That's a problem for the Republican party. If you think that he should lose his job over this, might I remind you of a certain president that said that he never had sexual relations with his intern? That's why the liberals are treading lightly with this one.
Oh, I never said he should go to jail, I was just pointing out the reason for all the hub bub.
I think the broader issue with the Senator is the double standard that the Republic party seems to have laid out among the American public.
That's a problem for the Republican party. If you think that he should lose his job over this, might I remind you of a certain president that said that he never had sexual relations with his intern? That's why the liberals are treading lightly with this one.
Libs never throw their own out unless they have absolutely no choice in the matter. Libs maintain the "better a philanderer than a Republican" when it comes to discretions of government officials.
The Republican base wants Craig out. The governor of Idaho is a Republican so it's not as if the seat would change the balance in the Senate.
What I do find interesting is that the Hillary money scandel is far bigger and more important than the Craig sex scandel but which one is getting more coverage?
Libs never throw their own out unless they have absolutely no choice in the matter. Libs maintain the "better a philanderer than a Republican" when it comes to discretions of government officials.
Do you have a source or is this an epiphany from one of your fever dreams?
Libs never throw their own out unless they have absolutely no choice in the matter. Libs maintain the "better a philanderer than a Republican" when it comes to discretions of government officials.
Do you have a source or is this an epiphany from one of your fever dreams?
Barney Frank Ted "I didn't know there was girl in the car when I drove it off the bridge" Kennedy William "That's not a bribe in my freezer" Jefferson
Those are random people you apparently don't like, not a source for your claim; and even though I can understand how you might decide Mr. Kennedy is a philanderer, I don't understand how Mr. Frank and Mr. Jefferson are.
Those are random people you apparently don't like, not a source for your claim; and even though I can understand how you might decide Mr. Kennedy is a philanderer, I don't understand how Mr. Frank and Mr. Jefferson are.
Let me change my quote since you are focusing on the words and not the meaning.
"Better a lying, cheating, murdering excuse for a man than a Republican."
Let me change my quote since you are focusing on the words and not the meaning.
Translation: As usual, I don't have a source. It was just some crap I made up.
Libs maintain the "better a philanderer than a Republican" when it comes to discretions of government officials . . . "Better a lying, cheating, murdering excuse for a man than a Republican."
Uh Joe, My statement is that the Democrats never throw out their own no matter what. Your retort was asking me if this came to me in some fevered dream. I then challenged you to prove my statement wrong at which point you dodged my challenge talking about shifting the burden of proof.
Unless you can prove me wrong you are the loser here not I. I did not make an unreasonable or impossible claim such as the existence of a Giant spaghetti Monster. My Statement is an opinion that I have formed over a lifetime of watching politics. Please, prove me wrong with one example. I am not making an extraordinary claim so this is not an issue of shifting the burden of proof.
Unless you can prove me wrong you are the loser here not I. I did not make an unreasonable or impossible claim such as the existence of a Giant spaghetti Monster. My Statement is an opinion that I have formed over a lifetime of watching politics. Please, prove me wrong with one example. I am not making an extraordinary claim so this is not an issue of shifting the burden of proof.
I don't have the burden of proving you wrong. You made a proposition. It's up to you to prove it, whether it's an extraordinary claim or not. When you ask me to prove you wrong, you're trying to shift the burden of proof, regardless of whether your claim is extraordinary.
Your problem is that you can't prove your proposition, because as you admit, your proposition was merely your OPINION.
Editorials in The Washington Post, the New York Times and, on Thursday, the Charleston (W.Va.) Daily Mail had called for Mollohan to step down from the ethics committee.
I think that the NYT and the WP probably satisfy your requirement for "libs".
Even some Democratic leadership aides said he has not fully answered questions surrounding the appropriations he obtained, which funded generous salaries for Mollohan associates and former aides.
And here's some more "libs" - throwing out their own.
Asked to explain why he was unpopular, Johnson responded, "I am a dominating personality, and when I get things done I don't always please all the people." Johnson also blamed the press, saying they showed "complete irresponsibility and lie and misstate facts and have no one to be answerable to." He also blamed "the preachers, liberals and professors." who had turned against him.
I'm not being drawn further into this on this board. If you want to talk about it further, IM me or something. But - your argument failed.
We haven't had a JFK, RFK, or FDR in a really long time.
This is kind of a funny statement. I'm not arguing the politics of the situation, just the irony of the Democrats you are holding up.
If we're going to focus on infidelity as an indicator of character amongst today's politicians, then JFK is worse. He cheated on his wife at every turn, and was linked romantically to several Hollywood starlets. JFK took campaign contributions from the mob in the 1960 election. JFK had the prime ministers of the Congo and Dominican Republic assassinated. He also ordered an assassination attempt on Fidel Castro (it failed). During the 1960 election, JFK concealed his affliction of Addison's Disease, which must legally be disclosed. JFK planted a family member inside the IRS and targeted non-profit groups with whom he did not agree.
I don't know much about RFK.
FDR was unfaithful to his wife on numerous occasions. In 1914, as a Naval officer, FDR spent $40,000 to purchase weapons without Congressional approval. He boasted later in a 1920 presidential stump speech that he had committed enough impeachable acts to put him in jail for "999 years." In 1921, a Senate subcommittee determined FDR had committed perjury about unethical investigation methods he used in the Navy to entrap homosexual sailors. FDR (with the cooperation of the media, it should be noted) hid his polio from the public after he contracted it in 1921. He did not disclose the information to voters as required by law. FDR illegally re-packed the Supreme Court in 1937. In 1940, presidential candidate FDR promised he would not take America into WWII. In 1941, he made a pact with Churchill, saying that he would go to war without Congressional approval if Japan attacked the U.S.
Even with all those "horrible" things you complain about, I'd rather have any of them as President than Chimpy.
BTW, who really cares about whether JFK or FDR disclosed their illnesses? Did it make them less able to do their jobs? Same with the cheating - who really cares?
Do you have any proof about JFK taking campaign contributions from the "mob"? Sounds like an extraordinary claim to me. In fact, which of these other accusations can you actually prove? For instance, can you prove that packing the Court was illegal? I'll give you the disabilities and the cheating. I simply don't care about those. I'll also agree that FDR promised not to go to war in 1940. I forgive him for not keeping that promise seeing as how a crazy little thing like Pearl Harbor might have changed the situation a little bit.
Yup, so I had a reply typed. Big. Long. I lost it when Firefox froze. Anyway, you can Google your own info. Don't pay attention to the whacko conspiracy sites. Time has an interesting article on the mob's support of the Democrats in 1960. I don't think the assassinations are undocumented. We all know about JFK and Castro. FDR's campaign speeches are documented. You might have to read a book, read a book, read a motherfucking book, as I've read several biographies about FDR, Eleanor, JFK, and Reagan. The similarities between them all interest me far more than the differences. I don't say this to somehow insist I am more intellectual or have better knowledge; it's just that traditional copy is very difficult to link to in a forum.
As I was speaking extemporaneously, I believe I may have gotten the court packing issue wrong. FDR attempted to illegally reorganize the SC, but his plan was swamped by his own party. He then appointed eight SC justices in a subsequent reorg (Wikipedia).
As for infidelity, I don't really care, either; however, many Americans use infidelity as a measure of honesty, and they want their politicians to be held to a higher standard. I'm not going to fight you there. However, Kennedy several times as president eluded his secret service escort to pursue sexual trysts, leaving him out of reach of the nuclear football.
As for failure to disclose medical conditions, yes -- in both cases, those conditions greatly impacted workplace ability. Kennedy, in particular, was on several faculty-debilitating pain medications. This whole concept was explored in The West Wing, which may be one of my top three favorite shows of all time. President Bartlett (Martin Sheen) did not disclose his MS diagnosis during the election going into his second term. Congress caught wind of it and censured him. The show, though partial to Sheen, later showed him struggling to manage the White House and his MS unsuccessfully.
Ye gods, I love that show.
Also, ever since I first learned about Pearl Harbor in second grade, I remember thinking that America should have stayed neutral in World War II. That can be argued elsewhere, I think.
Anyway, my point wasn't to make "you too" arguments about Democratic versus Republican presidents. It was just to point out that:
Almost all politicians these days are shady shady fucks. I don't know what I can do about it myself.
True. They are all very shady. We haven't had a JFK, RFK, or FDR in a really long time.
IMHO, the minimum you can do is stay informed so you know when they're lying.
Also, don't let them off the hook just because you think they might believe their own lies.
it's not so much a situation of "these days" that politicians are especially shady. I doubt you could find a 20th century president who didn't have some type of criminal or ethical allegation thrust upon him. Even -- and maybe especially -- the wonderboys of US presidential politics weren't such wonderboys at all.
Good try Joe but I named three high-level Democrats who were not asked to leave by their party. You named one person who was asked to resign from a committee, not to resign their job.
I have named three people to prove my opinion correct, you have not named one. Therefore I declare myself the winner.
You all lose, I declare myself the winner. If you say otherwise, I will hunt you down and murder your first born son. My main man Moses is on his way to make you admit defeat, if not, your running water will turn to blood and locusts will devour your lawn and gardens.
You all lose, I declare myself the winner. If you say otherwise, I will hunt you down and murder your first born son. My main man Moses is on his way to make you admit defeat, if not, your running water will turn to blood and locusts will devour your lawn and gardens.
Yup, so I had a reply typed. Big. Long. I lost it when Firefox froze. Anyway, you can Google your own info.
This is what Steve tried to do. You are the one who made the proposition. You are the one who has to prove it. I don't have to run off and try to find sources that might support you. That's your job. Also, you've made some extraordinary claims about JFK. You're in need of some extrordinary evidence.
I don't think the assassinations are undocumented. We all know about JFK and Castro. FDR's campaign speeches are documented.
Is this the same Jason who said
To reference another thread, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. . . [Y]ours is only circumstantial in nature and smacks of LSD-induced hippy "blood for oil" anthems.
and
You have not provided that information; you have only provided motive. There are no facts, only suspicion. Suspicion does not equal probable cause. You have yet to prove any correlation between big oil and the Iraq war. Provide me cold, hard facts stating that $X were traded for X actions implicitly . . .
and
Anybody can point fingers. You need a conviction. You stated for a certainty that oil was the cause of the war. FOR GOD'S SAKE, PROVE IT ALREADY, instead of dancing around with no evidence. But that's the one thing you don't have, and that's the defining factor in a wacko conspiracy theory. Give me a memo to White House staff from Texaco. Give me a transcript of an order to generals to take control of oil fields. Give me tapes of phone conversations that prove collusion between BP and GWB. Give me a smoking gun. But right now, you have JUST SUSPICION. That might be enough for some pathetic juror, but I'd nullify on grounds that you've not done your job as prosecutor; you've not given evidence to support the charges.
You have no proof that JFK took campaign contributions from the "mob", and you don't have any proof that he was involved in any plot to assassinate anyone.
You might have to read a book, read a book, read a motherfucking book,as I've read several biographies about FDR, Eleanor, JFK, and Reagan. The similarities between them all interest me far more than the differences.
I've been known to read a couple of books too. However, making your argument by saying that there's some un-named book out there that supports your opinion makes you sound like you've been reading from Steve's fantasy bookshelf. Name the book and I'll read it if I haven't already.
FDR attempted to illegally reorganize the SC, but his plan was swamped by his own party. He then appointed eight SC justices in a subsequent reorg (Wikipedia).
Do you have any proof that it was illegal?
As for failure to disclose medical conditions, yes -- in both cases, those conditions greatly impacted workplace ability.
Proof? Source? Just your opinion?
Also, ever since I first learned about Pearl Harbor in second grade, I remember thinking that America should have stayed neutral in World War II.
Even I think Pearl was a justification for war. IMHO, that's pretty much the baseline.
Nope. I feel comfortable without going back and indexing texts. If you choose to disregard, then do so. I simply don't care enough to fight on this one. I'm not going to write a book of sources. It's time to play Enemy Territory.
John Stossel killed Mother Theresa in her sleep because she was going to expose him for having a gay love affair with Geraldo Rivera.
I read that in a book somewhere, which you would know about if you read as many books as I do. I have a load of other sources too, but I'm not going to write a book of sources and I feel comfortable without going back and indexing texts. You can look them up if you like, but we all know its true.
John Stossel killed Mother Theresa in her sleep because she was going to expose him for having a gay love affair with Geraldo Rivera.
I read that in a book somewhere, which you would know about if you read as many books as I do. I have a load of other sources too, but I'm not going to write a book of sources and I feel comfortable without going back and indexing texts. You can look them up if you like, but we all know its true.
In April 1996, Mother Teresa fell and broke her collar bone. In August of that year she suffered from malaria and failure of the left heart ventricle. She underwent heart surgery, but it was clear that her health was declining. On March 13, 1997, she stepped down from the head of Missionaries of Charity and died on September 5, 1997, nine days after her 87th birthday. - source
This John Stossel book has a Mother Theresa keyword attached to it Book
John Stossel was working for 20/20 at the time of her death so he may have been in country when she died but, considering her declining health and being surrounded by her aides and such I find it highly unlikely that Stossel would have killed her.
As for Geraldo: In 1997, Rivera contracted with NBC to work as a reporter for six years for $30 million. During 1998 and 1999, he extensively covered the impeachment of President Bill Clinton. Following the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, he accepted a pay cut and went to work for the Fox News Channel as a war correspondent in November 2001. Rivera's brother Craig accompanied him as a cameraman on assignments in Afghanistan. Rivera also worked on GTV News. - source
What does all this mean? It means that Joe secretly sent John Stossel over to Calcutta to kill Mother Theresa but not because of John Stossel's gay affair with Geraldo but because of their special three-way affair! I have clearly documented it above (with links) so you can't refute it. I even included a link to a book.
I just don't care about winning this one, Joe. I'm dog-tired of getting in little running fights over every single sentence of each post. Go ahead. You win. You can have it.
So, then, say I'm a scientist back 500 years ago, before we knew what blood vessels were. If you were a student back then, and I told you that the blood in your body just oozed around aimlessly, like you were a giant sack of fluid, am I a liar?
Comments
The Republican base wants Craig out. The governor of Idaho is a Republican so it's not as if the seat would change the balance in the Senate.
What I do find interesting is that the Hillary money scandel is far bigger and more important than the Craig sex scandel but which one is getting more coverage?
Every stinking word out of the mouth of any neocon/republican even remotely aligned with Bush and is ilk is a filthy lie.
So far, it seems to hold true.
Ted "I didn't know there was girl in the car when I drove it off the bridge" Kennedy
William "That's not a bribe in my freezer" Jefferson
"Better a lying, cheating, murdering excuse for a man than a Republican."
I don't know what I can do about it myself.
IMHO, the minimum you can do is stay informed so you know when they're lying.
Also, don't let them off the hook just because you think they might believe their own lies.
Unless you can prove me wrong you are the loser here not I. I did not make an unreasonable or impossible claim such as the existence of a Giant spaghetti Monster. My Statement is an opinion that I have formed over a lifetime of watching politics. Please, prove me wrong with one example. I am not making an extraordinary claim so this is not an issue of shifting the burden of proof.
Your problem is that you can't prove your proposition, because as you admit, your proposition was merely your OPINION.
But fine - Here's one example: Representative Alan Mollohan (D- W.Va.) I think that the NYT and the WP probably satisfy your requirement for "libs". And here's some more "libs" - throwing out their own.
If that's not enough - how about LBJ? I'm not being drawn further into this on this board. If you want to talk about it further, IM me or something. But - your argument failed.
Bonzai!!!!!11111!!!!!
If we're going to focus on infidelity as an indicator of character amongst today's politicians, then JFK is worse. He cheated on his wife at every turn, and was linked romantically to several Hollywood starlets.
JFK took campaign contributions from the mob in the 1960 election.
JFK had the prime ministers of the Congo and Dominican Republic assassinated. He also ordered an assassination attempt on Fidel Castro (it failed).
During the 1960 election, JFK concealed his affliction of Addison's Disease, which must legally be disclosed.
JFK planted a family member inside the IRS and targeted non-profit groups with whom he did not agree.
I don't know much about RFK.
FDR was unfaithful to his wife on numerous occasions.
In 1914, as a Naval officer, FDR spent $40,000 to purchase weapons without Congressional approval. He boasted later in a 1920 presidential stump speech that he had committed enough impeachable acts to put him in jail for "999 years."
In 1921, a Senate subcommittee determined FDR had committed perjury about unethical investigation methods he used in the Navy to entrap homosexual sailors.
FDR (with the cooperation of the media, it should be noted) hid his polio from the public after he contracted it in 1921. He did not disclose the information to voters as required by law.
FDR illegally re-packed the Supreme Court in 1937.
In 1940, presidential candidate FDR promised he would not take America into WWII. In 1941, he made a pact with Churchill, saying that he would go to war without Congressional approval if Japan attacked the U.S.
BTW, who really cares about whether JFK or FDR disclosed their illnesses? Did it make them less able to do their jobs? Same with the cheating - who really cares?
Do you have any proof about JFK taking campaign contributions from the "mob"? Sounds like an extraordinary claim to me. In fact, which of these other accusations can you actually prove? For instance, can you prove that packing the Court was illegal? I'll give you the disabilities and the cheating. I simply don't care about those. I'll also agree that FDR promised not to go to war in 1940. I forgive him for not keeping that promise seeing as how a crazy little thing like Pearl Harbor might have changed the situation a little bit.
You might have to read a book, read a book, read a motherfucking book, as I've read several biographies about FDR, Eleanor, JFK, and Reagan. The similarities between them all interest me far more than the differences. I don't say this to somehow insist I am more intellectual or have better knowledge; it's just that traditional copy is very difficult to link to in a forum.
New York Times on Kennedy and the mob.
Washington Post on Kennedy and the mob.
As I was speaking extemporaneously, I believe I may have gotten the court packing issue wrong. FDR attempted to illegally reorganize the SC, but his plan was swamped by his own party. He then appointed eight SC justices in a subsequent reorg (Wikipedia).
As for infidelity, I don't really care, either; however, many Americans use infidelity as a measure of honesty, and they want their politicians to be held to a higher standard. I'm not going to fight you there. However, Kennedy several times as president eluded his secret service escort to pursue sexual trysts, leaving him out of reach of the nuclear football.
As for failure to disclose medical conditions, yes -- in both cases, those conditions greatly impacted workplace ability. Kennedy, in particular, was on several faculty-debilitating pain medications. This whole concept was explored in The West Wing, which may be one of my top three favorite shows of all time. President Bartlett (Martin Sheen) did not disclose his MS diagnosis during the election going into his second term. Congress caught wind of it and censured him. The show, though partial to Sheen, later showed him struggling to manage the White House and his MS unsuccessfully.
Ye gods, I love that show.
Also, ever since I first learned about Pearl Harbor in second grade, I remember thinking that America should have stayed neutral in World War II. That can be argued elsewhere, I think.
Anyway, my point wasn't to make "you too" arguments about Democratic versus Republican presidents. It was just to point out that: it's not so much a situation of "these days" that politicians are especially shady. I doubt you could find a 20th century president who didn't have some type of criminal or ethical allegation thrust upon him. Even -- and maybe especially -- the wonderboys of US presidential politics weren't such wonderboys at all.
I have named three people to prove my opinion correct, you have not named one. Therefore I declare myself the winner.
I read that in a book somewhere, which you would know about if you read as many books as I do. I have a load of other sources too, but I'm not going to write a book of sources and I feel comfortable without going back and indexing texts. You can look them up if you like, but we all know its true.
This John Stossel book has a Mother Theresa keyword attached to it Book
John Stossel was working for 20/20 at the time of her death so he may have been in country when she died but, considering her declining health and being surrounded by her aides and such I find it highly unlikely that Stossel would have killed her.
As for Geraldo: In 1997, Rivera contracted with NBC to work as a reporter for six years for $30 million. During 1998 and 1999, he extensively covered the impeachment of President Bill Clinton. Following the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, he accepted a pay cut and went to work for the Fox News Channel as a war correspondent in November 2001. Rivera's brother Craig accompanied him as a cameraman on assignments in Afghanistan. Rivera also worked on GTV News. - source
What does all this mean? It means that Joe secretly sent John Stossel over to Calcutta to kill Mother Theresa but not because of John Stossel's gay affair with Geraldo but because of their special three-way affair! I have clearly documented it above (with links) so you can't refute it. I even included a link to a book.