Whiner

[_JS]

You mean that he has to work five days a week and earn a six figure salary?

I understand that you want to make the situations parallel to draw an abstract argument, but they simply aren't similar.

[BT]

Still don't see what the salary has to do with it. And the issue is whether the rep works in DC or not. Not that they work 5 days.

[kimba1]

hey !!!!!!!!!
I just realize he can telecommute his duties in D.C.
it`ll save money for the flights back and forth
doesn`t this sound like a good idea???
too bad we can`t out source them .
or can`t we??

[R.R.]

Surely this info didn't come as a big surprise? What did he think, this was some sinecure he could put in an easy 2 and a half, 3 days a week at plus free health care plus huge pension etc.etc.etc. all on the taxpayer's dollar? Alert Lou Dobbs. He gets mad about FEMA ripoffs. I get mad about this.

Our new governor roomed with someone, so do a lot of lawmakers.

Rick Santorum bought a home in the DC area and moved his kids there to spend time with them where he worked. The leftists back home in PA attacked him for not being a resident. This was a major campaign issue in his past election.

When John Kerry was running for president he missed 73% of his votes. When I pointed that out in here and said he should give back his salary as a senator, the liberals in here pooh poohed what Kerry was doing as no big deal. When a Democrat doesn't work, I guess it's ok.

What does Sirs always say? Did/Didn't? The hypocritical whiners seem to be the liberals.

[Xavier_Onassis]

What does Sirs always say? Did/Didn't? The hypocritical whiners seem to be the liberals.

=======================================
Actually, I have noticed that you only complain about "liberals". We haven't heard a peep out of you about Ney, Cunningham, DeLay, Cheney or any of the corrupt GOP assh*les.

You deserve the Supreme Dittohead Trophy for Kvetching about Liberals far beyond the Call of Duty.

[Amianthus]

We haven't heard a peep out of you about Ney, Cunningham, DeLay, Cheney or any of the corrupt GOP assh*les.

And Lanya doesn't complain about corrupt Dems.

Have you discovered something?

[BT]

We haven't heard a peep out of you about Ney,

RR is on record as saying Ney should have stepped down and let another candidate run for his seat. Both Sirs and RR condemned Cunningham for his actions.

[Lanya]

I don't recall being all broken up about old Jefferson getting booted out. 

[Amianthus]

I don't recall being all broken up about old Jefferson getting booted out. 

I don't recall you condemning his actions, either.

[_JS]

I don't recall you condemning his actions, either.

I haven't seen you condemning atrocities in the Ituri conflict.

Should we assume by your non-condemnation that you support the atrocities taking place there?

[Amianthus]

I haven't seen you condemning atrocities in the Ituri conflict.

I'm pretty sure I'm on record as saying the UN and Europe need to clean up the problems in Africa. That's the job of the UN, not the US. I've specified Darfur and a few other conflicts when they've up, and feel the same way towards all the conflicts currently going on in Africa.

Besides, you're expanding the scope from within the US to outside of it.

I've been on record as saying both the Republican and Democratic parties need to clean their houses of the crooks. Lanya only seems to see crooks in one party.

[_JS]

Ah, so broad condemnations are acceptable? We should start an official condemnation thread for the records so everyone can be on record as condemning every possible condemnable act.

Or, we could make the statement that:

If an individual does not condemn X, it does not necessarily mean that they condone X.

Otherwise we're lost in a petty game of who didn't condemn what and when. That is just childish.

[Amianthus]

Ah, so broad condemnations are acceptable? We should start an official condemnation thread for the records so everyone can be on record as condemning every possible condemnable act.

Or, we could make the statement that:

If an individual does not condemn X, it does not necessarily mean that they condone X.

Otherwise we're lost in a petty game of who didn't condemn what and when. That is just childish.

Kinda like not condemning Apartheid means you support Apartheid?

Besides, my jab was aimed at Lanya, who has frequently used the "if you didn't condemn them, then you supported them" argument. This was highlighted for a long period of time in the "Republicans want women to get cancer" episode. Seems that since Republicans didn't condemn a small group that wanted to prevent a vaccine from becoming mandatory, it meant that all Republicans wanted women to get cancer.

[_JS]

Kinda like not condemning Apartheid means you support Apartheid?

Yes.

But that isn't what I did and you know it.


Hey, I just offer the advice. By all means let the non-condemning accusations fly.

[Amianthus]

But that isn't what I did and you know it.

Actually, I don't. Sirs only mentioned not liking Mandela and criticizing Mandela's government. Your response was to call that "arguing in support of the aprtheid [sic] regime in South Africa." Not criticizing Apartheid led you to claim that Sirs was supporting Apartheid.

It may be of interest to you to realize that people can not like Apartheid and not like Mandela, either.
Original Post