Interesting, non-partisan, blah, blah, blah...
http://www.judicialwatch.org/judicia...liticians-2007
Printable View
Interesting, non-partisan, blah, blah, blah...
http://www.judicialwatch.org/judicia...liticians-2007
Remarkable, J2. Thanks. As you know, I voted democrat in the last presidential election, but Hilary doesn't have my trust and will absolutely not have my vote.
The friend who provided me the link has become an astute observer of things political.
I'm downright proud of her.
Swmbo?
Actually, no.Quote:
Originally Posted by clocker
It's someone you know, though. :whistling
It's the only one that I know.:rolleyes: Not clockers, mine.Quote:
Originally Posted by j2k4Actually, no.Quote:
Originally Posted by clocker
It's someone you know, though. :whistling
Eh? So you won't vote Democrat because doesn't have your trust?Quote:
Originally Posted by Everose
Hmmm. There are other Dems ya know.:unsure:
I think just about all politicians are corrupt.
That 10 most list certainly leaves many out. It also has a lot of guilt by association blurbs in there.
I don't particularly like Clinton either but the blurb on her basically has that she's blocking the release of records, there was a complaint filed against her by the website, and her top campaign contributer is a criminal.
Proof of corruption....I think not. It's sensationalist.
It also mentions some crap that Giuliani's business partner did. It ain't Guiliani so why was it mentioned under Guiliani?
More sensationalism.
It was a good read though.
Hi Busyman,
I said I wouldn't vote for Clinton because I don't trust her. I have watched her for a few years and I have based my personal opinion on what I have seen, read, etc.
Guess I should have been clearer. I didn't vote for Bush because I don't trust him, either.
I don't necessarily vote along party lines.
Simple as that. :)
Okay, guys, what is a Swmbo?
Who was the last Republican you voted for, I may be so bold?Quote:
Originally Posted by Everose
As for the list, meh... it just so happens that most of the Presidential candidates are on the list? :dabs:
And as busy said, it's sensationalism and purely circumstantial.
if thats the worst corruption, were not doin to bad
As far as a presidential candidate, Skizo, ..........
Well, I remember voting for Dole, but I honestly can't say that was a vote for Dole......more like a vote against the alternative.
I find it odd that when Bush has an advisor or someone on his staff convicted of illegal activities..........that is quite the major indiscretion on his part and points to his stupidity.
But when Hilarious has a staff member that does it, it is purely circumstantial and sensationalism?
I wasn't aware that I had differentiated between the two or even laid comment. :blink:
I'm a staunch Rebublican and would never make any excuse for "Hilarious".
As for comments I did make, I said the article is full of he said, she said nonsense. The article is chock full of "suspected of", "thought to have", "questionable" commentary in order to sensationalize, nothing more.
Just so I'm clear, I do recognize the valid points in the article as well, such as the Norman Hsu annotation and many others.
Okay, thanks for the clarification. I had thought you agreed with Busy and were dismissing the total article as purely speculation and sensationalism.;)
Hi Rose.:)Quote:
Originally Posted by Everose
She Who Must Be Obeyed. Originated in the series Rumpole Of The Bailey. Used by Rumpole(Leo McKern) to describe his wife. :)
I don't trust Clinton either nor do I vote "a party line".Quote:
Originally Posted by Everose
It's just you mentioned you voted Dem before then said you wouldn't vote for Clinton as if she's the only Dem candidate right now.
It sounded weird is all.
The bad thing is that if every other candidate is worse, she will get my vote.
I didn't vote for Bush cuz I thought he was shit. He never gave an inkling there was a reason to vote for him.
However, is it proof Hilary's corruption or not?:dry:Quote:
Originally Posted by Everose
Me and Skiz are actually on the same page. I don't think the page is not valid.
Most of the Hilary stuff was sensationalist. It mucks it up a bit as being proof of corruption is all. The entire page should be taken in for knowledge, however. It just ain't proof.Quote:
Originally Posted by Everose
Also when a member of Bush's cabal leaks an American spy's name due to someone related being critical of a bullshit war that he spearheaded then it is directly related.
I wonder if you were one of those fabled "undecideds" last go 'round.
Apparently you aren't too familiar with Judicial Watch.Quote:
Originally Posted by Busyman™
They go after everybody.
In any case, the section of your post I've emboldened interests me, as it indicates you are more admiring of a successful effort to obscure facts than you are curious about why the effort is being made to begin with.
Does the fact that this tactic is and has been the modus operandi of the Clintons for all "35 years" (to use Hillary's description) of her/their "public service" bother you at all?
Do you ever wonder about how one thousand dollars magically becomes one hundred thousand?
Ever been curious about Vince Foster's untimely demise, or the shroud the Clintons threw over it?
How about all of the PRK and Chinese money which flowed into Clinton/democrat coffers?
Ever see the pictures of Hillary confidante Susan Thomases and actress Markie Post jumping up-and-down on the "Lincoln" bed in the Clinton White House?
Are you at all curious about Sandy Berger's theft of top secret documents from the National Archive?
I assume you can grasp the distinct possibility that she might be trying to hide some of these (to use your term) "direct links" to criminal behaviors?
All this (and much, much more), but you can't find it in yourself to denounce Hillary, even though she was broad-ass-deep in the whole mess.
I am gratified to hear, nonetheless, that you won't vote for her...
Okay, guys, what is a Swmbo?[/quote]
Hi Rose.:)
She Who Must Be Obeyed. Originated in the series Rumpole Of The Bailey. Used by Rumpole(Leo McKern) to describe his wife. :)[/QUOTE]
Hey bigboab......thanks! :D
I LIKE that. :lol:
1. I have no quarrel with Judicial Watch. I Captainobviously see Repubs and Dems in there and even mentioned Rudy. I like the info since for me to vote for someone I don't need proof. Nice try.Quote:
Originally Posted by j2k4Apparently you aren't too familiar with Judicial Watch.Quote:
Originally Posted by Busyman™
They go after everybody.
In any case, the section of your post I've emboldened interests me, as it indicates you are more admiring of a successful effort to obscure facts than you are curious about why the effort is being made to begin with.
Does the fact that this tactic is and has been the modus operandi of the Clintons for all "35 years" (to use Hillary's description) of her/their "public service" bother you at all?
Do you ever wonder about how one thousand dollars magically becomes one hundred thousand?
Ever been curious about Vince Foster's untimely demise, or the shroud the Clintons threw over it?
How about all of the PRK and Chinese money which flowed into Clinton/democrat coffers?
Ever see the pictures of Hillary confidante Susan Thomases and actress Markie Post jumping up-and-down on the "Lincoln" bed in the Clinton White House?
Are you at all curious about Sandy Berger's theft of top secret documents from the National Archive?
I assume you can grasp the distinct possibility that she might be trying to hide some of these (to use your term) "direct links" to criminal behaviors?
All this (and much, much more), but you can't find it in yourself to denounce Hillary, even though she was broad-ass-deep in the whole mess.
I am gratified to hear, nonetheless, that you won't vote for her...
I said the stuff wasn't proof and it isn't. Period.
2. I never rule out voting for anyone.
3. I have denounced her. I said I don't trust her just like Evey did but yet you single me out cuz I said the stuff wasn't proof or I don't cheerlead and don't make huge efforts to show neutrality. Nice try.
I know the "where there's smoke there's fire" bit. However, I think "where there's smoke there's most likely fire" since smoke isn't proof.
Perhaps you can read a bit better since there was no indication of admiration. You are either spinning or you're a liar.
Either way it sucks.
Okay, let's boil this down to basics:Quote:
Originally Posted by Busyman™1. I have no quarrel with Judicial Watch. I Captainobviously see Repubs and Dems in there and even mentioned Rudy. I like the info since for me to vote for someone I don't need proof. Nice try.Quote:
Originally Posted by j2k4
I said the stuff wasn't proof and it isn't. Period.
2. I never rule out voting for anyone.
3. I have denounced her. I said I don't trust her just like Evey did but yet you single me out cuz I said the stuff wasn't proof or I don't cheerlead and don't make huge efforts to show neutrality. Nice try.
I know the "where there's smoke there's fire" bit. However, I think "where there's smoke there's most likely fire" since smoke isn't proof.
Perhaps you can read a bit better since there was no indication of admiration. You are either spinning or you're a liar.
Either way it sucks.
As a practical matter, somewhere there exists proof of Barry Bonds having taken steroids; this we know.
That he hasn't been adjudicated guilty of same doesn't mean he didn't do it.
You, given your ingrained urge to call me a spinner/liar, willfully fail to acknowledge the fact, as well as that the Clinton's stonewalling might be in aid of some malfeasance which might enrage even you, were the truth ever to come to light.
I've said this before:
Telling the truth is NOT the same thing as making sure no one can prove that you've lied.
Apparently, though, it's all the same to you.
On the other hand, your aversion to agreeing with me makes you post some awfully funny stuff. :whistling
Thanks j2k4 that was some good reading, I fwd that on to some friends of mine.:D
I have never registered to vote until this year. In the past I have never liked a candidate and felt my vote wouldn't count (after the NH voter fraud I sort of still feel that way LOL)
This year I'm voting for Ron Paul, not for the rep party but for the man himself.
He is the only candidate thats a strict constitutionals and wants to end the war in Iran and bring our troops home, too stop funding other countries and use our money to help stop inflation and use gold to back the dollar so its worth something again. He is who I trust.
This is how I feel about the other rep running.
Mccain a snake
Thompson an actor
Romny flip flop king
Huckabee support dog killers and raises taxes
Guliiani mobster and wife cheater
As for Hillary, I would never vote for her, even if she is a women
I don't trust her at all and she scares the hell out of me with how cold and unfeeling she is, she would be like a dictator and run the US into the ground.
We already had Bush, Clinton, Bush, Bush dynasty do we need another Clinton ...thats like 30 years of the same family's running the US.
For a Dem the only other ones I would consider are Edwards and Kuchinich because they want to end the war now. But I don't like social health care so they would have to do something about that lol
But if it boils down to anyone but Paul on the rep side and anyone but the two listed above on the dem side...I'm voting independent, then at least I voted and I won't feel it was my fault the US is more hated then it is and we go into another depression.
That just how I feel and no offense intended to anyone, now I will get off my soap box
I think Barry Bonds took steroids. Somewhere there may be proof that he took steroids. You know jack shit.Quote:
Originally Posted by j2k4Okay, let's boil this down to basics:Quote:
Originally Posted by Busyman™
As a practical matter, somewhere there exists proof of Barry Bonds having taken steroids; this we know.
That he hasn't been adjudicated guilty of same doesn't mean he didn't do it.
You, given your ingrained urge to call me a spinner/liar, willfully fail to acknowledge the fact, as well as that the Clinton's stonewalling might be in aid of some malfeasance which might enrage even you, were the truth ever to come to light.
I've said this before:
Telling the truth is NOT the same thing as making sure no one can prove that you've lied.
Apparently, though, it's all the same to you.
On the other hand, your aversion to agreeing with me makes you post some awfully funny stuff. :whistling
I don't know he took steroids.
Just because he hasn't been exonerated in the public's eyes doesn't he did do it.
You are a spinner/liar because you make up shit.
People with your path of logic (or lack of) start going down the idiot road of asterisks, cuz you figure shit. We have congress involved in sports instead wayyyy more important shit like, ya know, stuff that actually has to do wiz running ze countree.
As I said before, I don't need proof to believe what I believe. If I think Clinton is shit, whether she's proven guilty of whatever or not, I don't have to vote for her. It doesn't mean she goes to jail though.
I know it's hard for you to understand how that's not the same but try.
As I said before, the site is a good read and also an eye-opener.
Indeed I do; would you like an introduction.Quote:
Originally Posted by Busyman™
What makes you think he did then?Quote:
Originally Posted by Busyman™
If you have made up your mind, what more do you need?
I'm not talking about asterisks and I never have; I've only said what I think, most of which I'll go so far as to say I know, because my thinking/knowing anything at all does not constitute a judicial process, and I'm smart enough to know that, too, even though you are not.
I'm sorry, I don't know what that means.Quote:
Originally Posted by Busyman™
What have I made up, and, by the way, prove it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Busyman™
Well, thanks for that, anyway. :whistlingQuote:
Originally Posted by Busyman™
Just so you don't lose it, and remember to get back on it and vent when the mood strikes you. ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by hippychick
Yeah it's not first time I've heard of them but you get a cookie and all a dat.Quote:
Originally Posted by j2k4Indeed I do; would you like an introduction.
No. You don't know he took it. Period. You figure he did. You think he did.
What makes you think he did then?Quote:
Originally Posted by Busyman™
His increase in HRs coupled with the rampant use in baseball.
If you have made up your mind, what more do you need?
Videotape would be nice.:whistling
I'm not talking about asterisks and I never have; I've only said what I think, most of which I'll go so far as to say I know, because my thinking/knowing anything at all does not constitute a judicial process, and I'm smart enough to know that, too, even though you are not.
Mmk I know that there's the possibility he did not do it. I can think the 9/11 plane that crashed in PA was shot down but I don't know that it happened.
I'm sorry, I don't know what that means.Quote:
Originally Posted by Busyman™
My bags, see the bold.
What have I made up, and, by the way, prove it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Busyman™
Well for one, that I admired Clinton for obscuring facts. Done.
Well, thanks for that, anyway. :whistlingQuote:
Originally Posted by Busyman™
I remember hearing stuff about them around the Bill Clinton era.
I'm sure that's what stoked your fire.:whistling
is there a politician that isn\'t corrupt? doesn\'t matter republican or democrat, it\'s either the right or left hand which will f&#k you
While I have said many times here that Republican politicians are (as a rule) low-rent scoundrels of ill-repute, the fact of the matter is the Democrat version is even worse; so, you see, your discrimination is important.Quote:
Originally Posted by shot2hell
BTW-
While I've voted in lots of polls/elections, I can't recall being f&#ked by hand.
I have been stroked on occasion, however. :whistling
I was expecting a list like
Mugabe
General Shwe
Karimov
and the like
the list provided are just amateurs
I don't believe we've ever had anyone like Mugabi, Shwe or Karimov on our roster, Les.Quote:
Originally Posted by Biggles
You must admit, though - for amateurs, ours aren't too good/bad. :whistling