And democrats think were wrong for

[85Sooner]

not trusting them with jack sh!t.

1. liberal tree hugging lawyer defends man convicted of masterminding the first WTC bombing.

2. Since convicted man is in jail, Tree hugging liberal lawyer is the go between for convicted terrorist to talk to his terrorist buddies.

3 Liberal scumbag lawyer is caught and charged with aiding terrorism.

4. Liberal, scumbag, traitorist lawyers defense on reprehensible charge is funded by none other than the DNC favorite group Move on.org paid for by billionaire Soros.


Both parties have their skeletons but this is plain as day and in direct conflict with the country's national security issues.

http://www.nationalreview.com/york/york200502170843.asp

[BeetDigger]

Do you mean "we're" in the title?

[mdklatt]

All Republicans are gay child predators who have taken bribes. EVERY SINGLE ONE!

[85Sooner]

Do you mean "we're" in the title?


yup

[Widescreen]

All Republicans are gay child predators who have taken bribes. EVERY SINGLE ONE!
WHERE'S MY BRIBE!??!!11!??!!!! :mad:

[85Sooner]

All Republicans are gay child predators who have taken bribes. EVERY SINGLE ONE!


Which republican is a child predator. Last I checked, some inappropriate IM's were discovered sent to a person at least 16 years of age (the age of consent in Washington DC). Repubs still don't stand for that and that person is now out of office. There is not one group including the RNC that supports the now resigned idiot.

We won't go into the fate of the Dem representative who actually had relations with a page. OK?

[85Sooner]

WHERE'S MY BRIBE!??!!11!??!!!! :mad:


In a freezer located near New Orleans.:D

[Stoop Dawg]

I say **** the right to a defense lawyer. If you weren't guilty, you wouldn't have been arrested.

[BeetDigger]

All Republicans are gay child predators who have taken bribes. EVERY SINGLE ONE!


Sincerely,

Barney Frank





:pop:

[mdklatt]

I say **** the right to a defense lawyer. If you weren't guilty, you wouldn't have been arrested.

Except maybe in Norman....

[Stoop Dawg]

Ruufus deserves the death penalty, that little terrorist ****er.

[mdklatt]

Ruufus deserves the death penalty, that little terrorist ****er.

He's from Louisiana, too, so you know he's a Democrat.

[Stoop Dawg]

He's from Louisiana, too, so you know he's a liberal tree hugging scumbag Democrat.

Fixed.

[mdklatt]

Fixed.

That's always implied when you say Democrat.

[critical_phil]

Which republican is a child predator. Last I checked, some inappropriate IM's were discovered sent to a person at least 16 years of age (the age of consent in Washington DC).

as the parent of a 16 year old daughter: go **** yourself.

[85Sooner]

as the parent of a 16 year old daughter: go **** yourself.


Don't be p1ssed at me, I didn't set the rules for that sespool. it seems that is run by elected demcrats.

[critical_phil]

who said i was p!ssed?

you tried to glaze over the foley deal, and i told you to go **** yourself.

[85Sooner]

who said i was p!ssed?

you tried to glaze over the foley deal, and i told you to go **** yourself.


Comparing the Foley deal (which if you noticed above, I feel was treated correctly, he was outed and forced to resign) not much more that can be done about that is there. It seems like the Dems like to skate over every one of their issues.
National Security is of major priority. Am I wrong?

[usmc-sooner]

the crap that we as Americans can now condone or justify sickens me. I don't care what the law says, Foley is sick.

I aint jumping on you 85, but as a Republican I am ashamed of that faggot Foley. Not that I'm not discussed by the Democrats but we got to be different than the Dem's and start weeding out are bad apples.

[Vaevictis]

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/2/25/North.jpg

I do solemnly swear that no Republican has ever given material support to any avowed enemy of the United States of America.

[usmc-sooner]

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/2/25/North.jpg

I do solemnly swear that no Republican has ever given material support to any avowed enemy of the United States of America.

stupid post

[85Sooner]

the crap that we as Americans can now condone or justify sickens me. I don't care what the law says, Foley is sick.

I aint jumping on you 85, but as a Republican I am ashamed of that faggot Foley. Not that I'm not discussed by the Democrats but we got to be different than the Dem's and start weeding out are bad apples.

I whole heartedly agree. Whats even more sad is that it took this long for it to come out even though many knew about it. It should be forbidden for any politician to use the "its for our children" line. They really don't give a hoot about our children. " Summertime blues plays in background. "sorry son but your too young to vote" comes to mind. At least I feel that the repubs do hold their members to a higher standard.(see gingrich, Livingston and foley. The dems might get more following if they did the same. ie: Clinton Kennedy, frank, and many many more.

By their actions and words they are basically the party of the Nambla crowd.

[Vaevictis]

I fail to see how jettisoning party members only after their misdeeds become public -- and thus a political liability -- shows any more moral fiber than not jettisoning them at all.

A truly ethical party would police themselves and jettison them as soon as they find wrongdoing.

(And no, I'm not saying that the Dems are any better on this account, I'm just saying that both parties are equally bad, especially when you compare a majority Democratic party to a majority Republican party.)

[85Sooner]

I fail to see how jettisoning party members only after their misdeeds become public -- and thus a political liability -- shows any more moral fiber than not jettisoning them at all.

A truly ethical party would police themselves and jettison them as soon as they find wrongdoing.

(And no, I'm not saying that the Dems are any better on this account, I'm just saying that both parties are equally bad, especially when you compare a majority Democratic party to a majority Republican party.)


I think the interesting part of your post is that the Dems never jettison anyone even after the outings(unless its lieberman for supporting the War)

[Stoop Dawg]

In filings with the IRS, foundation officials wrote that the purpose of the contribution was "to conduct a public education campaign around the broad civil rights implications of Lynne Stewart's indictment."

It appears that their public education campaign has not been 100% successful.

[Vaevictis]

I think the interesting part of your post is that the Dems never jettison anyone even after the outings(unless its lieberman for supporting the War)

The Dems will accept anyone who can win their district.

... the Republicans will too. It's just that they demand a public execution of the guy who ****ed the dog and can't win their district the next time they're up for re-election.

EDIT: In other words, the Republicans take action to look better without taking action to actually be better.

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

I fail to see how jettisoning party members only after their misdeeds become public -- and thus a political liability -- shows any more moral fiber than not jettisoning them at all.

A truly ethical party would police themselves and jettison them as soon as they find wrongdoing.

(And no, I'm not saying that the Dems are any better on this account, I'm just saying that both parties are equally bad, especially when you compare a majority Democratic party to a majority Republican party.)With all due respect, do you now see how silly the above sounds?

[lexsooner]

Geez, so worked up over partisan party politics. There ain't a lick of difference between the Dems and Repubs - they're all people of low character and integrity - it must be inherent in politicians. There's a few, and I mean a few decent people in both parties, but for the most part they are scum who would sell their spouses for more power and influence. Get over this partisan crap. Stop wasting your energy and try and focus it on more positive things.

[Vaevictis]

With all due respect, do you now see how silly the above sounds?

Makes perfect sense to me. The Republicans take action to look like they're the more ethical party without actually bothering to be more ethical. The Dems don't bother with the pretense.

And I don't see how one is better than the other in any significant way.

[85Sooner]

Makes perfect sense to me. The Republicans take action to look like they're the more ethical party without actually bothering to be more ethical. The Dems don't bother with the pretense.

And I don't see how one is better than the other in any significant way.


Really? you can't see a difference when it comes to holding those in your party accountable? I agree the parties are very similar but this is one area where a distinct difference is evident. Matter of fact, it sthe main reason that I can't vote for a Democrat period. As corrupt as both parties seem to be, the dems are the only ones that flaunt it in our faces and go to kill the messenger rather than taking responsibility and resigning.

[Vaevictis]

So a totally disingenuous mea culpa is really better than none at all?

Oh, I just smacked you on the head. Sorry.
Oh crap, I did it again. I'm really sorry about it.
Oh, did that sting? Truly, I'm absolutely mortified at my behavior.
Gee, did I just smack you again? I just can't control my hand. I'm terribly sorry about that.

I'm no less insulted by the whole "We'll do it until we get caught, then we'll say we're sorry, and then when you're not looking, we'll do it again" attitude than the "Yeah, we did it. What are you gonna do about it" attitude.

The Republican party only takes responsibility when doing so is the only viable option left to them. The Dems will sometimes try to avoid it even then -- and sometimes they'll get away with it, yes.

But choosing between the two is like asking whether I would like the creamy, steamy baby poop for dinner, or the old man hard-as-a-rock constipated poop for dinner. Both are crap.

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

So a totally disingenuous mea culpa is really better than none at all?


.

The Republican party only takes responsibility when doing so is the only viable option left to them. The Dems will sometimes try to avoid it even then -- and sometimes they'll get away with it, yes.

But choosing between the two is like asking whether I would like the creamy, steamy baby poop for dinner, or the old man hard-as-a-rock constipated poop for dinner. Both are crap. No, one is decidedly worse than the other. There is hope for improvement in the one that is the lesser evil. The other one, not so much hope.

[sitzpinkler]

No, one is decidedly worse than the other. There is hope for improvement in the one that is the lesser evil. The other one, not so much hope.

hahahah, riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight

[Vaevictis]

No, one is decidedly worse than the other. There is hope for improvement in the one that is the lesser evil. The other one, not so much hope.

Oh, I agree, I just don't think that this is the bright dividing line you think it is. The two are the same on this point.

On the other hand, it ain't the Democrats touting Vietnamization Part II (aka, "We'll stand down as they stand up") as a "Plan for Victory." At least Nixon was honest about it being a plan for withdrawl. It ain't the Democrats who presided over the accumulation of 2/3 of our total national debt. Actually, that can be laid at the feet of the last three Republican presidents. It ain't the Democrats who created our very own system of gulags.

So yeah, I agree. One is decidedly worse than the other.

[critical_phil]

No, one is decidedly worse than the other. There is hope for improvement in the one that is the lesser evil. The other one, not so much hope.


this sums up my attitude about politics for most of my adult life. then i woke up and smelled the coffee.

i was dead wrong.

the fact that people lean on and accept the lesser evil defense shows how out of control things are.

[OklahomaTuba]

It ain't the Democrats who created our very own system of gulags.

FDR might disagree with you on that point.

[Stoop Dawg]

Sorry, but would someone educate me on how contributing to a defense attorney in order to raise awareness of perceived civil rights violations is the same as preying on 16 year old boys? I guess I'm just having a stupid moment.

[Vaevictis]

FDR might disagree with you on that point.

The WWII (Japanese) internment camps were, IMO, wrong, but don't quite rise to the level of gulags. People didn't get dissapeared for years, shuffled from country to country to be tortured, etc.

Suspension of habeas corpus? Yes. Wrong? Probably. Gulag? No.

[Vaevictis]

Sorry, but would someone educate me on how contributing to a defense attorney in order to raise awareness of perceived civil rights violations is the same as preying on 16 year old boys? I guess I'm just having a stupid moment.

One involves a Democrat. The other involves a Republican.

[OklahomaTuba]

Sorry, but would someone educate me on how contributing to a defense attorney in order to raise awareness of perceived civil rights violations is the same as preying on 16 year old boys? I guess I'm just having a stupid moment.

i don't think anyone said they were the same, did they?

Seems to me that one guy is just sick and needs lots of help, and the other is trying to committ treason.

[Vaevictis]

Seems to me that one guy is just sick and needs lots of help, and the other is trying to committ treason.

Seems to me that one guy needs lots of jail time (technically legal or no), and the other needs lots of jail time.

[OklahomaTuba]

People didn't get dissapeared for years, shuffled from country to country to be tortured, etc.

Ahh, those poor poor innocent people Bush is locking up for no good reason.

I am guessing you missed the whole 9/11 & war on terror thing.

[OklahomaTuba]

Seems to me that one guy needs lots of jail time (technically legal or no), and the other needs lots of jail time.
Couldn't agree more. Lock em both up, they are both sick sick bastards.

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

Oh, I agree, I just don't think that this is the bright dividing line you think it is. The two are the same on this point.

On the other hand, it ain't the Democrats touting Vietnamization Part II (aka, "We'll stand down as they stand up") as a "Plan for Victory." At least Nixon was honest about it being a plan for withdrawl. It ain't the Democrats who presided over the accumulation of 2/3 of our total national debt. Actually, that can be laid at the feet of the last three Republican presidents. It ain't the Democrats who created our very own system of gulags.

So yeah, I agree. One is decidedly worse than the other.lol

[Vaevictis]

Ahh, those poor poor innocent people Bush is locking up for no good reason.

I am guessing you missed the whole 9/11 & war on terror thing.

No, I didn't miss it. I also didn't miss the fact that this is the same sh*t we would have been calling the USSR out over about 20 years ago.

[OklahomaTuba]

No, I didn't miss it. I also didn't miss the fact that this is the same sh*t we would have been calling the USSR out over about 20 years ago.

Last i checked, we weren't fighting a hot war 20 years ago.

Again, I think you missed some recent history.

[Vaevictis]

Last i checked, we weren't fighting a hot war 20 years ago.

Again, I think you missed some recent history.

... and we would have called the Vietnamese out over this same stuff 35 years ago. Or the Koreans 55 years ago. Or the Japanese and Germans before that.

Hot war, cold war or no war, we would have called people out for this sort of behavior.

[OklahomaTuba]

BTW, since the dims are so concerened with how people get treated vae, please explain this picture...

http://content.answers.com/main/content/wp/en/thumb/e/e6/300px-Great_Leader_Comrade_Kim_Jong_Il_(122).jpg

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

No, I didn't miss it. I also didn't miss the fact that this is the same sh*t we would have been calling the USSR out over about 20 years ago.YES! Hey don't forget to vote, tues Nov. 14.

[OklahomaTuba]

... and we would have called the Vietnamese out over this same stuff 25 years ago.

Like John Kerry called out our soldiers in Vietnam?

[Stoop Dawg]

BTW, since the dims are so concerened with how people get treated vae, please explain this picture...

http://content.answers.com/main/content/wp/en/thumb/e/e6/300px-Great_Leader_Comrade_Kim_Jong_Il_(122).jpg

pwn3d, Vae.

That picture definitively proves that ALL Democrats support NK and their humanitarian policies - 100%.

Game = over.

[Vaevictis]

BTW, since the dims are so concerened with how people get treated vae, please explain this picture...

It's called "Diplomacy." It's how you try to get your way without having to use guns.

If the Republicans are so worried about what a threat and what a bad man Saddam was, please explain this picture:

http://img242.imageshack.us/img242/1648/rumsfeldsaddamka6.jpg (http://imageshack.us)

Oh wait, I think I already answered that question: Diplomacy.

[OklahomaTuba]

The WWII (Japanese) internment camps were, IMO, wrong, but don't quite rise to the level of gulags. People didn't get dissapeared for years, shuffled from country to country to be tortured, etc.

Suspension of habeas corpus? Yes. Wrong? Probably. Gulag? No.

BTW, this is liberal thought at its best.

Somehow, rounding up a bunch of innocent citizens cause of their skin color and taking all their worldly possessions away from them is somehow better than rounding up the people that attacked this country killing thousands.

LiberalFantasyLand is alive and well folks.

:rolleyes:

[OklahomaTuba]

It's called "Diplomacy." It's how you try to get your way without having to use guns.

If the Republicans are so worried about what a threat and what a bad man Saddam was, please explain this picture:

http://img242.imageshack.us/img242/1648/rumsfeldsaddamka6.jpg (http://imageshack.us)

Again, history doesn't seem to be your strongest subject.

Remember the cold war?

Yes? No? Maybe?

You see, Saddam was a US ally for years until he invaded Kuwait.

Oh wait, there I go with those facts again, nm.

[Stoop Dawg]

It's called "Diplomacy." It's how you try to get your way without having to use guns.

If the Republicans are so worried about what a threat and what a bad man Saddam was, please explain this picture:

http://img242.imageshack.us/img242/1648/rumsfeldsaddamka6.jpg (http://imageshack.us)

Oh wait, I think I already answered that question: Diplomacy.


Whoa! All Republicans LOVE Saddam Hussein?!?! Holy sh!t!!!

[critical_phil]

is that bill lumbergh with saddam?

[Vaevictis]

Again, history doesn't seem to be your strongest subject.

No, Republican Revisionist History is not my strongest subject.

At the time of that handshake, Saddam was the guy we tapped to take on the Iranians. It had little, if anything, to do with the Cold War.

[Stoop Dawg]

is that bill lumbergh with saddam?

Riiiiight....... Yeeeeaaaahhhhhhhh........

[OklahomaTuba]

It had little, if anything, to do with the Cold War.

I rest my case.

[Vaevictis]

Is it just me, or is anyone else unable to follow the twist of illogic that Tuba used to arrive at whatever conclusion he arrived at?

[Stoop Dawg]

aaaaaaaaand ... I'm lost again.

[Vaevictis]

Yeah, as best as I could follow:

1. Tuba claims that our allying with Saddam had something to do with the Cold War.
2. I show/claim that that is false.
3. Tuba rests his case, as if he proved something.

[Stoop Dawg]

Is it just me, or is anyone else unable to follow the twist of illogic that Tuba used to arrive at whatever conclusion he arrived at?

A common technique when getting your arse kicked is to simply claim victory and move on.

I rest my case.

[Stoop Dawg]

G'night fellas .... and crazy people.

[OklahomaTuba]

Yeah, as best as I could follow:

1. Tuba claims that our allying with Saddam had something to do with the Cold War.
2. I show/claim that that is false.
3. Tuba rests his case, as if he proved something.

You really didn't show anything, except your ability to ignore a fact of history. Like forgetting we are at war earlier.

Which is why I rested my case.

[1stTimeCaller]

Tuba can equate everything to 9-11. Everything. It's just easier for him if it's a political thread.

I'm surprised he hasn't posted a picture of the twin towers burning.

[Vaevictis]

Let's see...

1. We cut off diplomatic ties to Iraq circa 1967.
2. Iran becomes enemy of USA circa 1979.
3. Iran-Iraq war happens.
4. USA decides that Iranian victory in the Middle East in that war would be contrary to our interests (circa 1983).
5. USA re-establishes diplomatic ties with Iraq late 1983/early 1984.

Yeah, that's definitely indicitive that we were working with Saddam primarily because he opposed the Soviets.

[1stTimeCaller]

Why do you hate America?

[Vaevictis]

Apparently because I disagree with the Republican talking points. :)

[Ike]

Apparently because I disagree with the Republican talking points. :)


no...its because you advocate diplomacy. why try to get your way without using guns when we are having to destroy so many of our unused nuclear weapons here at home? Put em to good use for gettin our way!

;)

[1stTimeCaller]

Apparently because I disagree with the Republican talking points. :)

No, it's because you are talking bad about a fine American and patriot that is running the WAR ON TERROR for our POTUS, Don Rumsfeld. Without Don Rumsfeld we would be living in fallout shelters and caves since he is the one keeping AlQaeda from stealing your baby and nuking the Engineering College.

That's why.

;)

[PhilTLL]

Ahh, those poor poor innocent people Bush is locking up for no good reason.

I am guessing you missed the whole 9/11 & war on terror thing.

Why would you presume all of them are guilty when virtually none of them have even been accused of anything? There are many, many people in secret prisons who were rounded up off the streets of the middle east based on information from paid informers, bounty hunters, clerics, warlords, already-captured prisoners, and other thoroughly untrustworthy folks. I'm positive there are also some despicable, ruthless criminals in the same prisons, but you know what? The administration refuses to tell us, or them, which ones are which, and who's charged with what.

Whether we treat them like POWs - which is difficult because this is not conventional war and these people aren't Wehrmacht in uniforms, surrendering to be held for settlement, and we can't repatriate them anywhere at the end of the "war on terror," whenever we decide that is - or like criminals, we need to apply SOME code of justice to them. Holding people indefinitely without charge is a hallmark of authoritarian leadership. Even the plainly evil defendants at the Nuremberg trials had representation.

[1stTimeCaller]

another America hater. This thread is turning into Iraq.

[Vaevictis]

Holding people indefinitely without charge is a hallmark of authoritarian leadership.

No, really, it's okay. Because this is a new kind of war that requires that we curtail all of our previously held pry-it-from-my-cold-dead-hands values.

Apparently, pry it from my cold dead hands values was a bit of an exaggeration. More like, "Threaten me, so I can **** my pants and fork em over as fast as I possibly can" values.

[Sooner24]

No, really, it's okay. Because this is a new kind of war that requires that we curtail all of our previously held pry-it-from-my-cold-dead-hands values.

Apparently, pry it from my cold dead hands values was a bit of an exaggeration. More like, "Threaten me, so I can **** my pants and fork em over as fast as I possibly can" values.


Go over to Deans and see which one of you is ****ing their pants. :D

[OklahomaTuba]

Why would you presume all of them are guilty when virtually none of them have even been accused of anything?

None of them have been accused of anything?

I think you need to check your facts. :rolleyes:

[OklahomaTuba]

No, really, it's okay. Because this is a new kind of war that requires that we curtail all of our previously held pry-it-from-my-cold-dead-hands values.

Apparently, pry it from my cold dead hands values was a bit of an exaggeration. More like, "Threaten me, so I can **** my pants and fork em over as fast as I possibly can" values.

Funny, seems to have worked well in every other war this country had fought.

Again, your lack of knowledge of history is somewhat disturbing, yet not all that unexpected from a liberal I suppose.

[OklahomaTuba]

no...its because you advocate appeasement.

fixed it. :D

[85Sooner]

I believe my point is that I cannot trust the dems to protect this country. Their leaders are too busy trying to tear it down in anyway they can. BTW N Korea is getting ready for their second nuclear test. (guess they want to make sure they get it right before selling it to Iran and Venezuela. Thank you Bill Clinton.

[OklahomaTuba]

I believe my point is that I cannot trust the dems to protect this country. Their leaders are too busy trying to tear it down in anyway they can. BTW N Korea is getting ready for their second nuclear test. (guess they want to make sure they get it right before selling it to Iran and Venezuela. Thank you Bill Clinton.

http://content.answers.com/main/content/wp/en/thumb/e/e6/300px-Great_Leader_Comrade_Kim_Jong_Il_(122).jpg

Cheers.

[OklahomaTuba]

Even Hillary gets it. Another reason she will never be elected in a democratic primary.

Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-N.Y.) said she supports legalizing the torture of a captured terror suspect who knows about "an imminent threat to millions of Americans" - making an exception to her opposition to torture and marking a key difference from her possible rival for the White House, Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.).
"If we're going to be preparing for the kind of improbable but possible eventuality, then it has to be done within the rule of law," Clinton said in a phone interview Friday, expanding on comments to the Daily News Editorial Board.

She said the "ticking time bomb" scenario represents a narrow exception to her opposition to torture as morally wrong, ineffective and dangerous to American soldiers.

"In the event we were ever confronted with having to interrogate a detainee with knowledge of an imminent threat to millions of Americans, then the decision to depart from standard international practices must be made by the President, and the President must be held accountable," she said.http://www.nydailynews.com/front/story/462237p-388764c.html

[mdklatt]

BTW N Korea is getting ready for their second nuclear test. (guess they want to make sure they get it right before selling it to Iran and Venezuela. Thank you Bill Clinton.

http://www.slate.com/id/2151354/

[OklahomaTuba]

http://www.slate.com/id/2151354/
Whats great about that article is it doesn't mention a thing about Kumchang-ri.

Gee, I wonder why?

Sounds like the guy who wrote this article should go learn a few more facts himself. But I guess it works well for a blame bush article.

[NormanPride]

http://content.answers.com/main/content/wp/en/thumb/e/e6/300px-Great_Leader_Comrade_Kim_Jong_Il_(122).jpg

Cheers.

I guess I don't understand why this picture is so evil... Is it bad that we're talking with these people? Or was that picture in celebration of their new nukes? I don't know the context, but if it was just a party as an excuse to get them talking, why is that bad?

[Hatfield]

without reading all the posts, I can say 85 sir you are off your rocker.

#1 all the nonsense you post in post 1.

#2 it is refreshing to know that you are cool with old dudes hitting on children (yes a 16 year old is still a child) but you take issue with a man having "relations" with a 21 year old.

[OklahomaTuba]

I guess I don't understand why this picture is so evil... Is it bad that we're talking with these people?
http://www.pursuingholiness.com/wp-content/uploads/2006/05/hitler-chamberlain.jpg
I think it perfectly illustrates how useless Clinton's foreign policy was. A return to chamberlain's doctrine of appeasement captured in one photograph. If it wasn't so pathetic, it might be funny.

But hey, if ya think its cool to be sipping Champagne with a mad dictator who is starving his people and trying to develop weapons so he can sell them to terrorist supporting nations and terrorists groups all the while trying to blackmail the world, then be my guest.

[Hatfield]

I believe my point is that I cannot trust the dems to protect this country. Their leaders are too busy trying to tear it down in anyway they can. BTW N Korea is getting ready for their second nuclear test. (guess they want to make sure they get it right before selling it to Iran and Venezuela. Thank you Bill Clinton.


are you angry with Rumsfeld?

you know he was the director of a company which won a $200m contract in 2000 to sell nuclear reactors to North Korea.....

[NormanPride]

http://www.pursuingholiness.com/wp-content/uploads/2006/05/hitler-chamberlain.jpg
I think it perfectly illustrates how useless Clinton's foreign policy was. A return to chamberlain's doctrine of appeasement captured in one photograph. If it wasn't so pathetic, it might be funny.

But hey, if ya think its cool to be sipping Champagne with a mad dictator who is starving his people and trying to develop weapons so he can sell them to terrorist supporting nations and terrorists groups all the while trying to blackmail the world, then be my guest.

Well, if anything is to be accomplished, you have to have some sort of relations with them. It's a complex political landscape, and just ignoring people doesn't work much anymore. China has all sorts of human rights violations going on, and continually does things we don't like. Should we cut off all relations with them? Of course not. Sure KJI's insane, but you have to at least have relations with the country to effectively know what's going on.

Oh, and you automatically lose the argument because you related something back to Hitler. Ha! ;)

[Hatfield]

http://img242.imageshack.us/img242/1648/rumsfeldsaddamka6.jpg
I think it perfectly illustrates how useless Reagan's foreign policy was. A return to chamberlain's doctrine of appeasement captured in one photograph. If it wasn't so pathetic, it might be funny.

But hey, if ya think its cool to be glad handing with a mad dictator who is starving his people and trying to develop weapons so he can sell them to terrorist supporting nations and terrorists groups all the while trying to blackmail the world, then be my guest.

heh

[mdklatt]

heh

:les: IT'S ONLY WRONG WHEN A DEMOCRAT DOES IT!

[85Sooner]

Whats great about that article is it doesn't mention a thing about Kumchang-ri.

Gee, I wonder why?

Sounds like the guy who wrote this article should go learn a few more facts himself. But I guess it works well for a blame bush article.


HE seems to forget that technology that was given to China, N Korea big brother in the region. That article leaves out a bunch of actions in the Foriegn Policy area.

[85Sooner]

without reading all the posts, I can say 85 sir you are off your rocker.

#1 all the nonsense you post in post 1.

#2 it is refreshing to know that you are cool with old dudes hitting on children (yes a 16 year old is still a child) but you take issue with a man having "relations" with a 21 year old.


Hat , gotta say move into the real world. You say its nonsense yet you cannot refute one bit of it. Nice try to change the subjest to a dead issue, and frankly I didn't say one word about it being cool to hit on 16 yr olds regardless whether it is legal or not nor did I think it was cool for a 21 yr old to give bjs to her boss. Both scumbags should be out of office, and just to add, one of the scumbags is out of office and the other held onto it like a cheap whore, which is precisely the point that the dems don't hold their folks up to the same scrutiny as the pubs.
But I won't confuse you with the facts.

[85Sooner]

Well, if anything is to be accomplished, you have to have some sort of relations with them. It's a complex political landscape, and just ignoring people doesn't work much anymore. China has all sorts of human rights violations going on, and continually does things we don't like. Should we cut off all relations with them? Of course not. Sure KJI's insane, but you have to at least have relations with the country to effectively know what's going on.

Oh, and you automatically lose the argument because you related something back to Hitler. Ha! ;)


We do hold talks, just not one on one talks with N Korea.

[NormanPride]

We do hold talks, just not one on one talks with N Korea.

Okay, but should that picture be a symbol of the dem/libs evil plans to destroy Amerikkka then? I just find it disturbing that the idea of talking to someone you disagree with is considered high treason.

[85Sooner]

Okay, but should that picture be a symbol of the dem/libs evil plans to destroy Amerikkka then? I just find it disturbing that the idea of talking to someone you disagree with is considered high treason.


Talking to them no, but aiding and abeiting yes and that is exactly what she did and soros supporting her defense puts him in the kettle with her.

[NormanPride]

Talking to them no, but aiding and abeiting yes and that is exactly what she did and soros supporting her defense puts him in the kettle with her.

Okay, that's where I didn't know the context of the picture. What was it she did with KJI?

[85Sooner]

Okay, that's where I didn't know the context of the picture. What was it she did with KJI?


I think your talking about madeline albright. I am talking about the lib lawyer who was passing information from the convicted terrorist to his sect members.

as far as albright, talking with him okay behind closed doors but those were unilateral talks not multilateral as they should have been and are now. Oh and personnally I definitely don't have a picture toasting with champagne someone as insane as KJI. I believe she is just as niave as chamberlin was in the mid thirties and as for Clinton foreign policy was never his focus or strong suit.

[OklahomaTuba]

heh
Reagan?

heh.

[OklahomaTuba]

Well, if anything is to be accomplished, you have to have some sort of relations with them. It's a complex political landscape, and just ignoring people doesn't work much anymore.

I guess ignoring NK = not appeasing KJI and giving him everything he wants (Like Clinton did) before they walk away from talks time and time again.

[TexasSooner01]

http://content.answers.com/main/content/wp/en/thumb/e/e6/300px-Great_Leader_Comrade_Kim_Jong_Il_(122).jpg

Cheers.


you guys crack me up! LOL :D

[NormanPride]

I think your talking about madeline albright. I am talking about the lib lawyer who was passing information from the convicted terrorist to his sect members.

as far as albright, talking with him okay behind closed doors but those were unilateral talks not multilateral as they should have been and are now. Oh and personnally I definitely don't have a picture toasting with champagne someone as insane as KJI. I believe she is just as niave as chamberlin was in the mid thirties and as for Clinton foreign policy was never his focus or strong suit.

Oh, yeah, I don't know much about the first. Seems pretty shady from what I've heard, though. If they were passing info, that's really, really bad.

Yeah, I don't know much about our recent history as far as talking to NK, but it just seems like ignoring them can't be good. I think the issue is getting confused here, though. Tuba posted that picture and I got the feeling he was implying that the democrats were willing hand over the nation to NK, which I thought was just silly. If I missed the point, then I'm just gonna shut up. :D

[1stTimeCaller]

case. rested. heh.

[NormanPride]

I guess ignoring NK = not appeasing KJI and giving him everything he wants (Like Clinton did) before they walk away from talks time and time again.

I may have misunderstood the intent behind the posting of the picture (it's been awhile since I was inspire to post in this thread, and I may have napped since then), but there should be a happy medium between coming back to the table no matter how many times that insane jackass throws a hissy fit and walks away, and just ignoring him and ****ing him off even more. It's easy to see that we weren't getting anywhere in hindsight, but I doubt those in charge would have kept going back if they didn't think anything would get done. And even if they were naive enough to think that despite obvious evidence then, it's better than just putting him on ignore. I'd rather have NK occupied with worthless talks than talking about blowing **** up because they're bored. :D

[JohnnyMack]

I think we should invade them. Using a combination of shock and awe and the Powell doctrine to remove KJI from power as fast as possible. We should then spread democracy to the people of NK by helping them to establish their own representative government. We'll send in as many troops as necessary and leave them there until the people of NK are ready to protect and govern themselves. I say we get the troops in, hit NK hard and we should be able to declare "Mission Accomplished" in no time. I see no reason this shouldn't work.

[85Sooner]

I think we should invade them. Using a combination of shock and awe and the Powell doctrine to remove KJI from power as fast as possible. We should then spread democracy to the people of NK by helping them to establish their own representative government. We'll send in as many troops as necessary and leave them there until the people of NK are ready to protect and govern themselves. I say we get the troops in, hit NK hard and we should be able to declare "Mission Accomplished" in no time. I see no reason this shouldn't work.


All I know is that if we're going to have to do some major military actions against Iran and NK, I hope we do it while I am young enough to fight and our kids too young. Just sayin.

I always remember the first gulf war. I had friends with 8-9 year olds. Bush 1 had to appease the left and other countries into supporting the action by promising not to go into bagdad.

Now 10 years later those kids are the ones that are having to go because we did not take care of business the first time. Something the libs quickly like to point out. With them, your in a no win situation. Either you went to far or you didn't go far enough. At least thats my view.

[OklahomaTuba]

I'd rather have NK occupied with worthless talks than talking about blowing **** up because they're bored. :D

I hate to break this too you, but all the time Clinton & Bush spent "talking" to this jackass, he was building the bomb, starving his people to death, etc.

Even while sipping the bubbly with Madeline.

At some point, this evil will need to be confronted by us and his neighbors. Hopefully that happens before he closes his first sell with a terrorist group or Iran.

[OklahomaTuba]

I think we should invade them. Using a combination of shock and awe and the Powell doctrine to remove KJI from power as fast as possible. We should then spread democracy to the people of NK by helping them to establish their own representative government. We'll send in as many troops as necessary and leave them there until the people of NK are ready to protect and govern themselves. I say we get the troops in, hit NK hard and we should be able to declare "Mission Accomplished" in no time. I see no reason this shouldn't work.

Last time we tried that there, the Chinese army nearly ran us out.

[TexasSooner01]

:D Nuke em all!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

That way we get them all in one shot:eek:

[49r]

Last time we tried that there, the Chinese army nearly ran us out.
Hence diplomacy isn't such a bad idea, no? Better to try to talk out a solution than have 1.3 billion ****ed off Chinamen thinking it's a good idea to kill all Americans.

[Stoop Dawg]

But hey, if ya think its cool to be sipping Champagne with a mad dictator who is starving his people and trying to develop weapons so he can sell them to terrorist supporting nations and terrorists groups all the while trying to blackmail the world, then be my guest.


If only your fellow Reps were on board with you....


Even some of President George W. Bush's closest advisers, including a Republican former secretary of state, James Baker, have said Washington should reconsider its policy. "It is not appeasement to talk to your enemies," Baker said in an interview this month with ABC.

Sen. Chuck Hagel of Nebraska, a key Republican on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, echoed Baker's views.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20061017/ts_nm/korea_north_usa_talks_dc_4

Clearly the six party talks are going better than the unilateral ones. After all, there's only been one nuke set off since we insisted on that format.

[Hatfield]

i lost track...is it cool that rumsfeld was on the board of the company that sold nuclear reactors to NK?

and 85 I called your points in post numba 1 nonsence because you equated that one individual with EVERYONE which is assi9 and being such needed no refuting.

[Scott D]

I hereby request that we now rename the political parties to the following.

Bat**** Crazy Party
Horse**** Stuffed Party

might be easier to tell them apart.

[Hatfield]

i say we just consolidate them into one and call them bat**** crazy dirty bastids

[85Sooner]

i lost track...is it cool that rumsfeld was on the board of the company that sold nuclear reactors to NK?

and 85 I called your points in post numba 1 nonsence because you equated that one individual with EVERYONE which is assi9 and being such needed no refuting.


The point is The DNC backs The PAC known as Moveon.org funded by Mr George Soros. Mr. Soros funded this traitors defense. Is it really that hard to follow this pattern. If the Dems don't want to be associated with people who feel that traitorist behavior is acceptable then the DNC should denounce soros and what he stands for. Otherwise Democratic voters cannot be thought to be outside the scope of the organizations their leadership endorses.

[Scott D]

Clearly to placate 85Sooner, we should have prosecuted every lawyer that defended an alleged Mafioso since no doubt he passed on messages between the alleged Mafioso and his alleged cohorts.

[85Sooner]

Clearly to placate 85Sooner, we should have prosecuted every lawyer that defended an alleged Mafioso since no doubt he passed on messages between the alleged Mafioso and his alleged cohorts.


Now that makes alot of sense:P

[Stoop Dawg]

The point is The DNC backs The PAC known as Moveon.org funded by Mr George Soros.

Wrong. George Soros gives money to both Moveon.org and the DNC. This does not indicate a relationship between the DNC and Moveon.org.


Mr. Soros funded this traitors defense.

Wrong again. Mr. Soros gave a one time contribution the alleged traitors defense. When asked for another contribution, he declined.


Is it really that hard to follow this pattern.

Apparently.


If the Dems don't want to be associated with people who feel that traitorist behavior is acceptable then the DNC should denounce soros and what he stands for.

Did you read anything in the article you linked? Mr. Soros may be off his rocker with hate toward GWB, but from what little I've read it would be insane to "denounce what he stands for".


Otherwise Democratic voters cannot be thought to be outside the scope of the organizations their leadership endorses.

Mr. Soros endorses the DNC, not the other way around. Regardless, tossing all people who vote for any Democrat anywhere in the country into one pot and calling them "traitor defense funders" is one of the most ignorant things I've read on this board in a long, long time. And as you know, there are some pretty ignorant things posted on this board. Congrats.

[Vaevictis]

BTW N Korea is getting ready for their second nuclear test. Thank you Bill Clinton.

W's had two and a half terms to address the issue. Six years. Bill had only two more years than that. Bill had no nuke tests during his full 8 years. W's had one, with more on the way.

If the Republican party is the party of accountability, where's the accountability now?

[1stTimeCaller]

my accountant works in Chickasha

[Vaevictis]

Just sayin' that blaming it all on Bill Clinton at this point is kind of stupid. The Manhattan Project produced our first nuclear weapon in about 3.5 years.

And Bush has been Prez for longer than 3.5 years.

[Vaevictis]

Oh, and I know it's just a shill for the left, but:

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/17/world/asia/17diplo.html?_r=1&hp&ex=1161057600&en=5178189fc23c852c&ei=5094&partner=homepage&oref=slogin


As president, Mr. Clinton negotiated a deal that froze the production and weaponization of North Korea’s plutonium, but intelligence agencies later determined that North Korea began its secret uranium program under his watch. The plutonium that North Korea exploded was produced, according to intelligence estimates, either during the administration of the first President Bush or after 2003, when the North Koreans threw out international inspectors and began reprocessing spent nuclear fuel the inspectors had kept under seal.

So yeah, clearly, it's all Clinton's fault.

[mdklatt]

If the Republican party is the party of accountability

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!



where's the accountability now?

Politicians only take credit for the good, never the bad--which partisans swallow hook, line, and sinker, of course.

EDIT: Truman was right when he said, "the buck stops here", because heaven knows no politcian has accepted responsibility since then. :rolleyes:

[SoonerBorn68]

Yeah, as best as I could follow:

1. Tuba claims that our allying with Saddam had something to do with the Cold War.
2. I show/claim that that is false.
3. Tuba rests his case, as if he proved something.

He did. He just kicked your ***.

[Vaevictis]

EDIT: Truman was right when he said, "the buck stops here", because heaven knows no politcian has accepted responsibility since then. :rolleyes:

I agree that they are few and far between, but they do exist. Ike immediately comes to mind.

[BeetDigger]

I agree that they are few and far between, ...

Indeed, although a President has to actually DO something so that he has something to which to be accountable.

[Jerk]

danm

I tried to read through this..

It's amazing how fast the liberals changed the subject to Foley, when the real subject is actually a very serious one.

Foley did what any queer should do..resign in disgrace. Yet Democrats celebrate queers.

Democrats are the party of queers.

Now they act like being a faggot is some big sin?

What's going on here, neo-commies?

Some ex-congressmen from massachussetes just died. He was a queer. And a democrat. He took a male page, flew him out of the country, and had sex with him in a place where it was legal to f*ck minors. Congress censured him. He did not resign because he had no shame. I haven't heard so much as a peep about this in the MSM.

[Jerk]

As to the subject, what you see here is what the potential for "justice" is when you haul a bunch of terrorists into American courts with liberal judges and ACLU attorneys.

Fk terrorists. Military tribunals followed by swift executions are what they need.

[Vaevictis]

It's amazing how fast the liberals changed the subject to Foley, when the real subject is actually a very serious one.

Thing is, the original subject doesn't require a whole lot of discussion. Lawyer defends defendant (good). Lawyer breaks the law doing so (bad). Lawyer aided and abetted a terrorist (very bad!).

And, IMO, a politically active someone funds that lawyer's defense (neutral).

Why neutral say I? Because the notion that everyone gets a vigorous and competent defense is supposedly one of the cornerstones of our democracy or some such. Or at least, it used to be, back before everyone started thinking with whatever part of the body terrorism activates.


Foley did what any queer should do..resign in disgrace. Yet Democrats celebrate queers.

Depends on the Democrat. Personally, I tolerate. Don't care one way or the other as long as I'm left out of it.


Now they act like being a faggot is some big sin?

No, hypocracy is. Especially at this time during an election cycle.

If you're going to talk tough on certain things to appeal to your base, don't get caught with your pants down on the subject right before an election, because you WILL get taken to task.

It's politics. That's how the game is played, and if the situation were reversed, the Republicans would be taking FULL advantage, and you'd be crowing like a rooster about it. You'd not complain a whit.


Some ex-congressmen from massachussetes just died. He was a queer. And a democrat. He took a male page, flew him out of the country, and had sex with him in a place where it was legal to f*ck minors. Congress censured him. He did not resign because he had no shame. I haven't heard so much as a peep about this in the MSM.

What was the time table on that? Was the guy a Congressman say, 3 weeks ago? Does he have ties to the current majority party's leadership?

No, none of that is the case. That scandal broke what, 23 years ago? How often does the MSM report on ANY political scandal that broke 23 years ago? Especially when the Congressman involved retired from Congress almost 10 years previous? I think the word you're looking for is "never", possibly modified by "almost."

... and of course, you failed to mention that the other Congressman who was involved in that scandal from 1983 was a -- wait for it -- Republican. He didn't resign either.

[Gandalf_The_Grey]

HHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHA!!! I like how you guys do this whole "My party's dick is bigger than yours" argument. The Republicans are the "Say Alot...Do Enough Party" The Democrats are the "Say Alot....Do nothing and Botch election strategy Party"

[NormanPride]

I hardly know what we're talking about anymore, but I'd say Vaevictis has made some pretty good points. Others, not so much. Jerk made some good points, but those were countered.

Can we agree that both parties are slimeballs? Heck, we can probably make a gross generalization here that most politicians are. I find it funny that most of the Republicans/Democrats here are more loyal to the party than the actual people in office. :D

[Hatfield]

and jerk comes forth once again with ignorance, bias, and hate. well played sir well played.

i really appreciate how you insinuate the "msm" didn't report on the incident from 23 years ago...when had they not reported on it you would not know about it.

[Stoop Dawg]

Edit: I can't leave that there..

[Stoop Dawg]

That last post may well be over the line, but that's what I thought when reading Jerk's post.

[49r]

I'm going to rest my case now...

[Hatfield]

what type of case? pillow or brew?

[49r]

crank case

That puppy needs some resting!

[OklahomaTuba]

I'm going to rest my case now...

Sorry, the case has been rested, check page 2 I think.

[Jerk]

Well, I know that I have offended many of you by using the terms "queer" and "fag." Let me just say that I am trying to keep up with what's fashionable, and bashing gays is the "in" thing to do now according to liberals.

Vaev- they hypocrisy is on your side. Democrats should rally around Foley, not shun him. You guys are acting like a bunch of Puritans.

[OklahomaTuba]

Well, I know that I have offended many of you by using the terms "queer" and "fag." Let me just say that I am trying to keep up with what's fashionable, and bashing gays is the "in" thing to do now according to liberals.

Vaev- they hypocrisy is on your side. Democrats should rally around Foley, not shun him. You guys are acting like a bunch of Puritans.

Liberal hypocrisy at its finest.

http://www.dailykos.com/poll/1161121094_shWCSgsx

So... we're not supposed to spy on communications with al-Qaeda members but we can expose the private lives of Americans?

[Jerk]

and jerk comes forth once again with ignorance, bias, and hate. well played sir well played.

i really appreciate how you insinuate the "msm" didn't report on the incident from 23 years ago...when had they not reported on it you would not know about it.


No, I have never heard of this incident until recently.

I wonder if 23 years ago, the MSM believed that a party should lose power over an outted gay congressman.

The repubs have their perverts too. Ours resign. Yours are celebrated.

[Jerk]

It's politics. That's how the game is played, and if the situation were reversed, the Republicans would be taking FULL advantage, and you'd be crowing like a rooster about it. You'd not complain a whit.

No, actually, if a democrat were caught doing what Foley did, I wouldn't be crowing a bit. I'd just roll my eyes and say, "yep, that's typical behavior from them"

[Vaevictis]

Vaev- they hypocrisy is on your side. Democrats should rally around Foley, not shun him.

Nope, hypocrisy everywhere in Washington. The fact that I misspell it "hypocracy" all the time is not an accident.

Why should we rally around him? It ain't because he's gay that the Dems are hammering him. It's because he unethically abused a position of power to get an "in" on younger than acceptable teenagers. The fact that it's guy-on-guy is of little consequence to Dems.

Besides we don't have to bash him on that account. Your team is all too happy to do that for us. You guys want to eat your own? It's an election year; we sure as hell ain't gonna stop you.

[Vaevictis]

No, actually, if a democrat were caught doing what Foley did, I wouldn't be crowing a bit. I'd just roll my eyes and say, "yep, that's typical behavior from them"

Uh huh.


Some ex-congressmen from massachussetes just died. He was a queer. And a democrat. He took a male page, flew him out of the country, and had sex with him in a place where it was legal to f*ck minors. Congress censured him. He did not resign because he had no shame.

[Jerk]

Why should we rally around him? It ain't because he's gay that the Dems are hammering him. It's because he unethically abused a position of power to get an "in" on younger than acceptable teenagers. The fact that it's guy-on-guy is of little consequence to Dems.



Oh...So Clinton should have been impeached then.

Dude, i can't spell for sh*t.

I won my 8th grade spelling bee contest in Engrish class, but was eliminated in the first round when all of the class champions faced off. I didn't even get a trophy.

[Jerk]

You guys realize that if Dems win the house and senate this year, especially by a thin margin, then nothing will get done! Think about that for a minute. Would that not be awesome?! This Foley thing might be a blessing in disguise.

[Vaevictis]

Oh...So Clinton should have been impeached then.

1. Clinton broke the law in perjuring himself. I would have voted to impeach, in that case, if I were a member of the House.
2. I think the investigation that led to Clinton perjuring himself was a fishing trip and a waste of taxpayer money.

I think people were dumbasses all around on that one.

[Vaevictis]

You guys realize that if Dems win the house and senate this year, especially by a thin margin, then nothing will get done! Think about that for a minute. Would that not be awesome?! This Foley thing might be a blessing in disguise.

Man oh man, Congress actually doing its job in checking the President? That's all I've wanted all along.

I don't want a Dem majority like we've seen from the Republicans these past few years. It would be just as bad, just on different issues.

My ideal situation is one party controls the White House, one party controls the House, and the Senate is a roughly even split.

[Jerk]

1. Clinton broke the law in perjuring himself. I would have voted to impeach, in that case, if I were a member of the House.
2. I think the investigation that led to Clinton perjuring himself was a fishing trip and a waste of taxpayer money.

I think people were dumbasses all around on that one.

Yes, but he also used his "position of power" to "take advantage" of a subordinate. That's what people are saying about Foley.

[Vaevictis]

I acknowledge that there is a bit of a double standard there.

Monica was over 18, which is apparently a magical line that separates kids from adults in our country, and thus theoretically, unless she complained, it wasn't sexual harassment or being taken advantage of.

Under 18, however, kids can't make decisions for themselves, so whether the kid wanted it or not is irrelevant; the assumption is that Foley took advantage.

Both cases are unethical.

Foley just happens to have found himself in the perfect storm. He's done something unethical in part of his job. With a minor. Of the same sex in a party that doesn't tolerate that kind of thing. At the end of a really important election cycle. And it has been linked to House leadership.

If this were to go down say, 8 weeks later, or 18 months earlier, there wouldn't be nearly so much noise on it.

[Stoop Dawg]

Well, I know that I have offended many of you by using the terms "queer" and "fag." Let me just say that I am trying to keep up with what's fashionable, and bashing gays is the "in" thing to do now according to liberals.

Your ignorance and hate are much more offensive than your language.

[Scott D]

You guys realize that if Dems win the house and senate this year, especially by a thin margin, then nothing will get done! Think about that for a minute. Would that not be awesome?! This Foley thing might be a blessing in disguise.

Personally I'd like to see the Tories and Whigs defeat the Dems and Reps in the election hereby throwing chaos into the political arena.

[OCUDad]

Personally I'd like to see the Tories and Whigs defeat the Dems and Reps in the election hereby throwing chaos into the political arena.And just how do you characterize the political arena today? :D

[Scott D]

And just how do you characterize the political arena today? :D

orangutangs and chimpanzees flinging their own wastes at each other while baring their teeth to project strength.

[OCUDad]

Leave Jerk and william favor out of this, please.

[SoonerBorn68]

Foley just happens to have found himself in the perfect storm. He's done something unethical in part of his job. With a minor. Of the same sex in a party that doesn't tolerate that kind of thing.


...but you're wrong as usual. Get the facts straight. The page was over 18. I'm glad Foley got busted & is out but what he did was not illegal.

[Scott D]

...but you're wrong as usual. Get the facts straight. The page was over 18. I'm glad Foley got busted & is out but what he did was not illegal.

the text in the page was clearly 13 :D

[Vaevictis]

"ABC News now has obtained 52 separate instant message exchanges, which former pages say were sent by Foley, using the screen name Maf54, to two different boys who began their exchanges with Foley at the age of 16 and 17, and continued through the age of 18."

Facts. Straight.

[Jerk]

"ABC News now has obtained 52 separate instant message exchanges, which former pages say were sent by Foley, using the screen name Maf54, to two different boys who began their exchanges with Foley at the age of 16 and 17, and continued through the age of 18."

Facts. Straight.

Maybe, but what I remember was that ABC accidently let his identity slip out, and a blogger determined who he was and how old he was, and the page was not a minor. But let us remember that they were just text messages., yes, queer and wrong. You know how the difference between homosexuals and pedophiles can be confusing, because everyone knows they are much teh same (ok I just threw that in there to make Stoop Dawg angry)

Nothing physical ever happened. That is far different than what occured between Clinton and Lewinski- you know - if you believe that a blow job is actually sex. Then Clinton lied, which is why he was impeached. It wasn't about sex, it was about the cover-up. But this Foley thing is different. He did what he needed to do - resign.

OCUdad, you're annoying. You're like that silent fart that my German Shepherd lets out every once in a while.

OK - I'm outta here to have a few drinks at the First Baptist Bar & Grill, then come home, clean guns, feed dawgs, and lower the stars and bars.

[Vaevictis]

Maybe, but what I remember was that ABC accidently let his identity slip out, and a blogger determined who he was and how old he was, and the page was not a minor.

Yeah, I heard about that too. Here's what the attorney of the guy in question had to say about it as quoted by the AP:

"They (FBI) will question Jordan Edmund concerning his knowledge, if any, about former congressman Mark Foley," Edmund's attorney Stephen Jones told The Oklahoman. The meeting was to occur in Oklahoma City where Edmund has been working on a gubernatorial campaign, Jones said.

Jones said last week Edmund is willing to talk to the FBI and the House Ethics Committee.

He also said Edmund "was a minor when the alleged events described in the media occurred."

From what I've been able to put together, the guy is 21 now. He served as a page from 2001-2002 when the messages are alleged to have been sent. You do the math.

[1stTimeCaller]

Oh...So Clinton should have been impeached then.


He was impeached.

[Stoop Dawg]

ok I just threw that in there to make Stoop Dawg angry

Not angry, just disappointed that people don't bother to educate themselves.

[Stoop Dawg]

From what I've been able to put together, the guy is 21 now. He served as a page from 2001-2002 when the messages are alleged to have been sent. You do the math.

Let's see.... 2006 subtract 2001 ... carry the 4 ... add 21 ... subtract 16 .....


Aww, screw it. An internet blogger said he was 18 and I'm going with that.

[49r]

I rest my case!

[Hatfield]

I CASE MY REST

[soonerscuba]

Do any of you have the slightest of inklings how Congressional resignations work? From the looks of it. No.

The minority party, never, and I mean never ever, ever, ever gets somebody ousted. The Dems and Reps play by the same rules on this sort of thing as evidenced by hundreds of perverts, gamblers, liars, sex addicts, drug addicts over the hundreds of years of Congressional history. John McCain could probably kill his wife and take a fishing trip and remain policitally viable, thus he wouldn't get the boot. All that matters is policital viablity, no matter the party. Foley lost it.

[OklahomaTuba]

John McCain could probably kill his wife and take a fishing trip and remain policitally viable, thus he wouldn't get the boot.

That explains Ted Kennedy I guess.

[mdklatt]

That explains Ted Kennedy I guess.

Is this the first Ted Kennedy reference in this thread?


:stunned:

P.S. And yes, it does.