jenfly00 0 #26 October 12, 2006 QuoteAwwwwe are you trying to destract everyone from Foley and make the Dems look bad? It's a desperation move ..but for now, it's all he's got.----------------------- "O brave new world that has such people in it". Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
idrankwhat 0 #27 October 12, 2006 QuoteI hear that Nancy Pelosi is calling for Bill Frist to resign... being in charge of the Senate, he should have known what Reid was up to.... Nah, we need to keep Frist. I heard he saw a video tape on how to be an effective Senate majority leader Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #28 October 12, 2006 QuoteQuoteLooks like old dogs don't change their tricks....how about that pork, huh? You're kidding right? Pork?!?!? Do you really want to start with a Dem vs. Con earmark comparison? It's a very depressing game and no matter how you look at it, the taxpayer loses. Yup... Reid in another land deal to develop an area so dry that surveyors thought it's best use was as a weapons range... sounds like a pork barrel project to me...Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lucky... 0 #29 October 12, 2006 QuoteQuoteThe difference is that it seems to be the protocol of Republicans to be corrupt, Last week I posted a list of former Democratic Congressmen who have been, are or will be in prison. You assumed they were part of the "clinton Death list". I, in turn, assumed you had no idea of the significance of the list - Democrats doing prison time. It's easy to throw out negative labels and pretend your preferred party is so much better, but when you look at who has been convicted(key word) the corruption label seems more apt for the Democrats. That shows how you researched my reply. I researched 2 of the names and gave details, then asked what your point is. I assume it's again, Our guys are scum, but so are yours. You can;t understand that that doesn;t work. At the end of the day your guys are still scum and they are the ones in power. I don;t have to defend the actions of the minority, it doesn't matter when they don't have a voice. Furthermore, the left is about tolerance for those who have different lifestyles or are fuck-ups (for example education in prison, etc), the right is about intolerance for anything from the straight and narrow (for example Foley's homophone 28th Amendment & the laws increasing penalties for child molesters). Get it? When you call people out and then commit what you've been called out for, you are many times more susceptable to ridicule and hudgment. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lucky... 0 #30 October 12, 2006 QuotePolitics is no longer who is going to do what good things but who has done the least bad things. Future political statement: "Yes I was involved in a financial scam and molested young children but my opponent was involved in a financial scam, molested young children, and raised taxes." The caviat to that is when a party isn;t in power in any realm, they are exepmt from that due to themnot changing anything, so be carefull what you wish for in regard to holding all the cards. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
idrankwhat 0 #31 October 12, 2006 QuoteQuoteQuoteLooks like old dogs don't change their tricks....how about that pork, huh? You're kidding right? Pork?!?!? Do you really want to start with a Dem vs. Con earmark comparison? It's a very depressing game and no matter how you look at it, the taxpayer loses. Yup... Reid in another land deal to develop an area so dry that surveyors thought it's best use was as a weapons range... sounds like a pork barrel project to me... You just described southern Kaalaaforneeeea. A place that catches fire every year and is so desperate for water that they once entertained the concept of hauling ice bergs down from the arctic. That aside, c'mon man. Answer the question, do you really want to trade hits in the earmark game? I don't, but I will if you insist. It should be easy to do considering the record number that have been signed in recent years. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
NCclimber 0 #32 October 12, 2006 QuoteQuoteQuoteThe difference is that it seems to be the protocol of Republicans to be corrupt, Last week I posted a list of former Democratic Congressmen who have been, are or will be in prison. You assumed they were part of the "clinton Death list". I, in turn, assumed you had no idea of the significance of the list - Democrats doing prison time. It's easy to throw out negative labels and pretend your preferred party is so much better, but when you look at who has been convicted(key word) the corruption label seems more apt for the Democrats. That shows how you researched my reply. I researched 2 of the names and gave details, then asked what your point is. I assume it's again, Our guys are scum, but so are yours. You can;t understand that that doesn;t work. At the end of the day your guys are still scum and they are the ones in power. I don;t have to defend the actions of the minority, it doesn't matter when they don't have a voice. Furthermore, the left is about tolerance for those who have different lifestyles or are fuck-ups (for example education in prison, etc), the right is about intolerance for anything from the straight and narrow (for example Foley's homophone 28th Amendment & the laws increasing penalties for child molesters). Get it? When you call people out and then commit what you've been called out for, you are many times more susceptable to ridicule and hudgment. Are you saying that ethical, honorable behavior should only apply to the party in power.... that members/supporters of the minority are somehow exempt from the same level of decorum? You seem to expect a standard from others that you are unwilling to apply to yourself. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
sundevil777 102 #33 October 12, 2006 QuoteAre you saying that ethical, honorable behavior should only apply to the party in power.... that members/supporters of the minority are somehow exempt from the same level of decorum? You seem to expect a standard from others that you are unwilling to apply to yourself. Quite right! They complain about Repubs wanting to compare ethical behavior (they call it changing the subject) between the parties (AFTER Foley was forced out), then they do it themselves, but without tossing Harry Reid out of congress. Comparisons of recent/historical ethical conduct are perfectly appropriate, I think, when either side is trying to make political points from current events.People are sick and tired of being told that ordinary and decent people are fed up in this country with being sick and tired. I’m certainly not, and I’m sick and tired of being told that I am Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,148 #34 October 12, 2006 QuoteQuoteThe difference is that it seems to be the protocol of Republicans to be corrupt, controlling and unfeeling to the needs of the poorDo you mean a job so that they can provide for themselves and their families? Republicans tend to believe in personal resposibility. And "Family Values".... 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
kallend 2,148 #35 October 12, 2006 Governors too: www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/chi-0610120107oct12,1,610461.story?coll=chi-newsnationworld-hed Unfortunately the previous governor, a Republican, has already been convicted of corruption. The US attorney who brought the indictment against Blago's (DEM) man is Fitzgerald, whom Republicans were recently accusing of acting unethically inthe Plame/Rove/Libby affair. It's all too complicated! www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=2421606#2421606... 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
Lucky... 0 #36 October 12, 2006 QuoteAre you saying that ethical, honorable behavior should only apply to the party in power I'm not saying that at all, I am saying that it is the most visible for 2 reasons that you refuse to address: 1) They are the party of intolerance for immoral actions 2) They are the most visible because they call all the shots It's that simple. They have far less wiggle room since they are the custodians of all that is moral. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lucky... 0 #37 October 12, 2006 QuoteQuite right! They complain about Repubs wanting to compare ethical behavior (they call it changing the subject) between the parties (AFTER Foley was forced out), then they do it themselves, but without tossing Harry Reid out of congress. You fail to addreess you are with the party of intolerance, the party that wanted to disturb the sacred document we call the US Constitution with homophobia - the proposed 28th amendment. Keep ducking it and acting as if the same standards apply; THEY DON'T. When you cry, "FAGGOT, QUEER, COCKSUCKER" and you are one, the world is far less sympathetic to you. I'm not directing that at you, just at the politicians who do that sort of thing behnd their legislation. GET IT? The rules AREN'T the same. Just as the dems can't advocate the things they do, then defy them, then expect equal treatment. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lucky... 0 #38 October 12, 2006 QuoteQuoteQuoteThe difference is that it seems to be the protocol of Republicans to be corrupt, controlling and unfeeling to the needs of the poorDo you mean a job so that they can provide for themselves and their families? Republicans tend to believe in personal resposibility. And "Family Values". They believe in family values, they are just, "CONFUSED" as to what family values means and are trying to define it. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
NCclimber 0 #39 October 12, 2006 It does seem like the Democrats are much more tolerant of immorality, especially among their elected representatives. Conversely, Republicans caught red-handed know they shouldn't wait around to see who defends them. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lucky... 0 #40 October 12, 2006 QuoteIt does seem like the Democrats are much more tolerant of immorality, especially among their elected representatives. Conversely, Republicans caught red-handed know they shouldn't wait around to see who defends them. EXACTLY!!! Glad you get it. Quit screaming, FAGGOT, QUEER, COCKSUCKER and people won't hold you to that standard. Clinton got a BJ, JFK was fucking MM, so what, they are with the party that allows for that. THERE IS A DIFFERENT STANDARD Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
NCclimber 0 #41 October 12, 2006 QuoteTHERE IS A DIFFERENT STANDARD Some might even call it a double standard. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rehmwa 2 #42 October 12, 2006 QuoteTHERE IS A DIFFERENT STANDARD That seems pretty apparent around here. Whether that's appropriate is the whole point of all this redundant discussion isn't it? ... 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
sundevil777 102 #43 October 12, 2006 QuoteYou fail to addreess you are with the party of intolerance, the party that wanted to disturb the sacred document we call the US Constitution with homophobia - the proposed 28th amendment. Bill Clinton signed the Defense of Marriage act in 1996: The law has two effects. 1. No state (or other political subdivision within the United States) need recognize a marriage between persons of the same sex, even if the marriage was concluded or recognized in another state. 2. The Federal Government may not recognize same-sex or polygamous marriages for any purpose, even if concluded or recognized by one of the states. Some argued that it would not withstand Supreme Court scrutiny, I don't know if that has come to pass, maybe you know more about that. To not support gay marriage is not the same as a 'phobia. If it was, then not supporting polygamy would also be a 'phobia.People are sick and tired of being told that ordinary and decent people are fed up in this country with being sick and tired. I’m certainly not, and I’m sick and tired of being told that I am Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jcd11235 0 #44 October 12, 2006 QuoteIt does seem like the Democrats are much more tolerant of immorality, especially among their elected representatives Or, perhaps they are less judgmental, and thus less likely to declare that someone is immoral.Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
sundevil777 102 #45 October 12, 2006 QuoteQuoteIt does seem like the Democrats are much more tolerant of immorality, especially among their elected representatives Or, perhaps they are less judgmental, and thus less likely to declare that someone is immoral. Either way, the party of lower expectations... Being less judgemental is not always a positive attribute. Not everything is a 'shade of grey'.People are sick and tired of being told that ordinary and decent people are fed up in this country with being sick and tired. I’m certainly not, and I’m sick and tired of being told that I am Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jcd11235 0 #46 October 12, 2006 QuoteBeing less judgemental is not always a positive attribute. Not everything is a 'shade of grey'. True, but more often than not both are the case.Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gravitymaster 0 #47 October 12, 2006 QuoteQuoteIt does seem like the Democrats are much more tolerant of immorality, especially among their elected representatives Or, perhaps they are less judgmental, and thus less likely to declare that someone is immoral. That's like saying if we had fewer laws, there would be fewer criminals. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,148 #48 October 12, 2006 QuoteQuoteQuoteIt does seem like the Democrats are much more tolerant of immorality, especially among their elected representatives Or, perhaps they are less judgmental, and thus less likely to declare that someone is immoral. That's like saying if we had fewer laws, there would be fewer criminals. Hard to argue with that. We could almost empty our jails if we abandoned the idiotic cannabis laws laws.... 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
kallend 2,148 #49 October 12, 2006 QuoteQuoteQuoteIt does seem like the Democrats are much more tolerant of immorality, especially among their elected representatives Or, perhaps they are less judgmental, and thus less likely to declare that someone is immoral. Either way, the party of lower expectations... . Hmmm, been there before, haven't we?... 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
sundevil777 102 #50 October 12, 2006 Yes, we have, but it has such a nice ring to it. Actually, I keep thinking about a Saturday Night Live fake commercial for a dating service, it was for people that were not so attractive, I think it was called Lowered Expectations People are sick and tired of being told that ordinary and decent people are fed up in this country with being sick and tired. I’m certainly not, and I’m sick and tired of being told that I am Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
