Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Page 15 of 66 1 2 13 14 15 16 17 65 66
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 15,796
Likes: 40
Fair Play!
15000+ posts
Offline
Fair Play!
15000+ posts
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 15,796
Likes: 40
Did I hear a Rudy (the new Bush!) supporter mumble something?

I like her, get over it.


Fair play!
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 15,796
Likes: 40
Fair Play!
15000+ posts
Offline
Fair Play!
15000+ posts
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 15,796
Likes: 40
Quote:

Clinton widens lead over Obama for 2008 vote: poll
Published: Wednesday May 16, 2007
Hillary Clinton has strengthened her status as front-runner in the race for the Democratic Party nod for US president in 2008, putting the brakes on a surge from rival Barack Obama in the latest poll.

A Harris Poll released Wednesday found Clinton ahead by a full 13 points, 40 percent to 27 percent among Democratic voters nationwide. Her showing was better than a similar poll in April which showed her leading Obama 37 to 32.

Only former vice president Al Gore, who has so far said he is not planning to run, and former vice presidential candidate John Edwards registered significant support, with 13 and 12 percent respectively.

In the race for the Republican nomination, the poll had ex-New York mayor Rudolph Giuliani holding onto a solid lead with 38 percent support. But it notably showed former senator and "Law Order" star Fred Thompson -- who has yet to commit to the race -- tied for second with Senator John McCain behind Giuliani, each with 18 percent.

Overall, the poll of 2,523 voters between May 3 and May 10 showed voters continue to prefer Democrats by 71-58 percent over Republicans in the election, which takes place in November 2008.

Nominees for each party will be chosen in a series of state primary votes early next year.




RAW


Fair play!
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 43,951
Likes: 6
Officially "too old for this shit"
15000+ posts
Offline
Officially "too old for this shit"
15000+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 43,951
Likes: 6
I guess her efforts at exposing his Muslim background have paid off

the G-man #343923 2007-05-17 4:04 PM
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 14,203
1 Millionth Customer
10000+ posts
Offline
1 Millionth Customer
10000+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 14,203
Quote:

the G-man said:
I hate women and black people. but here i must go with my women-hating because she is more popular.
Also, I like punching babies.






Bow ties are coool.
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 43,951
Likes: 6
Officially "too old for this shit"
15000+ posts
Offline
Officially "too old for this shit"
15000+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 43,951
Likes: 6
I wonder how long until some rival of Hillary notices this New York Times story describing former President George H. W. Bush and former President Clinton as "practically family" and this comment about the relationship between the first President Bush and Hillary:

    And Mr. Bush is fond of Mrs. Clinton, his friends say: Not only does he like strong women, but he enjoys her sarcastic sense of humor, her quick way with a zinger and her shared interest in the nitty-gritty of international affairs.

Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 15,796
Likes: 40
Fair Play!
15000+ posts
Offline
Fair Play!
15000+ posts
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 15,796
Likes: 40
Quote:

the G-man said:
I wonder how long until some rival of Hillary notices this New York Times story describing former President George H. W. Bush and former President Clinton as "practically family" and this comment about the relationship between the first President Bush and Hillary:

    And Mr. Bush is fond of Mrs. Clinton, his friends say: Not only does he like strong women, but he enjoys her sarcastic sense of humor, her quick way with a zinger and her shared interest in the nitty-gritty of international affairs.





I think they would be a bit jealous that their rival received such praise from a respected Republican ex-President. This would only piss off folks that are on the far left who were not going to vote for her anyway IMHO. To me it's just one more thing that tells me she's the one we need in '08. Thank you for posting it G-man.


Fair play!
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 32,001
Likes: 1
PJP Offline
We already are
15000+ posts
Offline
We already are
15000+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 32,001
Likes: 1

Joined: Nov 2000
Posts: 4,069
Public Enemy #4
4000+ posts
Offline
Public Enemy #4
4000+ posts
Joined: Nov 2000
Posts: 4,069
Not bad. Is Hillary fucking her?


Oderint, dum metuant.


You are a god damned idiot, you know that? You ought to be smacked upside your dumb-fuck head, even after all these years. Shame on you!
-USCHI showin' some love


Pariah #343928 2007-05-25 6:10 PM
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 43,951
Likes: 6
Officially "too old for this shit"
15000+ posts
Offline
Officially "too old for this shit"
15000+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 43,951
Likes: 6
HILL WANTED TO "DESTROY" FLOWERS: BOOK

    Senator Hillary Clinton was so angered by Bill Clinton's alleged relationship with Gennifer Flowers, that she hired a private investigator undermine Flowers, "until she is destroyed,"

Joined: May 2003
Posts: 43,951
Likes: 6
Officially "too old for this shit"
15000+ posts
Offline
Officially "too old for this shit"
15000+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 43,951
Likes: 6
Hillary Rodhan Clinton supports Defense of Marriage Act (2000)


    when it comes to gay marriage, first lady Hillary Rodhan Clinton is standing by her man.

    Clinton, who is seeking the Democratic nomination for the U.S. Senate from New York State, said January 10 that she opposes same-sex marriage. She also said she would have voted for the Defense of Marriage Act, a bill passed by Congress in 1996 that prevents federal recognition of same-sex marriage.

    "Marriage has got historic, religious, and moral content that goes back to the beginning of time, and I think a marriage is as a marriage has always been, between a man and a woman," Clinton said.

Joined: May 2003
Posts: 19,633
I walk in eternity
15000+ posts
Offline
I walk in eternity
15000+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 19,633
Quote:

the G-man said:
Hillary Rodhan Clinton supports Defense of Marriage Act (2000)


    when it comes to gay marriage, first lady Hillary Rodhan Clinton is standing by her man.

    Clinton, who is seeking the Democratic nomination for the U.S. Senate from New York State, said January 10 that she opposes same-sex marriage. She also said she would have voted for the Defense of Marriage Act, a bill passed by Congress in 1996 that prevents federal recognition of same-sex marriage.

    "Marriage has got historic, religious, and moral content that goes back to the beginning of time, and I think a marriage is as a marriage has always been, between a man and a woman," Clinton said.





I'm afraid that damn " Abomination " line from the bible is going to be with us for a very long time...

But the Bible isn't the only factor here..

Money has a lot to do with this, too.

It not only happened to me, but I know of several gay men who lost the home they lived in with their lover because the family of the deceased lover did whatever they could to get them out of the home, whether or not there was a will or a marriage or a civil union.

The families want whatever they can get!

I know a guy who told me that a family member of his dead lover was sent to kill him because the lover and he had bought the house together - so, his name was on the deed.

They didn't care about the guys' life. They just wanted the house and everything in it.

George's family did a lot of crazy, illegal shit to me after George had died. I would rather not relive it .... lets' just say I am lucky to be alive today.

So, anti gayness is about a lot of things : misdirected hate, ignorance, greed, stupidity, etc.

( Money is the bottom line - The families want what they can get! They don't want that ruined. )

They also use the Bible as an excuse to hate. This act belittles all good Christians. I know plenty of Christians ( and Catholics ) who have accepted me as I am, and have not told me that I am hell bound simply for being gay.

No one knows for sure who will go where after death.

It is a belief.

Beliefs are neither right or wrong.

It is how you act on that belief that could be discerned as right or wrong.


And I would still like to know : Just how the hell is two men or two women getting married going to destroy the sanctity of heterosexual marriage? Heterosexuals seem to be destroying marriage just fine with no help from gays.

What is the current divorce rate? 52 % of all marriages break up now?

If marriage is so sacred, why is it not very durable? Why don't these anti gay marriage people address their own issues?


"I offer you a Vulcan prayer, Mr Suder. May your

death bring you the peace you never found in

life." - Tuvok.

Joined: May 2003
Posts: 19,633
I walk in eternity
15000+ posts
Offline
I walk in eternity
15000+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 19,633
Politics also plays a big part in anti gayness.

Many politicians run on an anti gay platform.

This appeals to many voters who are anti gay.


"I offer you a Vulcan prayer, Mr Suder. May your

death bring you the peace you never found in

life." - Tuvok.

Joined: May 2003
Posts: 14,203
1 Millionth Customer
10000+ posts
Offline
1 Millionth Customer
10000+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 14,203
what you need to understand, beardguy is that when a man and a woman are married their love is very fragile. so gaydiation can cause the breakdown of marriage.
marriage being the most fundamental foundation of all society, without it we'll have cats and dogs living together and little babies cracking open each other's skulls to feast on the brains within.
all because of gay marriage.
(source: foxnews.com)


Bow ties are coool.
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 43,951
Likes: 6
Officially "too old for this shit"
15000+ posts
Offline
Officially "too old for this shit"
15000+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 43,951
Likes: 6
Its funny how you dragged Fox News into this when Hillary is the one opposing gay marriage. Is Hillary now a Fox News commentator or something?

Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 15,796
Likes: 40
Fair Play!
15000+ posts
Offline
Fair Play!
15000+ posts
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 15,796
Likes: 40
Clinton may not undo the Defense of Marriage Act but she will keep our constitution safe from anti-gay marriage language. And if we're being realistic, which candidate(s) is for repealing DOMA? The question is really do you want a Federal Marriage Amendment or not. I don't.


Fair play!
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 43,951
Likes: 6
Officially "too old for this shit"
15000+ posts
Offline
Officially "too old for this shit"
15000+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 43,951
Likes: 6

Joined: May 2003
Posts: 14,203
1 Millionth Customer
10000+ posts
Offline
1 Millionth Customer
10000+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 14,203
Quote:

the G-man said:





Banning gay marriage is wrong, any ban on it is wrong. But the Defense of Marriage Act is the lesser of two evils. It was signed to prevent the constitution from being fucked with.
Now I realize that the current administration doesn't give two shits about the constitution what with illegal wiretaps, torture, violations of human rights, abuse of executive power, blurring of the two branches.
But DMA can be repealed a lot easier than an amendment could.
Now I realize that you and other modern republicans like a black and white world with perfect solutions or a scapegoat to blame problems on, but Clinton was President in the real world. He chose the option that could be undone, he chose the only option to put off the christian right.


Bow ties are coool.
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 43,951
Likes: 6
Officially "too old for this shit"
15000+ posts
Offline
Officially "too old for this shit"
15000+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 43,951
Likes: 6
Quote:

Friendly Neighborhood Ray-man said:
Banning gay marriage is wrong, any ban on it is wrong. But the Defense of Marriage Act is the lesser of two evils. It was signed to prevent the constitution from being fucked with.




No. As noted previously, Bill Clinton was vocally opposed to gay marriage. Your claims that he did this as some sort of end-run around the GOP are just another RayfactTM.

Joined: May 2003
Posts: 43,951
Likes: 6
Officially "too old for this shit"
15000+ posts
Offline
Officially "too old for this shit"
15000+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 43,951
Likes: 6
Clinton Supporter Sued Over Favors

    A longtime Clinton benefactor used corporate jets to fly the former President and Hillary Clinton on business, personal and campaign trips that a lawsuit blasts as wasteful company spending.

    The supporter, Vinod Gupta, also secured contracts worth more than $3 million for Bill Clinton to provide consulting services to Gupta's Nebraska-based company, infoUSA, from 2003 through 2008, according to the suit.

    Since 2002, Gupta has spent $900,000 flying the former President to international locations on presidential foundation business and flying Sen. Clinton (D-N.Y.) to political events.

    The suit, filed by infoUSA shareholders last year, claims those expenses and others unrelated to the Clintons were a "serial misuse of corporate assets."

Joined: May 2003
Posts: 14,203
1 Millionth Customer
10000+ posts
Offline
1 Millionth Customer
10000+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 14,203
Quote:

the G-man said:
Clinton Supporter Sued Over Favors

    A longtime Clinton benefactor used corporate jets to fly the former President and Hillary Clinton on business, personal and campaign trips that a lawsuit blasts as wasteful company spending.

    The supporter, Vinod Gupta, also secured contracts worth more than $3 million for Bill Clinton to provide consulting services to Gupta's Nebraska-based company, infoUSA, from 2003 through 2008, according to the suit.

    Since 2002, Gupta has spent $900,000 flying the former President to international locations on presidential foundation business and flying Sen. Clinton (D-N.Y.) to political events.

    The suit, filed by infoUSA shareholders last year, claims those expenses and others unrelated to the Clintons were a "serial misuse of corporate assets."




so. doesn't say they did anything wrong, just that some shareholders weren't happy with how one of their supporters wooed a famous "consultant." This is hardly new. Former Presidents are given a lot of money for speaking engagments and working as "consultants." Sometimes, like with Nixon post-VP pre-1968, they're hired just to add prestige to a company or institution.


Bow ties are coool.
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 17,801
terrible podcaster
15000+ posts
Offline
terrible podcaster
15000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 17,801
RAY ADLER IS AN ANTI-AMERICAN SCUMBAG!


go.

ᴚ ᴀ ᴐ ᴋ ᴊ ᴌ ᴧ
ಠ_ಠ
Joined: May 2007
Posts: 4
1 post
Offline
1 post
Joined: May 2007
Posts: 4
That's not a nice thing to say, Captain Sammitch.

From now on, before you post here, you ought to ask yourself,
" What would Jesus post? "


I can see you masturbating!
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 19,546
Likes: 1
living in 1962
15000+ posts
Offline
living in 1962
15000+ posts
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 19,546
Likes: 1
oh, look. another Jesus alt. is this the third or the fourth? I lose track.

Joined: May 2003
Posts: 43,951
Likes: 6
Officially "too old for this shit"
15000+ posts
Offline
Officially "too old for this shit"
15000+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 43,951
Likes: 6
The alt keeps (wait for it) rising from the dead.

Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 15,796
Likes: 40
Fair Play!
15000+ posts
Offline
Fair Play!
15000+ posts
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 15,796
Likes: 40
Quote:

Conservatives Promoting Anti-Clinton Book
By RAYMOND HERNANDEZ
Published: June 17, 2005

WASHINGTON, June 16 - Republican and conservative activists are behind a vigorous campaign to promote a controversial new biography about Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton, with some even suggesting that the book will help dash any presidential aspirations she might have.
...



NYTimes
I suppose they can always hope.


Fair play!
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 43,951
Likes: 6
Officially "too old for this shit"
15000+ posts
Offline
Officially "too old for this shit"
15000+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 43,951
Likes: 6
St Paul Pioneer Press

    A new biography of Hillary Rodham Clinton alleges she masterminded efforts to cover up Bill Clinton's draft record during the 1992 campaign - and coolly executed a "20-year project" to place both spouses into the Oval Office regardless of their marital woes.

    The book portrays Clinton as a politically savvy manipulator who is, in turn, manipulated by an even savvier manipulator named Bill Clinton.

    Gerth and Van Natta's 400-page biography is timed to arrive in bookstores June 5 - the same day as Carl Bernstein's 650-page "A Woman in Charge."

    Clinton's rapid-response media operation began issuing talking points questioning the veracity and newsworthiness of both books. ((Maybe Chris will post them here--G)

    But the elan hides real concern among her supporters that the books might revive long-held views that she accepted her husband's infidelities as a trade-off for her own presidential ambitions. Bernstein's book, which he began in 1999, before Clinton won election to the Senate, is more of a soup-to-nuts biography, with new information about Hillary Clinton's 30-year struggle to cope with her husband's infidelities.

    Gerth and Van Natta allege that Hillary Clinton told then White House Chief of Staff Leon Panetta of a Clinton family plan to serve successive eight-year terms in the White House.

    During a 1996 ride on Air Force One, Panetta said Clinton revealed the project "had begun in Arkansas with the goal of establishing a long-term change in where the Democratic Party was heading."

Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 15,796
Likes: 40
Fair Play!
15000+ posts
Offline
Fair Play!
15000+ posts
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 15,796
Likes: 40
I guess I don't see it being a bad thing if she had a "secret" plan to get both of them in the White House or not? It's fair to point out that both G-man & I are have strong opinions about Hillary but this just seems to fall pretty flat as far as secrets go. Don't many politicians from both sides have a plan to be President? What exactly is the big deal with that?


Fair play!
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 43,951
Likes: 6
Officially "too old for this shit"
15000+ posts
Offline
Officially "too old for this shit"
15000+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 43,951
Likes: 6
Didn't get the talking points yet, I take it?

Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 15,796
Likes: 40
Fair Play!
15000+ posts
Offline
Fair Play!
15000+ posts
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 15,796
Likes: 40
Quote:

the G-man said:
Didn't get the talking points yet, I take it?




I was generally interested in who thought the "secret" plan to be president was a big deal or not. You yourself while posting an article about it have not really shared any opinion on it. I guess if this was Rudy who had a "secret" plan to be President, I couldn't see myself seeing that as something particulary negative or positive.


Fair play!
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 43,951
Likes: 6
Officially "too old for this shit"
15000+ posts
Offline
Officially "too old for this shit"
15000+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 43,951
Likes: 6
Quote:

the G-man said:
HILL WANTED TO "DESTROY" FLOWERS: BOOK

    Senator Hillary Clinton was so angered by Bill Clinton's alleged relationship with Gennifer Flowers, that she hired a private investigator undermine Flowers, "until she is destroyed,"





I wonder how the democrats who constantly bashed Bush over the Patriot Act and Valerie Plame and who claim that a Democrat President would respect people's constitutional rights feel about a potential Democratic nominee who hires private investigators to "destroy people"?

I'm sure they've got a talking point to explain it away.

Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 15,796
Likes: 40
Fair Play!
15000+ posts
Offline
Fair Play!
15000+ posts
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 15,796
Likes: 40
Your comparing Jennifer Flowers to an undercover agent? Oookay, well even if the allegation was true no crime was committed & Jennifer Flowers wasn't a secret agent.

And if she was, lets remember it would take almost a dozen witnesses for one G-man to be not sure if Clinton was guilty or not of anything.


Fair play!
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 43,951
Likes: 6
Officially "too old for this shit"
15000+ posts
Offline
Officially "too old for this shit"
15000+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 43,951
Likes: 6
Let's assume, simply for the sake of argument, that both Bush and Clinton are guilty of trying to extract retribution against someone (in Bush's case, Plame, and in Clinton's case Flowers).

Is it really your position that its better to seek retribution against a person such as Flowers who was a private citizen than against a person such as Plame who was a government employee who, right or wrong, could be viewed as "disloyal."

Isn't it, in fact, worse when a govenment official tries to attack a private citizen, since that citizen has less protections than, say, a politically connected government employee?

Furthermore, still assuming that both are guilty, you've been critical of Bush for violating people's privacy in the name of national security (ie, the Patriot Act). Even if you feel that Bush's invocation of National Security is misplaced, how can you think it better that a potential president would violate privacy, not for National Security, for purely political and personal reasons?

Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 15,796
Likes: 40
Fair Play!
15000+ posts
Offline
Fair Play!
15000+ posts
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 15,796
Likes: 40
Quote:

the G-man said:
Let's assume, simply for the sake of argument, that both Bush and Clinton are guilty of trying to extract retribution against someone (in Bush's case, Plame, and in Clinton's case Flowers).

Is it really your position that its better to seek retribution against a person such as Flowers who was a private citizen than against a person such as Plame who was a government employee who, right or wrong, could be viewed as "disloyal."

Isn't it, in fact, worse when a govenment official tries to attack a private citizen, since that citizen has less protections than, say, a politically connected government employee?

Furthermore, still assuming that both are guilty, you've been critical of Bush for violating people's privacy in the name of national security (ie, the Patriot Act). Even if you feel that Bush's invocation of National Security is misplaced, how can you think it better that a potential president would violate privacy, not for National Security, for purely political and personal reasons?




If they were both hypothetically true & provable, then Bush would be impeached & looking at jail time. Hillary might have some trouble but she still wouldn't be guilty of breaking any law. If hiring investigators to dig up dirt was a real problem, I think campaigns from either party would be in for some trouble.


Fair play!
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 43,951
Likes: 6
Officially "too old for this shit"
15000+ posts
Offline
Officially "too old for this shit"
15000+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 43,951
Likes: 6
So, what you are saying is that you have no qualms about invading someone's privacy and/or destroying them for political gain as long as, technically, no one finds a violation of the law?

That's interesting.

On the thread you started about "probing the White House" and Attorney General Gonzales, you have been very critical of the White House for allegedly trying to destroy the careers of certain US Attorneys even though it is perfectly legal for a President to fire those attorneys for political purposes. You have referred to it as "Improper," a "Gross abuse of power" and

In fact, you explicitly stated that just because something was legal, didn't mean you found it ethical

Quote:

it looks apparent that Bush was having Gonzales use the Justice Department as a tool for the GOP. Legal perhaps but ethical? Nope




Interestingly enough, I agreed with you on most of that. I agreed that Gonzales should go and agreed that Bush was wrong here on several grounds.

However, as soon as a similar situation arises with a Democrat, you flip flop. You suddenly argue that, as long as it was legal, it was okay to attack an innocent person for political gain.

That's a pretty glaring inconsistency on your part.

Joined: May 2003
Posts: 43,951
Likes: 6
Officially "too old for this shit"
15000+ posts
Offline
Officially "too old for this shit"
15000+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 43,951
Likes: 6
Hillary squeezes Illinois high schooler

    According to the Federal Election Commission, Hillary took $4,000 from a Cameron Ramsdell, student, Bannockburn, IL., on Dec. 29, 2003. The FEC lists his address as 1200 Valley Road. In 2003, a Cameron Ramsdell was playing football at Lake Forest Academy, a private high school.

    Most high schoolers don’t have $4,000 lying around to give away and those who do are not going to give it to a U.S. Senator from another state.

    Unless, of course, his mother or other relative is an employee for a company whose top officials have given Hillary more than $150,000 over the last several years and one that could strongly benefit from a Clinton presidency.

    Valerie Ramsdell has been a top official for Buffalo Grove-based International Profit Associates, a business consulting firm in the cross hairs of state and federal governments for alleged fraud and blatant companywide sexual harassment. Her $4,000 donation to Hillary two weeks prior to Cameron’s listed the same 1200 Valley Road address.

    In that pending sexual harassment lawsuit in U.S. District Court in Chicago, one of the latest pleadings characterizes Valerie Ramsdell as an enabler of the alleged rampant sexual harassment.

    Six months after the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission filed the “most egregious” sexual harassment lawsuit ever out of the agency’s Chicago office, Bill Clinton was yukking it up with company founder and convicted criminal John Burgess. For that appearance, Bill was paid $125,000. Later, the campaign contributions flowed to Hillary, as well as a trip in the IPA corporate jet. If she is elected president, Hillary could make the lawsuit go away in a hurry.

the G-man #343955 2007-05-29 11:08 PM
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 15,796
Likes: 40
Fair Play!
15000+ posts
Offline
Fair Play!
15000+ posts
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 15,796
Likes: 40
Quote:

the G-man said:
So, what you are saying is that you have no qualms about invading someone's privacy and/or destroying them for political gain as long as, technically, no one finds a violation of the law?




No, I said.."Hillary might have some trouble but she still wouldn't be guilty of breaking any law. If hiring investigators to dig up dirt was a real problem, I think campaigns from either party would be in for some trouble." That doesn't equate to having no qualms as you rephrased it. The rest of your post veers of into conjecture built on your change of wording.


Fair play!
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 43,951
Likes: 6
Officially "too old for this shit"
15000+ posts
Offline
Officially "too old for this shit"
15000+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 43,951
Likes: 6
Again, however, when Bush/Gonzales acted legally, you made it clear that you, personally, didn't care that it was legal. Instead, you said, the important issue was what was "ethical."

With Hillary, while conceding "there might be trouble," you seem to be saying that you, personally, care more about the legality than the ethics. You certainly aren't, for example, demanding an investigation into her alleged conduct they way you did with simiarly alleged conduct from Gonzales/Bush.

That comes off as a flip flop.

the G-man #343957 2007-05-30 12:29 AM
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 15,796
Likes: 40
Fair Play!
15000+ posts
Offline
Fair Play!
15000+ posts
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 15,796
Likes: 40
In the case of the two hypotheticals that you set up, what Bush did was worse & it comes with some deserved legal penalties. Investigating someone just isn't comparable to outing your own country's covert agents IMHO. Besides being illegal it's something far worse. Something I would think we could easily agree on G-man.

Last edited by Matter-eater Man; 2007-05-30 12:32 AM.

Fair play!
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 43,951
Likes: 6
Officially "too old for this shit"
15000+ posts
Offline
Officially "too old for this shit"
15000+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 43,951
Likes: 6
The Plame incident, while discussed earlier, isn't what we were just debating.

In the more recent discussion I compared the Bush/Gonzales firings at the Justice Department to Hillary's actions. I pointed out that both were legal and that your responses to each were differen, that you cared about ethics over the law in the Bush case, but law over ethics in the Hillary case.

Trying to bring up Plame is, at this point, nonresponsive to our current discussion.

Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 15,796
Likes: 40
Fair Play!
15000+ posts
Offline
Fair Play!
15000+ posts
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 15,796
Likes: 40
G-man, you started out asking me to compare two hypotheticals. I answered. Then you applied my answer to a different one in the your next post.

Moving on though, two things can be legal but that doesn't make them comparable just like two things illegal are not. Can we agree on that?

OK, now do you feel a President using our Justice Department to investigate Congress in a way to keep his party in power is really comparable to someone hiring a private investigator. (please provide a yes or no somewhere in your response) I say no btw.


Fair play!
Page 15 of 66 1 2 13 14 15 16 17 65 66

Link Copied to Clipboard
Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.7.5