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."?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by j2k4

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by j2k4

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by clocker

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by j2k4

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

how stupid do you have to be not to find dirt on the conservatives?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lynx

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.

Quote:

---

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:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lynx

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lynx

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?

Quote:

---

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.

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:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Busyman

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by j2k4

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by j2k4

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:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by j2k4

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Busyman

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lynx

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/s...ult/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:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lynx

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.:(

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lynx

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Busyman

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by j2k4

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lynx

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by j2k4

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Busyman

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.

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:

gepper = busy's dad :O

What is it they say about t'apple not falling far from the tree.

he is learned by vagueness :unsure:

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...

busy may be a fantasist but the way you think is scary

Quote:

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by vidcc

Quote:

---

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

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by j2k4

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by j2k4

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by vidcc

source

---

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:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by j2k4

...and their estate be distributed equally among the first 5000 poor people who can be found.

---

The line forms behind me.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Busyman

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by j2k4

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by j2k4

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Busyman

Each of whom?:blink:

---

Why, Santorum and his wife, of course.

---

Oh I thought the lawsuit was his wife's alone.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by j2k4

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by vidcc

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by j2k4

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Busyman

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by j2k4

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

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:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by j2k4

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).

Quote:

---

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:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by j2k4

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Busyman

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!!!

I havent read the thread, however...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by j2k4

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by vidcc

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).

Quote:

---

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.