PDA

View Full Version : Rove to be indicted within 2 weeks...


Pages : 1 2 [3]

WilliamTheIrish
07-13-2008, 08:32 PM
Those people have done nothing like what he has done. He operated within the basement of the White House. The Plame outing and the using of the Justice Department to target the political opposition is beyond partisanship. As I said before, it is no different than what the Nazi Party would do.

I suppose the nearly 1200 of 'missing' FBI files that just happened to be found in the White House has slipped your mind? Many of those FBI files (over 700) belonged to politicians with an "R" after their name. You never once called that Nazi part tactics.

I believe the poster who said "perpsective" is right on.

penchief
07-14-2008, 07:14 AM
The ashes of millions of people just rolled over in their graves.

Perspective. Learn it. Use it.

Hyperbole must be used sparingly.

Notice that I was comparing the tactics of the party. Which is why I referred to the Nazi "Party." I know it's a distinction that is easily overlooked by those who operate in a black and white world. I could have referred to the Communist Party, as well, which also applied similar strongarm tactics.

It is clear that similar tactics have been applied under this administration and have been advanced by Rove. The use of the justice department to target political opponents and suppress voter turnout are textbook examples of the thuggery employed by the Nazi party and/or the communist party.

penchief
07-14-2008, 07:23 AM
I suppose the nearly 1200 of 'missing' FBI files that just happened to be found in the White House has slipped your mind? Many of those FBI files (over 700) belonged to politicians with an "R" after their name. You never once called that Nazi part tactics.

I believe the poster who said "perpsective" is right on.

I have never condoned that, either. The problem is that this administration's behavior is not an isolated incident. The actions of this administration have become systemic. They have infiltrated nearly every government agency with party ideologues who's job is to replace the objectives of those agencies with ideological loyalty. And they have operated without transparency or accountability.

The politicizing of the justice department is an especially alarming development and should not be tolerated by anyone. And considering that Bill Clinton did undergo an investigation for FBIGate, why are republicans and conservatives so oppposed to Karl Rove and the Administration answering questions about their involvement in the corruption of justice or the outing of an undercover CIA agent?

What's good for the goose is good for the gander, right? You'd think all patriotic Americans would be for getting at the truth and preventing such unAmerican behavior if it were going on, as it appears it was. But a lot of people think that this administration should be above accountability. This administration believes it is above accountability. Karl Rove believes he is above accountability.

Behaving as if the administration is above the law is just another example of Nazi or communist party behavior.

pikesome
07-14-2008, 07:41 AM
Notice that I was comparing the tactic of placing party loyalty above all else. Which is why I referred to the Nazi "Party." I could have referred to the Communist Party, as well, which also applied such strongarm tactics. It is clear that similar tactics have been applied under this administration and have been advanced by Rove. The use of the justice department to target political opponents and suppress voter turnout are textbook examples of the thuggery employed by the Nazi party and/or the communist party.

You're an idiot.

We've had this same argument and it's always Bush/Conservatives/Republicans are evil. Not wrong, but pure evil. Even if you buy the worst interpretation of every act of the Bush years I can't see how either of those two examples (the Nazis and, I assume, the Soviets Com Party) are even close.

Strongarm tactics? The Night of the Long Knives? The Army purges? "It is clear that similar tactics have been applied under this administration". Maybe clear to you but not to someone who's logic overrides their hate. "Not even the same ****ing zip code" to quote Jules.

The use of the justice department to target political opponents and suppress voter turnout
Even if I grant that all the accusations are true (and they're not), I think we need to have a Secret Police picking citizens up to even start drawing comparisons.

You're as much a part of the problem as any of these pols. Rather than spend two second on thinking about what's happening it's knee-jerk, "It must be the Republicans fault'. There's a lot of bad work being done by almost everyone one involved. And with kind of crap being spouted it becomes less about the problems and more about sides.

penchief
07-14-2008, 08:13 AM
You're an idiot.

We've had this same argument and it's always Bush/Conservatives/Republicans are evil. Not wrong, but pure evil. Even if you buy the worst interpretation of every act of the Bush years I can't see how either of those two examples (the Nazis and, I assume, the Soviets Com Party) are even close.

Strongarm tactics? The Night of the Long Knives? The Army purges? "It is clear that similar tactics have been applied under this administration". Maybe clear to you but not to someone who's logic overrides their hate. "Not even the same ****ing zip code" to quote Jules.


Even if I grant that all the accusations are true (and they're not), I think we need to have a Secret Police picking citizens up to even start drawing comparisons.

You're as much a part of the problem as any of these pols. Rather than spend two second on thinking about what's happening it's knee-jerk, "It must be the Republicans fault'. There's a lot of bad work being done by almost everyone one involved. And with kind of crap being spouted it becomes less about the problems and more about sides.

Look, I'm not saying that this administration has committed the atrocities that have been committed by the Hitler or Stalin. So stop putting words in my mouth (even though it is yet to be seen whether or not Bush's policy of torture will result in war crimes). And I'm not saying that Bush/conservatives/republicans are evil. I have never had said that. I challenge you to find anywhere that I have said that.

What I am saying is that which should be obvious to anybody. And it's all I've ever said. They operate above the law (zero accountability), in complete secrecy (zero transparency), and they have employed tactics that other fascists regimes in history have employed (targeting political opponents with the power of government).

In short, they have corrupted the purpose of government in order to expand their own power and control by employing the agencies of government as party apparatuses. Something that is characteristic of fascist regimes and not democratic governments.

That is all I'm saying. And I think that the conduct of this administration makes that a legitimate comparison. I think it is a duty to criticize any fascist tendencies of our government and point them out to those who can't or won't see them. Your efforts to make it sound like I am saying something far more sinister is only an attempt to evade my point by changing the subject and criticizing the messenger.

mlyonsd
07-14-2008, 08:21 AM
In short, they have corrupted the purpose of government in order to expand their own power and control by employing the agencies of government as party apparatuses.

Lucky for them that whole 911 thing happened so they could use it as an excuse to propel their agenda.

Sorry, I see the Bush administration as doing what it thought necessary to protect the citizens.

I'm not saying all their tactics were proper, but I believe their intentions to be noble. And I can live with that and would hope the next president, whomever it is, puts it's citizens first.

penchief
07-14-2008, 08:26 AM
Lucky for them that whole 911 thing happened so they could use it as an excuse to propel their agenda.

Sorry, I see the Bush administration as doing what it thought necessary to protect the citizens.

I'm not saying all their tactics were proper, but I believe their intentions to be noble. And I can live with that and would hope the next president, whomever it is, puts it's citizens first.

In the context of 9/11 we can have an honest disagreement about their motives. However, I see what they have done as going way beyond the scope of 9/11 and homeland security. And often times it has been far too politically motivated. And that concerns me a great deal. Especially when considering unchecked powers.

Chief Henry
07-14-2008, 08:31 AM
Notice that I was comparing the tactics of the party. Which is why I referred to the Nazi "Party." I know it's a distinction that is easily overlooked by those who operate in a black and white world. I could have referred to the Communist Party, as well, which also applied similar strongarm tactics.

It is clear that similar tactics have been applied under this administration and have been advanced by Rove. The use of the justice department to target political opponents and suppress voter turnout are textbook examples of the thuggery employed by the Nazi party and/or the communist party.


Wow, just wow.

penchief
07-14-2008, 08:42 AM
Wow, just wow.

Well, think about what I said instead of trying to make it into something to be wowed about. Every fascist regime has to start somewhere and most of them start by corrupting the government. Which is exactly what this administration has been doing.

If you aren't alarmed by the systematic way in which much of those similar tactics have been applied then I can only assume you are okay with evolving fascism in America. I am not okay with it and don't have a problem pointing out where and when our government is trending toward fascism.

pikesome
07-14-2008, 08:43 AM
Look, I'm not saying that this administration has committed the atrocities that have been committed by the Hitler or Stalin. So stop putting words in my mouth (even though it is yet to be seen whether or not Bush's policy of torture will result in war crimes). And I'm not saying that Bush/conservatives/republicans are evil. I have never had said that. I challenge you to find anywhere that I have said that.
I think it has to do with the Golden Rule. Democrats have traditionally sought to make public service a virtue. In that effort, sincerity has led dems to nominate people that were more socially empathetic, whereas, modern-day republicans have sought to make business interests its virtue.

Because of that, I believe both democrats and republicans consistently nominate people who play the game the way their constituency would play it. Unfortunately for democrats, greed and dishonesty trumps empathy and honesty when it comes to politics. That is why dishonest people like Ronald Reagan, Dick Cheney, and George Bush are successful while honest people like Jimmy Carter and Al Gore get punked by the power-quo.

JMO.
Not so. If one represents greedy interests and employs greedy tactics, they are doing a disservice to representative government. If one represents public service and employs transparency, they are doing a service to representative government.

Republicans have clearly represented greedy interests while democrats have clearly represented public service. Democrats are getting clobbered because they're being outmanned via the avenues of influence that republicans have at their disposal (i.e. the corporate media, media consolidation, and business's manipulation of the economy AND media for the purpose of influencing political outcomes).

It's time for government to do the job that our founding fathers intended for it to do; represent the will of the people and not the powerful private interests that the republican party represents.

JMO.

http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/showpost.php?p=4627559&postcount=57

You didn't use the word "evil" but you're going to have to work hard to convince me that you weren't trying to say that "dishonest" and bad people flock to the Republican party and nominate "dishonest" and bad candidates while the Democrats "sought to make public service a virtue. In that effort, sincerity has led dems to nominate people that were more socially empathetic".

What I am saying is that which should be obvious to anybody. And it's all I've ever said. They operate above the law (zero accountability), in complete secrecy (zero transparency), and they have employed tactics that other fascists regimes in history have employed (targeting political opponents with the power of government).

But it's not obvious. It's not even true. Bush's administration has pushed a lot of bounds but where we are now and both of the regimes you use as examples aren't even close. And you have to ignore the fact that there's an election soon and even if McCain wins it's likely a lot of Bush's policies are out the door.

We don't have a fascism. We're not even on the road. Look up Wilson's administration. Worse, in almost every single way on these issues than Bush's. We didn't gas anyone or send them to forced labor camps.

In short, they have corrupted the purpose of government in order to expand their own power and control by employing the agencies of government as party apparatuses. Something that is characteristic of fascist regimes and not democratic governments.

That is all I'm saying. And I think that the conduct of this administration makes that a legitimate comparison. I think it is a duty to criticize any fascist tendencies of our government and point them out to those who can't or won't see them. Your efforts to make it sound like I am saying something far more sinister is only an attempt to evade my point by changing the subject and criticizing the messenger.

I know you do. That's the problem. It demonstrates an extreme lack of understanding or perspective. Not to mention any grasp of our political system, history, human nature, our current problems or likely future ones.

Bad stuff has happened the last 4 years. Even on the issues I agreed with Bush on (or still do). Still none of this rises to any of the levels you keep throwing around, however. The probable outlooks don't either.

Your whole shtick shares far too much in common with Fred Phelps'. Find something you hate and rail against it with out care for logic, common sense or even the truth.

Chief Henry
07-14-2008, 08:58 AM
Well, think about what I said instead of trying to make it into something to be wowed about. Every fascist regime has to start somewhere and most of them start by corrupting the government. Which is exactly what this administration has been doing.

If you aren't alarmed by the systematic way in which much of those similar tactics have been applied then I can only assume you are okay with evolving fascism in America. I am not okay with it and don't have a problem pointing out where and when our government is trending toward fascism.

Common sense can take a person along way in life. I've gotten alot accomplished in my life by not listening to stupid shit like this.

penchief
07-14-2008, 09:14 AM
You didn't use the word "evil" but you're going to have to work hard to convince me that you weren't trying to say that "dishonest" and bad people flock to the Republican party and nominate "dishonest" and bad candidates while the Democrats "sought to make public service a virtue. In that effort, sincerity has led dems to nominate people that were more socially empathetic"..

Well, there you go. I have never called them evil. I have only pointed out the patterns that have been displayed. And yes, there is a difference in how the parties have viewed public service. And the track records for each party have borne that out. So I see nothing inherently partisan in what I said.

Also, I don't think that the republican party's actions have necessarily stood for the ideals of many people who call themselves republican. I think that the party has perfected the use of lip service to the point where a lot of people support a party that does not operate in the best interests of its constituents.

But it's not obvious. It's not even true. Bush's administration has pushed a lot of bounds but where we are now and both of the regimes you use as examples aren't even close. And you have to ignore the fact that there's an election soon and even if McCain wins it's likely a lot of Bush's policies are out the door.

I think McCain will be a continuation. Listening to McCain's series of flip-flops and double-speak on critical issues only reinforces my opinion that he will be another lackey for the business crooks and war profiteers who have hijacked our country.

We don't have a fascism. We're not even on the road. Look up Wilson's administration. Worse, in almost every single way on these issues than Bush's. We didn't gas anyone or send them to forced labor camps.

We have elements of fascism being applied today and we are trending toward fascism. The erosion of civil liberties and legal rights, domestic spying and the invasion of privacy, the government operating in secrecy and placing itself above the law, military aggression and an unseen unending war, intense nationalism and jingoism, the corruption of goverment agencies by ideologues and using government power to target political foes, the close partnership with big business and the industrial-military complex, voter suppression, double-speak, marginalizing segments of the population and attacking dissent, among other things, are all signs of this country trending toward fascism.

I know you do. That's the problem. It demonstrates an extreme lack of understanding or perspective. Not to mention any grasp of our political system, history, human nature, our current problems or likely future ones.

Bad stuff has happened the last 4 years. Even on the issues I agreed with Bush on (or still do). Still none of this rises to any of the levels you keep throwing around, however. The probable outlooks don't either.

Your whole shtick shares far too much in common with Fred Phelps'. Find something you hate and rail against it with out care for logic, common sense or even the truth.

It is not hate that motivates me. It is quite the opposite. I have a lot more hope for this country than to settle for the lowest common denominator. I have only criticized politicians based on their actions. And I have only tried to raise awareness of the things which I find to be alarming trends. And anyone with eyes and ears who wishes to observe things objectively cannot ignore those trends or deny cause and effect in the way that so many of you who always defend this administration seem to do.

***SPRAYER
07-14-2008, 09:19 AM
Is the two weeks up, yet?

penchief
07-14-2008, 12:14 PM
Is the two weeks up, yet?

I take it this means you think he should testify to congress instead of holding it in contempt.

***SPRAYER
07-14-2008, 12:24 PM
I take it this means you think he should testify to congress instead of holding it in contempt.

Do you want me to pretend that there is any integrity left in a congressional hearing?

penchief
07-14-2008, 12:39 PM
Do you want me to pretend that there is any integrity left in a congressional hearing?

Well, you can thank the Clinton witch hunt by the republican controlled congress for the loss of integrity that I believe you are referring to. That said, you can also thank a republican executive branch who now thumbs its nose at congress because it feels it is above the law.

If we were only able to apply the scrutiny that was applied to the Clinton administration to the Bush Administration, congress's integrity might have a shot of being restored.

Ironically, the republican controlled congress held a democratic president accountable to the nth degree over actions that occurred prior to the presidency and were not pertinent to the act of governing or to the people's business.

Now, the republicans in congress are hypocritically shielding a republican president from accountability about issues that are directly pertinent to good governance and vital to the people's business.

So you can largely thank republicans for the congress's loss of integrity due to their gross hypocricy and extreme partisanship when conducting the business of congress.

That said, I am extremely disappointed in the democratic leadership for not having the courage to do the right thing at this time in our history. Of course, the right thing to me (pursuing accountability) would not equate to integrity to you.

patteeu
07-14-2008, 04:12 PM
Is the two weeks up, yet?

LOL, I'm sweating this indictment so much, it seems like this two weeks has been more like two years!

***SPRAYER
07-14-2008, 04:44 PM
Well, you can thank the Clinton witch hunt by the republican controlled congress for the loss of integrity that I believe you are referring to. That said, you can also thank a republican executive branch who now thumbs its nose at congress because it feels it is above the law.

If we were only able to apply the scrutiny that was applied to the Clinton administration to the Bush Administration, congress's integrity might have a shot of being restored.

Ironically, the republican controlled congress held a democratic president accountable to the nth degree over actions that occurred prior to the presidency and were not pertinent to the act of governing or to the people's business.

Now, the republicans in congress are hypocritically shielding a republican president from accountability about issues that are directly pertinent to good governance and vital to the people's business.

So you can largely thank republicans for the congress's loss of integrity due to their gross hypocricy and extreme partisanship when conducting the business of congress.

That said, I am extremely disappointed in the democratic leadership for not having the courage to do the right thing at this time in our history. Of course, the right thing to me (pursuing accountability) would not equate to integrity to you.


Partisan, partisan, partisan...

Nobody is going to take you seriously if you keep using a left wing template that countless other moonbats are using. You guys just recite the same things, over and over and over...

Taco John
07-14-2008, 04:54 PM
Partisan, partisan, partisan...

Nobody is going to take you seriously if you keep using a left wing template that countless other moonbats are using. You guys just recite the same things, over and over and over...

Nobody cares what you have to say Kotter.

***SPRAYER
07-14-2008, 04:58 PM
Nobody cares what you have to say Kotter.

Obviously you do.

penchief
07-14-2008, 05:10 PM
Partisan, partisan, partisan...

Nobody is going to take you seriously if you keep using a left wing template that countless other moonbats are using. You guys just recite the same things, over and over and over...

I don't think it's partisan at all. I dare you to dispute anything I said.

1. Did the republican congress lead a seven year investigation over everything they possibly could (including things that happened before Clinton even became president. Including things that had no bearing on his job duties)? Yes or no?

2. Have the republicans in congress resisted any sort of investigation of the current administration's conduct which includes things that are directly pertinant to the conduct of our government and vital to the interests of the people (i.e. misusing intelligence to invade a sovereign nation, subverting the law to spy on Americans without a warrant, directing justice department officials to target political opponents, outing undercover CIA agents, etc.). Yes or no?

3. Has the current administration repeatedly stonewalled any investigations by stating that certain members of their administration cannot testify in front of congress because of "executive privelege? Yes or no? And the ones who have testified have not cooperated either by claiming "no memory" or by intentionally obfuscating the questions (ala the Rumsfeld technique).

If the answer to these questions is yes, which it clearly is, then there is nothing left wing or partisan about what I'm saying. The republican party has behaved in a very partisan and hypocritical way that has not been in the best interests of the people or the people's government. By trying to paint everything I say as extreme you are only trying to distract from the obvious.

And it was obvious that their pursuit of a democratic president over issues not pertinent to the people's business was extreme partisanship while their stonewalling of the truth in order to protect this administration from it's own excesses is unconscionable.

You saying that I'm being partisan doesn't make it so and doesn't change the reality of what happened. Your denial that it happened that way is more partisan than my citing what happened as evidence to support your claim that congress has lost its integrity.

***SPRAYER
07-14-2008, 05:14 PM
Now, the republicans in congress are hypocritically shielding a republican president from accountability about issues that are directly pertinent to good governance and vital to the people's business.

Name these issues.

penchief
07-14-2008, 05:22 PM
Name these issues.

Well, let's just start with the one this thread centers around. I've already asked you if you think Rove should testify in front of congress or not? You haven't answered.

Rove does have things to answer for. We can start with his role in outing an undercover CIA agent, which he lied about four times to the grand jury. And then we can go on to his role in directing justice department officials to target political oppenents and manufacture trumped up voter fraud cases as justification to suppress voter turnout.

There is a smorgasbord of things this administration needs to be held accountable for but if you could only start with those two I'd be satisfied.

***SPRAYER
07-14-2008, 05:56 PM
Well, let's just start with the one this thread centers around. I've already asked you if you think Rove should testify in front of congress or not? You haven't answered.

I just didn't think it was all that important.



Rove does have things to answer for. We can start with his role in outing an undercover CIA agent, which he lied about four times to the grand jury. And then we can go on to his role in directing justice department officials to target political oppenents and manufacture trumped up voter fraud cases as justification to suppress voter turnout.

Scooter Libby was convicted and sentenced to jail for perjury, if Rove lied once, never mind four times, he'd be in jail too. I think Richard Armitage is actually the guy who "outted" Plame.

There is a smorgasbord of things this administration needs to be held accountable for but if you could only start with those two I'd be satisfied

Yes, a smorgasbord. Very good research.

penchief
07-15-2008, 07:41 AM
I just didn't think it was all that important.

Scooter Libby was convicted and sentenced to jail for perjury, if Rove lied once, never mind four times, he'd be in jail too. I think Richard Armitage is actually the guy who "outted" Plame.

Yes, the Administration leaking the name of an undercover CIA agent whose job was anti-proliferation was not all that important but Whitewater and a blow job were. It's easy to see what your priorities for the country are.

You're completely ignoring the fact that there was a simultaneous effort by more than one person in the Administration to leak Plame's name. In fact, Rove leaked the name to Matt Cooper and denied it four times to the Grand Jury. Only when the email he sent to Hadley outlining his involvement resurfaced did he contact Fitzgerald to ask if he could testify again.

You can say that Armatige was the "original" leaker all you want but that doesn't change the fact that the name was leaked multiple times by multiple people, including Rove.

Yes, a smorgasbord. Very good research.

You'd better hope that republicans win because if we ever get a Ken Starr style independent counsel you will see the can of worms that will get opened up. The corruption is so embedded within this administration it is understandable why so many of you oppose accountability.

Oh, and I noticed that you avoided my challenge about the seven years of Clinton investigations. Do you really believe that all of that stuff the republican party made into a national soap opera was more important than the false justification for invading and occupying Iraq, the potential violations of the constitution by the executive branch, the outing of an undercover CIA agent, the corruption of the justice dept, etc.?

***SPRAYER
07-15-2008, 08:18 AM
Yes, the Administration leaking the name of an undercover CIA agent whose job was anti-proliferation was not all that important but Whitewater and a blow job were. It's easy to see what your priorities for the country are.

You're completely ignoring the fact that there was a simultaneous effort by more than one person in the Administration to leak Plame's name. In fact, Rove leaked the name to Matt Cooper and denied it four times to the Grand Jury. Only when the email he sent to Hadley outlining his involvement resurfaced did he contact Fitzgerald to ask if he could testify again.

You can say that Armatige was the "original" leaker all you want but that doesn't change the fact that the name was leaked multiple times by multiple people, including Rove.



You'd better hope that republicans win because if we ever get a Ken Starr style independent counsel you will see the can of worms that will get opened up. The corruption is so embedded within this administration it is understandable why so many of you oppose accountability.

Oh, and I noticed that you avoided my challenge about the seven years of Clinton investigations. Do you really believe that all of that stuff the republican party made into a national soap opera was more important than the false justification for invading and occupying Iraq, the potential violations of the constitution by the executive branch, the outing of an undercover CIA agent, the corruption of the justice dept, etc.?

Red Herrings, conjecture, innuendo, non-sequitur's...

Damn, you hit all the bases! ROFL

penchief
07-15-2008, 08:37 AM
Red Herrings, conjecture, innuendo, non-sequitur's...

Damn, you hit all the bases! ROFL

Clearly not the part about multiple people within the administration leaking Plame's identity. You like to claim conjecture when there is a lot of evidence to back up what I'm saying but you don't answer to the things that are fact.

Let's just assume that it is all questionable. Isn't the hint of impropriety or corruption at the highest levels enough to want to get to the bottom of issues so important to the people's government? I would think so, wouldn't you?

I mean after all, the republican congress only had accusations and the hint of impropriety when it went through the motions of investigating every single little thing they could about Clinton even though most of those things were not even relevent to the people's government.

Ironically he was not found guilty of any crimes other than lying about his blow job seven years into the independent counsel's investigations. I guess they just needed to get something on him so they could justify the effort to the American people.

Oh, and you still haven't justified how initiating those investigations was more appropriate than justifying an investigation of matters that are so much more important to the country.

***SPRAYER
07-15-2008, 08:40 AM
Clearly not the part about multiple people within the administration leaking Plame's identity. You like to claim conjecture when there is a lot of evidence to back up what I'm saying but you don't answer to the things that are fact.

Let's just assume that it is all questionable. Isn't the hint of impropriety or corruption at the highest levels enough to want to get to the bottom of issues so important to the people's government? I would think so, wouldn't you?

I mean after all, the republican congress went through the motions of investigating every single little thing they could about Clinton even though most of those things were not even relevent to the people's government. Ironically he was not found guilty of any crimes other than lying about his blow job seven years into the independent counsel's investigations. I guess they just needed to get something on him so they could justify the effort to the American people.

Oh, and you still haven't justified how initiating those investigations was more appropriate than justifying investigations of matters so much more important.

I'm going to say this as politely as I can. I can't have an intelligent conversation with you. You've created a silly and impractical narrative that insists that all Republicans are evil and Democrats fart and you smell roses.

OK? OK.

penchief
07-15-2008, 08:46 AM
I'm going to say this as politely as I can. I can't have an intelligent conversation with you. You've created a silly and impractical narrative that insists that all Republicans are evil and Democrats fart and you smell roses.

OK? OK.

And you haven't said a damn thing. I'm giving you an actual scenario as it happened and you are clearly avoiding giving a response. How you can sit here and say that I am the one who is silly and impractical when it is you who is being disingenous?

There is nothing silly by comparing the degrees to which something is important to the country or to the people's business. I have attempted to bolster my claims by asking you very basic questions throughout this exchange and all you've done is try to joke them away by making fun of me because you know that to answer them honestly would give credence to what I'm saying.

And I've even rephrased that fundamental question to suit your claims and still all you can do is avoid answering it in favor of making insinuations about me.

***SPRAYER
07-15-2008, 08:53 AM
And you haven't said a damn thing. I'm giving you an actual scenario as it happened and you are clearly avoiding giving a response. How you can sit here and say that I am the one who is silly and impractical when it is you who is being disingenous.

There is nothing silly by comparing the degrees to which something is important to the country or to the people's business. I have attempted to bolster my claims by asking you very basic questions throughout this exchange and all you've done is try to joke them away by making fun of me because you know that to answer them honestly would give credence to what I'm saying.

Ay yi yi. :rolleyes:

What would you like to see accomplished by Rove testifying before congress? What is the point, and why should it concern me?

By the way, the Starr investigation was initiated by the very suspect death of Vince Foster and the Whitewater Real Estate pay to play scam. If the Clintons cooperated instead of doing everything they could INCLUDING USING EXECUTIVE PRIVILIGE I doubt it would have escalated to the point where they were getting information about him cuckolding his wife on a daily basis. Clinton has no one but himself to blame, he is a disgrace.

***SPRAYER
07-15-2008, 09:17 AM
There is nothing silly by comparing the degrees to which something is important to the country or to the people's business.

What does that even mean? :drool:

I'm sorry, I can't help you. I've waited for a response to my last post but you dissapeared. I suggest you read this book:


http://www.amazon.ca/One-Left-Lie-Christopher-Hitchens/dp/1859847366

penchief
07-15-2008, 09:30 AM
Ay yi yi. :rolleyes:

What would you like to see accomplished by Rove testifying before congress? What is the point, and why should it concern me?

By the way, the Starr investigation was initiated by the very suspect death of Vince Foster and the Whitewater Real Estate pay to play scam. If the Clintons cooperated instead of doing everything they could INCLUDING USING EXECUTIVE PRIVILIGE I doubt it would have escalated to the point where they were getting information about him cuckolding his wife on a daily basis. Clinton has no one but himself to blame, he is a disgrace.

The point is to get to the truth. Transparency is vital to a democracy. Something that we have yet to get to and something that is apparently unimportant to you.

You seem to want to make this more about Clinton than Karl Rove, the administration, or the republican party. You seem to have a real hard on for Bill. Why is that? I have never defended Clinton's actions. But that doesn't excuse the republican party for its petty pursuit of a sitting president for purely partisan reasons. There is a difference in pursuing someone for the sake of partisan gain and pursuing the truth for the sake of government transparency.

Somehow I don't suspect you're willing or even capable of making that distinction.

And as far as cooperation goes, you have got to be kidding me, right? While Clinton could have been more cooperative about matters that weren't directly pertinent to the people's business, this administration has a duty and an obligation to be cooperative about matters that are directly related to the people's business. A duty that they have arrogantly evaded.

***SPRAYER
07-15-2008, 09:35 AM
You seem to want to make this more about Clinton than Karl Rove

No, you're the one who introduced Bill into the conversation. :rolleyes:

If Bill Clinton is off limits, you shouldn't have brought him up.


http://www.salon.com/news/1998/05/29newsa.html

penchief
07-15-2008, 09:40 AM
No, you're the one who introduced Bill into the conversation. :rolleyes:


http://www.salon.com/news/1998/05/29newsa.html

No I brought up the hypocricy of the republican party for their pursuit of a sitting president over matters irrelevant to the peoples business in an effort to defend my position. You are the one that insists on dwelling on the periphery as a means of avoiding the original argument.

***SPRAYER
07-15-2008, 09:40 AM
You seem to have a real hard on for Bill. Why is that?

Ad hominum. :rolleyes:


I have never defended Clinton's actions. But that doesn't excuse the republican party for its petty pursuit of a sitting president for purely partisan reasons.

Investigating Vince Fosters death was motivated by "partisan" reason?

:drool:

***SPRAYER
07-15-2008, 09:43 AM
No I brought up the hypocricy of the republican party for their pursuit of a sitting president over matters irrelevant to the peoples business in an effort to defend my position. You are the one that insists on dwelling on the periphery as a means of avoiding the original argument.

:doh!:

penchief
07-15-2008, 09:43 AM
Ad hominum. :rolleyes:


I have never defended Clinton's actions. But that doesn't excuse the republican party for its petty pursuit of a sitting president for purely partisan reasons.

Investigating Vince Fosters death was motivated by "partisan" reason?

:drool:

Wait one second. You have the gall to play the "ad hominum" card after all the tap dancing you've done in this thread via shooting the messenger instead of addressing the gist of the argument?

***SPRAYER
07-15-2008, 09:46 AM
Wait one second. You have the gall to play the "ad hominum" card after all the tap dancing you've done in this thread via shooting the messenger instead of addressing the gist of the argument?

Uh... I'm not playing any card, it was an ad hominum attack.

What exactly is the gist of the argument? I don't understand what it is this congressional subpeona to Karl Rove is supposed to accomplish.

penchief
07-15-2008, 09:47 AM
:doh!:

The focal point was on the hypocricy of the republican party making a big deal out of things unimportant to the people's business when there was a democratic administration while now shielding a republican president from scrutiny over issues that are vitaly important.

In fact, if you go back and read this thread you I'll bet I used the words, "democratic president" or "demcratic administration" when I first used that example to bolster my argument.

All you are trying to do is keep up your diversion so that you don't have to answer the fundamental question.

***SPRAYER
07-15-2008, 09:49 AM
No I brought up the hypocricy of the republican party for their pursuit of a sitting president over matters irrelevant to the peoples business

Yes, selling military technology to the CHICOMS is none of our business.:whackit:


Loral's chairman, Bernard Schwartz, has personally been the single largest campaign contributor to the national Democratic Party during the Clinton presidency, making $1.1 million in contributions in recent years.

When Loral was granted the waiver in February by the Clinton administration, the aerospace corporation was under investigation by the Justice Department for providing unauthorized assistance to China's ballistic-missile program. Justice Department officials were concerned that a waiver might make it tougher to bring a potential criminal prosecution against Loral.

Justice Department officials were reportedly not properly consulted before the administration's waiver decision. Loral has denied any wrongdoing, while the Justice Department continues its investigation.

***SPRAYER
07-15-2008, 09:54 AM
The focal point was on the hypocricy of the republican party making a big deal out of things unimportant to the people's business when there was a democratic administration

You don't think Vince Fosters death was a big deal, but the Justice Dept disagreed.

while now shielding a republican president from scrutiny over issues that are vitaly important.

And what are this "vitaly" important issues?

***SPRAYER
07-15-2008, 10:01 AM
the people's business

And what the hell is all this "the people's business" crapola?

ROFL

penchief
07-15-2008, 10:17 AM
You don't think Vince Fosters death was a big deal, but the Justice Dept disagreed.

Then what was all that other stuff? Why didn't they stop with Vince? And you're still avoiding the question.

And what are this "vitaly" important issues?

I've already outlined a few but you don't seem to think they're important. If you are asking what I define as vitaly important then that's different.

Issues of vital importance are issues that are directly related to the job of governance and important to the principles of representative government.

penchief
07-15-2008, 10:21 AM
And what the hell is all this "the people's business" crapola?

ROFL

The people's business is the people's government, its policies, and the conduct of those policies. In a representative government the people's business requires transparency. And that's all I'm asking for.

By the way, why do I keep answering your quesions but you never answer mine?

***SPRAYER
07-15-2008, 11:22 AM
.


Issues of vital importance are issues that are directly related to the job of governance and important to the principles of representative government.


For example, the first and second amendments?

***SPRAYER
07-15-2008, 11:24 AM
The people's business is the people's government, its policies, and the conduct of those policies. In a representative government the people's business requires transparency. And that's all I'm asking for.



But only when the president is a republican.

:rolleyes:

***SPRAYER
07-15-2008, 11:25 AM
.

And you're still avoiding the question.


What was the question, again?

:spock:

penchief
07-15-2008, 02:10 PM
But only when the president is a republican.

:rolleyes:

You're just going around in circles and making accusations that are unfounded in order to keep avoiding the fundamental question. Your diversions are beginning to make you look silly, IMO.

All presidents should be held accountable for their actions, democratic and republican. That is exactly my point.

Republicans have seen fit to hold a president accountable for personal conduct and for conduct that was not pertinent to effective governance or to his presidency. And if that is the standard that you want to set then that is the standard that you have to apply consistently.

But republicans haven't applied that standard consistently because now that we are discussing a republican president and conduct that is pertinent to the people's government they are stonewalling and resisting accountability.

So I take it you want it both ways? You want to practice that double standard and disown it at the same time. You want to pretend it doesn't exist but accuse me of practicing it for pointing out that it does exist.

I fully expect you to avoid addressing my claims with anything other than another smug comment that accuses me of being partisan in order to continue avoiding answering the fundamental questions that you have so far refused to answer.

penchief
07-15-2008, 02:15 PM
What was the question, again?

:spock:

They were multiple questions that focused on the fundamental question of accountability, and the hypocricy and double-standards surrounding accountability. Just go back and answer all the questions you intentionally didn't answer.

I've answered all of your questions so it seems like it would be the decent thing to do. Especially since you've opted to challenge my reasoning and my character instead of giving me the courtesy of answering the questions I've posed as a means of bolstering my argument.

Dallas Chief
07-15-2008, 02:34 PM
Those people have done nothing like what he has done. He operated within the basement of the White House. The Plame outing and the using of the Justice Department to target the political opposition is beyond partisanship. As I said before, it is no different than what the Nazi Party would do.

I just think that calling him "the biggest scourge in American Politics" in the last 50 years is a HUGE reach. You are just holding on to villainizing Rove so tight that I believe it is clouding your viewpoint. How could this be worse than Nixon and Watergate? Or how about the DEATH of Vince Foster, a lifelong friend of Bill Clinton and a standing White House Staffer? How about David Duke and all his racist BS? George Wallace? Oliver North? and on and on. How about a little less emotion and a little more perspective?

penchief
07-15-2008, 02:46 PM
I just think that calling him "the biggest scourge in American Politics" in the last 50 years is a HUGE reach. You are just holding on to villainizing Rove so tight that I believe it is clouding your viewpoint. How could this be worse than Nixon and Watergate? Or how about the DEATH of Vince Foster, a lifelong friend of Bill Clinton and a standing White House Staffer? How about David Duke and all his racist BS? George Wallace? Oliver North? and on and on. How about a little less emotion and a little more perspective?

I think the Watergate comparison is a fair one because of the similar conduct. But I believe that the scope of the corruption and the potential consequences of this administration's conduct (including Karl Rove's contributions) will have a far greater impact on our democratic institutions and our representative form of government.

With all that has happened (manipulating intelligence, misleading the country into war, domestic eavesdropping without a warrant, outing an undercover CIA agent, corrupting the justice department, etc.) it is inconceivable that there is no transparency or accountability on the part of the administration. That alone speaks volumes about what they think of our democratic institutions and the people's right to know what their government is doing.

Transparency and accountability are the keystones to democracy and representative government.

Dallas Chief
07-15-2008, 02:59 PM
I think the Watergate comparison is a fair one because of the similar conduct. But I believe that the scope of the corruption and the potential consequences of this administration's conduct (including Karl Rove's contributions) will have a far greater impact on our democratic institutions and our representative form of government.

With all that has happened (manipulating intelligence, misleading the country into war, domestic eavesdropping without a warrant, outing an undercover CIA agent, corrupting the justice department, etc.) it is inconceivable that there is no transparency or accountability on the part of the administration. That alone speaks volumes about what they think of our democratic institutions and the people's right to know what their government is doing.

Transparency and accountability are the keystones to democracy and representative government.
You are certainly entitled to your opinion, but I just don't think the Rove thing has that much juice. Think about it- Watergate was the direct cause of the resignation of a sitting US president and his eventual pardon. Don't you see the historical implications of that versus what you are saying about Rove?

I agree that transparency and accountability are vital- with the exception of national security. And it should be that way for all branches of government. You might ought to be careful what you wish for, I bet there are some pretty freaky skeltons in the closets of folks on both sides of the aisle.:eek: Sometimes we are all just better off not knowing...:shrug:

penchief
07-15-2008, 03:18 PM
You are certainly entitled to your opinion, but I just don't think the Rove thing has that much juice. Think about it- Watergate was the direct cause of the resignation of a sitting US president and his eventual pardon. Don't you see the historical implications of that versus what you are saying about Rove?

I agree that transparency and accountability are vital- with the exception of national security. And it should be that way for all branches of government. You might ought to be careful what you wish for, I bet there are some pretty freaky skeltons in the closets of folks on both sides of the aisle.:eek: Sometimes we are all just better off not knowing...:shrug:

Yes I do. Ethically speaking the behavior is similar. That said, the degree of corruption is greater now, IMO. 9/11 can't justify everything this administration does. And Lord knows they've played that card. But we will only be defeated by radical Islam if we voluntarily sacrifice our freedoms, our rights, and our privacy. Which we have subserviently been doing ever since 9/11.

We the people, will never be in charge again until we are able to command government transparency and accountability. And if we could ever penetrate this administration's house of cards, it is my opinion, that it will come tumbling down hard and the people of this country will get a first hand glimpse of how corrupt they really are and just how far they were willing to push the envelope for political purposes.

And for what it's worth, I do advocate that transparancy and accountability for both sides of the aisle.

***SPRAYER
07-15-2008, 04:19 PM
All presidents should be held accountable for their actions, democratic and


It's "democrat".

DEMOCRAT.

:banghead:

penchief
07-15-2008, 06:40 PM
It's "democrat".

DEMOCRAT.

:banghead:

It's always been democratic. It doesn't change just because republics want to change it out of disrespect. For that reason I make it a point to say democratic party and democratic candidate. I'm not going to play along with their petty games.

And you still haven't answered any of my questions.

***SPRAYER
07-15-2008, 06:43 PM
It's always been democratic. It doesn't change just because republics want to change it out of petty contempt.

And you still haven't any of my questions.

Look, I'm trying to be polite, what with being a newbie and all, and in spite of the fact that I already have a thread entirely about me (5 pages long and going strong!), it's hard to not let something like that go to my head but...

You've obviously mistaken me for somebody who gives a flying ****.

penchief
07-15-2008, 06:46 PM
Look, I'm trying to be polite, what with being a newbie and all, and in spite of the fact that I already have a thread entirely about me (5 pages long and going strong!), it's hard to not let something like that go to my head but...

You've obviously mistaken me for somebody who gives a flying ****.

Then why did you make the post? You should have kept your mouth shut if you didn't give a flying ****.

***SPRAYER
07-15-2008, 07:22 PM
Then why did you make the post? You should have kept your mouth shut if you didn't give a flying ****.

Karl Rove is the boogie man. There, I said it. Tonight I will go to bed with my face scrunched up in anger.


:mad:

KILLER_CLOWN
07-15-2008, 11:50 PM
:)

Mr. Kotter
07-16-2008, 12:27 AM
Look, I'm trying to be polite, what with being a newbie and all, and in spite of the fact that I already have a thread entirely about me (5 pages long and going strong!), it's hard to not let something like that go to my head but...

You've obviously mistaken me for somebody who gives a flying ****.
Hey, bitch...let's get this straight. :spock:

That thread is about ME, ME, ME.....unless you mean the one about the motorcycle dude who's a chick magnet. But, hey, that's me TOO.

;)

***SPRAYER
07-16-2008, 06:02 AM
Hey, bitch...let's get this straight. :spock:

That thread is about ME, ME, ME.....unless you mean the one about the motorcycle dude who's a chick magnet. But, hey, that's me TOO.

;)

But I am you.

***SPRAYER
07-16-2008, 04:17 PM
I'm wondering when Lib's will start talking about how FDR interned 100,000 American citizens in camps during WWII.

I mean, they get their panties in a bunch over stupid nonsense like Abu Graibh, Gitmo et al.

Maybe it's because the Americans of Japanese descent don't harp about it 24/7 and don't have an 80% out of wedlock birth rate.

KILLER_CLOWN
07-17-2008, 09:42 PM
When will the American people learn that the left/right paradigm is completely false and only used to separate and cause infighting? That's right NEVER! Ignorance is Bliss, Power Corrupts, Absolute Ignorance Corrupts Absolute!

***SPRAYER
07-21-2008, 01:05 PM
Did he get indicted yet?

:spock:

Chief Henry
07-21-2008, 05:42 PM
Did he get indicted yet?

:spock:




nope...not yet - I bet you could get $100 from Jiz on the next two weeks :D

***SPRAYER
07-21-2008, 05:43 PM
nope...not yet - I bet you could get $100 from Jiz on the next two weeks :D


How many two week intervals has it been so far?

BigChiefFan
07-21-2008, 09:36 PM
Good, let the frauds pay for their actions.

***SPRAYER
08-12-2008, 05:11 PM
http://www.reuters.com/article/latestCrisis/idUSN12487250

I couldn't help it, I had to bump this.

LMAO

BigChiefFan
08-12-2008, 05:20 PM
http://www.reuters.com/article/latestCrisis/idUSN12487250

I couldn't help it, I had to bump this.

LMAOPlease explain how's it funny that corrupt politicians get off without even a slap on the hand? That isn't justice, that's ignorance.


All in the name of the party, right?


It's bullshit like this, that goes to show ignorance is bliss.

Chief Henry
08-12-2008, 05:22 PM
Please explain how's it funny that corrupt politicians get off without even a slap on the hand? That isn't justice, that's ignorance.


All in the name of the party, right?


It's bullshit like this, that goes to show ignorance is bliss.

Your definition of Bullshit is different than mine. Who was Plame outed by ?

Chief Henry
08-12-2008, 05:23 PM
http://www.reuters.com/article/latestCrisis/idUSN12487250

I couldn't help it, I had to bump this.

LMAO

OOPSY POOPSY JIZ is WRONG AGAIN - how many times is that now?

***SPRAYER
08-12-2008, 05:26 PM
Please explain how's it funny that corrupt politicians get off without even a slap on the hand? That isn't justice, that's ignorance.


All in the name of the party, right?


Fuq if I know. Ask Jim McGreevey, I'm sure you have him on speed dial.

BigChiefFan
08-12-2008, 05:28 PM
Your definition of Bullshit is different than mine. Who was Plame outed by ?Most show it goes all the way up to Cheney.


Sorry, but I think outing a CIA agent when they are still in the field, is teetering on treason, but Im fond of accountability and justice. Call me old-fashioned.

***SPRAYER
08-12-2008, 05:31 PM
Most show it goes all the way up to Cheney.


Sorry, but I think outing a CIA agent when they are still in the field, is teetering on treason, but Im fond of accountability and justice. Call me old-fashioned.

Say it, don't spray it.

:drool:

Mr. Kotter
08-12-2008, 05:37 PM
Please explain how's it funny that corrupt politicians get off without even a slap on the hand? That isn't justice, that's ignorance.


All in the name of the party, right?


It's bullshit like this, that goes to show ignorance is bliss.



:rolleyes:

If allegations and exploiting the rules of the political game were beer and nuts, we could have ourselves one helluva bi-partisan party.

"Corruption" and allegations are nothing without proof. Period. LBJ and Nixon, "Iran-Contra" and "Whitewater" are just different incarnations of the same bipartisan "corruption."

Sadly, the only time it matters is when there is a "smoking gun".....the WH tapes for Tricky-Dick, the blue-dress for Slick-Willie. Different "magnitude" perhaps, same result....same lesson. Politicians from both parties, most 'em anyway, are hell-bent on pushing the envelope, whenever they can get away with it.

No one likes it; but everyone seems to tacitly enable the system....because we are so blinded by the partisan hypocrisy that both sides are engaged in. I've been witnessing it for more than 30 years now; same story, different chapter. Maybe Obama can change it; maybe he can't. I wouldn't bet the farm on it though.

Naivete' is bliss, every bit as much as any perceived "ignorance".....

The smart ones know how far they can push. IMHO, you suffer from partisan myopia if you can't see it happens, routinely, on both sides of the isle.

Chief Henry
08-12-2008, 05:38 PM
Most show it goes all the way up to Cheney.


Sorry, but I think outing a CIA agent when they are still in the field, is teetering on treason, but Im fond of accountability and justice. Call me old-fashioned.

Most...you must mean the slanted liberal left wing media and the DNC talking heads. You know - like your favorite talking head named keith Olberman.
Now thats a non partisian journalist LMAO

BigChiefFan
08-12-2008, 05:56 PM
:rolleyes:

If allegations and exploiting the rules of the political game were beer and nuts, we could have ourselves one helluva bi-partisan party.

"Corruption" and allegations are nothing without proof. Period. LBJ and Nixon, "Iran-Contra" and "Whitewater" are just different incarnations of the same bipartisan "corruption."

Sadly, the only time it matters is when there is a "smoking gun".....the WH tapes for Tricky-Dick, the blue-dress for Slick-Willie. Different "magnitude" perhaps, same result....same lesson. Politicians from both parties, most 'em anyway, are hell-bent on pushing the envelope, whenever they can get away with it.

No one likes it; but everyone seems to tacitly enable the system....because we are so blinded by the partisan hypocrisy that both sides are engaged in. I've been witnessing it for more than 30 years now; same story, different chapter. Maybe Obama can change it; maybe he can't. I wouldn't bet the farm on it though.

Naivete' is bliss, every bit as much as any perceived "ignorance".....

The smart ones know how far they can push. IMHO, you suffer from partisan myopia if you can't see it happens, routinely, on both sides of the isle.
Scooter Libby ring any bells? Sure, there's no smoking gun. How about Robert Novak? Just another figment of my imagination, right?


As long as you don't get caught, it isn't cheating, right?

BigChiefFan
08-12-2008, 05:59 PM
:rolleyes:

If allegations and exploiting the rules of the political game were beer and nuts, we could have ourselves one helluva bi-partisan party.

"Corruption" and allegations are nothing without proof. Period. LBJ and Nixon, "Iran-Contra" and "Whitewater" are just different incarnations of the same bipartisan "corruption."

Sadly, the only time it matters is when there is a "smoking gun".....the WH tapes for Tricky-Dick, the blue-dress for Slick-Willie. Different "magnitude" perhaps, same result....same lesson. Politicians from both parties, most 'em anyway, are hell-bent on pushing the envelope, whenever they can get away with it.

No one likes it; but everyone seems to tacitly enable the system....because we are so blinded by the partisan hypocrisy that both sides are engaged in. I've been witnessing it for more than 30 years now; same story, different chapter. Maybe Obama can change it; maybe he can't. I wouldn't bet the farm on it though.

Naivete' is bliss, every bit as much as any perceived "ignorance".....

The smart ones know how far they can push. IMHO, you suffer from partisan myopia if you can't see it happens, routinely, on both sides of the isle. Where have I ever claimed to back Democrats that are corrupt? I haven't.

I do like most of what you said, outside of lumping everybody into neat little boxes.

***SPRAYER
08-12-2008, 06:16 PM
Where have I ever claimed to back Democrats that are corrupt? I haven't.

:LOL:


Obama Requested $1 Million For Construction Of A New Hospital Pavilion At The University Of Chicago. In 2006, Obama requested that the University of Chicago receive $1 million to support its Construction of New Hospital Pavilion. For more than 75 years, the University of Chicago Hospitals (UCH) has provided state of the art medical care on the South Side of Chicago.

Then Riehl points out:

From the Campaign Spot to NRO’s Byron York. Looks like Daddy-O brought home the bacon so Mommy-O could bring home even more bacon, too.

"In 2006, the Chicago Tribune reported that Mrs. Obama’s compensation at the University of Chicago Hospital, where she is a vice president for community affairs, jumped from $121,910 in 2004, just before her husband was elected to the Senate, to $316,962 in 2005, just after he took office." Looks like that raise was worth it.

Chief Henry
08-12-2008, 06:21 PM
:LOL:


Obama Requested $1 Million For Construction Of A New Hospital Pavilion At The University Of Chicago. In 2006, Obama requested that the University of Chicago receive $1 million to support its Construction of New Hospital Pavilion. For more than 75 years, the University of Chicago Hospitals (UCH) has provided state of the art medical care on the South Side of Chicago.

Then Riehl points out:

From the Campaign Spot to NRO’s Byron York. Looks like Daddy-O brought home the bacon so Mommy-O could bring home even more bacon, too.

"In 2006, the Chicago Tribune reported that Mrs. Obama’s compensation at the University of Chicago Hospital, where she is a vice president for community affairs, jumped from $121,910 in 2004, just before her husband was elected to the Senate, to $316,962 in 2005, just after he took office." Looks like that raise was worth it.

Its amazing how Mrs. O was not been happy with anything in this country while she was pulling in SIX figures per year.

Mr. Kotter
08-12-2008, 06:39 PM
Scooter Libby ring any bells? Sure, there's no smoking gun. How about Robert Novak? Just another figment of my imagination, right?


As long as you don't get caught, it isn't cheating, right?

In case you didn't notice jAZ's thread and prediction were not about Libby or Novak.

It was about Rove. Next red herring?

Where have I ever claimed to back Democrats that are corrupt? I haven't.

I do like most of what you said, outside of lumping everybody into neat little boxes.

I didn't say you did....I merely suggested that this "corruption" soap-box you are on....is a POLITICAL in nature, and not a partisan issue as you imply.

The only "box" I referenced was the box of "corrupt" politicians which is bipartisan.

OTOH, you seem unable to distinguish between a subjective term like corruption, and an indictment, and conviction (presumably based on facts--rather than mere allegations,) for which Rove has not yet....even two years later....been found "guilty" of in a court of law.

BigChiefFan
08-12-2008, 06:56 PM
In case you didn't notice jAZ's thread and prediction were not about Libby or Novak.

It was about Rove. Next red herring?



I didn't say you did....I merely suggested that this "corruption" soap-box you are on....is a POLITICAL in nature, and not a partisan issue as you imply.

The only "box" I referenced was the box of "corrupt" politicians which is bipartisan.

OTOH, you seem unable to distinguish between a subjective term like corruption, and an indictment, and conviction (presumably based on facts--rather than mere allegations,) for which Rove has not yet....even two years later....been found "guilty" of in a court of law.
Again, I mentioned Scooter Libby because he WAS INDICTED, thus substantiating the claim. Red Herring, my ass. Libby took the fall for Cheney.

Radar Chief
08-13-2008, 06:40 AM
Most show it goes all the way up to Cheney.


Sorry, but I think outing a CIA agent when they are still in the field, is teetering on treason, but Im fond of accountability and justice. Call me old-fashioned.

You now need to post a link showing that Plame was in the field when her name was brought up, or accept that you're FOS.

Bootlegged
09-12-2008, 10:33 AM
...

Mr. Kotter
09-12-2008, 10:34 AM
...

Heh.

I do SOOOOOOOO love this thread.

ROFLROFLROFL

Programmer
09-12-2008, 02:40 PM
05-09-2006


Rove to be indicted within 2 weeks... (http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/showthread.php?p=5008106#post5008106)

Still waiting.

Chief Henry
09-12-2008, 02:49 PM
05-09-2006


Rove to be indicted within 2 weeks... (http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/showthread.php?p=5008106#post5008106)

Still waiting.

For what ?

Programmer
09-12-2008, 02:54 PM
For what ?:rolleyes:

Velvet_Jones
09-16-2008, 10:12 PM
Can we change this thread title to "jIZ to be relevant in 2 weeks!"