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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Busyman

Of course.

I think it matters that no one will be convicted.

---

Um...what?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by j2k4

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Busyman

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).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by j2k4

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by vidcc

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by j2k4

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

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by vidcc

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by j2k4

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by j2k4

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

Quote:

---

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by j2k4

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

Quote:

---

Her status was not a secret to any who knew her, apparently...

---

Hmm something suggested and repeated in the conservative bloggsphere..must be true

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by vidcc

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.

Quote:

---

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:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by j2k4

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by j2k4

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 ;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by j2k4

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:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by vidcc

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by j2k4

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 ?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by j2k4

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by vidcc

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by j2k4

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. ;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by j2k4

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by j2k4

Insofar as my views about examples such as the one above differ from yours?

YES. ;)

---

Oh how the insanely frothing mind works :P

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by vidcc

I state this with no poiltical agenda, simply the facts.

---

Oh, puhleeeeeeze....:D

The oath of office

Quote:

---

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

Quote:

---

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.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by vidcc

The oath of office



UH oh sen. dewine

Quote:

---

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:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by j2k4

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:

no scandal, just ironic

Quote:

---

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:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by vidcc

no scandal, just ironic

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by vidcc

no scandal, just ironic

Quote:

---

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:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Busyman

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:

Quote:

---

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

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:

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:

Quote:

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by vidcc

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:

Quote:

---

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

---

Great post, vid.

Barton sounds like a total fuck-wit.:angry:

I'm really liking this thread j2 started.:D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Busyman

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:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by vidcc

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Busyman

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Busyman

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:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by vidcc

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Busyman

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Busyman

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 ;)

It appears conservatives were right about the pointlessness of the UN and the weapons inspectors in Iraq. Well this particular inspector.......

Quote:

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by vidcc

It appears conservatives were right about the pointlessness of the UN and the weapons inspectors in Iraq. Well this particular inspector.......

Quote:

---

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

---

How could the sectarian U.N. have failed to vet this fellow?

They're usually so competent...:huh:

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/smilie...ies/saddam.gif

I think just this alone would be justification to question the validity of the inspectors.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by vidcc

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/smilie...ies/saddam.gif

I think just this alone would be justification to question the validity of the inspectors.

---

Sure, why not.

same clip wmv quictime
:lol: :lol:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by vidcc

same clip wmv quictime
:lol: :lol:

---

:lol: Gotta love it!

I found this recently and it seemed perfect for this thread. This comes from an earlier story.

Quote:

---

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

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Busyman

I found this recently and it seemed perfect for this thread. This comes from an earlier story.

Quote:

---

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.

made up headlines.
Perhaps the GOP has been making up things for so long they no longer know truth from fiction

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by vidcc

made up headlines.
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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by j2k4

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:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by vidcc

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? :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by j2k4

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.

Quote:

---

'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