idrankwhat 0 #326 October 6, 2006 QuoteSeven posts in a row. WOW! I'm still waiting to hear what was debunked about the following people and fiascos? Dan Rostenkowski White House Coffees and Lincoln Bedroom sales Chinagate Walter R. Tucker Jim Traficant Robert Torricelli William Jefferson I wasn't sure of the status of Jefferson so I went looking. Found this site. Interesting stuff. I also happened to note the list of the top 25 bad guys listed. See a pattern? http://www.beyonddelay.org Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lucky... 0 #327 October 6, 2006 QuoteAnd the reason you don't answer either is....? Answer what????? Geez, could I have extra helping of argument, hold the ambiguity? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
NCclimber 0 #328 October 6, 2006 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteNothing but politically motivated BS as you and I and others have said from the beginning. You believe Bloggers as sources? Say it ain't so! The homophobic gay pedophile WAS a Republican. What exactly is your definition of pedophile? God, will you guys quit defending Foley already? QuoteCan somebody tell me which laws were broken, here? I'm not sure which of my "arguments" you blew out of the water. What is pretty clear is you ducked my questions. See, the problem I have with this whole drama is the rampant misuse of labels and assumption of facts (unknown). Do terms like pedophile and child predator really apply when the "victim" was nearly two years over the age of consent? Foley's behavior was undoubtedly inappropriate, unethical and completely disgusting, but I've seen nothing to indicate he's guilty of any sex crimes. Contributing to the delinquency of a minor? Probably. Sex crimes? Which ones? And to the witch hunt for Hastert - When did he actually read the e-mails and IMs. From what I've read, the former page sent an e-mail stating he had received messages that were "overly friendly", but not the actual messages or even the gist of those messages. You get word that a colleague is overly friendly, then you tell him to stop. You don't call for a Congressional Hearing! In hindsight, it's easy to say "You should have done more to investigate this!!!" harrumph harrumph harrumph, but my guess is reports of Congressmen acting "inappropriately" are all too common in DC, and 99% of the time they are settled with a simple "cut it out" by the right person. There's a whole lot of hysterics going on with this, that the facts have yet to support. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
juanesky 0 #329 October 6, 2006 Too many letters too little substance in your undecipherable babble. No one is defending Foley, he resigned and is doomed politically, yet you still defend el Jefe Clintonista perjury in a sexual harrasment case. Hmm, seems like you did not blew the water on this one, more like threw a dynamite stick in the lake...."According to some of the conservatives here, it sounds like it's fine to beat your wide - as long as she had it coming." -Billvon Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
tbrown 26 #330 October 7, 2006 QuoteLooks like he is an alcoholic, gay, pedophile. Sounds like an ideal candidate for the priesthood as a second career. Your humble servant.....Professor Gravity ! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DaVinci 0 #331 October 7, 2006 Quote In Reply To -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- In Reply To -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Furthermore, aside from any legislation, which may or may not have been broken, how about ethics issues? I don't care if the page was 35, it is still unethical to have those relations. Perhaps you heard of the Clinton impeachment? -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Perhaps you remember how the left defended him so much? Why would you punish the guy if he broke no laws? Left defended whom? Foley???? No, the left defended Clinton, remember? Even when he lied? QuotePunish him judicially/criminally or administratively? I think people should be punished based on the law, not their party. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lucky... 0 #332 October 7, 2006 QuoteToo many letters too little substance in your undecipherable babble. No one is defending Foley, he resigned and is doomed politically, yet you still defend el Jefe Clintonista perjury in a sexual harrasment case. Hmm, seems like you did not blew the water on this one, more like threw a dynamite stick in the lake.... Which arg? Why that would the one you guys ran from on the previous page after calling out the Dems for lack of a response. Hmmm, wonder why no response to this???? I would say it's an example in type, but a very weak and indirect example not comparable to the Foley matter. __________________________________________ Foley = voted for 28th Marriage Amendment and legislation to protect kids from predators Foley = engaged in homosexual behavior with minors _________________________________________ Gore = Politically with a party that drafted "don't ask - don't tell." Did he push it? Did he vote for it? Did he write it? WHat was his voting record as a Senator in regard to homo matters? Gore = (according to the unbiased writings of the Georgia Log Cabin Republicans) He's pictured with anti-gay Phelps; what was the event? How did he benefit? Quoted as saying that homosexuality is not acceptable and shouldn't be condoned (a far cry from cemdemned legislatively). Refused to sign Gay BORights. ______________________________________ What your argument fails to do is to establish a LEGISLATIVE record of Gore PROACTIVELY acting against homos, then acting himself in a homo manner. The only merit this article and your argument have is that he belongs to a party that generally accepts homos, yet he is himself against that ideology and won;t do things to support it. The continuum of activism runs passive in the middle, procative for a cause on ine end, and proactive against a cause in the other. You have failed to establish any proactivity on one end with simultaneous a proactivity against on the other. The Foley matter has that and your example has overshaddows of it, but nothing material enough to draw a conclusion that Gore voted against homo right, just refused to vote for them, then acted himself as a homosexual. We could say the same for McCain and the few others who initially voted against the Overtime Law. Their party is teh party of oppression of workers, yet they vote down legislation that will harm some workers. These are scant, loose examples, but not to the level of a Foley by any stretch. This is response to the adrticle about Gore being an alleged gay hater. Try to make your comparison logically, and i mean that with no sarcasm. Let's assume the article is factual, which I wonder, but assume it is factual and then make your comparisons; don't just covolute and say our guy is scum but so is yours - we are all guilty, can't we just go to lunch now and forget the whole thing? Again, Foley proactively fought to enact a Constitutional amendment against gay lifestyle, proactively fought for legislation against predators. Gore just refused to help gays and has never voiced a pro-gay agenda, advocated for gays and he has never been established to be gay. With Gore there is no contradiction. If you want to step forward and say the Dems are the party of tollerance and acceptance, the Repubs the party of hate and intollerance, well, you might have a general argument to say that Gore doesn't belong with the Dems, but there is no contradiction in Gore's behavior, which is why all you guys failed to return volley on the very argument you called me out on. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Royd 0 #333 October 7, 2006 QuoteThe homophobic gay pedophile WAS a Republican.Now, if only the liberal media would recognize that homosexual and pedophile should be in the same sentence! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lucky... 0 #334 October 7, 2006 QuoteSeven posts in a row. WOW! I'm still waiting to hear what was debunked about the following people and fiascos? Dan Rostenkowski White House Coffees and Lincoln Bedroom sales Chinagate Walter R. Tucker Jim Traficant Robert Torricelli William Jefferson As a quick brief of that list I thought it was the notorious Clinton death list. That has been debunked. Anywayt, not sure what your point is, but let's review these people. James Trafficant - He was a constant thorn in the side of the Democratic caucus with his eccentric behavior, an image he embraced. After the Republicans took control of the House in 1995, Traficant tended to vote more often with the Republicans than with his own party. After he voted for Republican Dennis Hastert for Speaker of the House in 2001, the Democrats stripped him of his seniority and refused to give him a committee assignment. Because the Republicans did not assign him to any committee, Traficant became the first member of the House of Representatives in over a century without any committee assignment who was not in a leadership position. Traficant's fearlessness allowed him to champion the unpopular cause of John Demjanjuk, a Ukrainian-born autoworker from Seven Hills, who had been convicted in Israel and sentenced to hang for having been the brutal concentration camp guard "Ivan the Terrible." IOW's, Traficant defended a Nazi. William Jefferson - The May 20 raid of Jefferson's office in Room 2113 of the Rayburn House Office Building set off a series of political events. Jefferson immediately challenged the action in federal court, and members of the House generally reacted strongly against the raid. House Speaker Dennis Hastert, and House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi issued "a rare joint statement demanding that the FBI return the documents and saying that Jefferson then should cooperate more fully with the investigation. It appears he's dirty, but even your own boy deems the harsh investigation to be over the edge. Before I go thru these, explain what each one illustrates. I will be glad to argue them, but make an assertion as to what your point is. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #335 October 7, 2006 QuoteClinton death list. That has been debunked Really? I've not seen anything debunking it yet... can you point me to a link?Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Andy9o8 2 #336 October 7, 2006 QuoteQuoteThe homophobic gay pedophile WAS a Republican.Now, if only the liberal media would recognize that homosexual and pedophile should be in the same sentence! That's easily among the Top Five stupidest things I've ever read anyone post on DZ.com. Hands down. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lucky... 0 #337 October 7, 2006 QuoteQuoteQuoteThe homophobic gay pedophile WAS a Republican.Now, if only the liberal media would recognize that homosexual and pedophile should be in the same sentence! That's easily among the Top Five stupidest things I've ever read anyone post on DZ.com. Hands down. You didn;t get the memo, hetero pedophilia has been done away with. All these Dateline shows are staged. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,080 #338 October 8, 2006 >Now, if only the liberal media would recognize that homosexual >and pedophile should be in the same sentence! Have you ever actually met anyone who's gay? In person, not by reading about them on some hate site? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
juanesky 0 #339 October 8, 2006 I'm assuming you either misread my post or simply have some sort of reading comprehension issues. In either case, I did not mention Al Gore once. I did mention el Jefe Clintonista aka Bubba, aka slick willie, aka Bill Clinton. And a case of perjury and obstruction of justice for lying under oath in a lawsuit (Paula Jones' sexual harrasment) against him. Now, coming from a self professed democrat, step up will include not tolerating any criminal acts by anyone, including those in your party. The democrats have lack of these many times through the last 30 years. Examples of these have been mentioned already in this thread, Studds, Barney Frank, Ted Kennedy. In regards to the lack of response, I see none of that taking place. Everyone is pretty much discusted about Foley's action, and glad that looks like his political career is over. You want to see further than that and make it a partisan point of view, go ahead let me keep on laughing."According to some of the conservatives here, it sounds like it's fine to beat your wide - as long as she had it coming." -Billvon Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,113 #340 October 8, 2006 QuoteI'm assuming you either misread my post or simply have some sort of reading comprehension issues. In either case, I did not mention Al Gore once. I did mention el Jefe Clintonista aka Bubba, aka slick willie, aka Bill Clinton. And a case of perjury and obstruction of justice for lying under oath in a lawsuit (Paula Jones' sexual harrasment) against him. . Was there a guilty verdict in a criminal case?... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DaVinci 0 #341 October 9, 2006 QuoteWas there a guilty verdict in a criminal case? Has there been a guitly verdict in THIS case? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,113 #342 October 9, 2006 QuoteQuoteWas there a guilty verdict in a criminal case? Has there been a guitly verdict in THIS case? Changing the subject? The statement I commented on is about a long closed case.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DaVinci 0 #343 October 9, 2006 QuoteChanging the subject? The statement I commented on is about a long closed case. No, just pointing out how you and others seem to not wish to wait till this case is even tried before you convict him. For the record. I feel if guilty he should be punished according to the law. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,113 #344 October 9, 2006 QuoteQuoteChanging the subject? The statement I commented on is about a long closed case. No, just pointing out how you and others seem to not wish to wait till this case is even tried before you convict him. For the record. I feel if guilty he should be punished according to the law. Where have I written that he should be convicted of anything? He has confessed, though.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
NCclimber 0 #345 October 9, 2006 I'm still not sure which of my "arguments" you blew out of the water. What is still pretty clear is you ducked my questions. As far as those five names I posted - all served as Democrats in Congress. Four of them were convicted of felonies (at least) and served time. Some are still in prison. At least one got a presidential "get out of jail free" card. And the fifth name - William "I always keep 100 grand in cash in my freezer" Jefferson. I'd say it's a safe bet that he's going to prison. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,113 #346 October 9, 2006 QuoteI'm still not sure which of my "arguments" you blew out of the water. What is still pretty clear is you ducked my questions. As far as those five names I posted - all served as Democrats in Congress. Four of them were convicted of felonies (at least) and served time. Some are still in prison. At least one got a presidential "get out of jail free" card. And the fifth name - William "I always keep 100 grand in cash in my freezer" Jefferson. I'd say it's a safe bet that he's going to prison. For the party that preens itself as "pro family values" and "pro personal responsibility", just pointing to the other party and saying "Look, they're just as bad as we are" won't cut it. Sorry.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rehmwa 2 #347 October 9, 2006 QuoteI think people should be punished based on the law, not their party. Cut it out. Talk like that isn't allowed in Speaker's Corner. ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Andy9o8 2 #348 October 9, 2006 QuoteWilliam "I always keep 100 grand in cash in my freezer" Jefferson. I'd say it's a safe bet that he's going to prison. ....the cooler! Ohh, I crack myself up... [ Audience: ] Whatever. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
NCclimber 0 #349 October 9, 2006 QuoteQuoteI'm still not sure which of my "arguments" you blew out of the water. What is still pretty clear is you ducked my questions. As far as those five names I posted - all served as Democrats in Congress. Four of them were convicted of felonies (at least) and served time. Some are still in prison. At least one got a presidential "get out of jail free" card. And the fifth name - William "I always keep 100 grand in cash in my freezer" Jefferson. I'd say it's a safe bet that he's going to prison. For the party that preens itself as "pro family values" and "pro personal responsibility", just pointing to the other party and saying "Look, they're just as bad as we are" won't cut it. Sorry. Is it your standard MO to make inflamatory statements and then when pressed on them, you ignore it and just make another inflamatory claim that doesn't hold much water. I'm still waiting to hear your definition of pedophile. Particularly, I'm interested what Foley did (specifically) that earned the label of pedophile (or as some have claimed - child predator). Is Foley really no different from someone who physically molests children? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
idrankwhat 0 #350 October 9, 2006 Quote No, the left defended Clinton, remember? Even when he lied? I didn't give a crap about Clinton's lie and I don't give a crap about Foley either. Foley's gone and Clinton's lie was of absolutely no consequence. The issues here, which are also of no real consequence, are with the hypocrisy. It's slightly amusing that the right came into office touting a superior sense of morality and have proven that they are no better than those they replaced. It's also amusing/frustrating that the right is bitching about the media's handling of this, supposedly either blowing it out of proportion or being in cahoots with the Democrats in order to make things difficult for the Republicans. The Clinton affair (pun intended) was blown way out of proportion yet the overly Righteous Right did nothing but help fuel the media firestorm. Again, they are no better than their counterparts. But what's the common denominator? It's the media and its customers. This stupid shit sells...PERIOD! The only bias around here is towards the payout. The media, and hell...the politicians for that matter, are in it for the money and we're all dumber for it. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
