View Full Version : And Now According to the London Times...
10-19-2000, 07:51 PM
The British really are coming...
It just keeps getting better and better!!!! Ya gotta love it... I'm so exasperated I could laugh and cry at the same time!
See this URL: http://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/0,,22380,00.html
10-20-2000, 09:11 AM
For those of you who didn't read the article, it states that the British Labour Party has sent staffers to work for the campaigns of Hillary Clinton and Al Gore.
Wonderful. First China, now Britain. Where will it end?<BR>
10-20-2000, 09:14 AM
Now if we could just get the Iranians....er wait...the Iranians like Republican leaders-- that way they can get American built arms and bombs to funnel to the terrorist cells.
10-20-2000, 09:17 AM
You mean the Ayatollah has sent staffers to work for Bush's campaign, canvasing from door-to-door?
I can hardly wait! That would be fun to see. I can imagine now. They show up in their traditional dress and turbins, AK-47s slung over their shoulders, ring my doorbell and say:
"We want you to vote for Bush. You agree you infidel? Or do we teach you how to agree?"
10-20-2000, 09:18 AM
Drew: I guess that would be funny if it made any sense.
10-20-2000, 09:22 AM
Perhaps we have different senses of humor. I guess I don't find it funny that Republicans have cut secret arms deals with Iranian extremists.
10-20-2000, 09:25 AM
They have? Why isnt that a big campaign issue? I would think that the American people would be very interested to know that they have done this.
10-20-2000, 09:31 AM
Kinda like that secret arms deal Al Gore cut with the Russian premier to supply nuclear technology to Iran, eh?<BR>
10-20-2000, 09:34 AM
Fly: that doesnt count. If a dem does the same, it's a 'election year' gimmick and republican spin.
Please, Drew, tell me about the deal the Republicans struck with Iranian Extremists...I really need to know cause I was planning on voting for the Republicans.
10-20-2000, 09:34 AM
You think Iran Contra was about antibiotics and fruit juice?
How does that make it better, exactly?
10-20-2000, 09:37 AM
Vote Republican!!! We're the Double Standard Party!!!
10-20-2000, 09:40 AM
Oh, I see, Iran Contra. Wasnt that like 20 years ago or something?
I guess then we can link Gore to the Congressional Check Scandal, embezzling money from the federal govt, and Dan Rostenkowski's theft of government property.
Please, Drew try to find something different to obsess about. The Chicken Little routine is old.
10-20-2000, 09:41 AM
I'm really trying to follow this conversation, but apparently it is so far above my head that I can't grasp it.
i'm sure that drew is making some kind of point?...
10-20-2000, 09:48 AM
I'm not obsessing. I'm trying to reconcile how the support of a British political party is 'worse' or any different than pandering to Iranian extremists. It all goes back to those two sets of standards and rules you Republicans like to play by-- them doing it is scandal, us doing it is just old fashioned politics.
I suppose it'd be different if I was the one being so self righteous about these things. But I'm not. I'm simply pointing out a laughable and pathetic double standard.
10-20-2000, 09:55 AM
Drew: I havent read the word scandal in any post except yours. You are comparing this election cycle with an even that happened 20 years ago.
I acknowledge that Iran/Contra is the Holy Grail of Evil Republicanism, but I fail to see it's connection with this years election.
Is there a person who was convicted of Lying that is running for the republican party for an office? If so, then I guess it would be relevant.
As far as double standards are concerned, maybe you could explain to me how lying under oath has changed between now and then.
10-20-2000, 10:00 AM
The way I understand the rules when something unpleasant about Democrats in politics hits the press:
1) Point fingers at others. Notice Drew resorts to this first and foremost.
2) Point out it is irrelevant.
3) Say "Everybody does it."
4) Start name-calling.<BR>
10-20-2000, 10:09 AM
It looks like both sides have a lot in common, I guess. The main difference being that Repubs are very quick to criticize ANYTHING, and seem to be particularly voracious on matters in which their own folks are equally guilty. This is the double standard that drives simple minded folks like me batty.
10-20-2000, 10:18 AM
Drew: I like the new mantra, but please enlighten me, are the Republicans enlisting the help of the British Conservative Party for this election cycle? Did the reps take money from a convicted arms/drug dealer like the Clinton group did last election? Did the reps take money from a source that was traced back to communist china in the last election?
Where is this double standard you keep chirping about?
10-20-2000, 10:19 AM
The PAST is the past and the PRESENT is the Future,look at the canidates and see who is Wishy Washy and who is firm and strong! It's Easy To See! If you need a hint to go by, 8 yrs was to much for me! I voted for BOB DOLE!
10-20-2000, 10:21 AM
I have to agree with Titus on this one: Find something else to obsess about...Al Gore's penis should do quite nicely.
10-20-2000, 10:26 AM
Hey, heres one.
The RNC took in three times as much money from Canadian sources than the DNC from asian sources in 1996. Do you think, perhaps, the reason the oriental money was such a big deal was because of pigmentation and political organization? I mean, Canada is foriegn, isn't it?
Hypocrisy. We serve it with a smile. XXOOXXOO- Your friends at the RNC.
10-20-2000, 10:29 AM
Drew, can you point me to a URL or major media source for that statement about Canadian money? I really want to look it up.
Or are you talking about companies like Ford Motor Company, based in America, with subsidiaries in Canada, giving money to the RNC?
Or is the Conservative Party of Canada sending funds and staffers to support Republican candidates?
10-20-2000, 10:29 AM
Source please, Drew.
Clint: yet another masterful performance of Irony. You have definately reclaimed your title as King of Irony.
10-20-2000, 10:30 AM
I love Clint's remarks! I may not agree with him a lot, but he is fun to read!!!
10-20-2000, 10:32 AM
Titus, you don't even know what you're talking about. If anyone is the King of IRONy, it is the Republicans who have lost ungodly amounts of liquid protein since that Rolling Stone hit the newsstands.
10-20-2000, 10:34 AM
It's funny, because as soon as Democrats started mentioning Canadian money, the fevor for investigations into Democratic fundraising suddenly died down within the ranks of Republicans in Congress.
Now I wonder why in the hell that would happen? What on earth would motivate them to all the sudden not care so much about Democratic fundraising tactics? Geez, what could it have been?
I guess I don't get the reference to Gore's penis.
10-20-2000, 10:37 AM
And Im sure you have a source to that effect, Drew? Anything, even if it's from Salon.com, I'll read it.
I've never heard the accusation before. I guess it wasnt much of a story when they made a big deal about it.
10-20-2000, 10:39 AM
i haven't heard any die down of outrage, and I still have no clue as to what you're talking about.
Titus just pegged you as someone that can't back up what he's saying so he just attacks others [paraphrasing]. You're proving his point.
Where can I get evidence/info about what you're alleging?
did you make this up???...
10-20-2000, 10:41 AM
I just put words in your mouth ~ sorry.
I take full responcibility.
10-20-2000, 10:41 AM
Clint, I'll have you know I lost no liquid protein over the Rolling Stone cover. Hell, I've been trying, but somehow I just can't do it! http://www.ChiefsPlanet.com/ubb/biggrin.gif
10-20-2000, 10:43 AM
I can give you about as much substantiation as you can give me. How about you substantiate the allegation that Clinton was bought off by the Chinese government.
I mean, this is a huge allegation. Why did it just fizzle up and die and become nothing but speculative banter among conservative talk radio junkies? It just doesn't make any sense that it'd just fade away like that.
Why on earth could that be?
I think I'll be waiting awhile.
10-20-2000, 10:45 AM
Drew: come on now, I didnt say 'bought off'
I did say they ACCEPTED donations from those source and they also returned the money after it was 'discovered'.
Do you want me to post some links or are you trying to just CYA on your BS allegation?
10-20-2000, 10:48 AM
Drew, I've posted major media URLs for every news item I talk about. No Rush, RNC, or extreme organizations.
Can't you do the same? Na na na na na na....
10-20-2000, 10:52 AM
I got one for you, Drew, written by none other than Republican-slayer himself, Bob Woodward about questionable campaign contributions to the DNC that were later returned.
10-20-2000, 10:55 AM
Here's a little stuff to hold you over while I dig up the Canada stuff. It might take me a bit as things got very quiet all the sudden when Democrats started mentioning this odd influx of Canadian money...
Bear with me.
10-20-2000, 10:58 AM
Oh goody...more re-hash of Iran Contra. Maybe you could have posted something relevant to the thread? I guess, I could post a link to Falwells tape, the Clinton Chronicles. That and your URL hold about as much water at this point.
10-20-2000, 11:01 AM
Drew, is this a mainline major news media source? It sure doesn't look like one...<BR>
10-20-2000, 11:01 AM
Here Drew, I'll help you out. On the VERY same website:
It even mentions the Reps had to return some money. About 100k, but says nothing about the Canadian influence.
Dont read the part about the millions that the DNC had to return...that would defeat your argument.
[This message has been edited by KCTitus (edited 10-20-2000).]
10-20-2000, 11:04 AM
Drew, this URL is a lot of propaganda with figures... It's like writing a thesis with a predetermined outcome and then finding figures to back you up...
C'mon, you can do better than that...
Give me an AP, Reuters, or other mainline source... NO PROPAGANDA SOURCES!<BR>
10-20-2000, 11:13 AM
I think Frontline is pretty legit, although it is those hairy legged fem nazi lesbos that do PBS's fundraising. Follow this link down to "Soft Francs?"
Again, I'm not the one standing on the high horse whining about foriegn money contributions to a political candidate. I just wonder why you guys don't get as wound up about all the GOP saints as you do those evil, dirty Dems?
Can somebody explain that?
10-20-2000, 11:22 AM
I mean, geez, this little link shows that both sides would sell out their mother. You've got Republicans and Democrats alike peddling access and influence and circumventing every regulation that exists. Yet one half of this seems to be always left out on the Rush Limbaugh shows and on internet BB's, and when GOP attack dogs start spouting off about evil Democrats. Its the boldest and most shameless hypocrisy imaginable. It's like standing there with crumbs on your lips and narcing off your little brother for raiding the cookie jar.
10-20-2000, 11:25 AM
Thanks, Drew. I think Frontline is a pretty good source. I will check it out...<BR>
10-20-2000, 11:47 AM
The RNC took in three times as much money from Canadian sources than the DNC from asian sources in 1996. - In that link it states that GOP received 500,000 from a LEGITIMATE source of contributions. It even states it's legal, but the writers apparently dont like the source. - This is what happens when you convolute the process with this stupid soft money.
Im still waiting for Illegal Canadian contributions, Drew.
DNC had to return over 1.2 Million raised by Huang alone that came from 'questionable' sources.
10-20-2000, 12:05 PM
It doesn't look like I'm going to be able to find a source on the Canadian thing. I didn't make it up-- read it in Newsweek if I remember correctly-- but I can't find it. Archive doesn't go back that far. So, I guess I'll have to retract that.
But, I do think the Frontline stuff is pretty telling. It goes to my overall premise-- many of you operate under two distinct sets of rules: those for your guys and those for the awful, dirty Democrats. I still don't understand the double standard.
10-20-2000, 12:08 PM
Drew: do you fail to realize the difference between 'legal' and illegal contributions. It appears that in your Frontline article, that while smarmy and unappealing, what Hatch did was legal.
Please dont tell me that the DNC returned about 3 million in campaign contributions because they were merely smarmy and unappealing. I think it's because they werent legal.
10-20-2000, 12:34 PM
I hate soft money, period. (corporations, unions, pacs) I want it stopped.
But that still wouldn't have stopped British Labour Party staffers from helping Hillary and Al, and that still bothers me mucho...<BR>
vBulletin® v3.8.0, Copyright ©2000-2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.