DebateGate
General Category => 3DHS => Topic started by: sirs on October 05, 2006, 04:12:31 AM
-
to bring you back to issues that actually matter
Court says eavesdropping program can continue
Wed Oct 4, 2006
CHICAGO (Reuters) - The government can continue to use its warrantless domestic wiretap program pending the Justice Department's appeal of a federal judge's ruling outlawing the program, an Appeals Court in Cincinnati ruled on Wednesday.
The ruling overturned District Judge Anna Diggs Taylor's decision last week to deny a lengthy stay in the case, which is expected to end up with the Supreme Court.
In August, Taylor ruled that the National Security Agency's five-year-old surveillance program, implemented as part of the government's war on terrorism, violates the civil rights of Americans.
The American Civil Liberties Union filed the suit in March on behalf of scholars, attorneys, journalists and non-profit groups that regularly communicate with people in the Middle East.
http://today.reuters.com/news/articlenews.aspx?type=topNews&storyid=2006-10-04T202048Z_01_N04262861_RTRUKOC_0_US-SECURITY-EAVESDROPPING.xml&src=rss&rpc=22
-
Foley garbage
Primo wagon circling.
-
(http://img301.imageshack.us/img301/8370/6matsoncp6.gif)
-
. . . and other issues of Republican misfeasance, nonfeasance and general incompetence and stupidity. Great toon of the "dropped shoes," BTW. Looked in vain for Duke Cunningham's tortured sole, but it must have gotten lost in the pile.
-
Heal thyself! The Democrats aren't pure either, gents. Let's investigate all evenly and fairly and see what filth comes out in the end. No pre-judging, no snippy comments, just good ole policework.
Just remember: no one will ever look at a cigar the same way again!
"Those who are without sin, cast the first stone!"
-
When the DEMS are swimming in shit like the GOP is right now, we'll turn to them.
Let's just enjoy the implosion as it happens. It's just great seeing all these lying pieces of shit fall flat before the wagon circlers.
-
Foley garbage
Primo wagon circling.
Yea, condemning Foley's actions is so "primo wagon circling" ::)
-
Brass, why do you relish at another's fall? It is immensely sad, whether it is Republican or Democrat to see people so perverted. I'm not saying not to punish the. After all, if you do the crime, then you must do the time. But, seeing someone fall into depravity doesn't anger me, it makes me sad that people become so astray. I felt the same way about Bill Clinton as well. I didn't advocate impeaching him even thoguh his actions were despicable. It was more than sad to see the President of the greatest nation on this earth come to such depravity. Politicans should be PUBLIC servants, not seekers of irrespopnsible power, etc.
-
The only reason I'm relishing this so much is because those on the right have been setting themselves up as the paragons of virtue and protectors of the weak ordained by the hand of a god and it turns out they are nothing more than ass-covering, hide-saving, lying power-grabbers.
-
The only reason I'm relishing this so much is because those on the right have been setting themselves up as the paragons of virtue and protectors of the weak ordained by the hand of a god and it turns out they are nothing more than ass-covering, hide-saving, lying power-grabbers.
You really expect a politician to act differently? I just assume they're all pretty much like that - on both sides of the aisle.
-
The only reason I'm relishing this so much is because those on the right have been setting themselves up as the paragons of virtue and protectors of the weak ordained by the hand of a god...
Here, we get to see the mind of knute, in another person's typing. Once again, every Republican is apparently pure as the driven snow, as they are these supposed "paragons of virture", simply because they advocate living a moral lifestyle. And if one of them dares sin, then they all are supposed hypocrits. Which also apparently means, that its perfectly ok if you're a Dem to be a pervert, pedophile, racist & rapist, simply because advoocating better morals is not the Dem thing to do. In fact, you can even be re-elected, and be supported for it
...turns out they are nothing more than ass-covering, hide-saving, lying power-grabbers
That's pretty much the definition of nearly EVERY DC Politician, Brass
-
That's pretty much the definition of nearly EVERY DC Politician, Brass
Except George W. Bush, right? ;)
Come on, you all can't get too high on those horses can you? Schadenfreude is human nature.
Also, it isn't strange to demand more from individuals who campaign on morality and values. It is a double-edged sword to use at one's peril. Most democratic countries have the same problem with politicians that use such a platform - John Major is an excellent example from the UK.
It is only logical. If I ran for County Treasurer on a platform of reforming the system for more transparency and using money legally and establishing more accountability - then I was caught in an imbezzling scandal - don't you think I should have been held to a higher standard based on my campaign?
The same is true for morals and values campaigning. You use it at your peril. If you campaign on it, then plan to go out and screw good looking young lobbyists whose bills go through your committee then yes, you are held to a higher standard based on your campaign. Tough, deal with it.
-
Except George W. Bush, right? Come on, you all can't get too high on those horses can you?
You're not gonna pull the same dren, are you Js? Where if one doesn't agree with you, they must believe the polar opposite? that if you don't believe Bush lied us into war, then they must believes he's never lied ever? That if you don't believe these hairbrained illogical notions that it was all for the oil, and having this thug brutal military, that you must believe that America & Bush can do no wrong?? Tee was pulling that all over the place with Hastert the last 2 days trying lamely to rationalize this mythical "circling". I'm disappointed your starting to follow the same trail of AMBE
Also, it isn't strange to demand more from individuals who campaign on morality and values
Strange, in how I see an advocation for such, while you see it as a "demand". I guess I need to pay more attention to the bills being proposed by the GOP to get a grasp of these "demands". and it also appears that you're giving credence to the notion that since Dems don't "demand" such, then it's perfectly ok for them to pull any and all amoral acts, since ...well...since they don't "demand it" from anyone
-
First, the W remark was a joke. Sheesh.
Second, read what I wrote. It is about me. I'm not quite that egocentric. It is about voters in general Sirs.
My point is that what you use in your campaign to get elected will come back to you. If you use morals and values as your campaign cornerstone, then you will be held to a higher standard by the voters. You'll note that not once did I mention Democrats or Republicans (it pays to actually read the post, not read into it what you wanted me to have said). I simply pointed that candidates who choose that will always face it as a double-edged sword. I'm stating a fact that has been seen time and time again in the United States and other nations as well. Voters who vote in a morals and values candidate will punish them if they see inconsistency in their lives. You may not like that, but it is true. You have a problem with it, bitching at me won't help you. I'm only a single voter and I find those candidates to be patronizing 99% of the time.
I suggest you try again and this time read it. There's a standard for all politicians (and people in general) that voters will hold. That's the flaw in your argument that "Democrats can do anything." Not too mention that you're accusing me of partisanship where none exists. But, it is specifically those candidates who run on high moral platforms that are held to higher standards. You may think it unfair, but the voters do not. Or at least, historically they have not.
-
There's a standard for all politicians (and people in general) that voters will hold. That's the flaw in your argument that "Democrats can do anything." Not too mention that you're accusing me of partisanship where none exists. But, it is specifically those candidates who run on high moral platforms that are held to higher standards. You may think it unfair, but the voters do not. Or at least, historically they have not.
This same thing has happened to Democrats , in some cases these Democrats get re-elected , you are right to say that it is mostly up to the voters , but where is the flaw in the arguement when one is pointing out that Democratic voters do have lower standards , I think that the history of simular cases demonstrates this as a fact.
-
First, the W remark was a joke. Sheesh
I saw the ;) yet, given your track record of commentary, I couldn't help but assume that there was actual sincerity to the "joke". My apologies if there was no sincerity in the attempt at humor
Second, read what I wrote. It is about me. I'm not quite that egocentric. It is about voters in general Sirs.
So, may I suggest you go back and read what i wrote, since it was in reference to how Dems and GOP are perceived to voters in general.
My point is that what you use in your campaign to get elected will come back to you
Let's mark that under the column of "d'uh". Of course it can. I'm not talking about a specific campaign platform. I'm talking in general, how the GOP, who in their desire to support high moral standards, are then in turn being scolded as "demanding" that people adhere to such standards. You then in turn help reinforce my point, that since the Dems in general don't advocate high moral standards (leaving that to the GOP I guess) in their stump speeches or campaign jargon, they can maintan an apparently very low moral standard. One can even get re-elected 5x for doing so much more than what Foley is being condemned and driven out of the party for.
I suggest you try again and this time read it. There's a standard for all politicians (and people in general) that voters will hold.
I have, and as you have helped demonstrate the moral & ethical bar for the Dems is apparently, and perhaps purposely placed very low, compared to the GOP. Which is fine. I will demand better from the folks I support, and condemn them when they fall, vs re-electing them over, and over, and over, and over again
-
I have, and as you have helped demonstrate the moral & ethical bar for the Dems is apparently, and perhaps purposely placed very low, compared to the GOP. Which is fine. I will demand better from the folks I support, and condemn them when they fall, vs re-electing them over, and over, and over, and over again
Sure you will.
You then in turn help reinforce my point, that since the Dems in general don't advocate high moral standards (leaving that to the GOP I guess) in their stump speeches or campaign jargon, they can maintan an apparently very low moral standard.
Where did I mention Democrats or Republicans?
Where did I mention either party could enjoy low standards?
Answer those questions please.
-
Sure you will. (demand better from the folks I support)[/i]
Another grasp at humor again?
Where did I mention Democrats or Republicans? Where did I mention either party could enjoy low standards?
You helped reinforce the template....GOP running on an apparently higher moral/ethical standard, thus when they fall from grace, they can be not just condemned individually, but by plausible design, party wide. Dems don't have such a burden, do they. And I'm afraid I haven't seen a peep to help refute that standpoint by yourself, since I haven't seen any condemnations of Clinton's actions, any condemnations of Rep Studd's actions, any criticisms of how the Dems handled either of those situations, from your end of the keyboard. Would you like to clarify your position on those 2 individuals and how the Dems dealt with each?
-
Once again, every Republican is apparently pure as the driven snow, as they are these supposed "paragons of virture", simply because they advocate living a moral lifestyle. And if one of them dares sin, then they all are supposed hypocrits. Which also apparently means, that its perfectly ok if you're a Dem to be a pervert, pedophile, racist & rapist, simply because advoocating better morals is not the Dem thing to do. In fact, you can even be re-elected, and be supported for it
All hogwash.
Republican leaders (that's the leaders of the Republican party) protected an ephebophile and let him keep on keeping on so they could hold his seat and maintain power. FACT: Reynolds convinced Foley to run again AFTER he saw the emails. It is no secret that Xian Conservatives view the Reps as holding to a higher power/standard. Clearly, that has been proven to be a lie.
Morals are tricky standards to apply to all humans. None of us holds all the same morals, in my opinion. Sure, some might say that "don't steal" is a moral and I agree that not stealing is a good plan and ethically it is logical and good. But not allowing gays to marry is a moral stance that I certainly don't share and when looked at ethically, no logical human would agree that it is. That's why I make distinctions between "moral" folks and ethical folks. Moral to me speaks of religious bias and nonsense a lot of times. Ethics plays more towards logic for me.
I know we've discussed this before and some make no distinction between the two terms but that is where I stand on them.
The point was that when the leaders of the party that claims to be moral paragons DEFENDS and COVERS UP the "sin" (your word, not mine) of one of its own, then it is infinitely fair to say that the "party" is to blame as well as Foley who committed the offence. (Note: I did NOT use the word "crime" in deference to the sensibilities of the oh so fair-minded wagon circlers who have pointed out again and again how technically speaking Foley is not guilty of any actual crime.)
-
I know we've discussed this before and some make no distinction between the two terms but that is where I stand on them.
Morals are how you live your life. Ethics are how you handle professional situations. Sometimes they are in conflict with one another.
Such is life.
-
<<Here, we get to see the mind of knute, in another person's typing. Once again, every Republican is apparently pure as the driven snow, as they are these supposed "paragons of virture", simply because they advocate living a moral lifestyle. >>
I think advocating a Constitutional amendment to prevent gays from marrying each other is a little more than "advocating living a moral lifestyle." It gets down to the point where they are changing the constitution of a country to prevent consenting adults, American citizens who see life differently than they do, from living their own lives according to their own morality, without knuckling to the moral values of the Republican Party.
When members of this Party, who have taken it upon themselves to LEGISLATE morality for others, are shown up to be perverts and the protectors and enablers of perverts, who prey upon children, then there is a kind of Schadenfreude that you will not find when a member of a more tolerant, laissez-faire and morally permissive party gets caught with his pants down.
Anybody with a reasonable amount of experience in the real world, dealing with real people, using basic common sense, would already know this. Conservatives, living as they do with their heads stuck up their ass for an entire lifetime, need it explained to them. Which is kind of sad.
-
So Rep. Foley had to be a hypocryte to be in the Republican party.
Which egg or chicken came first here?
Foley will improve the Republican party by leaveing it.
-
<< Foley will improve the Republican party by leaveing it.>>
So it's all about Foley, eh? LOL What about Hastert, will he improve the Republican Party by leaving it?
-
I see no reason for Hastert to step down. He certainly should not just because a bunch of partisans are calling for it.
-
<<I see no reason for Hastert to step down. He certainly should not just because a bunch of partisans are calling for it. >>
Just as I figured. Circling the wagons.
-
<< Foley will improve the Republican party by leaveing it.>>
So it's all about Foley, eh? LOL What about Hastert, will he improve the Republican Party by leaving it?
Hastert is a good guy , I don't see what he is supposed to be guilty of .
Did Tip O'neil step down when Rep Studds did a simular deed?
Did anyone step down when Rep Studds did a simular deed?
If Rep Foley wants to run for congress again as a Democrat why shouldn't he,... he meets the standard there.
-
<<Hastert is a good guy , I don't see what he is supposed to be guilty of.>>
insufficient attention to the problem at the time.
<<Did Tip O'neil step down when Rep Studds did a simular deed?>>
Get over Studds. That was 20 years ago. Besides, I'm not sure that anyone reported Studds to Tip or that Tip had any nominal oversight over Studds' relations with pages.
-
<<Hastert is a good guy , I don't see what he is supposed to be guilty of.>>
insufficient attention to the problem at the time.
<<Did Tip O'neil step down when Rep Studds did a simular deed?>>
Get over Studds. That was 20 years ago. Besides, I'm not sure that anyone reported Studds to Tip or that Tip had any nominal oversight over Studds' relations with pages.
The only dissimularity is the passage of time and that there is no evidence yet that Foley consumated his propositions.
I don't think that the passage of time counts for much , it is only twenty years , a mere comma in the sweep of history.
Tip O'neil Presided ove a Democratic dominated Congress as Hastert does the Republican .
Foley has betrayed the trust of the Pages , the trust of the Pages familys , the expectation of his consituants last but not least he has let down his party. We are gonna let him leave , but hark'''' I hear a wolf at the door , I don't think he will be able to leave peacefully.
If Foley were a Democrat all of these things would be worthy of a shrug.
-
I guess the big difference between Tip O'Neill and Studds on the one hand and Dennis Hastert and Mark Foley on the other is that in the intervening 20 years, the Republicans have positioned themselves as the guardians of traditional morality - - freaking out over Clinton's BJ, trying to amend the Constitution just to prevent gays from marrying each other, calling on the Legislature to up-end the courts over Terry Schiavo, banning federal funding for almost all human-embryo stem cell research, cutting severely into funding for foreign STD and AIDS programs that distributed condoms, promoting chastity education over safe-sex ed in American schools, ad nauseam.
To see these sanctimonious and self-righteous hypocrites caught with their pants down is absolutely hilarious, in a way that Tip and Studds and Bill and Monica were not.
-
I see no reason for Hastert to step down. He certainly should not just because a bunch of partisans are calling for it.
Partisans like the Washington Post and Richard Viguerie and initially Paul Weyrich.
The polls are saying that Hastert is weighing them down. Watch for his resignation tomorrow late in the day.
-
There are agendas within agendas.
It's like William Kristal from the Weekly Standard turning on the Bush Admin about the Iraqi War when as one of the more vocal neo-cons he was a leading advocate of it.
I don't see any reason for Hastert to resign, i don't see why he is legitimately in the crosshairs but i do understand that Foley and protecting the kids was never the goalline in this drama.
-
Republican leaders (that's the leaders of the Republican party) protected an ephebophile and let him keep on keeping on so they could hold his seat and maintain power.
Given the facts as we know them, that's pure unadulterated opinion on your part. The e-mails in no way demonstrated anything remotely close to what the IM's eventually did. The GOP told Foley to knock it off. He said he would. He lied. He's now history. If later we learn that Hastert DID know how egregiously slimy Foley was way back when, and sat on it, THEN you can have your Hastert BBQ. And I'll provide the sauce
I think advocating a Constitutional amendment to prevent gays from marrying each other is a little more than "advocating living a moral lifestyle."
How is empty rhetoric making anyone do anything? If that's the best you can do, it's no wonder the Dems avoid advocating living a more moral and ethical lifestyle
I guess the big difference between Tip O'Neill and Studds on the one hand and Dennis Hastert and Mark Foley on the other is that in the intervening 20 years, the Republicans have positioned themselves as the guardians of traditional morality
There ya go....my point validated once again. Since Dems don't advocate living as high a moral & ethical a lifestyle as Republicans supposedly do, when they "sin", it's no biggie. The art of rationalization, at it's most upsurd
-
Angels and Intelligence Estimates
By Charles Krauthammer
Friday, October 6, 2006
Lost between the Foley tsunami and the Woodward hurricane is the storm that began the great Republican collapse of 2006. It was only a few weeks ago that the Republicans were clawing their way back to contention for the November elections, their prospects revived by the president's strong speeches on terrorism around the Sept. 11 anniversary, the landmark legislation on treating and trying captured terrorists, and a serendipitous fall in gas prices.
Then came the momentum stopper, the leaked National Intelligence Estimate that was trumpeted as definitive evidence that the war in Iraq had made terrorism worse. Mark Foley's folly and Bob Woodward's history have overwhelmed that story, but it will remain an unrebutted charge long after Foley is forgotten and Woodward is remaindered. It demands debunking.
The question posed -- does the Iraq war increase or decrease the world supply of jihadists? -- is itself an exercise in counting angels on the head of a pin. Any answer would require a complex calculation involving dozens of unmeasurable factors, as well as construction of a complete alternate history of the world had the U.S. invasion of 2003 not happened.
Ah, but those seers in the U.S. "intelligence community," speaking through a leaked National Intelligence Estimate -- the most famous previous NIE, mind you, concluded that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction, slam-dunk -- have peered deep into the hypothetical past and found the answer. As spun by Iraq war critics, the conclusion is that Iraq has made us less safe because it has become a "cause celebre" and a rallying cry for jihad.
Become? Everyone seems to have forgotten that Iraq was already an Islamist cause celebre and rallying cry long before 2003. When Osama bin Laden issued his declaration of war against America in 1998, his two principal justifications for the jihad that exploded upon us on Sept. 11, 2001, centered on Iraq: America's alleged killing of more than 1 million Iraqis through the post-Gulf War sanctions and, even worse, the desecration of Islam's holiest cities of Mecca and Medina by the garrisoning of infidel U.S. soldiers in Saudi Arabia (as post-Gulf War protection from the continuing threat of invasion by Hussein).
The irony is that the overthrow of Hussein eliminated these two rallying cries: Iraqi sanctions were lifted and U.S. troops were withdrawn from the no-longer-threatened Saudi Arabia. But grievances cured are easily replaced. The jihadists wasted no time in finding new justifications for fury and reviving old ones. The supply is endless:
- Danish cartoons,
- papal pronouncements,
- the liberation of women,
- the existence of Israel,
- the licentiousness of Western culture,
- the war in Afghanistan.
- And, of course, Iraq -- again.
How important is Iraq in this calculus? The vaunted National Intelligence Estimate -- unspun -- offers a completely commonplace weighing of the relationship between terrorism and Iraq.
- On the one hand, the American presence does inspire some to join the worldwide jihad.
- On the other hand, success in the Iraq project would blunt the most fundamental enlistment tool for terrorism -- the political oppression in Arab lands that is deflected by cynical dictators and radical imams into murderous hatred of the West. Which is why the Bush democracy project embodies the greatest hope for a reduction of terrorism and why the NIE itself concludes that were the jihadists to fail in Iraq, their numbers would diminish.
It is an issue of time frame. The bombing of the Japanese home islands may have increased short-term recruiting for the kamikazes. But success in the Pacific war put a definitive end to the whole affair.
Moreover, does anyone imagine that had the jihadists in Iraq remained home they would now be tending petunias rather than plotting terror attacks? Omar al-Farouq, leader of al-Qaeda in Southeast Asia, escaped from a U.S. prison in Afghanistan a year ago and was apparently drawn to the "cause celebre" in Iraq. Last month he was killed by British troops in a firefight in Basra. In an audiotape released Sept. 28, the leader of al-Qaeda in Iraq said that more than 4,000 of its recruits have been killed there since the American invasion. Like Omar al-Farouq and Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, they went to Iraq to die in Iraq.
It is clear that one of the reasons we have gone an astonishing five years without a second attack on the American homeland is that the most dedicated and virulent jihadists have gone to Iraq to fight us, as was said during World War I, "over there."
Does the war in Iraq make us more or less safe today? And what about tomorrow? The fact is that no definitive answer is possible. Except for the following truism: During all wars we are by definition less safe -- and the surest way back to safety is victory.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/10/05/AR2006100501551.html
-
"Which is why the Bush democracy project embodies the greatest hope for a reduction of terrorism and why the NIE itself concludes that were the jihadists to fail in Iraq, their numbers would diminish."
Yes ,this is how I have been thinking.
Do you suppose we could find a copy of that Osama Statement that claims that a million Iriquis were killed by the sanctions?
That sounds interesting.
-
Where did I mention Democrats or Republicans? Where did I mention either party could enjoy low standards?
You helped reinforce the template....GOP running on an apparently higher moral/ethical standard, thus when they fall from grace, they can be not just condemned individually, but by plausible design, party wide. Dems don't have such a burden, do they. And I'm afraid I haven't seen a peep to help refute that standpoint by yourself, since I haven't seen any condemnations of Clinton's actions, any condemnations of Rep Studd's actions, any criticisms of how the Dems handled either of those situations, from your end of the keyboard. Would you like to clarify your position on those 2 individuals and how the Dems dealt with each?
In other words, I never once mentioned Democrats or Republicans. Apparently, according to you I "helped reinforce a template." That wasn't my goal and you read into what I wrote as you saw fit. I've even defended Hastert on this very forum, so I'm not going to defend my actions to you. I'll "condemn" whomever I see fit whenever I see fit to do so. I do not require your partisan demands for explanations.
-
Foley should be up more on some of our nation's founders such as Benjamin Franklin, who said:
"I pronounce it as certain that there was never yet a truly great man that was not at the same time truly virtuous."
The nagain, such character is apparently almost non-existant in Congress as is evidenced by these numbers I located:
36 have been accused of spousal abuse
7 have been arrested for fraud
19 have been accused of writing bad checks
117 have directly or indirectly bankrupted at least 2 businesses
3 have done time for assault
71 cannot get a credit card due to bad credit
14 have been arrested on drug-related charges
8 have been arrested for shoplifting
21 currently are defendants in lawsuits, and
84 have been arrested for drunk driving
within the last year.
-
Democratic voters have lower standards? If that means Democrats are not right wing fundamental zealots, as a party philosophy, I agree. Looking at the history of the Republican party from Reagan to George W. Bush it cannot be denied that the Republican leadership has killed millions of people around the World, all in the name of moral values. The Republican strategist used the issue of AIDS to incite violence toward gay people, clearly, a Nazi strategy of ostracizing to promote gay-bashing. The Republican strategist created the War on drugs to create a reason to wage war on Blacks and Hispanics. The Republican Strategist created false information to attack Iraq.
Looking at the history- I would say the Democrats have much higher standards than the Republicans.
-
JS; Apparently, according to you I "helped reinforce a template."
Bingo. Whether it was your goal or not, the continued harping as if this all GOP wrong doing, while you ignore the history of Dems doing far much more, yet largely gets a pass, because, hey, they don't advocate living a higher moral & ethical life, so it's really no biggie when they have affairs, when they actually have sex with pages. Yea, that's reinforcing the template
JS; I've even defended Hastert on this very forum, so I'm not going to defend my actions to you. I'll "condemn" whomever I see fit whenever I see fit to do so
Has anyone told you to do other wise? Just pointing out the transparent hypocritical double standard of the left, is all I'm doing
Larry; Looking at the history- I would say the Democrats have much higher standards than the Republicans.
LOL....I needed a good laugh :D
-
Bingo. Whether it was your goal or not, the continued harping as if this all GOP wrong doing, while you ignore the history of Dems doing far much more, yet largely gets a pass, because, hey, they don't advocate living a higher moral & ethical life, so it's really no biggie when they have affairs, when they actually have sex with pages.
Apologies, I should have used some sort of sarcasm indicator with that reply. I wasn't really old enough to condemn anyone in 1983. So, I'm not sure what you want me to do beyond some sort of Star Trek space-time thing. If you've got Doctor Who's phone booth, I'll go back to '83 and condemn that Democrat guy. While I'm there I might make a few sports bets too. Was Microsoft publicly traded then?
My point was made on an individual basis Sirs. You even ask why it isn't looked at in such a manner, then go on to attack someone who does. Perhaps you've answered your own question?
-
My point was made on an individual basis Sirs. You even ask why it isn't looked at in such a manner, then go on to attack someone who does. Perhaps you've answered your own question?
Oh, I'm fully aware of the anwer to the question I didn't pose. Whatever "defense" I must have missed regarding Hastert, appeared to be significantly overshadowed by the rationalized 1 sided attacks on the GOP, while giving a pass to the Dems for the same & worse. And that, whether by design or by accident, just keeps reinforcing the template of GOP bad....Dems good. And DC Affairs were happing long before and AFTER that of what Studds was cheered for doing
-
You let me know when you get that phone booth. ;)
What I said regarding Hastert was that I see no possible reason for him hiding said actions by Foley. It makes no logical sense, no amount of money or promises on Foley's part could have made Hastert logically choose to hide Foley's actions had Hastert had full knowledge of them.
It isn't my fault what you read and don't read. By the way I have never defended this Rep. Studds actions, nor have I ever heard of him until recently. You can't honestly expect anyone to spend their time condemning actions of politicians. It would be a full-time job. In fact, there are probably people who do just that.
-
What I said regarding Hastert was that I see no possible reason for him hiding said actions by Foley. It makes no logical sense, no amount of money or promises on Foley's part could have made Hastert logically choose to hide Foley's actions had Hastert had full knowledge of them.
Exactly why I don't think that Hastert did so.
-
What I said regarding Hastert was that I see no possible reason for him hiding said actions by Foley. It makes no logical sense, no amount of money or promises on Foley's part could have made Hastert logically choose to hide Foley's actions had Hastert had full knowledge of them.
Might want to tell the Dems in DC and those hard core libs here that. They seem to relish in the illogical & irrational
It isn't my fault what you read and don't read. By the way I have never defended this Rep. Studds actions, nor have I ever heard of him until recently
That's not surprising in the least. When it's Dems doing it, the mainscream media hardly puts up more than a peep, thus its repetition is minimal. When it's the GOP, even when it dwarfes what occured with the Dems, it's front page headline news, for days upon weeks, who knew what, when, and why was it allowed to happen, yada, blah, etc.
-
"...at the history of the Republican party from Reagan to George W. Bush it cannot be denied that the Republican leadership has killed millions of people around the World, all in the name of moral values. ...
Looking at the history- I would say the Democrats have much higher standards than the Republicans."
Democratic administrations from Kennedy , Johnson and Clinton have killed million in the name of what?