result of slavery. However, while many of the struggles for equality in the past benefit the black people of today, many of these "the angry young black men" haven't a clue what the struggle was for since they didn't go through it and don't take history to heart.
The black man in America should be angry but some of it should be directed at his own race.:dry:
edit: the first paragraph refers to "knuckleheads".The second refers to ones looking for racism at every turn.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.3 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.