Rod Blagojevich (D)
Blagojevich behaved just like Clinton.
One more datum for why people of integrity don't vote for Democrats, and shouldn't vote for Democrats.
Give campaign contributions to somebody else.
I vote for the equivalent of the dems over here...and I have integrity. In fact, a lot more integrity than a lot of the reps I've seen but then there are some bad dems too.
I don't know when people are going to get over the whole, good or bad depending on what side you're on thing. There are good and bad politicians on both sides of the fence, just as there are good and bad people in all aspects of life. Just because one politician does the wrong thing doesn't mean the whole party is bad. It means they may have made a bad choice in selecting that candidate, but that's happened to both sides before too.
only green snakes will bite you. never pick up a green snake.
Apparently the (D) stands for (D)umbshit?
What a doofus this guy is. Thank goodness Republicans never behave in such a dishonest, moneygrubbing, cynical manner.
One side is just as bad as the other, and the worst offenders are the ones who use blanket statements to vilify the opposition. You contribute to the problem of partisan bickering in doing that.
The attitude of Blagojevich could not have developed in a vacuum. Damn crook might as well have listed the seat on E-bay. (hey, hehe, there's an idea.. anyone?)
Res ipsa loquitur.
I think you misplaced your homekey row there, dude. feel for the little dots on the f and j before you start to type. :)
I guessed it was Latin for "what he said".
RES IPSA LOQUITUR - Lat. "the thing speaks for itself." Refers to situations when it's assumed that a person's injury was caused by the negligent action of another party because the accident was the sort that wouldn't occur unless someone was negligent.
[Sean]That's the Chicago way.[/Connery]
Wolf has it right. This is chicago (illinois really but all the big guys come out of chicago) through and through. the last governor is still in prison. The mayor's office isn't exactly know for great ethics. chicago politicians only stick out if they aren't crooks.
Rod B is not going to jail for being a Democrat. He's going to jail for being a crook.
George Ryan (the prior governor) is in the pokey right now and is/was a Republican. Crooks must be non-denominational.
Wolf has it right. This is chicago (illinois really but all the big guys come out of chicago) through and through. the last governor is still in prison. The mayor's office isn't exactly know for great ethics. chicago politicians only stick out if they aren't crooks.
Yes!!!! I knew that if I came to the cellar today and there was a thread on Blowfish, I would have to comment.
He is the worst governor ever. Voters in Chicago suck because what they do impacts the rest of the state - Do Chicagoans and the people that occupy the 'burbs (tiny hellholes, IMO) even KNOW that there is more to Illinois than just them? NO! That's why every single person that is elected, appointed, whatever to an important public office in this state is CORRUPT - the most corrupt part of the state carries the most vote.
We're not perfect down here in Central Illinois - or "the South" as the Chicago morons refer to our part of the state, but at least we are honest and not corrupt.
Let's see - who in Chicago/Illinois politics has gone to jail - Gov. Ryan, Dan Rostenkowski, three other governors who's pictures were in the paper and I can't remember their names... this state totally sucks!
This would never happen if the Chicago area citizens would get their heads out of their butts and realize that THERE IS MORE TO ILLINOIS THAN THEM!!!
:mad2: :cuss: :angry: :rattat: :magnum: :rant:
My apologies to anyone that lives in Chicago and the 'burbs - I used to live in a particular one called Libertyville - hated it. I'm sure you're all nice people, I am just so steamed that people like him get elected in this state.
I'm glad he's gone :rant:.
I'm laying a little stress on the man's party because numerous major newspapers and television news operations both local and national have apparently been at pains to omit or muffle any mention he's a Democrat. This reticence likely would not be the case were he a Republican, as previous scandals show. The vast majority of journalism-school grads, their professors, and working journalists are of the Democratic persuasion, and heavily support Democratic candidates. To put it mildly, they are suspected of a systemic bias in favor of the Democratic Party. It does seem there are too few Republicans in the news media, let alone Libertarians.
So, we do what we can to correct these little imbalances and lapses. And we smile. Schadenfreude, Götterfunken, Tochter aus Elysium...
Well the CBS broadcast didn't. In fact they alluded to lots of communication between he and Obama even, along with his secretary of state. They clearly demonstrated the fact that he was a dem.
What news were you watching UG? :)
New York Times is reported to have mentioned it subfusc, fourth paragraph. NBC News is reported not to have mentioned it at all.
Fox News keeps tabs on this kind of action by other news outlets, and, well, mentions it when and if. They note that a similar grudging revelation would not be the case when it's a Republican. It would instead be enthusiastically ballyhooed.
But to the wise man, the media's case for Republicans being mean ole repressoids just isn't proven, which is why all the Republican = Stupid unquestioned assuming in the Cellar suggests brains are not at work.
Between the findings of the Media Research Center and of Fox News, the case for American media bias is damning. The bias should be expected, and taken into account.
Your bias should be expected, and taken into account.
blah blah blah
[COLOR="White"] . . . [/COLOR]You're an idiot.
Thats why I love reading Flints posts! #what funniest cellarite?
I love Flint's post too...er, posts, I meant posts.
This reticence likely would not be the case were he a Republican, as previous scandals show. ...
I'll agree with UG *grabs heart* on this. If he were an R, then the news stories would have read,
Republican Govenor Blowfish arrested on corruption... I think they're all crooks regardless of party but on this one detail UG is correct.
****
and then I read his post on the second page.
Because I haven't lived in Illinois (also known as outer Chicago) for a number of years I didn't remember whether he was R or D. The day the news story hit I was curious and I didn't find the answer until the fourth article I read on the issue. That, rather than Fox News, is where I got my impression of the situation.
Yeah. But then, I'm pretty sure Fox will be emphasising his party and were he a republican they'd be playing it down.
My point isn't a Fox = good, everyone else = bad. My observation was that i had to read four articles before finding information that should have been included in all articles regardless of source. When speaking of politians it is normal to see: (D) Senator Obama of Illinois... or (R) Senator McCain of Arizona. That's just the norm. These articles specifically ommitted any reference to party which is just stupid IMO.
Fox, CNN, ABC, NBC, CBS, ATDGAFGFEALMOP, have all become pretty faces focused on pushing their agendas at the expense of unbiased reporting of facts. It's a shame really.
Yeah. But then, I'm pretty sure Fox will be emphasising his party and were he a republican they'd be playing it down.
For a while there, when there was Republican scandal after Republican scandal, a couple of times Fox put Democrat (instead of Republican) next to their names on the bottom of the screen blurbs. I think they did it with Foley mostly.
The first article I read on the subject listed him as a D. Maybe you guys should be reading the washington post.
For a while there, when there was Republican scandal after Republican scandal, a couple of times Fox put Democrat (instead of Republican) next to their names on the bottom of the screen blurbs. I think they did it with Foley mostly.
*laughs* I remember seeing that on the Daily Show.
Maybe. Most of the news I get during the day just pops up on the generic feeds I hit when logging out of sites, etc.
These articles specifically ommitted any reference to party which is just stupid IMO.
Fox, CNN, ABC, NBC, CBS, ATDGAFGFEALMOP, have all become pretty faces focused on pushing their agendas at the expense of unbiased reporting of facts. It's a shame really.
Not just stupid, more than likely intentional.
DON'T FIRE FITZ
WHEN Bill Clinton took office in January 1993, he was hearing the foot steps of Little Rock US Attorney Charles Banks, who was hot on his heels as he probed charges of corruption that swirled around the Watergate land deal. President Clinton decided, in one of his first acts, to fire all 93 US Attorneys - claiming he wanted a clean slate.
Many insiders suspected that the other 92 bodies were a cover for firing Banks and replacing him with Paula Casey, a Clinton ally.
US Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald's indictment of Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich raises a similar question as President-elect Barack Obama prepares to take office. Will the new president fire Fitzgerald?
In view of the often-close relationship between Blagojevich, Obama and other key members of the incoming administration, it would be a travesty were Fitzgerald's head to roll now. Consider:
* Fitzgerald has already indicted and convicted Antoin Rezko, Obama's friend and key financial backer who may have arranged for the then-state-senator to acquire his home and adjoining property on advantageous terms.
* Obama and incoming Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel were among an intimate circle of Blagojevich advisers when Blago first ran for governor in 2002. Emanuel says that he, Obama and others "participated in a small group that met weekly when Rod was running for governor. We basically laid out the general election, Barack and I and these two."
* Obama adviser and media guru David Axelrod worked for Blagojevich in his races for Congress before he ran for governor, although Axelrod (a consultant of uncommon integrity) refused to work for Blagojevich when he ran for governor.
* Even though Fitzgerald had already made clear that he was investigating the governor, following up "very serious allegations of endemic hiring fraud" and noted that he had "a number of credible witnesses," Obama vigorously backed Blagojevich for re-election in 2006. At the Illinois State Fair that August, ABC's Jake Tapper reported that Obama told the crowd, "We've got a governor in Rod Blagojevich who has delivered consistently on behalf of the people of Illinois."
This is a great opportunity for Obama if he is truly free of any of this, and I certainly hope he is, to be the leader and be as forthright as he claimed he would be during the election.
Rod B is not going to jail for being a Democrat. He's going to jail for being a crook.
George Ryan (the prior governor) is in the pokey right now and is/was a Republican. Crooks must be non-denominational.
I believe that the original posting in this thread was intended to indicate that Democratic crooks are somehow more obvious, natural and frequent than any other kind.
Wolf has it right. This is chicago (illinois really but all the big guys come out of chicago) through and through. the last governor is still in prison. The mayor's office isn't exactly know for great ethics. chicago politicians only stick out if they aren't crooks.
Correct.
I think you misplaced your homekey row there, dude. feel for the little dots on the f and j before you start to type. :)
Why should I care about that?
RES IPSA LOQUITUR - Lat. "the thing speaks for itself." Refers to situations when it's assumed that a person's injury was caused by the negligent action of another party because the accident was the sort that wouldn't occur unless someone was negligent.
Yes. I was referring more to the translation than anything else.
The Service Employees International Union has long boasted that it is on the cutting edge of the labor movement. But the union found itself badly embarrassed this week when it was named in the federal criminal complaint charging Gov. Rod R. Blagojevich of Illinois with maneuvering to secure financial gain from the appointment of the state’s next senator.
The complaint said Mr. Blagojevich’s chief of staff, John Harris, had suggested to a service employees official that the union should help make the governor the president of Change to Win, a federation of seven unions that broke away from the A.F.L.-C.I.O. The complaint said Mr. Blagojevich, a Democrat, was seeking a position that paid $250,000 to $300,000 a year.
In exchange, the complaint suggested, Mr. Blagojevich had expected the service employees union and Change to Win to seek to persuade him to name President-elect Barack Obama’s first choice, Valerie Jarrett, to succeed Mr. Obama in the Senate. The union would also receive help from the Obama administration, presumably for its legislative agenda.
Damning information to say the least.
The first article I read on the subject listed him as a D. Maybe you guys should be reading the washington post.
Or just about anything else.
DON'T FIRE FITZ
This is a great opportunity for Obama if he is truly free of any of this, and I certainly hope he is, to be the leader and be as forthright as he claimed he would be during the election.
He already did. I'm not sure why that answer would change after Fitzgerald investigated a guy who hates him.
Fox, CNN, ABC, NBC, CBS, ATDGAFGFEALMOP, have all become pretty faces focused on pushing their agendas at the expense of unbiased reporting of facts. It's a shame really.
A bit of a shame, yeah. But I see it as more a reversion to the journalistic norms of the nineteenth century, when it was routine even for papers that weren't established as party organs from the beginning to clearly favor one party over others, or the other.
But you can do pretty well by taking opposing biases, mentally leaning them up against each other, and dropping a plumbline. It should land pretty near what is actually the case. / + \ --> /\, then /|\.
I believe that the original posting in this thread was intended to indicate that Democratic crooks are somehow more obvious, natural and frequent than any other kind.
My problem with the Democrats is not that they're crooked -- no one here takes any view of politicians other than from the skeptical to the downright jaundiced. Congress' approval ratings are still in the cellar, if not the teens.
My problem is the leadership of the Democrats just isn't very wise, and has had zero success in advancing democracy around the globe since Truman. Truman left office in 1954. That's a long time of failure. At the end of the day, indefensible. Socialism is the road of currency debasement and thus unwisdom, and the Dem Party is in thrall to its socialists. Unwisdom. Bureaucracy is the Dem Party's solution to every problem, real or imagined. Unfortunately, it's not the way to get something done, or services provided. Bureaucracy is a pretty fair pre-Internet way to move information around, but its natural tendency is to inertia and it overly limits effort and problemsolving in its attempts to plan, budget, and administer. Paring bureaucratic tendencies away from a society makes that society more dynamic and endows it with a livelier economy.
By contrast, the Republicans have been the ones to win democracy's battles for us, and to fight wars as if they intended to win them -- which a good many senseless people think is just criminal somehow. Can't see the how myself -- only that some American bozos don't want us winning. They suck, and blindly too. Amazing just how angry they become when their inadequacy of thought is ranged before them beyond mistake. Anybody would think they whore after a false god.
And yes, the Reps are about as enamored of bureaucracy as the Dems are. I'd hate to have to live on any difference there. No wonder I profess Libertarianism as my political persuasion, despite objections from certain parties.
Your bias should be expected, and taken into account.
Yours as well. I could offer some suggestions about where you might take your bias and what you might do with it. :cool:
"As for me and my house," we find the Democratic Party a regular, routine disappointment.
Your lies are still lies. Go back and read post 38.:rolleyes:
Or just about anything else.
You may not like it and they may not have done it in this case but Michelle is right.
Congress' approval ratings are still in the cellar, if not the teens.
You watch what you sayin', buster! We don't allow no congressmen in here!
My problem is the leadership of the Democrats just isn't very wise, and has had zero success in advancing democracy around the globe since Truman. Truman left office in 1954.
Ah - ahhhh - ahhhhhhhhhhhhhh-Bosnia!
I'm sorry, I have a cold.
You may not like it and they may not have done it in this case but Michelle is right.
Apparently not.
Your lies are still lies. Go back and read post 38.:rolleyes:
If there were any lies, I suppose that might be true. :rolleyes: Stop being an idiot, Bruce, for I know you can. All three digits of the IQ, if you please. I know you have them. Pour the Kool-Aid into the gutter; it's not good for your brain.
I never write anything in here, other than jokes, that is anything less than truth as I've been given to understand it. An inability to recognize or value this on your part, Bruce, doesn't exactly add up to a deficiency on mine, now does it? You could always become an enlightened man... then great vistas open. Stop looking for excuses to fight me unless dickhead really is your life's goal.
A truth is, Blagojevich is venal. And it looks like he's hard even for the Chicago Democratic machine to swallow, and there are calls for his impeachment, as well as for his
pro tem removal from office because he's too crippled politically to govern.
And UT, is Bosnia really there yet? Up from genocide/harrumph/ethnic cleansing isn't all the way to liberal democracy, is it?
I never write anything in here, other than jokes, that is anything less than truth [COLOR="royalblue"]as I've been given to understand it[/COLOR].
My problem is the leadership of the Democrats just isn't very wise, and has had zero success in advancing democracy around the globe since Truman. [COLOR="royalblue"]Truman left office in 1954[/COLOR].
I stand corrected, you don't lie, you're just [COLOR="royalblue"]uneducated[/COLOR]. :eyebrow:
You may not like it and they may not have done it in this case but Michelle is right.
The subject of this thread is the media's unwillingness to identify Blagojevich as a democrat. That has been debunked.
You watch what you sayin', buster! We don't allow no congressmen in here!
:D
The subject of this thread is the media's unwillingness to identify Blagojevich as a democrat. That has been debunked.
My comment was about the monkey's post. The press has had a long history of not id'ing Dems caught in scandles with inital reports.
Apparently not.
Apparently so.
The local media in Central Illinois is basically refusing to recognize him as the governor. The citizens of Illinois that did not elect him to office (everyone outside of Chicago) have stopped recognizing him as governor a long time ago. Everything that he has done in the past few months - closing state historical sites and parks, closing a major state prison, etc. is going to be reversed. If he doesn't willingly resign, the Illinois Supreme Court is going to rule that he is unfit to serve as governor, thus welcoming Lt. Gov. Pat Quinn as the new governor of IL. Quinn and Blowfish have not spoken to each other in years. Most people that are elected to higher offices in IL government have very bad relationships with the ol' Blow. Some are even democrats. He's not a popular guy.
Rahm Emanuel talked with governor's office about who should fill Obama's Senate seat
Rahm Emanuel, President-elect Barack Obama's pick to be White House chief of staff, had conversations with Gov. Rod Blagojevich's administration about who would replace Obama in the U.S. Senate, the Tribune has learned.
The revelation does not suggest Obama's new gatekeeper was involved in any talk of dealmaking involving the seat. But it does help fill in the gaps surrounding a question that Obama was unable or unwilling to answer this week: Did anyone on his staff have contact with Blagojevich about his choice for the Senate seat?
Schakowsky said it was natural for Obama to take an interest in the selection process for his Senate seat. "It makes perfect sense for the president-elect or his people to have some interaction about filling the seat he was vacating," she said.
One source confirmed that communications between Emanuel and the Blagojevich administration were captured on court-approved wiretaps.
Emanuel: I'm Getting Death Threats Over Blagojevich Scandal
Questions remain, however, over his contacts with Blagojevich and his staff, and Emanuel has still not said whether or not he's been contacted by the FBI for questioning.
Back at his home, Emanuel appeared "beet-red," according to an ABC News cameraman who was invited inside by Emanuel to use his bathroom this morning.
"I'm getting regular death threats. You've put my home address on national television. I'm pissed at the networks. You've intruded too much, " Emanuel said, according to the cameraman.
Better get real used to it. This is just the beginning.
An aide for Emanuel said late Friday afternoon that Emanuel did not make any remarks about receiving death threats. "While we appreciate this camera man's active imagination, this report is inaccurate," said Sarah Feinberg. Responding to Emanuel's comments, ABC News went back and double-checked with the camera man and we stand by the story.
Emanuel has refused to comment as to whether he is the un-named presidential adviser cited in the FBI affidavit filed in the Blagojevich case.
U.S. Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald says there is "nothing in the complaint" that implicates President-elect Obama but the affidavit suggests someone from the Obama camp was in touch with Blagojevich or his aides, if only to tell the Governor that Obama would not offer anything but "appreciation" in exchange for the Senate appointment.
That's good to hear. But I still think that Obama, or any president would want to be intimately involved with the appointment of his replacement. He will have to work with him for the next 4 years and certainly would want to pick/approve/suggest someone with whom is is familiar or has worked with in the past. That's only normal....isn't it?
Obama aides won't discuss Ill. governor probe
WASHINGTON (AP) - President-elect Barack Obama is refusing to answer any questions about the internal review he has ordered into Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich's alleged efforts to sell his former Senate seat, saying he will do so when the examination is finished.
Obama's staff has declined to respond to even basic questions, like who is conducting the probe, how long it will take, what issues are being explored and whether they are working with federal investigators. Obama has promised transparency throughout his service and to divulge contacts his staff has had with Blagojevich's office in the coming days. But his staff has locked down on inquiries in the meantime.
My comment was about the monkey's post.
And had already been debunked by said post.
When the initial reports came out they didn't highlight the fact that he was a D. As time went on he was listed as such in a more prominent way as the impending "better story" was coming to light.
If he had been an R, then that fact would have commanded more of the headline initially as the media would have taken a more "here's another one" stance. I think that is what Merc's point was.
I guess it really comes down to which outlet you got your info from and when. I do remember having to look carefully at one of the first article I saw because I wasn't familiar with him and really didn't know. The info was there, it just wasn't at the beginning of the article.
Hey everybody...let's learn to multi-quote! It's fun, easy, and saves the reader 16 one-word posts in a row to annoy them.
;)
And had already been debunked by said post.
You miss the point. As usual.
When the initial reports came out they didn't highlight the fact that he was a D. As time went on he was listed as such in a more prominent way as the impending "better story" was coming to light.
If he had been an R, then that fact would have commanded more of the headline initially as the media would have taken a more "here's another one" stance. I think that is what Merc's point was.
I guess it really comes down to which outlet you got your info from and when. I do remember having to look carefully at one of the first article I saw because I wasn't familiar with him and really didn't know. The info was there, it just wasn't at the beginning of the article.
Correct. Same for the last 2 years of Demoncratic scandles. Hardly a mention of political affiliations until 24 or 48 hours out. And only when attention is drawn to that fact.
I think its a fair assessment that the first information that some people got had the political affiliation clearly noted. So in a sense you are both right or all right ... whatever.
Poo, I'm right and your wrong, neener neener neener. :lol2:
The Philly paper said Obama had checked on (audited) his staff and they didn't do anything wrong, but would not go into further detail until the official investigation of the Gov was done.
One of the first stories I read, said Obama made a recommendation to the Gov for a replacement. I can believe that.
You won't find the political affiliation of the Portland mayor in
this story.
Imagine that.
It seems to be missing from
wiki too.
Somebody removed it from Wikipedia a half-hour ago.
I've put it back.
Really? Are you serious UT? That is so lame.
Somebody else removed it again. I put it back.
most interesting - I wonder why the fact that he is a Democrat would be repeatedly removed?
Apparently at least one AP story mis-identified him as a Republican.
His screwing a teenager was way too embarrassing for the Democrats.
They don't want people to focus on the double standards. The press does it as well.
They argued that the office of Portland Mayor is non-partisan. They argued that I didn't have a cite that he was a registered Democrat. They argued that it wasn't relevant to the first paragraph.
I found biographical information on Sam Adams' Portland City Council website that showed that he'd been working for Democratic concerns for 20 years. I put an additional detail into his "early life and career" section.
I didn't do it to be political. I did it because it's factual information and should be in the article. And, really, it should be at the top of the page. The Wiki page for the mayor that he'd worked for previously, opens with "Vera Katz is a German born
Democratic politician in the U.S. state of
Oregon".
Seems to me that you did it because it was the right thing to do. The more that they resist that truth, the more credibility they lose. So far, they've lost a lot.
Ok, someone tell me, was he a Demoncrat? because the press have not mentioned his political affiliation.
If he was cheating lying scum, he MUST have been Republican ;)
Why of course! I should have known!
They have not quibbled with my latest addition. Yet.
They have not quibbled with my latest addition. Yet.
Thats cuz they are all at the parties. :rolleyes:
Mayor Adams is openly gay. They elected him knowing he was gay. He had sex with another gay guy. Where's the story...? That he lied? Fine. But it's a lying scandal, not a sex scandal... except that Adams does have a committed partner, if i'm not mistaken... I guess that is kinda not cool. But Adams didn't build his career on legislating against gay people. THAT's why it's a scandal when republicans do things like that.
It's just kinda skeevy when a 42-year-old hooks up with an 18-year-old. For many reasons.
Aside from the fact that the other person was 18.... He lied about it and told the kid to lie about it during the campaign so that he could get elected and then AFTER getting elected decides to apologize.
Where is the leadership in that? This whole thing stinks - D or R - doesn't matter.
How bout this winner?
Wisconsin: Racine Mayor Resigns
The mayor of Racine resigned in a one-sentence letter, days after being accused of trying to arrange a sexual encounter with someone he thought was an under-age girl. The letter from the mayor, Gary Becker, left, made no reference to the six felonies he faces. Mr. Becker’s lawyer, Patrick Cafferty, said he decided to resign because “it was in the best interest of everyone involved.” Mr. Cafferty said his client intended to plead not guilty to all charges at an arraignment on Feb. 10 in Racine County Circuit Court.
Mr. Becker, 51, was arrested Jan. 13 at a suburban Milwaukee mall after a two-week investigation by the Division of Criminal Investigation at the State Department of Justice. After chatting online with a state agent posing as a 14-year-old girl, Mr. Becker went to the mall to meet her and buy lingerie for her, according to a criminal complaint. During the chat, he offered to take her to a hotel to “have lots of fun,” the complaint said.
The investigation started last month after Mr. Becker asked city workers to help him fix a problem with his personal computer. The police said the computer technician found six pornographic images of what appeared to be under-age girls and alerted the authorities.
Form another source
Becker, who is married and has two children, is charged with attempted second-degree sexual assault of a child under 16, possession of child pornography, child enticement, use of a computer to facilitate a child sex crime, attempt exposing a child to harmful material and misconduct in office. The charges carry a maximum penalty of more than 114 years in prison and $370,000 in fines.
Interestingly enough there is no mention of his political affiliation either. Took me a little bit of searching to actually find it.
No, It doesn't matter whether he is an R or a D, but the bias in reporting is becoming a trend. This is the second time in a week.
Never trust those "city worker" pricks, they'll rat you out every time.:rolleyes:
At forty-three minutes after the hour, the Illinois State Senate voted unanimously, 59-0, to remove Blagojevich from office. One State Senator voted with a gesture -- thumbs down.
"Oh, and don't let the door hit you in the ass."
Now its time for the juvenile approach of "well if your gonna spank me your gonna spank him and him and her and him..." and "he started it". What a fokkin wimpweasle.
Interestingly enough there is no mention of his political affiliation either. Took me a little bit of searching to actually find it.
No, It doesn't matter whether he is an R or a D, but the bias in reporting is becoming a trend. This is the second time in a week.
Same thing happened with the mayor from Baltimore, there was no mention of her political affiliation until somewhere at the very bottom of the original articles. Subsequent articles moved her political affiliations closer to the top of the page, but still no headlines. You know if it were a Republickin it would have been a headliner on page 1.
Blagojevich behaved just like Clinton.
One more datum for why people of integrity don't vote for Democrats, and shouldn't vote for Democrats.
Give campaign contributions to somebody else.
There used to be a time when I could choose a candidate to vote for and I actually had faith and confidence in their personal integrity. Over the last couple of decades my faith had dwindled down to damn near a coin toss or plucking petals from a daisy.
I'm either getting paranoid or just losing my faith in mankind. Honestly, I almost prefer the paranoia.
<heavy sigh>
He got what he deserved.
Well, I've been well served by a habit of either voting for a candidate -- or against. Not a lot of starry-eyed idealism goes into my voting either. Sometimes it's a third-party candidate, with the aim of encouragement to that third party. In my case, only one third party.
Skepticism towards officeholders is hardly a vice in a republic.
...One more datum for why people of integrity don't vote for Democrats, and shouldn't vote for Democrats.
Give campaign contributions to somebody else.
Someone should have given that advice to Jack Abramoff and all those members of Congress (mostly Republican) that he bankrolled.
It might have kept him and a bunch of Republicans out of jail or under ethical clouds.
Seriously, that is really an ignorant comment.
Redux, start reading National Review for at least half a year -- then get back to me about "ignorance," okay?
UG...I suggest you start here:
A report on corruption investigations of members of the 109th Congress..the last Republican majority Congress:
Below is a rundown of all 21 lawmakers, current and former. Ten of them are no longer in office. Investigations of seven are part of the Abramoff investigation. Seventeen are Republicans, four are Democrats.
http://www.propublica.org/article/pol-investigation-wrap-up
You might also want to read about the
K Street project.
The Grover Norquist/Tom DeLay/Karl Rove plan of influence peddling with the hope of creating a permanent Republican majority.
Kinda backfired on them after Abramoff's arrest and Tom DeLay's resignation from Congress under an ethical cloud.
The Washington Post had an article in 2005 on the growth of lobbyists during the years 2001-2004 when the Republicans controlled both the White House and Congress.
[INDENT]
[/INDENT]
The Road to Riches is Called K Street
We can disagree on policy issues....but integrity? I think not!
Power corrupts...not party affiliation.
Please, show a little more objectivity.
Redux, start reading National Review for at least half a year -- then get back to me about "ignorance," okay?
Why not just read the RNC talking points and be done with it?
Why not just read the RNC talking points and be done with it?
And never let facts get in the way of those talking points.
Why not just read the RNC talking points and be done with it?
Because National Review is first of all conservative, not first of all Republican. Expect a strong note of American Catholicism too; other mags like American Spectator have more a Protestant flavor, plus whatever degree of Jewishness Ben Stein's column adds.
Because National Review is first of all conservative, not first of all Republican.
Can't see much difference, these days.
Through all that hate - I'm amazed you can see at all. :rolleyes:
Through all that hate - I'm amazed you can see at all. :rolleyes:
There's a sort of a red haze, yeah, but it's not opaque.
They make so good a case for the conservative cause that it's quite persuaded me. The brains all seem to be on the right-hand side of the aisle. So I hang with the smart guys.
In his January 8 testimony before an Illinois House impeachment panel, Burris, the former Illinois attorney general, said he had no conversations with Blagojevich before the then-governor's arrest about his desire to be appointed to the seat.
But in a statement released Friday to the Sun-Times along with the affidavit filed February 5, Burris said, "There were several facts that I was not given the opportunity to make during my testimony to the impeachment committee, so, upon receiving the transcripts, I voluntarily submitted an affidavit so everything was transparent."
In the affidavit, Burris said he recalled that Rob Blagojevich called him three times -- in October and then twice shortly after the November elections -- to "seek my assistance in fundraising for Gov. Blagojevich."
Hmm.
...The brains all seem to be on the right-hand side of the aisle. So I hang with the smart guys.
So why do you think so many smart guys on the right-hand side of the aisle were investigated for corruption?
Below is a rundown of all 21 lawmakers, current and former. Ten of them are no longer in office. Investigations of seven are part of the Abramoff investigation. Seventeen are Republicans, four are Democrats.
http://www.propublica.org/article/pol-investigation-wrap-up
They make so good a case for the conservative cause that it's quite persuaded me. The brains all seem to be on the right-hand side of the aisle. So I hang with the smart guys.
You hang with them?
:lol:
Yes, they will avoid smashing you flat, because
you're on their side.
HAR HAR!
None of these Janus-faced assholes are on "your side", UG, and anyone who thinks they are should probably just stop pretending to have a spine.
TGRR, you will never know the joys of ratiocination with an attitude like that. Your complete ignorance of National Review, American Spectator, Commentary, The New York Review of Books, The Christian Science Monitor, the World Jewish Review, and The Weekly Standard can only leave you in the condition of a dead fish washed up on the beach, high, dry, and part skeletonized. Not a condition to envy.
I am more vertebrate than you are, for I have the spine to reject the complex of poor ideas that seem to satisfy your mind and tastes, TGRR. You haven't the quality of thinking that could shake me -- indeed, none of the disputants reading this have that, and believe me they've tried. They've all found me extraordinarily tough, articulate, and able to say why I don't think they should hew to the ideas they brought with them any further.
Redux, do give sufficient mention to the corrupt culture of the Clinton Administration, with especial notice to its utter suborning of the Department of Justice under Janet Reno, whose time in office was largely spent running interference for the Clintonistas and the Clintons.
UG...the difference between us.
I say that power corrupts...you say its more of a party thing.
I've never said, nor would I defend, some of the questionable policies and practices of the Clinton admin.. But the abuses by the Bush administration certainly stand up to (and surpass, in the minds of many on the left and center) anything Clinton/Reno did.
Please
cite examples of "the utter suborning of the Department of Justice under Janet Reno" and how they match t
hese five by the Bush DoJ
Your defense of those practices does not show "adult thinking"....but rather blind ideology.
Not to mention (again) the corruption and ethics of those Republicans in the 109th Congress, including the K Street influence peddling was the worst in recent years....since the Abscam days.
Just calling our your bullshit for what it is....but feel to ignore the facts in my cites. You can hide from the facts...it won't make them go away.
So why do you think so many smart guys on the right-hand side of the aisle were investigated for corruption?
Those numbers will change over the next 4 years. There is no doubt about it.
Those numbers will change over the next 4 years. There is no doubt about it.
I think there might be doubt...I wont presume.
The Democratic Congress did at least adopt the first ethics and lobbying reform bill in 20 years...as weak as I think it is, its better than what was in place when the Republicans were in charge.
The question is if they live up to the new standards.
But as I said, power corrupts, not party affiliation as UG suggests.
4 years. Absolute power corrupts absolutely. History repeats itself. Happened under 8 years of Clinton.
Don't worry, I will be posting them as they go down. And they will.
Be sure to provide factual cites and not biased editorials :)
Don't think that has ever been a problem when people have been accused of corruption. I leave it up to the courts to provide the final blow, all it takes is the evidence to strike up an investigation and that is an inditement enough now days, I mean if you are holding up the Bush admin and Repubs as the standard. There have been plenty of Dems in that category over the last 4 years to not be throwing to many stones at that house of glass. I am confident the Demoncrats will rise to the occassion, just like any majority power. Absolute power corrupts absolutely.
Oh, I don't argue power's corrupting capacity is any respecter of party -- only that the respective demographics of the Big Two have differing levels of resistance to that corruption. And in the end, it's a matter of individual character. Now which party was it that definitely makes a thing of individual character again? And is this not measurable in the glee with which the opposition pounces upon any displays of flawed individual character, trying to advertise that this is altogether prevalent among this party? One suspects there is no integrity in such posturing. The nearest to integrity they come in this has been public remark that "Well, nobody expects that level of probity of one of
us," leaving unsaid what they've been doing to lower the expectation.
I've heard no person of the center, nor anyone with a level head, excoriate the Bush Administration with justice. It seems strictly the province of the ill-advised and the lunatic, and these people patently have no justice at all. It leaves me skeptical as to the mental hygiene standards of the Left.
You can always start, I suppose, with AG Reno's not defending the Second Amendment from that Administration's encroachments, in particular the antigun provisions of the Omnibus Crime Bill of 1994. (Antigun lawmaking is quite pro-genocide, sayeth our JPFO -- and I think no Jew should be unaware of the JPFO's arguments and philosophy, be he never so liberal or never so Hasidic; one should know how to promote genocide and then take care never to tolerate such promotion.) She was in an excellent position to tell Bill Clinton his desired regulations ran athwart the Second Amendment, but no, there was nary a peep from her or her staff against being directed to enforce an unconstitutionality, and it wasn't like there were any progun partisans in the Clinton cabinet anyway. I'll dig up the cites, that's only fair; and if you can't recall the dubious behavior of the Reno attorney-generalship, I suppose I'll need to jog your memory.
Here's a page on JPFO's site setting out in compact form what the JPFO believes to be genocide's essentials and its preconditions. Israeli society seems to understand this very well indeed.
As far as I can recall, there was nothing unconstitutional in the '94 Omnibus Crime BIll.
Damn...is that your best shot?
The Miller Case in '39 had served as precedent (albeit limited in scope) for 60+ years. There was no basis for Reno to suggest to Clinton that the bill contained any provisions that were unconstitutional, including the assault weapon ban.
To compare the democratically elected and constitutionally guided government of the US with its checks and balances to the Young Turks, Nazi Germany, Communist Russia or China, Khmer Rouge, as suggested in your link, is simply ignorant fear mongering.
Sorry..you failed that one...mr adult thinker.
No, it's my
first shot. You will not be able to stand what I can bring to this part of it.
The finding in US v. Miller was also not well informed as to the martial uses of the short shotgun -- they were in fact completely ignorant of its use to date, which was a matter of Army record. Since 1939, the military shotgun's record has grown: they run to longish sawed-offs a couple inches shorter than legal in the barrel, cylinder bored -- no choke, used in close terrain more or less as a reusable claymore mine.
There was basis for Reno to suggest to Clinton that the bill contained any provisions that were unconstitutional,
I agree; there was basis, as you unintentionally wrote.
Assault "weapon" bans (you are seriously behind the technical curve if that's the most accurate term you have) are the most directly genocidal of all gun control "you can't have it" regulations. Antigenocidal gun laws would be to the effect of "you must have it." The freest approach to this is to neither forbid assault rifles on every mantle nor in any wise mandate them.
Keep firing, dude!
Hit me with your best shot :D
A damning quote from Janet Reno, demonstrating why the NRA-ILA didn't like her at all:
"Nobody should be owning a gun which does not have a sporting purpose."
(I shouldn't have any trouble coming up with a date and place for this, which was a result of mere minutes on the 'Net.)
This is how, if you successfully sweep up all the rifles with automatic transmissions, as it were, you sharply cut the citizenry's physical ability to tell the government to close up shop and go the hell home because its legitimacy is at an end. (The Clinton Administration and its First Lady were really into that sharp cutting away!) Cut that ability far enough and you no longer have a Republic, which is all about the broadest distribution of power. You have, instead, a replay of Nazi Germany. What, once wasn't enough? Learn from history. The power of life and death is about as powerful as power gets, by a force like natural law, not so?
Do you not keep a republic by checks and balances
on the government as well as within it? This checking and balancing
of the government as a whole is an essential every conservative knows about and readily acknowledges, and it remains functional regardless of anything that may go on within the government. We conservatives don't trust government to stay good all the time -- history is positively rife with examples of republics gone bad, and all of these controlled guns, too. There are also numerous examples of monarchies, not very republican at all, having quite the liberal society in encouraging gun possession among the citizenry. There are shades of class differences in every national example of this in Europe, but the classical liberal tenet that a limited monarchy greatly improves over an absolutist one may be borne out by the contrasting governmental philosophies of England and France -- Magna Carta versus
"L'état, c'est moi." Seek not to allow the government say in every aspect of your life, says the conservative. Thus you retain the necessary power to do something about a government gone rotten.
Liberals always pooh-pooh this -- until they go to the camps and get extinguished. Where are their pooh-poohs then? The great government crime is the crime of genocide -- and its targets NEVER see genocide coming, for it is invariably an ambush. They have no clue at all what they should be concerned about, and this is what makes them die in a hecatomb.
But an armed electorate doesn't get herded into the ovens so cheaply. And that is a thing of virtue. A good Jew, I think, would be one who practices that virtue, along with those other 168 Talmudic ones.
If you're going to be skeptical about the government, your skepticism had better have teeth, should it not? No government responds properly to mental masturbation, and no guns for you means no attention paid to you. Unresponsiveness to the citizen and his proper rights is the very definition of a tyranny.
I contend the well-armed electorate is the nongovernmental
reason it can't happen here. Confining the killing tools to the government only is the reason the genocides happened elsewhere. Have checks and balances independent of the government, and the libertarian says have all things independent of the government. In this the libertarian so much resembles the average conservative that it is clear libertarianism is fundamentally a conservative philosophy.
UG....I'm not interested in debating gun control with you. That was not the issue.
You made some nebulus charge about "suborning of the Department of Justice under Janet Reno" and offered as an example that Reno did not defend the Second Amendment from that Administration's encroachments in the 94 Crime Bill.
The fact remains that there was nothing unconstitional in the 94 crime bill when it was proposed and enacted, including the AWB (using the vernacular of the time).
So your charge is bogus.
Gah! Janet Reno. The ugliest Nazi in history. Seriously, she made Goering look like a hottie.
Fact: She was the Queen-Hell gun-grabber.
Fact: Her answer to EVERYTHING was to send in goons with submachine guns (Waco, Elian Gonzales, etc).
Fact: She was a freedom-hating old hag who regularly used the constitution for shit rag when she couldn't find an orphan. I won't really rest easy until they bury the old bitch...and I hope someone remembers to drive a stake through her heart, first.
Yeah but do you like her or not?
Yeah but do you like her or not?
No. As much as I appreciate Doom, and like a good psychotic now and then, there ARE limits.
UG....I'm not interested in debating gun control with you. That was not the issue.
You made some nebulus charge about "suborning of the Department of Justice under Janet Reno" and offered as an example that Reno did not defend the Second Amendment from that Administration's encroachments in the 94 Crime Bill.
The fact remains that there was nothing unconstitional in the 94 crime bill when it was proposed and enacted, including the AWB (using the vernacular of the time).
So your charge is bogus.
No, I just haven't assembled the research yet... that was merely a taste, the merest smallest start. Be patient. This thread will come to the top of the page again in due course.
"Assault weapon" is not a term used by the knowledgeable in discussing arms. It is quite without specific meaning, yet it's flung around as a bogeyman: there is nothing in the term to distinguish a big wet rock from a stone axe from a musket from a revolver from a lead pipe from a stick from a.... this is the idea you have hitherto not grasped. The people pushing the "assault weapon" idea were relying on the ignorance of persons who hadn't a knowledge of the matter.
Frankly, if you take an antigun view (and no good Jew should take one unless he wants the Holocaust back, because it'll burn better if antigun laws and views are prevalent, for the State always has guns, and it was a State's guns that controlled European Jewry) you have absolutely no hope at all contending with me. The last guy to try it was Spexxvet, and he disgraced himself horribly, getting stared down by the entire Cellar when he lost it and began raving about "hoping someone buttfucks [UG] in the mouth" -- all his antigun ideas written into the thread got pulverized by a combination of me, radar, and xoxoxoBruce.
UG....this is not about gun control but rather your charge about "suborning of the Department of Justice under Janet Reno"...
But for the record, I am not anti-gun.
I thought the DC gun ban was far too restrictive and unconstitutional. I rarely agree with Scalia, but his decision in Heller works for me:
[INDENT]Held:
1) The Second Amendment protects an individual's right to posess a fireman unconnected with service in a milita, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home....
2) Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited.
It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsover and for whatever purpose....[/INDENT]
And I still find your comparisons to Nazi Germany, Communist Russia and China, etc. as fear-mongering.
The fact that we have an independent juidciary and a system of checks and balances, as demonstrated most recently by the Heller case, makes such comparisons a stretch of one's imagination to the point of paranoia.
Back to the issue at hand, please....examples of "suborning of the Department of Justice under Janet Reno"....
No, I just haven't assembled the research yet... that was merely a taste, the merest smallest start. Be patient. This thread will come to the top of the page again in due course.
I'm not here to defend the Clinton administratiobn...I'm just looking for you to provide examples that are comparable to the five examples of illegal or questionable actions by the Bush DoJ that I documented earlier.
Hit me with your best shot....fire away!
Then let us make a small beginning with these:
Human Events, 29 Oct 1999:
“Something needs to be done about the U.S. Department of Justice. It is a corrupt organization. Columnists now refer to it as the "Justice (sic) Department" and the "Department of Injustice." The torrent of lies and false prosecutions that pour out of the DOJ cause even Mexicans to say that the "colossus of the North is more corrupt than we."
FBI agents testified before Congress 22 Sep 1999 that
a corrupt Justice Department blocked their investigation of the campaign-finance scandal in which the Chinese government purchased access to the Clinton Administration and our military secrets.
The agents told Congress that their DOJ supervisor, Laura Ingersoll, prevented them from using search warrants while critical evidence was destroyed by a Clinton crony.
Ingersoll claimed that the agents did not have "probable cause" for a warrant. This from a DOJ that routinely uses asset forfeiture laws to seize the homes of elderly grandparents on the "probable cause" that a grandchild might have had drugs in the house.
Complete text
here.
We kept hearing about this kind of thing all through the Clinton Adminstration. This was just a late example. Impeachment proceedings, remember, were initiated about that Administation's distant relationship with veracity and its close relationship with perjury. When you're that kind of operator, having the Attorney General running interference for you is a handy thing to have.
From FrontPageMagazine.com, dated March 25, 2004, relating to a deportation proceeding that began in 1997. Mazen al-Najjar was Sami al-Arian's brother in law.
The Al-Najjar re-hearing was full of oddities. Defense attorneys held daily press conferences outside the court while the Reno DOJ essentially muzzled the prosecution side. There were strong indications that a senior DOJ adviser on Reno’s staff was in direct contact with one of Al-Najjar’s defense attorneys during the time the hearing was being conducted. The same Immigration Judge, after reviewing the same classified evidence he had reviewed in 1997 plus two weeks of other evidence, instead of rendering the same decision he rendered in 1997, issued a lengthy, convoluted decision releasing Al-Najjar on an $8,000 bond. The winds of political correctness had blown very hard.
Janet Reno, to her temporary credit, stayed the Immigration Judge’s order, as she legally could, until December 2000. Note, that was after the election. She then allowed the Immigration Judge’s decision to stand, without appeal, and Al-Najjar was released on the $8,000 bond. The Attorney General who, for three-and-a-half years had known fully well who and what Mazen Al-Najjar was -- even more so than the Immigration Judge, since she had been fully briefed on the Tampa PIJ case parameters -- decided to let the guy walk. Of course,L] she was about to walk herself, since her boss was out of a job.
FrontPageMag's item.
You may recall the Clinton Administration trying to tame the Internet. Wisely, the Bush Administration didn't take this Nanny State policy anywhere.
"[Security] is not just a matter of centralizing a particular function in a particular office, it is a matter of developing technology to protect the technology," Reno commented during her press availability session last week. "We need the equipment, we need the expertise. We need cooperation from foreign governments to be able to trace these attacks. We need to cooperate with foreign governments to protect their infrastructure. We've got to design a system that....is secure, Reno said." At first glance Reno's statement might be mistaken for a wise admonition against rigid supervision and other elements of Big Government. But to read it that way, we have to answer the question of when, if ever, the Reno Department of Justice (DoJ) has acted to reduce government intrusions into the private lives of citizens. What Reno is responding to so strongly here is the horrifying thought that the FBI, and in some circumstances even the DoJ, might have to answer to ordinary non-combatants at OMB in matters of cyber-security. Furthermore, the cushy little partnership of mutual affection between the DoJ and the White House might find itself strained by a dour, skeptical chaperone.
From the
The Register: biting the hand that feeds IT.
Nor would it end here. One simply sifts the conservative periodicals... and the pro-gun ones.
Then let us make a small beginning with these:
Nor would it end here. One simply sifts the conservative periodicals... and the pro-gun ones.
LOL......conservative and pro-gun periodicals making charges about Clinton and Reno? What surprise!
Yet not one link or footnote in any of those publications to primary sources or any factual data to support their allegations. Another surprise...well, not really!
I provide facts and findings about Bush DoJ abuses and/or unlawful acts from primary sources, GAO and internal DoJ reports , and you provide undocumented allegations from periodicals with an anti-Cllinton agenda.
Hell, if I wanted to play that game, I could match your conseravtive periodicals and list pages of charges and allegations about the Bush administration from the ACLU, The Nation, or even MoveOn.org.
Facts, dude! Not unsubstantiated allegations.
Well it sounds like these two guys have some pretty good credentials. I would tend to believe someone with known credentials over a nameless, faceless Redux. What are yours?
Bill West is a retired INS/ICE Supervisory Special Agent who ran organized crime and national security investigations. He is now a counter-terrorism consultant and freelance writer.
Paul Craig Roberts (born April 3, 1939, in Atlanta, Georgia) is an economist and a nationally syndicated columnist for Creators Syndicate. He served as an Assistant Secretary of the Treasury in the Reagan Administration earning fame as the "Father of Reaganomics". He is a former editor and columnist for the Wall Street Journal, Business Week, and Scripps Howard News Service. He is a graduate of the Georgia Institute of Technology and he holds a Ph.D. from the University of Virginia. He was a post-graduate at the University of California, Berkeley, and Oxford University where he was a member of Merton College.
In 1992 he received the Warren Brookes Award for Excellence in Journalism. In 1993 the Forbes Media Guide ranked him as one of the top seven journalists in the United States.
Roberts is seriously dismayed by what he considers the Republican Party's disregard for the US constitution. He has even voiced his regret that he ever worked for it, avowing that, had he known what it would become, he would never have contributed to the Reagan Revolution
Well it sounds like these two guys have some pretty good credentials. I would tend to believe someone with known credentials over a nameless, faceless Redux. What are yours?
The issue should not be me or guys with credentials.
It should be documented facts (as in the five DoJ reports I cited) vs undocumented allegations (as in UGs conservative periodicals...lots of heresay, but not one primary source cited or footnoted).
Facts v Allegations!
The issue should not be me or guys with credentials.
It should be documented facts (as in the five DoJ reports I cited) vs undocumented allegations (as in UGs conservative periodicals...lots of heresay, but not one primary source cited or footnoted).
Facts v Allegations!
We don't we hear people every day who say something and we have no choice but to take them on their word that they are right. Don't we do that with Obama? How about Pelosi and Reid telling us how the stimulus package is going to save our economy? Or how about the Republickins telling us all how it is a big giant bondoggle and nothing more than a special interest spending package? When the president stands up and says, "I did not have sex with that woman!" or the Chief of the CIA telling the president, "Slam Dunk!"? I think the credentials of the author have much to do with it.
We don't we hear people every day who say something and we have no choice but to take them on their word that they are right. Don't we do that with Obama? How about Pelosi and Reid telling us how the stimulus package is going to save our economy? Or how about the Republickins telling us all how it is a big giant bondoggle and nothing more than a special interest spending package? When the president stands up and says, "I did not have sex with that woman!" or the Chief of the CIA telling the president, "Slam Dunk!"? I think the credentials of the author have much to do with it.
Merc..its really quite simple.
UG made the claim that the Clinhton DoJ committed more unlawful acts than the Bsuh DoJ.
I simply asked for cites.....not opinions from conservative and/or gun periodicals, but something comparable to DOJ internal reprots or GAO reports.
Not that I really give a fuck.
If you and UG think the Clinton DoJ politicized the DoJ more than Bush...thats fine!
Its just not worth discussing with you.
If UG wants to continue, I'll look foward to seeing cites that resemble facts more than opinions.
Damn. You guys are good. I envy you.
Look, pretending these are just opinions won't cut it, Redux. Your argument fails. This was how the Clinton DoJ behaved, quite visibly to observers both here and abroad as my first cites show, and I can just keep heaping the evidence on. You won't acknowledge it despite having lived through that very period of history. Clearly you need to be rescued, for you don't know the truth and thus are unfree.
lol...all he asked for was a decent cite. If you can't provide one, I suggest that it's you who have failed. :)
I am dealing with willful ignorance here, and those who insist on it don't come out well dealing with me: their foolish ideas go on display for the shoddiness they are. I'm not angry with the man, but he's clearly settled for second or third best, and that's a shame.
I have no doubt at all I can come up with iron-solid cites that he will have to cultivate a selective blindness not to acknowledge. I can keep digging long after Redux has fled the scene as he says he will.
Furthermore, the "anti-Clinton agenda" was rooted in the deliberate actions of the Clintons themselves: their transparent frauds, their illegal fundraising, their ignorance, feigned or most likely actual, of the law, their manifest though never acknowledged antipathy to the Constitution's Bill of Rights. In Janet Reno they had their edition of the police chief in their pocket, and this was allllllll over the news media.
To the usual retort of, "Yeah, what about AG Alberto Gonzales?!" I say "He was a guy who actively helped win the war -- unlike, say, you." The worst you can say of ol' Alberto is that he soldiered in the battle. Our foes are a quite unsympathetic lot. Funny how much sympathy they seem to get, because some bozos around the States spell "enemy" R-e-p-u-b-l-i-c-a-n. I wonder how much consideration they've ever given to "Wahhabi" and "Islamofascist." I've looked at what the Republicans do, and it just ain't that hostile, kids.
So if you can come up with those cites, why don't you just do it?
eta: perhaps you'll prove your point that way. ;)
God forbid!
That would end the argument....er.. I mean debate.
lol....well we can't have that can we?!!!
Which is how I'll prove my point, digging 'em up again. Patience, patience. It's no less true for taking the time to research.
Which is how I'll prove my point, digging 'em up again. Patience, patience.
One finding of fact regarding Clinton DoJ unlawful or questionable practices from an authoritative source, not an opinion piece in a conservative periodical....thats all I'm asking!
Hell, I could provide you one that is tangentially related right off the top of my head, but that would take all the fun out of it. :rolleyes:
Want a hint?
pass some o' that over here cap'n
I have no doubt at all I can come up with iron-solid cites that he will have to cultivate a selective blindness not to acknowledge. I can keep digging long after Redux has fled the scene as he says he will...
UG, dude...I'm still here.
Its been two weeks...got those iron-solid cites yet?
Perhaps anything approaching those
recently released docs from the Bush DoJ that attempts to give a president the power to ignore Constitutional protections under the 1st, 4th, 5th amendments....
:zzz: wake me when you finish that research.
UG, dude...I'm still here.
Its been two weeks...got those iron-solid cites yet?
Perhaps anything approaching those recently released docs from the Bush DoJ that attempts to give a president the power to ignore Constitutional protections under the 1st, 4th, 5th amendments....
:zzz: wake me when you finish that research.
:rotflol:
:dedhorse:
That's some high-quality ownage there, Redux.
Oh, my, Redux: think it'll go stale in the meantime? I don't...
Might I point out, though, that your position amounts to arguing that a column of smoke observed from widely varied locations, including internationally, is somehow to be construed that there cannot be a fire there? That's pretty silly.
Oh, my, Redux: think it'll go stale in the meantime? I don't...
Might I point out, though, that your position amounts to arguing that a column of smoke observed from widely varied locations, including internationally, is somehow to be construed that there cannot be a fire there? That's pretty silly.
I dont recall raising any international perspectives.
I did raise several internal DoJ investigations with findings of violations of administrative law by at least two top level Bush DoJ appointees
I did raise the fact that Gonzales is facing possible perjury charges.
And most recently I raised the issue of Bush DoJ memos justifying a president's "right" to unilaterally bypass Constitutional protections under the 1st, 4th and 5th amendments....and the internal investigation that may result in the disbarment of those Bush DoJ appointees for the manner in which they may have crafted those memos based on political rather than legal arguments.
And you, sir, still have not cited anything to support your allegations about the Clinton DoJ committing far worse violations of law, administrative procedures or professional ethics.
I just thought I "might point that out."
SO ole Rod just signed a book deal.
Oh, my, Redux: think it'll go stale in the meantime? I don't...
Might I point out, though, that your position amounts to arguing that a column of smoke observed from widely varied locations, including internationally, is somehow to be construed that there cannot be a fire there? That's pretty silly.
Still don't see any links.
SO ole Rod just signed a book deal.
Too bad he won't get to keep any of the proceeds.
yeh - mark my words ...Bernie will have a nice book deal or two also.
yeh - mark my words ...Bernie will have a nice book deal or two also.
That's nice. Any proceeds will be seized. That's how it works, now.
Too bad they won't make a dent in the damage he has done.
Too bad they won't make a dent in the damage he has done.
No, but I like the idea of him dying penniless, preferably in prison.
Believe me, they are going to make an example out of him. Why? Because he's kinda dumb, he's cocky, he got caught, and - most of all - he doesn't own enough politicians.
He's toast. The fat bastard will never see daylight.
Say hi to the boys in GP for me, Bernie!
And his wife got away with a fortune. :mad:
not just yet she didn't. They may get that still. I certainly hope so.
I'm betting she's got more hidden, out of the country, than they can even guess.
Yeh thought of that right after I posted.
And his wife got away with a fortune. :mad:
She may go to jail as well.
Oh, oh, be still my beating heart. :heartpump
Still don't see any links.
Finally got some free time -- been busy with other corners of life.
It is things like this that tell me the Democratic Party and Democratic Administrations in general just don't merit support from with-it people. I'd go so far as to remark that the Dems don't deserve a single partisan until they wise up, win the war, promote gun rights to the point of excommunicating any Democrat who doesn't, and rescind the inflation they are currently legislating into being. Oh, and dump socialism too.
Yet somehow there are still living, breathing human beings who can't get behind all the above. What's up with
that one?
"Waiting periods are only a step. Registration is only a step. The prohibition of firearms is the goal." - Janet Reno, December 10, 1993 [Associated Press]
This remark of course brands AG Reno as a supporter, conscious or not, of every description of private crime short of embezzlement and keno games, and of the state crime of genocide – acknowledged by everyone as a crime against humanity. Such a stance is either evil or moronic, and wholly unwise. People who are not corrupt do not take these views, but adopt the wiser way of enthusiasm for private arms, which makes crime difficult and genocide an impossibility, as history's record shows.
Does AG Reno's not appointing a special prosecutor to investigate Clinton's illegal fundraising and his often impeachables somehow not amount to Clinton having Reno in his pocket? That Bill Clinton was in the happy position of a mob boss who owned the city chief of police seems the inescapable conclusion, because of this and other peculiar decisions by the AG. Subornation, as I said. Roughly every third professional decision she took smelled funny, and protected the Clintons from the consequences of malfeasances both singular and ongoing. That's too much bias to ignore.
Note the conspicuous lack of such goings-on among the Bush-era Attorneys General, from Alberto Gonzales on. Of course, you'll holler loudly, “But what about this awful crime thing and that that Gonzales did, this that and the other too?!” But you'll notice not even Dennis Kucinich, who has given cause for his sympathy for democracy to come under question, is trying to indict the former Attorney General. Gonzales' record is one of fighting the war. His opponents' record is one of hollering that he should not be fighting the war. Say what? Whose side are these people on again? Sure as hell doesn't look like they're on democracy's, also understandable as humanity's. Trying to criminalize democracy's victory over tyranny is both unconscionable and unwise. It's not difficult to call it insane.
Janet Reno is reported unable to pass a background check in this article – and the claim is made that therefore, for the first time in the history of background checks for Attorneys General, none was made.
http://www.laborers.org/NorCal_Reno.html
Damning, really. No wonder I think she was suborned.
The Cato Institute didn't much like her tenure either.
http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-395es.html
Oliver North, interviewing Florida attorney Jack Thompson, who crops up in a couple other links here. “But Thompson now says he is convinced the administration wanted a "dirty cop" for their attorney general.” Datelined August 12 1998.
Link:
http://www.apfn.org/apfn/janet.htm
And more to come... I can keep this up for months, guys.
In fact, Reno ordered an inquiry into allegations regarding Clinton fund raising..but then, at Ken Starr's request, deferred to his independent investigation.
Yep...There were people found guilty of violations of law regarding campaign finances...but none while acting in an official capacity in the Clinton administration.
And yet, that still doesnt equal findings of 4-5 high level Bush DoJ officials found guilty (or still under investigation and facing possible disbarment) for violations of administrative law and agency policies and procedures for political purposes in the performance of official duties of the DoJ.
The rest of your nonsense about keno and state crimes of genocide is jibberish to me.
BTW, if we want to consider criminal acts while in office, I believe there were at least eight Bush officials who served time as a result of criminal activity while in office.....most of whom were charged with some form of corruption:
[INDENT]Scoooter LIbby, the VP's chief of staff, found guilty of perjury and obstruction of justice and sentenced to 30 months in jail for his role in the Plame affair....with the sentence commuted by Bush
David Safavian, chief-of-staff of the General Services Administration and the head procurement official of the federal government sentenced to prison for 18 months on corruption charges related to the Jack Abramoff lobbyist scandal.
Italia Federici, a top political aide to Sec of Interior Gail Norton, received a two month sentence in a halfway house for obstructing the Senate investigation into Abramoff and for tax evasion
Steven Griles (Federici's lover) and the number two official at the Interior Department, also received 10 months in jail for his part in the Abramoff scandal.
Dusty Fago, a top level official at the CIA, received a three year prison sentence on corruption charges.
Bob Stein, the comptroller of the Coalition Provisional Authority in Iraq, received nine years in prison for money laundering, conspiracy and bribery.
Felipe Sixto, Bush's White House director of intergovernmental affairs sentenced to 30 months in prison for stealing nearly $600,000 from a government-funded program that promotes democracy in Cuba.
and my favorite:
Brian Doyle, a deputy press secretary at the Department of Homeland Security, was sentenced to five years in jail for attempting to use a DHS computer to seduce a child.
[/INDENT]
Do you see the difference between your unsubstantiated and still undocumented allegations about Reno and the Clinton DoJ as opposed to the 4-5 Bush DoJ officials found guilty (or still under investigation and facing possible disbarment) by internal DoJ IG investigations of violating the law and/or administrative policies for political purposes, as well as the above examples of corruption and other crimes in the performance of official duties?
Clinton was found guilty of lying under oath and lost his law license. That trumps a bunch of aides.
Clinton was found guilty of lying under oath and lost his law license. That trumps a bunch of aides.
Yep...that's a fact..Clinton was guilty of lying under oath and Bush has never been charged.
So thats the basis of your argument despite the fact that there was more unlawful politicization of the Bush Justice Department and corruption in performance of official duties across the executive branch than the Clinton administration?
OK..then the case should be closed for you and I'll look forward to hearing more from UG.
Clinton was found guilty of lying under oath and lost his law license. That trumps a bunch of aides.
No, Clinton was found guilty of contempt of court.
Google it and see.
I just read one of UG's links about Reno.
...Thompson also quotes John Gigliotti (from Pat Robertson's security detail) who says Michael Eppinger, an alleged organized crime figure in Miami supposedly has a video of Reno at a sex orgy...
http://www.laborers.org/NorCal_Reno.html
So person A quotes person B who
alleges that person C is an organized crime figure who
supposedly has a video of Reno at a sexy orgy....among other allegations. :eek:
Now thats really getting at the truth!
The only crime here might fall under the category of torture to force someone to watch that video of Reno at a sexy orgy.
I just read one of UG's links about Reno.
So person A quotes person B who alleges that person C is an organized crime figure who supposedly has a video of Reno at a sexy orgy....among other allegations. :eek:
Now thats really getting at the truth!
The only crime here might fall under the category of torture to force someone to watch that video of Reno at a sexy orgy.
Yea, sounds sort of like someone who claims to be tortured by a government agency who is the same person that was in jail and pissed off they were caught. Not much weight can be given to it.
Yea, sounds sort of like someone who claims to be tortured by a government agency who is the same person that was in jail and pissed off they were caught. Not much weight can be given to it.
Which is why I asked UG to cite sources comparable to the internal DoJ memos that I posted and which found violations of administrative law and/or policies by high level officials in the Bush DoJ...rather than posting second and third hand innuendos and supposed allegations from highly questionable or certainly not objective "sources".
Top Democratic Consultant Named as 'Adviser B' on Blagojevich tapes
CHICAGO -- A partner in a prominent, Washington-based political consulting firm is among those secretly recorded discussing ways Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich can cash in on President Barack Obama's old Senate seat.
Frederick S. Yang, a top executive at Peter D. Hart Research Group Associates, is identified by prosecutors in the Blagojevich criminal complaint as "Adviser B," Michael D. Ettinger, a lawyer representing the governor's brother, said Thursday. Robert Blagojevich, who has not been charged with a crime, runs his brother's campaign fund.
The Hart firm has represented dozens of Democratic governors and members of Congress. The revelation that a key executive at the company was captured on FBI wiretaps working with the governor could embroil one of the nation's most respected and influential polling and consulting groups in the Blagojevich scandal.
The plot thickens...
Mr. Burris, who says he has made no decision yet on whether he will seek his party's nomination in the Democratic primary next March, denied Wednesday that he had done anything wrong, telling reporters, "Did I try to buy the seat? Never. Did I commit perjury? No."
In the Nov. 13 telephone conversation with Mr. Blagojevich's brother Robert, who headed the governor's campaign fund, the transcript shows Mr. Burris offering to give the governor's campaign committee a check, but acknowledges that doing anything more for the governor might appear as though he was "trying to buy an appointment" to fill the Senate seat being vacated by then-President-elect Obama.
"I mean, so Rob, I'm in a dilemma right now, wanting to help the governor," Mr. Burris says in the transcript of a call that was taped by the FBI. "I know I could give him a check. Myself ... I will personally do something, okay."
"God knows, No. 1, I wanna help Rod. No. 2, I also wanna, you know, hope I get a consideration to get that appointment," he says.
The wiretap transcript was released Tuesday after U.S. District Judge James F. Holderman ordered that it be sent to the Senate ethics committee, which is conducting an investigation into Mr. Burris' appointment. An official on the panel, now in the early stages of its preliminary inquiry, said its rules forbid discussing the document.
Mr. Burris' poll numbers are in the basement, with a Rasmussen poll showing his unfavorable rating at 73 percent.
He has made little or no effort to raise funds for a campaign, bringing in only $845 in the first quarter, and Democratic campaign officials already have begun quietly talking to other candidates.
What are they waiting for? This guy is guilty, stupid and inneffective... can we get someone honest in there and move on please?
can we get someone honest in there and move on please?
Good luck on that. So far they are 0 for 2.
Seriously - this is an utter disgrace for not only Illinois, but the entire nation.
Seriously - this is an utter disgrace for not only Illinois, but the entire nation.
Well I for one am not the least bit surprised. I believe this is business as usual for many aspects of state government, some more than others. A real eye opener for me was when I read Charlie Wilson's War. I was quite surprised by the level of back door deals done in Washington between the elected officials that were done only for the purpose of payback and greased palms, where it was in the form of tit for tat votes or actual cash.
And then we have whole books on the topic.
Absolute Power
Now before you say, "Can't be accurate or unbiased, it's got David Limbaugh's name on the cover!" I'll just say, oh, is that so? Were the Clintons not at some pains to cover up their misdeeds? They were. Did those pains actually work for very long? No. Did people uncover the shenanigans? Yes they did. Is a book collecting the findings therefore wrong? You may believe so, but my mind is much more open and critical.
Note, too, the other books often ordered with it on Amazon. Redux is still arguing that where there is smoke there can't be fire. Absurd. This is why I'm neither a leftist nor a Democratic Party guy: too much self-respect.
Did Janet Reno ever have -- let alone pass -- a background check for her AG job, I wonder? There are, I gather, reasons to wonder. And she was not the only one who didn't.
I've passed a couple of background checks myself, both in a Federal capacity, one military, one civilian, both for Top Secret.
Digging into old issues of American Spectator should produce the Sept. 9, 1999 article
Janet Reno: Corrupt or Doltish?, L. Brent Bozell. It's no longer online at the magazine's site, but it's available to the historically minded. It is often significant to look at the opposition to find where the establishment character's got her flaws.
Another Law Janet Reno Doesn't Like -- from a law school faculty member. One page, three separate cases of obstructing prosecution. Yep, there's a nasty pattern.
These were not the glory years of the DoJ, or for that Administration.
Update
So this guy had the gall to subpoena the administration ... Wow.
The Six Secrets You Need to Know From the Obama Subpoena Request
1. Obama may have lied about conversations with convicted fraudster Tony Rezko
2. Obama may have overtly recommended Valerie Jarret for his Senate seat
3. A supporter of President Obama may have offered quid pro quo on a Jarrett senate appointment
4. Obama maintained a list of good Senate candidates
5. Rahm Emanuel allegedly floated Cheryl Jackson's name for the Senate seat
6. Obama had a secret phone call with Blagojevich
1 - Could be something if you believe them.
2 - Who cares
3 - See #1
4 - Good. I would hope so.
5 - See #2
6 - One? I bet there were more than that...see #2
good job NBC. Some of the comments are surprising too. A friend of mine in Chicago sent me
the link.
As metro-sexual as this guy looks I am surprised that he had the balls to try to get Obama to testify. Sounds like grandstanding to get attention. I don't think they could make him testify unless there was direct proof he was involved, as long as he is the current president.