NationStates Jolt Archive

You make the call! Either he's completely stupid or he's deliberately lying through his teeth. There isn't ANY other explanation.

Democratic National Committee chairman Howard Dean denied on Sunday that any Democrats had taken money from lobbyist Jack Abramoff, even though several top Democrats -- including Sen. Hillary Clinton -- have already announced they were giving their tainted Abramoff cash to charity.

That little detail didn't faze Dean, however -- who insisted with a straight face to CNN's Wolf Blitzer:

"There are no Democrats who took money from Jack Abramoff, not one, not one single Democrat. Every person named in this scandal is a Republican. Every person under investigation is a Republican. Every person indicted is a Republican.

Dean continued: "This is a Republican finance scandal. There is no evidence that Jack Abramoff ever gave any Democrat any money. And we've looked through all of those FEC reports to make sure that's true."

Last week, Sen. Clinton's office announced that she would be donating $2,000 of her Abramoff jackpot to charity. The Republican National Committee says she took a total of $12,900 in Abramoff-linked cash.

Other Democrats who have pledged to return tainted donations include Senators Tim Johnson and Barbara Mikulski -- as well as leading House Democrat Charles Rangel.

"Is Howard Dean An Idiot or a Liar?"

Yes.

I do so love a balanced and fair poll.

:rolleyes:

In case you're wondering who got money from Abramhoff...

http://www.capitaleye.org/abramoff_recips.asp?sort=N

Nice list there...

how come there isn't a poll option for both?

He is just a liar. He is a lunatic, like anyone to the far left in America, but mostly a liar. The Senate minority leader, Reid, took $66,000 from Abramoff.

Yeah, Howard Dean is f***ing stupid. I like how he's liberal on social policies, but he's just as corrupt as every other conservative when it comes to the economy.

Well he is a politician.

Hmmm the RNC is concerned about how much money she took? Have they posted the numbers their people took?

Come on, you can't ask that question and not have both as an option.

He's a liar, but no idiot. He knows how to play the political game, and is in a position where people in the Democratic party will listen to him...his position isn't threatened by anything he says so long as it hurts the other party in some way, and it may very well if the Democrats (inaccurately) spin it well.

Well he is a politician.

Hmmm the RNC is concerned about how much money she took? Have they posted the numbers their people took?

Here, go see how much EVERYONE took...

http://www.capitaleye.org/abramoff_recips.asp?sort=N

I do so love a balanced and fair poll.

:rolleyes:
Well, he could have added "A frackking wild man," and "Two sandwiches shy of a picnic," and lots of others. Would that make'um lil snookums feewl betta? :D

You make the call! Either he's completely stupid or he's deliberately lying through his teeth. There isn't ANY other explanation.

Democratic National Committee chairman Howard Dean denied on Sunday that any Democrats had taken money from lobbyist Jack Abramoff, even though several top Democrats -- including Sen. Hillary Clinton -- have already announced they were giving their tainted Abramoff cash to charity.

That little detail didn't faze Dean, however -- who insisted with a straight face to CNN's Wolf Blitzer:

"There are no Democrats who took money from Jack Abramoff, not one, not one single Democrat. Every person named in this scandal is a Republican. Every person under investigation is a Republican. Every person indicted is a Republican.

Dean continued: "This is a Republican finance scandal. There is no evidence that Jack Abramoff ever gave any Democrat any money. And we've looked through all of those FEC reports to make sure that's true."

Last week, Sen. Clinton's office announced that she would be donating $2,000 of her Abramoff jackpot to charity. The Republican National Committee says she took a total of $12,900 in Abramoff-linked cash.

Other Democrats who have pledged to return tainted donations include Senators Tim Johnson and Barbara Mikulski -- as well as leading House Democrat Charles Rangel.
Neither, just twisting like a rabid weasel, which he is. He didn't take any of Abramoff's personal contribution money. Instead he took lobbyist money, which technically isn't Jack Abramoffs.

In case you're wondering who got money from Abramhoff...

http://www.capitaleye.org/abramoff_recips.asp?sort=N

Nice list there...Here, go see how much EVERYONE took...

http://www.capitaleye.org/abramoff_recips.asp?sort=NJust for the Hell of it...why dont you post in for a third time on the same page...
just in case.. we migth have missed it...

:D :D :p :D

"There is no evidence that Jack Abramoff ever gave any Democrat any money"

this is true.

"The Republican National Committee says she took a total of $12,900 in Abramoff-linked cash."

this could maybe be spun to be true. it really depends on how close of a link you are willing to accept as counting as 'abramoff-linked'. anything direct from him went to republicans. anything direct from organizations he ran went to republicans. dems got stuff from groups that also gave to abramoff slush funds. dems got stuff from people who worked at the same place as abramoff.

abramoff was a bag man running money for the republican party. this scandal is a republican affair.

http://www.newsmeat.com/washington_political_donations/Jack_Abramoff.php

Just for the Hell of it...why dont you post in for a third time on the same page...
just in case.. we migth have missed it...

:D :D :p :D
That would technically be the 5th time since you quoted both.:p

abramoff was a bag man running money for the republican party. this scandal is a republican affair.
Nope, unuhh, nice try, thanks for playing. Come back when you have a clue.

Nope, unuhh, nice try, thanks for playing. Come back when you have a clue.

prove me wrong.

i'll even give you a starting ground:
abramoff's personal donations (http://www.newsmeat.com/washington_political_donations/Jack_Abramoff.php)

Well, he could have added "A frackking wild man," and "Two sandwiches shy of a picnic," and lots of others. Would that make'um lil snookums feewl betta? :D
Tell you what'd make me feel just swell there, Truss. You dropping the condescendtion and patronizing tone you're so piss-poor at affecting to any palpable effect.

prove me wrong.

i'll even give you a starting ground:
abramoff's personal donations (http://www.newsmeat.com/washington_political_donations/Jack_Abramoff.php)

Looks like you're right. Sw337.

prove me wrong.

i'll even give you a starting ground:
abramoff's personal donations (http://www.newsmeat.com/washington_political_donations/Jack_Abramoff.php)

Here's a more accurate list:

http://www.capitaleye.org/abramoff_recips.asp?sort=N

Here's a more accurate list:

http://www.capitaleye.org/abramoff_recips.asp?sort=N

now find me a single one of the dems on the list that got money from abramoff, and not directly from some indian tribe. go on, get cracking. oh, what's that? you can't? huh, weird.

abramoff was stealing from native americans and convincing them to donate to republicans, but not all donations from those tribes went through him.

I read somewhere that the contributions went 2-1 (Rep./Dem.).
I think this is a non partisan issue. Nail everyone of them and just once, to keep me satisfied, throw the book at them. Treat them like one of their constituents would be treated when they are sentenced for this sort of corruption.

BTW-Dean's an idiot. He just looks like a liar because he doesn't know what he's talking about. I also think he may be prescribing himself drugs. Remember the "Dean Scream". He was high on something.

That little detail didn't faze Dean, however -- who insisted with a straight face to CNN's Wolf Blitzer:

"There are no Democrats who took money from Jack Abramoff, not one, not one single Democrat. Every person named in this scandal is a Republican. Every person under investigation is a Republican. Every person indicted is a Republican.

Dean continued: "This is a Republican finance scandal. There is no evidence that Jack Abramoff ever gave any Democrat any money. And we've looked through all of those FEC reports to make sure that's true."


1. Please post evidence that your quote of Dean is accurate. Wording and context makes a big difference. For example, you are citing to a webpage as showing "who got money from Abramoff" when that is not actually what the webpage cites.

2. It is notworthy that you only challenge the veracity of Dean's first and seventh sentences.

3. All of Dean's other sentences are true.

4. The website you link to combines "political contributions from Abramoff, the tribes that hired him, and SunCruz Casinos, since 1999." It does not actually list money from Abramoff to the listed entities/candidates.

5. Can you prove that Dean's sentences as actually stated and in context are untrue?

I'm a die-hard democrat.... I don't like Dean.. He's an embarassment to the party as a whole...

condescendtion

condescension

Everyone misspeaks. Some are bigger than others -

Democratic Misspeak - "No Democrats took money from Abramoff."
Republican Misspeak - "Saddam Hussein has Weapons of Mass Destruction."
- "You Misunderestimated me."
- "We have an old saying in Tennessee - I know it's in Texas, it might be in Tennesee - fool me once, shame on... shame on me... fool me twice... you can't get fooled again."

Just to keep things in perspective.:p

1. Please post evidence that your quote of Dean is accurate. Wording and context makes a big difference.

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0601/08/le.01.html

5. Can you prove that Dean's sentences as actually stated and in context are untrue?

of course not. but only because the universe itself has a liberal bias.

Here's a more accurate list:
<snip>

Yes an accurate list of "Abramoff's lobbying, and political contributions from Abramoff, the tribes that hired him, and SunCruz Casinos, since 1999.

Bolded for your reading comprehension.

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0601/08/le.01.html

BLITZER: Should Democrats who took money from Jack Abramoff, who has now pleaded guilty to bribery charges, among other charges, a Republican lobbyist in Washington, should the Democrat who took money from him give that money to charity or give it back?

DEAN: There are no Democrats who took money from Jack Abramoff, not one, not one single Democrat. Every person named in this scandal is a Republican. Every person under investigation is a Republican. Every person indicted is a Republican. This is a Republican finance scandal. There is no evidence that Jack Abramoff ever gave any Democrat any money. And we've looked through all of those FEC reports to make sure that's true.

BLITZER: But through various Abramoff-related organizations and outfits, a bunch of Democrats did take money that presumably originated with Jack Abramoff.

DEAN: That's not true either. There's no evidence for that either. There is no evidence...

BLITZER: What about Senator Byron Dorgan?

DEAN: Senator Byron Dorgan and some others took money from Indian tribes. They're not agents of Jack Abramoff. There's no evidence that I've seen that Jack Abramoff directed any contributions to Democrats. I know the Republican National Committee would like to get the Democrats involved in this. They're scared. They should be scared. They haven't told the truth. They have misled the American people. And now it appears they're stealing from Indian tribes. The Democrats are not involved in this.

BLITZER: Unfortunately Mr. Chairman, we got to leave it right there.


It looks like Dean's overall point was true. It also appears that his individual statements may well be true. So, DK's premise is false.

Everyone misspeaks. Some are bigger than others -

Democratic Misspeak - "No Democrats took money from Abramoff."

hard to misspeak when the words you say are true. no democrat took money from abramoff, because abramoff wasn't offering any to them.

It looks like Dean's overall point was true. It also appears that his individual statements may well be true. So, DK's premise is false.
This surprises you how? ;)

Now all we have to do is figure out the abandon thread point where DK figures out that evidence is against him and sneaks out, never to post on this thread again.

hard to misspeak when the words you say are true. no democrat took money from abramoff, because abramoff wasn't offering any to them.

Deep Kimchi's own site confirms this if you sort by donor.

http://www.capitaleye.org/abramoff_donor.asp

Deep Kimchi's own site confirms this if you sort by donor.

http://www.capitaleye.org/abramoff_donor.asp
The question is what's the real scandal. That money was taken from Jack Abramoff, or that money was taken at all. Unless you're out going for a political hack-job the answer is B. In which case if you sort the donations you find that Senate donations reach near parity. the dems got about 93% of what the senate repubs got.



Oh, and we're up to eight.


And Dean's an idiot anyway for the following sentence: They're scared. They should be scared. They haven't told the truth. They have misled the American people. And now it appears they're stealing from Indian tribes. The Democrats are not involved in this.

The indian tribes knew where the money was going. I fail to see how it can be grokked as stealing.

This surprises you how? ;)

Now all we have to do is figure out the abandon thread point where DK figures out that evidence is against him and sneaks out, never to post on this thread again.

Don't forget the eventual bump after a few days with a post ignoring all of this.

I do so love a balanced and fair poll.

:rolleyes:

Especially since the post was based on flawed information.

Dean was right to say that no Democrat took money form Abermoff. Some got money from Abermoff clients, but to say that Democrats are as mired in this scandal as Republicans is rather like saying if you drive a Ford or take Bayer for headaches then you're as anti-semetic as Hitler (both of those companies gave money to Hitler), or if you listned to Michael Jackson in the 80's then you're a pedophile.

So I guess the poll should read

Is Deep Kimich an idiot or a liar?

Deep Kimchi's own site confirms this if you sort by donor.

http://www.capitaleye.org/abramoff_donor.asp

in fact, if you manually go through the whole thing (which i did, because i'm a data geek like that), you'd find that the only non-indian tribe donation that went to a dem was from suncruz casinos. suncruz once donated money to a dem who happens to also be a representative from florida, where the company is based.

Deep Kimchi's own site confirms this if you sort by donor.

http://www.capitaleye.org/abramoff_donor.asp

Wow, that guy sure knows how to bribe.

And it turns out that Dean is neither a liar or an idiot. Just a Democrat. Which is almost as bad.

Deep Kimchi's own site confirms this if you sort by donor.

http://www.capitaleye.org/abramoff_donor.asp
Huh, his own source was misrepresented. Who would have thought...


On a unrelated note, this is a cool name-
Saxby Chambliss
I don't know why, I just think it is. (It's on the list, I didn't just grab that out of nowhere..._

On a unrelated note, this is a cool name-
Saxby Chambliss
I don't know why, I just think it is.
The perfect porn name.

The indian tribes knew where the money was going. I fail to see how it can be grokked as stealing.

you haven't been following this scandal at all, have you? because large amounts of the money was going towards causes that hurt the tribes' interests. they were lied to, defrauded, and overcharged for nonexistant services that weren't rendered.

hard to misspeak when the words you say are true. no democrat took money from abramoff, because abramoff wasn't offering any to them.

Well then, as you were.:)

Is Deep Kimich an idiot or a liar?

ah, the 'inclusive or'

The perfect porn name.
I think you nailed it!

You make the call! Either he's completely stupid or he's deliberately lying through his teeth. There isn't ANY other explanation.

Democratic National Committee chairman Howard Dean denied on Sunday that any Democrats had taken money from lobbyist Jack Abramoff, even though several top Democrats -- including Sen. Hillary Clinton -- have already announced they were giving their tainted Abramoff cash to charity.

That little detail didn't faze Dean, however -- who insisted with a straight face to CNN's Wolf Blitzer:

"There are no Democrats who took money from Jack Abramoff, not one, not one single Democrat. Every person named in this scandal is a Republican. Every person under investigation is a Republican. Every person indicted is a Republican.

Dean continued: "This is a Republican finance scandal. There is no evidence that Jack Abramoff ever gave any Democrat any money. And we've looked through all of those FEC reports to make sure that's true."

Last week, Sen. Clinton's office announced that she would be donating $2,000 of her Abramoff jackpot to charity. The Republican National Committee says she took a total of $12,900 in Abramoff-linked cash.

Other Democrats who have pledged to return tainted donations include Senators Tim Johnson and Barbara Mikulski -- as well as leading House Democrat Charles Rangel.


No dice my man. Show me a link to any of the myriad of repos who've promised to give their Abramoff donations back. Show me a single dem congress person who's been brought up on charges for the kind of corruption that's rampant in the red party. Oh, wait, you can't, that's why you're flailing with this thread. Stop waisting your time here, you're useless!

I think you nailed it!
Pun not intended, I hope.

Don't forget the eventual bump after a few days with a post ignoring all of this.
Damn, I did forget to add that, didn't I?

Consider it added.

you haven't been following this scandal at all, have you? because large amounts of the money was going towards causes that hurt the tribes' interests. they were lied to, defrauded, and overcharged for nonexistant services that weren't rendered.
This is surprising when dealing with the contemporary US government why exactly?

It looks like Dean's overall point was true. It also appears that his individual statements may well be true. So, DK's premise is false.
Exactly.

So are any of the fuckheads who slandered Dean in this thread going to sack up and admit they got played by their own side? I doubt it.

So are any of the fuckheads who slandered Dean in this thread going to sack up and admit they got played by their own side? I doubt it.

maybe after they admit that it happened last time too. and the time before that. and before that.

you'd think they'd get sick of it eventually.

Exactly.

So are any of the fuckheads who slandered Dean in this thread going to sack up and admit they got played by their own side? I doubt it.
Not that I have to tell you, but I wouldn't hold my breath...



Why is a one sided poll public? For a record of whose got fishhooks in thier mouth?

Well? Deep Kimchi? Ravenshrike? Sel y Limon? Eutrusca? what about it? Or did everyone just decide to get off the board once they discovered that they'd been busted yet again?

Face it guys--you're so partisan that you'll buy anything your side sells, even when it's pure, unadulterated bullshit. Dean was right, and even though it may absolutely kill you to have to admit that fact, there is absolutely no denying it.

God, that must hurt most of all--knowing that the guy you love to mock owns you.

Well? Deep Kimchi? Ravenshrike? Sel y Limon? Eutrusca? what about it? Or did everyone just decide to get off the board once they discovered that they'd been busted yet again?

Face it guys--you're so partisan that you'll buy anything your side sells, even when it's pure, unadulterated bullshit. Dean was right, and even though it may absolutely kill you to have to admit that fact, there is absolutely no denying it.

God, that must hurt most of all--knowing that the guy you love to mock owns you.
Refutation doesn't matter, details don't matter, facts don't matter.

Accusations don't have to be true, they have to be repeated. Look at the responses from the people you listed, they weren't substantive.

What will happen is this-if there is a response at all it will be a separate accusation (and probably more than a few 'tsks' or fish whacking smileys). No real effort will be made to debate the subject.

Maybe a new thread will be made leveling the same claims, maybe they'll simply bump this one restating the original claim as if all this doesn't exist.

Then, later on during another debate, there will be a non-sequitur to this accusation as if it where the gospel truth. It will happen regardless of relevance. And as it's repeated often enough, and as the evidence of the case passes farther away, the more it will be regarded as true.

And the White Noise Machine will grind on...

Sadly, I think you're right, but until then, I plan on keeping this bumped and front-paged as long as I can, because I want them, and everyone else who wanders into the thread to know that they're full of shit and scared to sack up and admit when they got had.

And the White Noise Machine will grind on...
Only as loudly as its' allowed to. That you and I and others can cause that machine to shift pitch demonstrates it's not half as formidable a machine as it builds itself up to be.

Hawks and people who misspell every fifth word versus everything that isn't them. It's all predictable, past a certain point. If only we could arrive at some sort of abbreviated, symbolic exchange to satisfy this ritual - this nightly pantomime of ours - we'd all have more free time to grouse about our own particular interests. We could compress it, into some proscribed limited number of exchanges, perhaps make an artform of it.

Hmmm. *thinks*

Well? Deep Kimchi? Ravenshrike? Sel y Limon? Eutrusca? what about it? Or did everyone just decide to get off the board once they discovered that they'd been busted yet again?

Face it guys--you're so partisan that you'll buy anything your side sells, even when it's pure, unadulterated bullshit. Dean was right, and even though it may absolutely kill you to have to admit that fact, there is absolutely no denying it.

God, that must hurt most of all--knowing that the guy you love to mock owns you.

"T3H PWN3D" would be an appropriate phrase right now.

seriously, do they get off on playing patsy to their lying masters, or are they just too stupid to understand what's going on?

Especially since the post was based on flawed information.

Dean was right to say that no Democrat took money form Abermoff. Some got money from Abermoff clients, but to say that Democrats are as mired in this scandal as Republicans is rather like saying if you drive a Ford or take Bayer for headaches then you're as anti-semetic as Hitler (both of those companies gave money to Hitler), or if you listned to Michael Jackson in the 80's then you're a pedophile.

So I guess the poll should read

Is Deep Kimich an idiot or a liar?

Actually, he is a plagarist. As this article (http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2006/1/9/90733.shtml) from NewsMax is his post word for word. He merely added the first paragraph. DK did not attribute his source.

seriously, do they get off on playing patsy to their lying masters, or are they just too stupid to understand what's going on?
I don't think most of them are stupid. Some of them, like Eutrusca on this issue, are so invested in the idea that Dean is a fool that they'll swallow any talking point available as long as it makes him look bad. Some of them, like Sal y Limon, are so uninformed that they don't even get the talking points right. And then those like Deep Kimchi are deliberate liars, who will spout dishonest statements even in the face of contradictory evidence, and continue to do so. Deep Kimchi is the equivalent of Rush Limbaugh on Nationstates, only, I assume, without the oxycontin habit.

Reid’s Abramoff Affiliated Indian Tribe Money

SAGINAW CHIPPEWA INDIAN TRIBE
$10,000 2004
AGUA CALIENTE BAND OF CAHUILLA INDIANS
$2,000 2004
SAGINAW CHIPPEWA INDIAN TRIBE
$4,000 2004
AGUA CALIENTE BAND OF CAHUILLA INDIANS
$7,500 2004
MISSISSIPPI BAND OF CHOCTAW INDIANS
$2,000 2002
MISSISSIPPI BAND OF CHOCTAW INDIANS
$5,000 2004
SAGINAW CHIPPEWA INDIAN TRIBE
$10,000 2004
CHIMATCHA TRIBE OF LOUISIANA
$5,000 2002
SAGINAW CHIPPEWA INDIAN TRIBE
$5,000 2002

Sub Total $50,500

Reid's Abramoff Related Lobbying Firm Money:

GREENBERG TRAURIG
$3,000 2002
GREENBERG TRAURIG
$14,941 2004
PRESTON GATES
$500 1998

Sub Total $18,441

Grand Total - Reid Abramoff affiliate Money $68,941

Number of times The Nuzz has refered to fellow posters as "fuckheads" on this page: 1

Grow up. Your party is as scandal ridden as the republicans. Your a partisan hack, and a rude child.

Neither, just twisting like a rabid weasel, which he is. He didn't take any of Abramoff's personal contribution money. Instead he took lobbyist money, which technically isn't Jack Abramoffs.

At least you recognize that what Dean said was "technically" true.

It was also true in that Abramoff is a Republican boy and this is a Republican scandal.

Actually, he is a plagarist. As this article (http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2006/1/9/90733.shtml) from NewsMax is his post word for word. He merely added the first paragraph. DK did not attribute his source.
OOoooohhh...ouch...I guess starting off with "Democratic National Committee chairman Howard Dean..." and the rest of the tone should have been a dead giveaway.

Only as loudly as its' allowed to. That you and I and others can cause that machine to shift pitch demonstrates it's not half as formidable a machine as it builds itself up to be.
One can hope, but I've started to have the same relationship to the White Noise Machine as Yossarian had with Catch-22...

Reid’s Abramoff Affiliated Indian Tribe Money

SAGINAW CHIPPEWA INDIAN TRIBE
$10,000 2004
AGUA CALIENTE BAND OF CAHUILLA INDIANS
$2,000 2004
SAGINAW CHIPPEWA INDIAN TRIBE
$4,000 2004
AGUA CALIENTE BAND OF CAHUILLA INDIANS
$7,500 2004
MISSISSIPPI BAND OF CHOCTAW INDIANS
$2,000 2002
MISSISSIPPI BAND OF CHOCTAW INDIANS
$5,000 2004
SAGINAW CHIPPEWA INDIAN TRIBE
$10,000 2004
CHIMATCHA TRIBE OF LOUISIANA
$5,000 2002
SAGINAW CHIPPEWA INDIAN TRIBE
$5,000 2002

Sub Total $50,500

Reid's Abramoff Related Lobbying Firm Money:

GREENBERG TRAURIG
$3,000 2002
GREENBERG TRAURIG
$14,941 2004
PRESTON GATES
$500 1998

Sub Total $18,441

Grand Total - Reid Abramoff affiliate Money $68,941

Number of times The Nuzz has refered to fellow posters as "fuckheads" on this page: 1

Grow up. Your party is as scandal ridden as the republicans. Your a partisan hack, and a rude child.Number of dollars Abramoff gave to Reid--jack fucking zero. Game over, fuckhead.

Neither, just twisting like a rabid weasel, which he is. He didn't take any of Abramoff's personal contribution money. Instead he took lobbyist money, which technically isn't Jack Abramoffs.
I'm finding myself pleasantly surprised by your last few posts, Ravenshrike (this and other threads).
*bows*

Number of dollars Abramoff gave to Reid--jack fucking zero. Game over, fuckhead.
Number of times you have resulted to petulant child mode when faced with your own ignorance - two.

Keep up the good work.

Reid ultimately received more than $66,000 in Abramoff-related donations between 2001 and 2004.

Then he turned around and tried to kill indian casinos for Abramoff.

Bought and sold for $68,941 - One Democrat Senator.

Cheap.

The indian tribes knew where the money was going. I fail to see how it can be grokked as stealing.
Dean was probably referring to the other stuff Abramoff was doing, playing Indian tribes off each other when it came to lobbying for expanded gambling and taking money from both sides. This is the stuff that's reeling in people like Ralph Reed and Bob Ney.

I also think he may be prescribing himself drugs. Remember the "Dean Scream". He was high on something.
He wasn't high on life? :(
Heh
He was probably high in the way that most political figureheads get high - through the power of allegiant masses. He simply didn't have the discretion to laugh about it over a gin & tonic with the boys later ... it got the best of him. It could be that he has a personal issue with ALL of the evil, twisted f*ckturds that have SO embodied the republican party in the past few decades, and goshDARN it felt good to smack that bitch up. Shortlived as it was ....

This thread is awesome. Definitiely one of my faves.

Reid ultimately received more than $66,000 in Abramoff-related donations between 2001 and 2004.

Then he turned around and tried to kill indian casinos for Abramoff.

Bought and sold for $68,941 - One Democrat Senator.

Cheap.
Abramoff related donations? Is that anything like "weapons of mass destruction related activities?" They're just about as real.

The money Reid received came from Indian tribes. Whether Abramoff was working for those tribes on other issues is irrelevant. Dean said no Democrats had taken Abramoff money, and you and the other slanderers said they had. When faced with the facts that they hadn't, you come up with this two degrees of separation bullshit. Well it won't work. This is a republican scandal, pure and simple, and all your backfilling won't change a fucking thing.

Everyone misspeaks. Some are bigger than others -

Democratic Misspeak - "No Democrats took money from Abramoff."
Republican Misspeak - "Saddam Hussein has Weapons of Mass Destruction."
- "You Misunderestimated me."
- "We have an old saying in Tennessee - I know it's in Texas, it might be in Tennesee - fool me once, shame on... shame on me... fool me twice... you can't get fooled again."

Just to keep things in perspective.:p
Well when the republicans do it, it's strategery. :D

Yes an accurate list of "Abramoff's lobbying, and political contributions from Abramoff, the tribes that hired him, and SunCruz Casinos, since 1999.

Bolded for your reading comprehension.
UPHILL battle ;)

So I guess the poll should read

Is Deep Kimich an idiot or a liar?
How did Eutrusca put it?
What was it ... oh yeah,

"Yes."

maybe after they admit that it happened last time too. and the time before that. and before that.

you'd think they'd get sick of it eventually.
fundaMENTAL conserMASOCHISTives.

Actually, he is a plagarist. As this article (http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2006/1/9/90733.shtml) from NewsMax is his post word for word. He merely added the first paragraph. DK did not attribute his source.
Even MORE painful.

Deep Kimchi is the equivalent of Rush Limbaugh on Nationstates, only, I assume, without the oxycontin habit.
And it would appear after this thread, if DK did have the habit, it would be accomodated easily in the suppository form.

And it would appear after this thread, if DK did have the habit, it would be accomodated easily in the suppository form.
Oooooh. That's going to leave a mark. :D

Oooooh. That's going to leave a mark. :D
You could say DK's career is on the SKIDs.... :D

Then he turned around and tried to kill indian casinos for Abramoff.
The fact that Sen Reid recived money from tribes related to Abramoff is not in dispute (though as mentioned, he never recived money from the man directly); however, where do you find mention that Reid tried to kill Indian casinos for Abramoff?

I suppose it slipped you mind that Senator Reid is the senator from Nevada, y'know, Las Vegas and all that? Indian gaming has been making inroads into Nevada's casino take, and since that is what is powering Nevada's economy... gee, I wonder why he might work to limit Indian gaming.

I will not vote on this Poll, the answer is neither, I just dont agree with him or Kerry on the issues.

At least you recognize that what Dean said was "technically" true.

It was also true in that Abramoff is a Republican boy and this is a Republican scandal.
*shrugs* If you're willing to turn a blind eye to the inherent corruption that lobbying causes, than yes. Otherwise abramoff is just a bit-time player in a much larger game.

Actually, he is a plagarist. As this article (http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2006/1/9/90733.shtml) from NewsMax is his post word for word. He merely added the first paragraph. DK did not attribute his source.
If you assume he wrote what was there. I know you're not that stupid. For that matter, I doubt he expected us to think he wrote it. I could be wrong, but in all honesty do you really think that's the case?

Sorry I did not even read the thread just answerd the general question,
on the question of the thread, as I have posted before, are there no
Democrats in congress or anywhere in government who are croked, corrupt or dishonest only Republicans?

Sorry I did not even read the thread just answerd the general question,
on the question of the thread, as I have posted before, are there no
Democrats in congress or anywhere in government who are croked, corrupt or dishonest only Republicans?
I don't think anyone is arguing that there are no corrupt or crooked Democrats--that's ludicrous. But this thread is premised on a very specific circumstance involving a big time lobbyist who has just pled guilty to multiple fraud charges and who has said that he's cooperating in corruption investigations that, to this point, involve Republicans exclusively, and the fact that, despite the original poster's contentions, said lobbyist has given political contributions exclusively to Republicans.

"Is Howard Dean An Idiot or a Liar?"

Yes.

What he said.

For that matter, I doubt he expected us to think he wrote it. I could be wrong, but in all honesty do you really think that's the case?

Yes. Kimichi is notorious for his plagiarism.

Sorry I did not even read the thread just answerd the general question,
on the question of the thread, as I have posted before, are there no
Democrats in congress or anywhere in government who are croked, corrupt or dishonest only Republicans?
There most certainly are, however this is the discussion of a specific instance and a specific accusation. There are all kinds of bad or dishonest people of all stripes everywhere. However, one of the ways that they thrive is to excuse the actions of the ones that are caught with the notion that there is someone else out there who might be just as bad or worse. It is an all too common occourance where we see someones wrong doing excused at least once with a "Yeah, well so and so did something bad at such and such a time" or the even more vague "Well, they're all corrupt so..." as if we need to simply let it ride because there is corruption that maybe we're not catching.

That's like not punishing your kids for drawing on the wall because they most certainly have done things that their older brother may have done that you didn't catch.

So yes, there are corrupt and dishonest democrats. But that is not relevant to this case, and this is the case under discussion. Their existance doesn't nullify this, nor does it excuse the erronious accusation in the starting post. That's really the most important-an accusation was leveled that turned out to be untrue. The "well we can agree that there are some dishonest democrats" actually does not adress the error in the claim, it is a deflection, an attempt to avoid responsability for the claim.

Reid’s Abramoff Affiliated Indian Tribe Money

SAGINAW CHIPPEWA INDIAN TRIBE
$10,000 2004
AGUA CALIENTE BAND OF CAHUILLA INDIANS
$2,000 2004
SAGINAW CHIPPEWA INDIAN TRIBE
$4,000 2004
AGUA CALIENTE BAND OF CAHUILLA INDIANS
$7,500 2004
MISSISSIPPI BAND OF CHOCTAW INDIANS
$2,000 2002
MISSISSIPPI BAND OF CHOCTAW INDIANS
$5,000 2004
SAGINAW CHIPPEWA INDIAN TRIBE
$10,000 2004
CHIMATCHA TRIBE OF LOUISIANA
$5,000 2002
SAGINAW CHIPPEWA INDIAN TRIBE
$5,000 2002

Sub Total $50,500

Reid's Abramoff Related Lobbying Firm Money:

GREENBERG TRAURIG
$3,000 2002
GREENBERG TRAURIG
$14,941 2004
PRESTON GATES
$500 1998

Sub Total $18,441

Grand Total - Reid Abramoff affiliate Money $68,941

Number of times The Nuzz has refered to fellow posters as "fuckheads" on this page: 1

Grow up. Your party is as scandal ridden as the republicans. Your a partisan hack, and a rude child.

Your sources cited: 0

Amount of evidence that the Democrats are as "scandal ridden as the republicans": 0

Amount Abramoff raised for the Bush campaign: over $100,000.00

Amount wife to a former aide to DeLay received from Abramoff in exhange for attempts to help influence legislative outcomes: $50,000

Abramoff's bested buddy in Congress: Tom DeLay

Amount of evidence that Democrats took significant money from Abramoff: 0

It appears that you, Simon Y Limon, are the a partisan hack.

*shrugs* If you're willing to turn a blind eye to the inherent corruption that lobbying causes, than yes. Otherwise abramoff is just a bit-time player in a much larger game.

*sigh*

Yes, now that the Republicans are caught with their hands deep in the cookie jar, we hear laments about the "much larger" problem of the "inherent corruption" of lobbying.

Sorry, guys, but Abramoff isn't guilty to federal conspiracy charges and congressional influence peddling for normal lobbying activities.

Nor is Tom DeLay in trouble for normal practices.

There is a difference between obeying the law -- in however sleazy the manner -- and crossing the line into bribery and corruption.

Your sources cited: 0
Amount of evidence that the Democrats are as "scandal ridden as the republicans": 0
Amount of evidence that Democrats took significant money from Abramoff: 0

but, as already noted, that's unfair because of the inherent liberal bias of the universe. you can't expect them to deal in facts and legitimate sources when reality itself is biased against them.

Howard Dean is very politically savvy, but he is definitely a moron and liar....and I thought ol' Terry was bad.

Well? Deep Kimchi? Ravenshrike? Sel y Limon? Eutrusca? what about it? Or did everyone just decide to get off the board once they discovered that they'd been busted yet again?

Face it guys--you're so partisan that you'll buy anything your side sells, even when it's pure, unadulterated bullshit. Dean was right, and even though it may absolutely kill you to have to admit that fact, there is absolutely no denying it.

God, that must hurt most of all--knowing that the guy you love to mock owns you.

Along with Corny, those four are the most prominent members of NationState General's Bushevik Brigade. Their exceptional skills at fellating the Bush Adminstration with their attack posts are so pornographic, it puts Monica Lewinski to shame and could be considered Pay Per View.

Along with Corny, those four are the most prominent members of NationState General's Bushevik Brigade. Their exceptional skills at fellating the Bush Adminstration with their attack posts are so pornographic, it puts Monica Lewinski to shame and could be considered Pay Per View.
Devils in the blue dress
Or red-state dress, i guess ...
Hmmm, so pornographic that whenever *MOST* of their names pop up on a thread i'm INSTANTLY assaulted with a vision or two of bukkake as they wrench out talking point responses.

Guys... you've left the realm of debating the data as well as responding to the op, and have started personal smear attacks.

Not only does that warrent a lovely visit from the Mods, it also proves the quartet right in that this is personal; and lacking in intelligence.

Guys... you've left the realm of debating the data as well as responding to the op, and have started personal smear attacks.

Not only does that warrent a lovely visit from the Mods, it also proves the quartet right in that this is personal; and lacking in intelligence.

And a poll that asks "Is Howard Dean An Idiot or a Liar" isn't a smear attack?

As you can see, it is not just a Republican problem.

http://www.capitaleye.org/abramoff_recips.asp?sort=R

Don't bother reading this if you fear having your reality challenged.

And a poll that asks "Is Howard Dean An Idiot or a Liar" isn't a smear attack?
Perhaps it is... does that justify yours?

And a poll that asks "Is Howard Dean An Idiot or a Liar" isn't a smear attack?

True enough. It was definitely that.

Don't bother reading this if you fear having your reality challenged.

I see your link, and raise you:

http://www.capitaleye.org/abramoff_donor.asp

The only people to recieve money directly from Abramoff are Republican.

As you can see, it is not just a Republican problem.

http://www.capitaleye.org/abramoff_recips.asp?sort=R

Don't bother reading this if you fear having your reality challenged.

Of course when you click on the bars marked "Detail by Donor" and "Abramoff, Jack A and Pamela" it shows that every recepient was Republican. The Democrats received contributions from the various tribes.

Congratulations Comrade, you're part of the Bushevik Brigade as well.

:rolleyes:

And a poll that asks "Is Howard Dean An Idiot or a Liar" isn't a smear attack?
*sighs* It may be so, but...

1. Chairman Dean is a public figure, therefore inviting of a level of attacks. To state because Deep Kimchi attacked Dean, therefore it is open season on him and his ilk would be to say that if YOU insult President Bush (which you do often), Kimchi and Co. are cleared to attack YOU.

2. Personal attacks are against the rules of the forum, and seeing this locked would just prove Kimchi and Co. right, not to mention perhaps get you folks warned/banned.

3. *The teacher in me* Just because they do it, doesn't mean you get to.

*sighs* It may be so, but...

1. Chairman Dean is a public figure, therefore inviting of a level of attacks. To state because Deep Kimchi attacked Dean, therefore it is open season on him and his ilk would be to say that if YOU insult President Bush (which you do often), Kimchi and Co. are cleared to attack YOU.

2. Personal attacks are against the rules of the forum, and seeing this locked would just prove Kimchi and Co. right, not to mention perhaps get you folks warned/banned.

3. *The teacher in me* Just because they do it, doesn't mean you get to.

1. This is a public board, so theoretically everyone hwo posts is a public figure open to attack. And unlike their lot, I don't whine to the mods when I get personally attacked on the boards. And I fail to see how referring them by their political affilitation with Bush (which they take much pride in) is construed a personal attack on them.

2. They've continually posted personal attacks on prominent Democratic figures, Michael Moore and Cindy Sheehan for God knows how long and they've never been locked, warned or banned. And frankly they could care less.

3. I also don't claim to be morally superior to anyone in the first place. They'll keep doing it whether or not someone tells them not to and frankly I feel I have a right to express my opinion counter to theirs.

As you can see, it is not just a Republican problem.

http://www.capitaleye.org/abramoff_recips.asp?sort=R

Don't bother reading this if you fear having your reality challenged.
Didn't read the thread, didya?

As you can see, it is not just a Republican problem.

http://www.capitaleye.org/abramoff_recips.asp?sort=R

Don't bother reading this if you fear having your reality challenged.

whoa, deja vu. i feel as if this had already been covered. like we already pointed out something obvious about this list...

it also proves the quartet right in that this is personal; and lacking in intelligence.
No it doesn't. NOTHING is going in the way of proving the quartet "correct"; it most certainly frames them "right".
It doesn't work that way that anything anyone else does just makes them more right, especially if they weren't to begin with.

Of course when you click on the bars marked "Detail by Donor" and "Abramoff, Jack A and Pamela" it shows that every recepient was Republican. The Democrats received contributions from the various tribes.
:rolleyes:

Of course if you believe that the donations from the Indian tribes and casino's (obtained by clicking on the bars marked "Detail by Donor" and any indian tribe listed) that DID donate to DEMOCRATS were not related to abramoff, than you are DELUSIONAL!!!. Democrats did accept money from Abramoff. Your research is very Mooreskian. Direct donations from Abramoff did go to only republicans, however democrats took money from PAC's that he lobbied for meaning that they had direct dealing with him too. Both were wrong, and neither gets off the hook because the other did it. And they thought McCain-Fiengold would take the money out of politics...idiots!

Under the heading, "to candidate". Try looking down that one and you will find that there are Democrats directly lined up at the swill trough as well. Remove the rose colored glasses and the horse blinders first and really look at it.

Like the sound of that actually. Hmmm. Bolshevik Brigade. Way cool.

Might I suggest that we have many Libertarian Lunatics out there too?
Name calling begets name calling. And so on and so forth. World without end, amen.

No it doesn't. NOTHING is going in the way of proving the quartet "correct"; it most certainly frames them "right".
It doesn't work that way that anything anyone else does just makes them more right, especially if they weren't to begin with.
Oh? The standard defence of these folks is to accuse their attackers of being personal and not addressing the facts of the case. With some of the quotes above, including ones denoting blow jobs, they can toss those at you time and time and time again.

As they have before in many threads.

It doesn't make them right in the sense of the op suddenly becoming correct, but it DOES provide a nice smoke screen to hide behind while proclaiming how shocked, shocked, they are at the personal attacks of the (insert standard demeaning ajtv here) Left.

Which is why I bought it up in the first place as this thread will once more fall into endless rounds of name calling with both sides claiming to be injured and the actual debate is lost.

And it's played right into the hands of those who WOULD like this hidden. Congratulations the lot of you.

Dems who took money from "Indian Tribes" (aka. Jack Abramoff)

Barney Frank (D-Mass) Mississippi Band of Choctaw Indians $2,100 (2006)
Frank Pallone, Jr (D-NJ) Mississippi Band of Choctaw Indians $2,100 (2006)
Joe Baca (D-Calif) Mississippi Band of Choctaw Indians $2,000 (2006)
Nick Rahall (D-WVa) Mississippi Band of Choctaw Indians $2,000 (2006)
Searchlight Leadership Fund, Leadership PAC of Harry Reid (D-Nev) Mississippi Band of Choctaw Indians $5,000 2004
Rhode Island PAC, Leadership PAC of Patrick J. Kennedy (D-RI) Mississippi Band of Choctaw Indians $5,000 2004
DASHPAC, Leadership PAC of Tom Daschle (D-SD) Mississippi Band of Choctaw Indians $5,000 2004
Barney Frank (D-Mass) Mississippi Band of Choctaw Indians $4,000 2004
Brad R. Carson (D-Okla) Mississippi Band of Choctaw Indians $4,000 2004
Charles B. Rangel (D-NY) Mississippi Band of Choctaw Indians $4,000 2004
Democratic National Cmte Mississippi Band of Choctaw Indians $15,000 2004
National Leadership PAC, Leadership PAC of Charles B. Rangel (D-NY) Mississippi Band of Choctaw Indians $10,000 2004

And this is only two years worth of donations from ONE tribe (in the interest of disclosure this tribe also donated plenty to the republicans during this same time) But remember, none of the money actually came "directly from Abramoff" so obviously the Democrats did nothing wrong....after all, they never do.

You gotta love these numbers.

Democratic Senatorial Campaign Cmte $423,480 $207,980 $121,500 $0 $0
Democratic Congressional Campaign Cmte $354,700 $261,200 $16,000 $0 $0
Democratic National Cmte $65,720 $40,000 $720 $0 $0

Let he that is without sin cast the first stone.

Of course if you believe that the donations from the Indian tribes and casino's (obtained by clicking on the bars marked "Detail by Donor" and any indian tribe listed) that DID donate to DEMOCRATS were not related to abramoff, than you are DELUSIONAL!!!. Democrats did accept money from Abramoff. Your research is very Mooreskian. Direct donations from Abramoff did go to only republicans, however democrats took money from PAC's that he lobbied for meaning that they had direct dealing with him too. Both were wrong, and neither gets off the hook because the other did it. And they thought McCain-Fiengold would take the money out of politics...idiots!

*ahem*

give me the names of the indian tribes that are implicated as being at fault in the abramoff scandal (as opposed to being the victims of it). then show me which democrats they donated to as part of a large-scale campaign of bribery and money laundering.

the issue is not tribal donations. the growing corruption scandal is the issue, and it is a republicans-only affair, because it was being run by and for republicans.

Oh? The standard defence of these folks is to accuse their attackers of being personal and not addressing the facts of the case. With some of the quotes above, including ones denoting blow jobs, they can toss those at you time and time and time again.

As they have before in many threads.

It doesn't make them right in the sense of the op suddenly becoming correct, but it DOES provide a nice smoke screen to hide behind while proclaiming how shocked, shocked, they are at the personal attacks of the (insert standard demeaning ajtv here) Left.

Which is why I bought it up in the first place as this thread will once more fall into endless rounds of name calling with both sides claiming to be injured and the actual debate is lost.

And it's played right into the hands of those who WOULD like this hidden. Congratulations the lot of you.
Well your last line sounds a bit conspiratorial, but i'll just let that keep the air of the post unfettered.
I agree with the earlier part where you mention smoke screen ... and i do understand where you're coming from. This thread has a lot of bouncy-bouncy to it, but i don't think you're going to hear much from the dem/centrist/indep side about being "injured" or that the debate is lost TO them ... even if it does go into nothing but flaming and a lock occurs.
Quite frankly, it would seem that the OP title is somewhat sagacious, as the reasons i'd alluded to earlier about his scream ...
It feels pretty good to some people to be as right as they are about something they've been being sh*t on about for such a long time.
I'm personally of the opinion that they can dish it out, and it'll die when some other thread with a different kind of integrity pops up.

Like the sound of that actually. Hmmm. Bolshevik Brigade. Way cool.

Might I suggest that we have many Libertarian Lunatics out there too?
Name calling begets name calling. And so on and so forth. World without end, amen.
Actually both of those are good. 'cept of course, you got Bushevik wrong.

To think the sticks and stones adage ...
this is a forum where IT'S ALL WORDS!!!
Some obviously have thicker membranes than others.

Dems who took money from "Indian Tribes" (aka. Jack Abramoff)

Barney Frank (D-Mass) Mississippi Band of Choctaw Indians $2,100 (2006)
Frank Pallone, Jr (D-NJ) Mississippi Band of Choctaw Indians $2,100 (2006)
Joe Baca (D-Calif) Mississippi Band of Choctaw Indians $2,000 (2006)
Nick Rahall (D-WVa) Mississippi Band of Choctaw Indians $2,000 (2006)
Searchlight Leadership Fund, Leadership PAC of Harry Reid (D-Nev) Mississippi Band of Choctaw Indians $5,000 2004
Rhode Island PAC, Leadership PAC of Patrick J. Kennedy (D-RI) Mississippi Band of Choctaw Indians $5,000 2004
DASHPAC, Leadership PAC of Tom Daschle (D-SD) Mississippi Band of Choctaw Indians $5,000 2004
Barney Frank (D-Mass) Mississippi Band of Choctaw Indians $4,000 2004
Brad R. Carson (D-Okla) Mississippi Band of Choctaw Indians $4,000 2004
Charles B. Rangel (D-NY) Mississippi Band of Choctaw Indians $4,000 2004
Democratic National Cmte Mississippi Band of Choctaw Indians $15,000 2004
National Leadership PAC, Leadership PAC of Charles B. Rangel (D-NY) Mississippi Band of Choctaw Indians $10,000 2004

And this is only two years worth of donations from ONE tribe (in the interest of disclosure this tribe also donated plenty to the republicans during this same time) But remember, none of the money actually came "directly from Abramoff" so obviously the Democrats did nothing wrong....after all, they never do.
Two points--the bolded one first. No one is suggesting that there's anything wrong with taking money in the form of political donations from Indian tribes, regardless of political affiliation, not even you. What Abramoff is accused of doing involves bribery and illegal lobbying practices. To attempt to tie in legal political donations is bullshit.

Secondly, as I and others have noted, no one here is suggesting that Democrats are corruption free. We're only saying that in this very limited context, Dean was right when he said that Democrats had not taken money from Abramoff, as opposed to the libelous statements made by the original poster and some of his cohorts in this thread.

And a poll that asks "Is Howard Dean An Idiot or a Liar" isn't a smear attack?
I know--I did a similar thread a few months back that asked essentially the same question of Rush Limbaugh, and it got locked as flamebait within twenty minutes.

To be sure, I'm not claiming there's some conservative bias among the mods--they've always been fair in my experience. That thread got tagged and this one didn't, but to NERVUN all I can say is that the statements I made about the attitudes of other posters toward this subject are accurate. If they come off as an attack, that's regrettable, but I feel I get attacked by some of those posters every day I'm on this forum and don't complain about it, and as long as they don't complain, I don't see a problem.

Of course, since all but Sal y Limon have deserted the thread, that's really a moot point.

why isn't there an option to say he's an idiot and a liar?

What I love is that the Republicans (not conservatives, we need those) like to think that just because some Democrats are goofy, or corrupt, or liars, somehow makes them even close to the horrible state the Republican party has sunk to. Simps.

*ahem*

give me the names of the indian tribes that are implicated as being at fault in the abramoff scandal (as opposed to being the victims of it). then show me which democrats they donated to as part of a large-scale campaign of bribery and money laundering.

the issue is not tribal donations. the growing corruption scandal is the issue, and it is a republicans-only affair, because it was being run by and for republicans.
Of course, their talking points STILL haven't come in clear on this one.
Tick-tock.

Of course, their talking points STILL haven't come in clear on this one.
Tick-tock.
And none of the originals have come back to defend their talking points either. I don't blame them--I wouldn't want to either, not after a whupping like this one.

And none of the originals have come back to defend their talking points either. I don't blame them--I wouldn't want to either, not after a whupping like this one.

They all try to emulate Shrub's traits. Including that pathological inability to admit they fucked up.

Actually both of those are good. 'cept of course, you got Bushevik wrong.

To think the sticks and stones adage ...
this is a forum where IT'S ALL WORDS!!!
Some obviously have thicker membranes than others.

Excuse me for trying to deal with issues instead of simply resorting to name calling for it's own sake.

Membrane. Nice touch. Almost too subtle.

Might I suggest that you turn off CNN once in a while? Reverse osmosis is no way to get your news.

Excuse me for trying to deal with issues instead of simply resorting to name calling for it's own sake.

Membrane. Nice touch. Almost too subtle.

Might I suggest that you turn off CNN once in a while? Reverse osmosis is no way to get your news.
You can go ahead and suggest it, since i don't watch it. In turn, might i suggest that you turn off FauX "News" once in a while?
Same reason, same implication, same effect methinks.
You don't know me and that was a frankly pathetic attempt at ... well, what?
And since you're shootin' blanks on that, what exactly was subtle about membrane? Come, come, professor ... let's all bask in the warm glow of our CRT's warming glow.

EDIT: Since you missed it once, i'll point it out for you.

Along with Corny, those four are the most prominent members of NationState General's Bushevik Brigade. Their exceptional skills at fellating the Bush Adminstration with their attack posts are so pornographic, it puts Monica Lewinski to shame and could be considered Pay Per View.

And then YOU wrote a "__________ Brigade". Since i don't want to PRESUME TOO much, i'll let you fill in that blank. So i'll just remind you that it's RIGHT above here, say back a post or two, what you wrote in error.
So go lecture yourself about accuracy. Your feints at criticism don't even start right. That must be kind of humiliating, but hey, some people make more mistakes more often than others.
Also, the only CNN i've watched in the past year was the Best o'2005, and i clicked on when the first lady, in all her tact, was talking about how her husband had come a long way since he started on the ranch ... trying to milk a male horse. It's a good thing that reference is easy to find, on things OTHER THAN CNN!!! Yay!!

You can go ahead and suggest it, since i don't watch it. In turn, might i suggest that you turn of FauX "News" once in a while?
Same reason, same implication, same effect methinks.
You don't know me and that was a frankly pathetic attempt at ... well, what?
And since you're shootin' blanks on that, what exactly was subtle about membrane? Come, come, professor ... let's all bask in the warm glow of our CRT's warming glow.
wow, you are good at the insults.... very subtle ones too
:golfclap:

wow, you are good at the insults.... very subtle ones too
:golfclap:
Why don't they make a friggin' emoticon for golfclap?
BTW, read the above post edit. It factors in for Johnnies-come-lately.

Why don't they make a friggin' emoticon for golfclap?
BTW, read the above post edit. It factors in for Johnnies-come-lately.
I did read it.... I still think that your posts come across with barely veiled hostility. Scratch that... you aren't even trying to veil it.

And none of the originals have come back to defend their talking points either. I don't blame them--I wouldn't want to either, not after a whupping like this one.
Amen to that, bruddah. *bows*

I did read it.... I still think that your posts come across with barely veiled hostility. Scratch that... you aren't even trying to veil it.
Well, sometimes you're right about that, sometimes i do bother to veil hostility. Sometimes other people beat me to it. So, since you read it do you understand that Myotinisia is attacking me because he MISSED "Bushevik Brigade", and i pointed it out, even though I HADN'T EVEN MADE THE COMMENT IN THE FIRST PLACE? It's amazing how many things have to be repeated here to catapult the propaganda.

Usually you can see a response in proportion to factual integrity of the other poster. Other times it's just one of my two times of the month.
BTW, it's funny you mention "Scratch that" ... Daily Show JUST had the part about Orrin "Scratch" Hatch. Neato burrito.

this poll makes me want to throw up.



no, there's nothing else to it. I just want to puke.

this poll makes me want to throw up.



no, there's nothing else to it. I just want to puke.
Well, at least it meets the emetic requirements.
Better than indifference.
BTW, can you funk out some Mellowship Slinky in B Minor?
It might liven the thread up ... give it a soundtrack!

this is a bad day for republican propaganda. :D

this is a bad day for republican propaganda. :D
Looks to be a bad week or three for republican propaganda.
The facts are gonna be talking points, oh yeah! I can't really think of anything more damaging to their goddamned machine.

Lame poll.

Looks to be a bad week or three for republican propaganda.
The facts are gonna be talking points, oh yeah! I can't really think of anything more damaging to their goddamned machine.


I'm loving it. I'd be very interested to see what a GOP house cleaning would look like and what the new structure might look like.

I hope the Dems do something similar as well actually.

I'm loving it. I'd be very interested to see what a GOP house cleaning would look like and what the new structure might look like.

I hope the Dems do something similar as well actually.
Seconded. *bows*
Perhaps, more INDEPENDENTS?
And to be fair, i'm sure a few more Libertarians.

Seconded. *bows*
Perhaps, more INDEPENDENTS?
And to be fair, i'm sure a few more Libertarians.
As long as we get some Greens to balance that out. Imagine-no party 'in power' and if anything is going to get done actual debate would have to be had...so people say that I'm a dreamer...

As long as we get some Greens to balance that out. Imagine-no party 'in power' and if anything is going to get done actual debate would have to be had...so people say that I'm a dreamer...
My apologies. I should've included the Greens.
I think that environmental concerns are ABSOLUTELY important in any management arrangement involving corporations, and as long as the US remains this form of capitalism, it seems ever more vital.
And note - i'm not using this opportunity to prompt reposts of my own regarding climate issues.

Last smack before bed ...

*ahem*

Blunt, DeLay Shared Similar Connections
By LARRY MARGASAK , 01.11.2006, 02:27 AM

Rep. Roy Blunt and the man he wants to succeed as House majority leader, Tom DeLay, shared similar connections to convicted lobbyist Jack Abramoff and to corporate lobbyists.

Blunt, R-Mo., wrote at least three letters helpful to Abramoff clients while collecting money from them. He swapped donations between his and DeLay's political groups, ultimately enriching the Missouri political campaign of his son Matt.

And Blunt's wife and another son, Andrew, lobby for many of the same companies that donate to the lawmaker's political efforts.

With House Republicans worried about a budding corruption scandal tied to Abramoff's favors to lawmakers, DeLay, R-Texas, announced Saturday he would not try to regain his majority leader's post in upcoming party elections.

DeLay was forced to step down last year under party rules, after he was charged with Texas felonies in a state money laundering investigation. Blunt has temporarily filled the position and now is competing to be DeLay's permanent replacement.

Blunt's own connections to Abramoff or his clients could complicate GOP plans to distance its leadership from the corruption investigation before the fall elections for control of Congress.

Abramoff pleaded guilty last week to felony charges and is cooperating with investigators whose bribery probe is now focusing on several members of Congress and their aides. As the Abramoff investigation has developed, many lawmakers have said they will donate to charity campaign contributions related to the disgraced lobbyist.

The board of Blunt's Rely On Your Beliefs Fund has voted to contribute to charity an amount equivalent to Abramoff's personal contributions, $8,500, according to Blunt spokeswoman Burson Taylor.

Blunt and DeLay and their aides frequently met with Abramoff's lobbying team and even jointly signed a letter supportive of an Indian tribe client at the heart of the Abramoff criminal investigation, according to records published by The Associated Press over the past year.

Blunt's office says all of his dealings were proper.

"Mr. Blunt has never been accused of engaging in any legislative activities on Jack Abramoff's behalf," Taylor said.

Blunt's main competitor for the House majority leader's post is Rep. John Boehner, R-Ohio, chairman of the House committee that oversees education and labor.

Boehner in 1996 admitted he distributed a tobacco political action committee's campaign checks on the House floor, but said at the time he would never do it again. He served in the House leadership in the 1990s, but lost his post after the party suffered losses in the 1998 elections.

Thomas Mann, who studies congressional issues for the Brookings Institution think tank, said Republican leaders' hardball tactics in getting legislation passed and their alliances with special interests during a decade of congressional rule are now being scrutinized by voters.

"It's been smash-mouth politics," Mann said in an interview. "They've been tough and effective in enacting their polices and they're paying a price right now for it."

Larry Sabato, a University of Virginia political scientist and author, said Blunt's name doesn't have the same nationwide recognition as other GOP leaders, and one way he could shed any ethical questions would be to support lobbying reforms.

Blunt, in a written statement, pledged to do just that.

He said that if elected leader, he would "move swiftly to enact new lobbying reforms and enhanced penalties for those who break the public trust."

Texas prosecutors recently subpoenaed records of a series of financial transactions in 2000 between DeLay and Blunt that were highlighted in a recent AP story.

DeLay raised more money than he needed to throw parties at the 2000 Republican National Convention and sent some of the excess to Blunt through a series of donations that benefited the causes of both men.

After transfers between political organizations, some of the money went to the campaign of Blunt's son, Matt, in his successful 2000 campaign for secretary of state. Now the Republican governor of Missouri, Matt Blunt eventually received more than $160,000 in 2000.

Taylor, the Blunt spokeswoman, denied that DeLay raised excess money for the purpose of transferring it to Blunt. Rather, she said, the convention fundraising was a joint effort between DeLay and Blunt all along.

She said Blunt's Rely On Your Beliefs Fund contributes annually to the Missouri Republican Party, but doesn't specify how the money should be spent.

"It stands to reason that the party committee would contribute to a Republican candidate for statewide office, in this case, Matt Blunt," Taylor said.

Both DeLay and Blunt forged strong connections with corporate lobbyists, raising questions of whether the lobbyists influenced legislation in return for their contributions. DeLay was admonished in 2004 by the House ethics committee for creating the appearance of connecting energy industry donations with legislation.

Blunt's wife, Abigail Perlman, is a lobbyist for Kraft Foods, part of Altria, the company that also includes Philip Morris. The parent firm and its companies have contributed nearly $224,000 to Blunt's political organizations since 2001, according to figures compiled by a campaign finance tracking firm, Political MoneyLine.

Blunt's supporters also included companies that have been clients of another of Blunt's sons, Andrew. He lobbies the Missouri legislature.

"He and Mr. Blunt have no contact on legislative issues," Taylor said of the father-son relationship.

She added, "Mrs. Blunt does not lobby the House of Representatives, and Mr. Blunt would recuse himself from voting or working on any issue that would impact Altria specifically."

Shortly after Blunt became the party whip in 2002, he tried to quietly insert a provision benefiting Philip Morris USA into the bill creating the Homeland Security Department.

Taylor said the provision would have cracked down on the illegal sale of contraband cigarettes, a documented source of funding for terrorist organizations. Bipartisan legislation to achieve the same result has passed as part of the USA Patriot Act, she said.

In his ties to Abramoff, Blunt was among nearly three dozen members of Congress, including leaders from both parties, who pressed the government to block a Louisiana Indian tribe from opening a casino. The lawmakers received donations from rival tribes and their lobbyist, Abramoff, around the same time.

Blunt received a $1,000 donation from Abramoff and $2,000 from his lobbying firm around the time of a May 2003 letter he wrote to Interior Secretary Gale Norton on the casino matter. A month later he signed another letter on the issue along with DeLay and House Speaker Dennis Hastert, R-Ill.

Taylor responded that Blunt "has a long history of opposition to Indian gaming. His district, which includes Branson, Missouri, is fundamentally opposed to the expansion of gaming, and he reflects that broad opinion."

She said Blunt signed the letters to Norton at the request of Rep. Jim McCrery, R-La., not Abramoff.

"It is also very important to note that Mr. Blunt does not accept campaign contributions from Indian gaming interests, so any 'quid pro quo' argument is baseless here," Taylor added.

In spring 2000, an Abramoff client accused of running a sweatshop garment factory in the Northern Mariana Islands donated $3,000 to Blunt's political organization. The company, Concorde Garment Manufacturing, paid a $9 million penalty to the U.S. government in the 1990s for failing to pay workers overtime. The company was visited by DeLay.
-------

Well, you know what to do ... and you know when to do it. *BEEP* :sniper:

As long as we get some Greens to balance that out. Imagine-no party 'in power' and if anything is going to get done actual debate would have to be had...so people say that I'm a dreamer...


you're not the only one

you're not the only one
I hope someday that others will join us. :D

prove me wrong.

i'll even give you a starting ground:
abramoff's personal donations (http://www.newsmeat.com/washington_political_donations/Jack_Abramoff.php)

Wow, it just looks like they cut out all of the Democrates that got the money.

Wow, it just looks like they cut out all of the Democrates that got the money.

Survey says...

XXX!!

Abramoff contributed jack shit to Democrats. Those contribution you wish made Democrats just as crooked as the Republicans were from Native American tribes unaffiliated with Abramoff other than as clients/victims.

Wow, it just looks like they cut out all of the Democrates that got the money.
This, my friends, is a classic example of cognitive dissonance. When faced with evidence that disrupts the subject's worldview, the subject, rather than modify its worldview, expects that there is some error or conspiracy.

This, my friends, is a classic example of cognitive dissonance. When faced with evidence that disrupts the subject's worldview, the subject, rather than modify its worldview, expects that there is some error or conspiracy.

but you have to be impressed by the amount of mileage they seem to get running on nothing except that paranoid resolution to nearly perpetual dissonance from reality trying to get in.

This, my friends, is a classic example of cognitive dissonance. When faced with evidence that disrupts the subject's worldview, the subject, rather than modify its worldview, expects that there is some error or conspiracy.
If you don't ALREADY have this saved as a quick response, i HIGHLY recommend doing so. I there have been MANY threads/posts that have earned it, and i'm pretty sure there'll be many more.
*bows*

but you have to be impressed by the amount of mileage they seem to get running on nothing except that paranoid resolution to nearly perpetual dissonance from reality trying to get in.
The same goes for this one.
*bows*

This, my friends, is a classic example of cognitive dissonance. When faced with evidence that disrupts the subject's worldview, the subject, rather than modify its worldview, expects that there is some error or conspiracy.
The machine at work. All they have to do is keep repeating it. Just as my music instructor used to say, "Practice doesn't make permanent, not perfect." Repetition may not make truth, but it will make the idea stick regardless of it. They don't have to refute it, no ones listening to that, they have to repeat it enough that people believe it. Learning the truth takes too much effort.

Which granted is being countered pretty well here, despite my cynicism. Now if we can spread this...

The machine at work. All they have to do is keep repeating it. Just as my music instructor used to say, "Practice doesn't make permanent, not perfect." Repetition may not make truth, but it will make the idea stick regardless of it. They don't have to refute it, no ones listening to that, they have to repeat it enough that people believe it. Learning the truth takes too much effort.

Which granted is being countered pretty well here, despite my cynicism. Now if we can spread this...

And only 52 or so people voted on this, including some of the brand name Busheviks as compared to the Bush Impeachment Poll which numbers at least in the 350+ category.

Says much about what the majority of posters think huh?

:D

And only 52 or so people voted on this, including some of the brand name Busheviks as compared to the Bush Impeachment Poll which numbers at least in the 350+ category.

Says much about what the majority of posters think huh?

:DI think it shows that despite the right's great efforts to paint Dean as a commie-liberal-MichaelMoore-homolover-antiAmerican-atheist-abortionist, most people either see through it or don't know who he is. Bush, on the other hand, everyone knows, and it's easy to see the effect of his policies on the US and the world at large.

The machine at work. All they have to do is keep repeating it. Just as my music instructor used to say, "Practice doesn't make permanent, not perfect." Repetition may not make truth, but it will make the idea stick regardless of it. They don't have to refute it, no ones listening to that, they have to repeat it enough that people believe it. Learning the truth takes too much effort.

Which granted is being countered pretty well here, despite my cynicism. Now if we can spread this...
AGAIN, this seems like the right place, time, coordinates & context for this.

"See in my line of work you got to keep repeating things over and over and over again for the truth to sink in, to kind of catapult the propaganda."
George W. Bush,
Tuesday, May 24, 2005


...i'd like to thank The Academy for making this special moment possible.

Here is an idea our political leaders are for sale and have been for a long time.

Wow, it just looks like they cut out all of the Democrates that got the money.
Yeah, it would appear that in the same swath they excluded
Sophocles,
Hippocrates,
Pericles and
Demosthenes.
Just no journalistic integrity there. Bastards.

AGAIN, this seems like the right place, time, coordinates & context for this.

"See in my line of work you got to keep repeating things over and over and over again for the truth to sink in, to kind of catapult the propaganda."
George W. Bush,
Tuesday, May 24, 2005


...i'd like to thank The Academy for making this special moment possible.
And some people think I just pulled the idea of a "White Noise Machine" out of nowhere...

Here is an idea our political leaders are for sale and have been for a long time.
Wow, you've got
HUGE
tracts of land!!!

Well that's certainly a nihilistic point of view, which, as you know, is close to communism. And you know what the right wing thinks of communism.
And before you argue about that, do yourself the favour of looking up "nihilism" so i won't have to.
Yes, murder's been on sale and has been on sale for a long time. And for some reason, NONE BEFORE YOURSELF *ever* brought it to the forefront of our attention and concern! Thanks!! Knowing is half the battle!!
Well, it is a forum :rolleyes:

Here is an idea our political leaders are for sale and have been for a long time.
First, size and font do not make a statement profound.

Second, the idea isn't even new to this thread and has already been addressed.

And some people think I just pulled the idea of a "White Noise Machine" out of nowhere...
Isn't there actually a publication by that title?
I haven't read it. Actually, i haven't read a lot of things. I just have an excellently accurate horoscope ... usually.

First, size and font do not make a statement profound.

Second, the idea isn't even new to this thread and has already been addressed.
I mean, if only he'd changed the color of the font, that would have made a difference.

Isn't there actually a publication by that title?
I haven't read it. Actually, i haven't read a lot of things. I just have an excellently accurate horoscope ... usually.
I'll look. That'd be both kick ass and depressing, because it would mean that I'm not the only one who sees it, but also that I didn't get to coin the name...but the last part wasn't likely anyway so I'm cool...

I mean, if only he'd changed the color of the font, that would have made a difference.
Damned right it would!!! ;)
He should've considered a nice persimmon, periwinkle or a fuchsia with a trim of burnt sienna.
Yes, that would have driven home the point rather nicely!

I'll look. That'd be both kick ass and depressing, because it would mean that I'm not the only one who sees it, but also that I didn't get to coin the name...but the last part wasn't likely anyway so I'm cool...
If it makes you feel any better as far as original ideas go, remember that there are 5 different patented kinds of hand farts. I'm not kidding.
Unfortunately, it's REALLY hard to get some patents. There's a lot of 'em.

Isn't there actually a publication by that title?
I haven't read it. Actually, i haven't read a lot of things. I just have an excellently accurate horoscope ... usually.
David Brock wrote a book titled "The Republican Noise Machine"--you may be thinking of that one.

I mean, if only he'd changed the color of the font, that would have made a difference.
hehe, I know that red says to me, "Hey, this is an idea I should give immediate credence..."

David Brock wrote a book titled "The Republican Noise Machine"--you may be thinking of that one.
I'll have to look at that.

David Brock wrote a book titled "The Republican Noise Machine"--you may be thinking of that one.
No, they've got that at Fred Meyer's locally. It's got a tank with a bullhorn on it.
Not that it doesn't belong in this conversation, it's just that i've probably countered the component words that Cannot think of a name came up with. Just can't remember where and/if in that order.

No, they've got that at Fred Meyer's locally. It's got a tank with a bullhorn on it.
Not that it doesn't belong in this conversation, it's just that i've probably countered the component words that Cannot think of a name came up with. Just can't remember where and/if in that order.
Well, there are actual devices called white noise machines that produce real white noise. I just started calling the social phenom the White Noise Generator doing my media segments in college as I started to do an analysis the way news was being delivered and ideas spread.

EDIT: I wouldn't rule out that I may have heard it and didn't register and I wound up using it not knowing I had got it from somewhere else, or that someone else hit on the same metaphor.

Well, there are actual devices called white noise machines that produce real white noise. I just started calling the social phenom the White Noise Generator doing my media segments in college as I started to do an analysis the way news was being delivered and ideas spread.

EDIT: I wouldn't rule out that I may have heard it and didn't register and I wound up using it not knowing I had got it from somewhere else, or that someone else hit on the same metaphor.
Ah, never mind, my reference was something a bit more basic - White Noise, the movie with Michael Keaton.
I have a fan i have to use (in order to sleep) that i intend to generate white noise with, it makes it so i don't hear everything around me all f*cking night. I probably was just thinking about that ... obviously not your reference to it, i like your angle better.

Oh yeah, guess what i gots ... :)

*ahem*

DeLay tied to Abramoff casino battle
In letter to AG, Texan pushed for its closure
By Suzanne Gamboa, Associated Press | January 11, 2006

WASHINGTON -- The former House majority leader, Tom DeLay, tried to pressure the Bush administration into shutting down an Indian-owned casino that Jack Abramoff, the now-discredited lobbyist, had wanted closed. This was shortly after a tribal client of Abramoff's donated to a DeLay political action committee, according to a letter received by the Associated Press.
DeLay, a Texas Republican, demanded closure of the casino, which is owned by the Alabama-Coushatta tribe of Texas, in a Dec. 11, 2001, letter to the attorney general at the time, John D. Ashcroft. The source who released the letter did not want to be identified because of a federal investigation of Abramoff and of several members of Congress.

''We feel that the Department of Justice needs to step in and investigate the inappropriate and illegal actions by the tribe, its financial backers, if any, and the casino equipment vendors," said the letter, which was also signed by three Texas Republicans, Representatives Pete Sessions, John Culberson, and Kevin Brady. (WOOT!-Ed.)

Sessions's committee received $6,500 from Abramoff's clients within three months after signing the letter. An aide to Sessions said he considered gaming to be a state issue. She said that the tribe had circumvented state law and that Sessions signed the letter in defense of laws.

Ashcroft did not take action on the request. The Texas casino was closed the following year by a federal court ruling in a 1999 lawsuit filed by the state's attorney general, John Cornyn, now a US senator.

Kevin Madden, a DeLay spokesman, said DeLay's actions had been ''based on policy considerations and their effect on his constituents." ''Mr. DeLay always makes decisions with the best interests of his constituents in mind," Madden said. (WOOT!!-Ed.)

The letter was sent at least two weeks after the Mississippi Band of Choctaw Indians, clients of Abramoff's, contributed $1,000 to Texans for a Republican Majority. That committee is at the center of the campaign finance investigation that yielded money-laundering charges against DeLay and that forced him temporarily out of the majority leader's job.

The letter also was sent to Interior Secretary Gale Norton, among other officials, including Governor Rick Perry of Texas.

Its author appears to have been unfamiliar with the Alabama-Coushatta.

It said the tribe was based in ''Livingstone" and had opened a casino ''against the wishes of the citizens of Alabama." The tribe's reservation is in Livingston, Texas.

At the time of the letter, Abramoff was working for the Louisiana Coushatta and had portrayed the Alabama-Coushatta's Houston-area casino as a threat to his client's casino.

The disclosure is occurring after DeLay said he has given up trying to regain the post of majority leader. DeLay had said until Saturday that he would reclaim the job after clearing his name in the campaign finance investigation. (WOOT!!!-Ed.)

DeLay is awaiting trial on charges he funneled corporate contributions, largely banned in Texas elections, through Texans for a Republican Majority and the Republican National Committee to the campaigns of several GOP state legislative candidates.

On Monday, an appeals court denied his request that the charges be dismissed. (WOOT!!!!-Ed.)

The Mississippi Band of Choctaw Indians made the contribution to Texans for a Republican Majority on Nov. 28, 2001, according to court documents. A lawyer for the Choctaw declined comment.

Abramoff pleaded guilty to federal charges and is cooperating with investigators whose bribery probe is now focusing on members of Congress and aides.

Abramoff's former business partner, Michael Scanlon, DeLay's onetime press aide, also has pleaded guilty in the case.

The contributions are not necessarily illegal, but DeLay's association with Abramoff is under scrutiny. DeLay has taken trips paid for in part by Abramoff, and his national political action committee used skybox seats leased by Abramoff.

The Alabama-Coushatta were never clients of Abramoff or Scanlon, but Abramoff targeted the tribe in his work for the Louisiana Coushatta: first trying to shut down their casino, then trying to become a lobbyist for the Alabama-Coushatta.

According to court documents, Abramoff used the Alabama-Coushatta to carry out a bribery scheme.

Federal investigators have alleged that a man later identified as Representative Bob Ney, Republican of Ohio, agreed in June 2002 to introduce and pass a provision that would eliminate a ban against gaming for the Alabama-Coushatta ''at Abramoff's request." Abramoff pleaded guilty to telling Ney in June 2002 that the Tigua tribe of Texas was raising money for a Ney trip. The Tigua had turned down Abramoff's request for the money.

marvelous work Straughn !!!

:)

This thread has lost its flair without anyone arguing the other side. The beginning of this thread was so entertaining, too....

I wish that someday they will come out with abbreviations for threads... Lots of name calling and the Republicans were wrong anyway and I lost my fifteen minutes...

You make the call! Either he's completely stupid or he's deliberately lying through his teeth. There isn't ANY other explanation.


http://i26.photobucket.com/albums/c128/Atomdrake/003.jpg

Nice one, SB.:D

Nice one, SB.:D


lol - thanks

this one cracks me up and I needed a fitting place to use it.

The answer to this question is "yes".

However, this no more invalidates him as a politician than it does any of the other 535 elected representatives in the Capitol...or the White House, for that matter.

This is why I often consider not voting anymore. After 2000, I decided that if I didn't vote, I wouldn't be responsible for the morons, crooks and assholes in office -- in EITHER party. Like Carlin said, "If you vote, you can't complain. I know folks always say it the other way around, but they've got it backwards. YOU were the people who voted for these guys, not me. I didn't vote, so I can complain."

A bit simplistic, but if we are supposed to have the power, why do we never exercise it? Too busy watchin' TV...










...or posting online fora.

marvelous work Straughn !!!

:)
Hey, thanks!
I aim to please. Or, i aim to make things a whole lot difficult for some people.
Kinda both ways i guess ... i'm a chaotic neutral with occasional lawful neutral/good tendenecies.

BTW, hope everyone else enjoyed my vacation. :)
Also, feel free to quote me on that last post. It'll come up i'm sure again a few times.

The answer to this question is "yes".

However, this no more invalidates him as a politician than it does any of the other 535 elected representatives in the Capitol...or the White House, for that matter.

This is why I often consider not voting anymore. After 2000, I decided that if I didn't vote, I wouldn't be responsible for the morons, crooks and assholes in office -- in EITHER party. Like Carlin said, "If you vote, you can't complain. I know folks always say it the other way around, but they've got it backwards. YOU were the people who voted for these guys, not me. I didn't vote, so I can complain."

A bit simplistic, but if we are supposed to have the power, why do we never exercise it? Too busy watchin' TV...










...or posting online fora.
Third time this has been posted, this time adding the implication that the only actions the people here take is to post. As if engaging in debate wasn't part of the process...and a rather insulting and arrogant pressumption about the lives of other posters. You posted on the forum, are you projecting?

As for the 'well, they're all crooks,' like I said, already dealt with so instead of repeating I'll simply invite you to read the thread.

*ahem*

give me the names of the indian tribes that are implicated as being at fault in the abramoff scandal (as opposed to being the victims of it). then show me which democrats they donated to as part of a large-scale campaign of bribery and money laundering.

the issue is not tribal donations. the growing corruption scandal is the issue, and it is a republicans-only affair, because it was being run by and for republicans.

Exactically! said the Caterpillar

This, my friends, is a classic example of cognitive dissonance. When faced with evidence that disrupts the subject's worldview, the subject, rather than modify its worldview, expects that there is some error or conspiracy.

:D *kudos*

Even though the thread topic has long since been abandoned by the people who originally championed it--and who have not had the nads to come back and admit they were wrong--I still like bumping it from time to time, just to keep the memory of the right-wing pwnage fresh. :D

Even though the thread topic has long since been abandoned by the people who originally championed it--and who have not had the nads to come back and admit they were wrong--I still like bumping it from time to time, just to keep the memory of the right-wing pwnage fresh. :D
Seconded!!

If George Bush can simultaneously be an idiot and a liar, so can Howard Dean