Amazon.com Widgets
I AM JOHN GALT.
Right Thoughts...not right wing, just right.
Prev: Cartoons are terrorism - How we got here - Next: Ayman al-Zawahri loves Democrats - Home

Sat, 05 May 2007 19:12:00

Score another one for the Fourth Estate

So let me get this all straight.  ABC’s Brian Ross says he has a list of clients from a DC madam, and they include people “at the Pentagon, lobbyists, others at the White House, prominent lawyers — a long, long list.” But he only wants to report on the names from 2002 to the present.  Hmm.  That date seems significant for some reason.  The news outlets and some lefty bloggers/commenters go ape over the idea of Republicans ordering whores.

Then, it turns out that there are no White House officials, nor anyone else newsworthy, just a lot of boring, mid-level bureaucrats and lobbyists no one will care about.  That actually translates to “No one Bush hired.”

Now we find out that ABC isn’t even going to try to see if anyone in the former Clinton administration was a client.  Hmm.  That seems odd for a news agency.  Why wouldn’t the fact - if it were the case - that any members of Clinton’s administration were clients?  That’s...well, that;s just partisan bias is what it is.  Any potential scandal hurts the argument that we were better off with Bill, and it hurts Hillary’s chances of being elected should she triumph in the primaries.

Oh, that liberal media.


Posted by JimK at 07:12 PM on May 05, 2007
Permalink | Trackbacks (0) | Email to a friend |
AddThis Social Bookmark Button
Categories: NewsPoliticsThe Fourth Estate
Tags:
Technorati: 



Comments:

#1  Posted by Technomad United States on 05/06 at 02:06 PM -

Even if officials were clients, what of it?  I have never understood why prostitution (voluntarily engaged in by the prostitutes, at least) should not be legal, and I could care less about people patronizing such services. 

My own impression is that a lot of LEOs and politicians would love to legalize prostitution (not streetwalking, but brothels and outcall services; I can understand why people don’t like streetwalking) but that it would be political suicide to do so; the feminists and political Christians would let out a shriek.

#2  Posted by Drumwaster United States on 05/07 at 10:31 AM -

I love how those who were loudest in the defenses of Billy Jeff ("It’s just sex” and “All this over a blowjob” and all the others) are keenest in their cries that any Republican caught in such a manner should be immediately jailed and the highest ranks executed on international TV.

Guess it depends on what the meaning of “is”, is…

#3  Posted by WisDem United States on 05/07 at 11:57 PM -

Aren’t mid-level bureaucrats usually career people?  Aren’t they the type of folks that are typically insulated from the back & forth of whoever holds ofice in the White House?

At least, they were pre-Bush II and his attempt to remake the government into an arm of the Republican Party.

#4  Posted by Drumwaster United States on 05/08 at 11:37 AM -

You mean that the man who represents the Executive Branch doesn’t get to choose which persons get to carry out his policies - and get rid of those who do not? And the media gets to decide this issue?

Funny how everyone is bitching about Bush firing eight US Attorneys - political appointees who weren’t doing the job required of them (including one attorney that refused to prosecute drug smuggling cases less than 5,000 pounds), btw - but say NOTHING about Clinton firing 92 of the 93 US Attorneys when he first took office, just on GP.

“Oh, well that’s different”.

Yeah, because Clinton is a Democrat and Bush isn’t.

Come talk to us when you’ve got that particular excuse out of your system, m’kay?

Rann Aridorn#5  Posted by Rann Aridorn United States on 05/08 at 10:51 PM -

I’m guessing WisDem is gonna be the drive-by sort of Leftard troll. Hit every political post once, spew some of the Democratic Underground talking points, then never return to said post to risk having to defend himself.

#6  Posted by WisDem United States on 05/09 at 09:50 AM -

Actually, Rann, I’ve returned a few times.  I’ve posted responses to you & Drumwaster in another thread.

Now, if I was some religious guy, I’d see it as some sort of omen that I lost my connection to the Internet when I clicked “submit.”

But because I’m a godless SOB, I’m going to yell at ATT for their crappy service that I’m paying top dollar for.

I had really good posts, too, that would’ve made you all sob, “I’m so sorry” repeatedly.  But right now, I can’t rely on my link, so gotta keep it short.

But short response; you’re all idiots. Case in point:

Funny how everyone is bitching about Bush firing eight US Attorneys - political appointees who weren’t doing the job required of them (including one attorney that refused to prosecute drug smuggling cases less than 5,000 pounds), btw - but say NOTHING about Clinton firing 92 of the 93 US Attorneys when he first took office, just on GP.

The problem isn’t that they weren’t doing their jobs; the problem was that they were doing it, just not the Rove way.  Presidents, including George “Wrong” Bush traditionally get rid of the US Attorneys at the START of their term; it’s almost unheard of for US Attorneys to be fired in the 2nd term.  Try going to The Talking Points Memo for a great in-depth look at the various quotes & lies that have been uttered.

Really, it doesn’t bother you that the Bush admin folks repeatedly lied to the media, to the public, and to the Congress, about why those attorneys were fired?  I’m really curious about this-the number of scandals and lies in this Admin is unprecedented.  Even if we’re being charitable and say they weren’t lying, doesn’t the utter incompetence dismay you?

#7  Posted by Buzzion United States on 05/09 at 11:29 AM -

See wisdem they weren’t doing their jobs the way the administration appointed them wanted.  And if you’re not doing your job the way your boss wants you to then guess what?  They can fire you.  Oh and if you’re using the argument of they were doing their jobs then you are screwed, since when Clinton had all the attorneys fired, several of them were in the middle of investigations.  Precedent to that point was to allow attorneys involved in major investigations to finish before being replaced by the new administration.  Care to guess which political party was at the center of some of those investigations?  And do you care to guess how the investigations went after they were fired?

#8  Posted by WisDem United States on 05/09 at 01:22 PM -

See wisdem they weren’t doing their jobs the way the administration appointed them wanted.  And if you’re not doing your job the way your boss wants you to then guess what?  They can fire you. 

OK, you clearly don’t understand what’s going on here.  If Bush had just said one day, “I don’t want this person working there anymore,” that would’ve been his right & privilege.  But when someone noticed a number of firings and asked, “hey, what’s going on?” the admin didn’t just say, “because we decided to go in a different direction.” They offered up a series of BS reasons, all of them demonstrably false.

So that says to people that the administration feels they can’t defend why they decided to fire the US Attorneys.  Of course that makes people curious as to what exactly what the reason was, and lo and behold, a “hit list” of prosecutors are revealed.  A list that includes some GREAT Attorneys , and curiously doesn’t include some horrible Attorneys.  Then we connect it with the Republican fetish on “fraudalent voting” that’s really code word for “suppress minority voting” and the light dawns...perhaps some of those prosecutors were fired for not going aggressively after Democrats?

I don’t know about you, but I’d rather the US Attorneys do their job serving the public, rather than being a branch of the Republican Party.  Likewise, if it was the other way around, I’d rather they serve the public than be an arm of the Democratic Party.  The selection of a US Attorney is political, to be sure, but once he/she is in office, it’s supposed to be hands-off.

if you’re using the argument of they were doing their jobs then you are screwed, since when Clinton had all the attorneys fired, several of them were in the middle of investigations. 

Another false argument heard from...you right-wing nutters really like attacking your strawmen, don’t you? As I clearly said before, there’s a BIG difference between the tradition of appointing new US Attorneys at the start of a new President’s time in office, and selectively firing US Attorneys for political reasons. 

The issue here is that the Republicans are trying to politicize ALL functions of the government, even the intern program!

This is getting pretty pathetic...you guys KNOW Bush Admin. screwed this up...yet you all reflexively defend him.  Sad.

#9  Posted by Drumwaster United States on 05/09 at 03:23 PM -

I’ve posted responses to you & Drumwaster in another thread.

Lie number one. Simply writing a few words in the comment box is not a “response”. You really need to compact your feces.

But short response; you’re all idiots.

Lie number two, and an ad hominem.

Color me shocked. {Yawn.}

The problem isn’t that they weren’t doing their jobs; the problem was that they were doing it, just not the Rove way.

Lie number three. Those attorneys do not work for Rove, they work for the President and (derived authority) the Attorney General. They are “working at the pleasure of the President” and he can fire them, at any time, and for any reason.

You also forget that Clinton did exactly the same thing to all but one of those very same attorneys, and for no other reason than he wanted a clean slate. No problem with that, eh?

there’s a BIG difference between the tradition of appointing new US Attorneys at the start of a new President’s time in office, and selectively firing US Attorneys for political reasons.

Oh, so “generally firing for political reasons” is perfectly okay, but “selective firing for political reasons” is not? Kind of like saying you’re okay with wholesale, just not retail.

Hypocrisy, through and through.

If Bush had just said one day, “I don’t want this person working there anymore,” that would’ve been his right & privilege.  But when someone noticed a number of firings and asked, “hey, what’s going on?” the admin didn’t just say, “because we decided to go in a different direction.” They offered up a series of BS reasons, all of them demonstrably false.

Odd, because neither Bush nor Gonzalez needed any reason at all to get rid of them, so how could their reasons be insufficient? Or is it only insufficient to those seeking to gin up ANY kind of scandal against Republicans, while ignoring or actively covering up any hint of impropriety by those on the Left? (Mark Foley vs. Barney Frank; Tom DeLay vs. Nancy Pelosi, etc., etc., ad nauseum)

I don’t know about you, but I’d rather the US Attorneys do their job serving the public, rather than being a branch of the Republican Party.

Once again, you are defining “the public” as “anyone but Republicans”.

Guess who the President is? Guess who gets to appoint those official, and remove them, at will? Guess which party those political appointees are serving?

You don’t like it? Get a Democrat elected to the White House, and you can have him/her get rid of all the people appointed by Bush, and you can have the attorneys serving as an arm for the Democrat Party, and in the name of “The People”.

Just like all Good Comrades do…

The issue here is that the Republicans are trying to politicize ALL functions of the government, even the intern program!

The entire function of government is what defines the word “political”. It is the offering, debate, and adoption, of the choice between two or more options that makes politics what it is. Any employee of the various Executive Departments and the entire Legislative Branch, has a job description that includes the word “political”, except for the physical maintenance crew or similar.

Yes, there are Independent Federal Agencies, but the Department of Justice is NOT such an agency.

I’m really curious about this-the number of scandals and lies in this Admin is unprecedented.

Tell it to the Rose Law Firm, pal.

JimK#10  Posted by JimK United States on 05/09 at 04:41 PM -

WisDem - and I understand that these guys are definitely engaging you and your DSL connection is crap (as is mine about half the time), so take your time - can you return to the subject of my original post for a second?  I’d like you to give me your impressions of my impressions of the fact that ABC (and lefty bloggers) were scandal-crazy until they couldn’t find a dozen or so high-ranking Republicans to name?  And that they refuse to even look at or investigate anyone who may have worked for Clinton the I and may be again working for Clinton the II?  I’m curious to see your reaction to the whole thing.

I swear I’m not being snotty or facetious.  I am genuinely curious.

#11  Posted by WisDem United States on 05/09 at 04:56 PM -

Now, Drumwaster, just because you say something is so doesn’t make it so.  Calling it a lie doesn’t make it so.

Lie number three. Those attorneys do not work for Rove, they work for the President and (derived authority) the Attorney General. They are “working at the pleasure of the President” and he can fire them, at any time, and for any reason.

Exactly-they do not work for Karl Rove.  So why are seeing his fingerprints all over this.  And again, while the US Attorneys are appointed politically, they’re not supposed to be an arm of the political party.  THIS is what people are upset about.  I really don’t see why you can’t grasp this, so I have to conclude it’s a delibrateful will to NOT grasp this simple fact.

You also forget that Clinton did exactly the same thing to all but one of those very same attorneys, and for no other reason than he wanted a clean slate. No problem with that, eh?

Again, a delibrate refusal to grasp facts.  This is a traition that modern presidents follow, INCLUDING Bush.  This was not a scandal when Bush came into office and did it.

Oh, so “generally firing for political reasons” is perfectly okay, but “selective firing for political reasons” is not? Kind of like saying you’re okay with wholesale, just not retail.

See my response above.  A delibrate refusal to grasp facts on your part.

Once again, you are defining “the public” as “anyone but Republicans”.

When did I ever say that, much less twice?  Public, I mean the PUBLIC.  As in everyday people, & the good of United States of America.  How is politicizing justice, whether for Republicans or Democrats a good thing at all?

Guess which party those political appointees are serving?

Here we have your bias revealed.  The appointment process is political, but the person in the job is not.  You’re also forgetting that a provision was sneaked into law that bypassed the Congress in the selection process.  The US Attorney is supposed to be acceptable to both the President and the Congress.

You don’t like it? Get a Democrat elected to the White House, and you can have him/her get rid of all the people appointed by Bush, and you can have the attorneys serving as an arm for the Democrat Party, and in the name of “The People”.

You really can’t keep track, can you?  Here’s what I SAID:

I don’t know about you, but I’d rather the US Attorneys do their job serving the public, rather than being a branch of the Republican Party.  Likewise, if it was the other way around, I’d rather they serve the public than be an arm of the Democratic Party.

Haven’t you noticed that the Republican Gov’t today is acting more like Communist Nations than the Democrats ever did?  Think on that.

Rann Aridorn#12  Posted by Rann Aridorn United States on 05/09 at 04:57 PM -

Now, if I was some religious guy, I’d see it as some sort of omen that I lost my connection to the Internet when I clicked “submit.”

Yeah, it’d mean God was trying to save you from yourself. Ever heard a little saying that ends with “-than to open your mouth and remove all doubt”?

I had really good posts, too, that would’ve made you all sob, “I’m so sorry” repeatedly.

Ha ha oh wow

Yeah, whatever, chuckles. Come on back when you’ve gotten some more courage from whining to your leftard friends about how mean we are, and come back to spew more mindless links and the talking points that they’ve prescribed for you. Always helpful to have someone else making your side look bad.

On another small, amusing note, from Drumwaster’s post:

Oh, so “generally firing for political reasons” is perfectly okay, but “selective firing for political reasons” is not? Kind of like saying you’re okay with wholesale, just not retail.

Actually, wouldn’t it be more like he was saying what a tragedy a single string of hate crimes was, but that he’d be just fine with ethnic cleansing?

Rann Aridorn#13  Posted by Rann Aridorn United States on 05/09 at 05:10 PM -

Now, Drumwaster, just because you say something is so doesn’t make it so.  Calling it a lie doesn’t make it so.

Funny, you seem perfectly willing to use the “Well it’s that way because I say it is” defense for yourself.

Exactly-they do not work for Karl Rove.  So why are seeing his fingerprints all over this.

Because it’s typical for insane people to see what’s not there.

See my response above.  A delibrate refusal to grasp facts on your part.

Just because you’ve invented a line of reasoning in your head doesn’t make it a fact, nor a “deliberate refusal to acknowledge the truth” when others fail to see it as such.

Here we have your bias revealed.

... Wate wut? Bias? Revealed? Like this is some big, damaging blow against him? As if someone being biased towards a political party was some secret they had to hide lest they lose face in the argument?

YOUR NAME INCLUDES A REFERENCE TO DEMOCRATS YOU FUCKING RETARD.

Haven’t you noticed that the Republican Gov’t today is acting more like Communist Nations than the Democrats ever did?

No, just like I haven’t noticed the Nazi Unicorns taking over Paris and declaring a year of St. Patrick’s Day. I tend not to notice a lot of things that don’t happen.

Think on that.

NO U

#14  Posted by WisDem United States on 05/09 at 06:09 PM -

Rann…

You’re...incoherent. Did I hit a nerve?  So sorry.

You know, I think I’ll stop here before Rann’s head bursts...it’s been fun playing with you kiddies, but real life beckons.

Rann Aridorn#15  Posted by Rann Aridorn United States on 05/09 at 06:13 PM -

You’re...incoherent.

Just because you don’t understand me doesn’t mean I’m incoherent. It just means you’re too stupid to understand what I’m saying.

it’s been fun playing with you kiddies, but real life beckons.

And another one takes his ball and runs home to his mommy (who, according to Google, I fucked), unable to handle having an opinion outside of the supportive nest of its hivemind.

(And watch him come back for some “lol oh I’m not running away” comments. Just another leftard troll, as if there were any doubt.)

#16  Posted by Buzzion United States on 05/09 at 06:38 PM -

This is a traition that modern presidents follow, INCLUDING Bush.

And Clinton broke that tradition by firing attorneys in the middle of investigations.  The tradition before that was to allow them to finish their investigation before replacement, but since they were investigating democrats he just couldn’t have that.

JimK#17  Posted by JimK United States on 05/09 at 06:45 PM -

So then, your answer is no to trying to thoughtfully respond to my original points then, WisDem?

#18  Posted by Drumwaster United States on 05/09 at 07:18 PM -

Calling it a lie doesn’t make it so.

No, it’s the differing from actual events that makes them lies. And you a liar.

So why are seeing his fingerprints all over this.

A four-syllable word that rhymes with “maranoia” is my guess…

And again, while the US Attorneys are appointed politically, they’re not supposed to be an arm of the political party.  THIS is what people are upset about.

That’s like saying that “just because he was an official who was elected doesn’t mean we should refer to him as an elected official”.

It is the Party that sits in the White House - a political outcome - that gets to determine the occupants of those various offices, at whim. The actual term you will hear being used is “I serve at the pleasure of the President”. That means when the President pleases, that person no longer has a job.

It’s just that simple.

How is politicizing justice, whether for Republicans or Democrats a good thing at all?

It isn’t. The point you actually have to make is that the firings were actually political, rather than for general incompetence (such as the attorney who was fired for refusing to prosecute drug smuggling cases of less than 5,000 pounds, or the one who was refusing to prosecute coyotes - people smugglers - for conspiracy to violate Federal Laws).

How is removing responsibility for their jobs going to improve performance? How can you coerce someone who cannot be fired to do a better job? Or to refrain from costly mistakes?

Hell, even the President can be fired for doing the wrong things…

But when you work “at the pleasure of the President”, you basically give them an undated letter of resignation the day you get hired, and that gives you no complaints if POTUS should “regretfully accept” that resignation later on.

Let me guess… you’re a government employee, aren’t you?

Actually, wouldn’t it be more like he was saying what a tragedy a single string of hate crimes was, but that he’d be just fine with ethnic cleansing?

No. No, it wouldn’t. Happy I could help clear that up for you.

#19  Posted by WisDem United States on 05/10 at 10:25 AM -

can you return to the subject of my original post for a second?  I’d like you to give me your impressions of my impressions of the fact that ABC (and lefty bloggers) were scandal-crazy until they couldn’t find a dozen or so high-ranking Republicans to name?  And that they refuse to even look at or investigate anyone who may have worked for Clinton the I and may be again working for Clinton the II?  I’m curious to see your reaction to the whole thing.

OK, because you asked so nicely. :-)

Although I’ve been aware of the scandal through other sources, I haven’t really be following it that closely.  So it’s your own statement that it’s mid-level bureaucrats that I’m going by.  The way I understand how gov’t depts work, it’s mostly the “top tier” and certain positions that are political appointments & I guess, supporting staff for those folks.  So when you say mid-level bureaucrat, I think of some schmuck who’s been working in the gov’t most of his/her career regardless of who is controlling the White House.  Not sexy enough for TV. 

As for lobbyists, isn’t it the “K-Street Project” that had the number of lobbyists explode during the Republican administration?  And from what I’ve heard of how Tom Delay worked, Democratic-leaning lobbyists were in the minority (not that they didn’t exist).  I don’t really care who paid for a massage (or more), though, but I certainly do believe it’s not fair that only the prostitute is punished in those transcations.

I think that part of what made this so interesting for the media is the morality factor-many Republicans have held themselves up as the party of morality, the family party, so if there had been some high-profile Republicans snared in this, that would’ve been juicy.  Kinda like those preachers who committed adultery, did drugs, had gay sex, etc.  Hypocrisy makes for a great story.

Satisfied?

#20  Posted by Drumwaster United States on 05/10 at 11:52 AM -

As for lobbyists, isn’t it the “K-Street Project” that had the number of lobbyists explode during the Republican administration?

You sure do lurve you some Tu Quoque, dontcha? Maybe you weren’t paying attention earlier (and maybe the sun rose in the East this morning, too), but that kind of argument is called a “fallacy”, because it does not answer the question posed. You also ignore that the latest scandal coming out of “the most ethical Congressional Administration ever” - that Congressmen are now allowed to accept gifts from lobbyists, but only if they are described as “close friends” by the Congress critter. Passed “without objection” by the Democratically-controlled Congress…

Let’s see some of that faux outrage about that, wissy.

I think that part of what made this so interesting for the media is the morality factor-many Republicans have held themselves up as the party of morality, the family party, so if there had been some high-profile Republicans snared in this, that would’ve been juicy.

Nice of you to admit that the Democrats are NOT holding themselves up as the party of family values and morality. We already knew, but still…

And I especially like how you argue that if Dems had been caught utilizing the services of a whorehouse, it wouldn’t be “juicy” enough to mention.

I can kind of see why, what with the ongoing racism, corruption and felonies rampant among those on the Left. A mere Donk pollster caught getting his dick wet is no longer shocking after having Billy Jeff in the Oval Office getting a hummer while deciding whether to send troops into combat to die for no reason at all… (Kosovo, remember?)

#21  Posted by WisDem United States on 05/11 at 01:31 AM -

*sigh*

Drumwaster, I was answering Jim’s question nicely, and you just have to jump in with your bile, don’t you?

Let’s go through your bile one by one.

You sure do lurve you some Tu Quoque, dontcha? Maybe you weren’t paying attention earlier (and maybe the sun rose in the East this morning, too), but that kind of argument is called a “fallacy”, because it does not answer the question posed

.

I was responding to something Jim wrote about lobbyists being implicated in this scandal and translating to “No One Bush Hired.” I was pointing out that many of those lobbyists were more likely to have Republican connections than Democratic/Clinton ones.  Is that clear now?  I didn’t realize I had to quote each and every phrase for you.

that Congressmen are now allowed to accept gifts from lobbyists, but only if they are described as “close friends” by the Congress critter. Passed “without objection” by the Democratically-controlled Congress…

If you’d been paying the slightest attention to the progressive sites, you’d know that many people weren’t happy about that, either.  But exactly what did the Republicans pass while they had full control for six years?

Nice of you to admit that the Democrats are NOT holding themselves up as the party of family values and morality. We already knew, but still…

And I especially like how you argue that if Dems had been caught utilizing the services of a whorehouse, it wouldn’t be “juicy” enough to mention.

I was talking about the media’s perspective.  We both can agree that the media is far from perfect.  But don’t you realize that the ways conservatives use “morality” and “family values” are usually code words for racism/bigotry/homophobia? That’s one reason why many Democrats don’t use those words. 

I can kind of see why, what with the ongoing racism, corruption and felonies rampant among those on the Left. A mere Donk pollster caught getting his dick wet is no longer shocking after having Billy Jeff in the Oval Office getting a hummer while deciding whether to send troops into combat to die for no reason at all… (Kosovo, remember?)

Donk? Billy Jeff?  Is there anything you can say without turning it into an insult?  As I told Jim K., I’m not very familiar with this scandal, so I have no idea what pollster you’re talking about.  But if you don’t know that it’s more interesting for people to read about scandals of those in power than scandals of those not in power, you don’t know much about human nature. As an example, there’s a reason the parapazzi (I’m not using a spellchecker at 11:30 PM) follow around A-list celebrities, not has-beens and C-list celebrities.

By the way, exactly how many American troops died in Kosovo? Give me a link as this is the second time you’ve referred to it yet my search turned up very minimual casualities.  In other words, “the right way to run a war” despite the Right’s repeated attempts to use Kosovo to justify Iraq (even though they opposed Kosovo in the first place).  Incidentally, are you saying preventing a genocide isn’t a good enough reason to intervene?

A note to Jim K.; I have to confess I didn’t read all of the links.  I just did, and found something that illustrates my point well;

Most prominent of her customers was Deputy Secretary of State Randall Tobias, who was in charge of the Bush administration’s efforts to crack down on prostitution worldwide. 

Oh, boy, I can see why the media loved that one.

But let me ask you, Jim, and the rest of your gang here something.  You are the media, and you have a list of phone numbers of customers of a woman being accused of running a prostitute service.  You know that revealing the phone numbers and/or names will utterly ruin the lives and careers of many of the people on the list.

Do you run it? I’m not sure of the answer myself.  I think the only valid reason I can think of to run the list/names is, as I said earlier, if the women are punished for the transcation, it’s only fair that the men involved suffer consquences as well.

And Drumwaster, please stay out of this unless you have something genuine to contribute.  I’m interested in Jim’s, and anyone else’s, answer to my question.

JimK#22  Posted by JimK United States on 05/11 at 01:39 AM -

But don’t you realize that the ways conservatives use “morality” and “family values” are usually code words for racism/bigotry/homophobia?

Jesus Christ you’re an asshole.  Do you live your life making those kind of radical and unsupported assumptions about everyone you see?

JimK#23  Posted by JimK United States on 05/11 at 01:40 AM -

Is there anything you can say without turning it into an insult?

Holy fuck, the irony.

I’m done giving you any kind of benefit of intelligence.  You’re a blind, partisan hack who only cares about his “team.”

#24  Posted by Drumwaster United States on 05/11 at 02:10 AM -

Is that clear now?

Yes. It is clearly saying “We’re not so bad - look at those guys over there”. That is called a ”Tu Quoque” argument, and is fallacious. It is most easily answered with the time-honored “If they all jumped off a bridge, would you jump too?”

If you’d been paying the slightest attention to the progressive sites, you’d know that many people weren’t happy about that, either.  But exactly what did the Republicans pass while they had full control for six years?

“Progressive”? In the immortal words of Inigo Montoya, “I do not think that means what you think that it means.”

And followed with yet another tu quoque.

Color me shocked. Just shocked.

I was talking about the media’s perspective.

The perspective that says that Democrats caught up in scandal = “just another dog bites man”, while Republicans caught up in the same kind and degree of scandal = “banner headlines in NYT for weeks on end”.

Fitzmas, anyone? Still dreaming of seeing Karl Rove “frogmarched” by that perjurer, Joe Wilson?

“the right way to run a war”

Ignoring the UN and not bothering to ask permission from Congress? Sounds almost… French.

Do you run it?

Obviously not, unless that politician has an ‘R’ after his name. I mean, that “behind closed doors” thing doesn’t apply to Republicans, does it? (Paging Barney Frank...)

And Drumwaster, please stay out of this unless you have something genuine to contribute.

I think shredding your pathetic arguments and (shall we say) “truth deficient assertions” counts as a contribution, and I have ZERO doubt that others here would agree.

In other words, you are cordially invited to kiss my royal American red-white-and-blue ass, YOU FUCKING TRAITOR.

(See? That last insult had nothing to do with the argument. It serves as a garnish to the utter devastation of your assertions, but has nothing to do with the argument itself. Thus, it is not any kind of ad hominem.)

Rann Aridorn#25  Posted by Rann Aridorn United States on 05/11 at 02:13 AM -

But let me ask you, Jim, and the rest of your gang here something.  You are the media, and you have a list of phone numbers of customers of a woman being accused of running a prostitute service.  You know that revealing the phone numbers and/or names will utterly ruin the lives and careers of many of the people on the list.

Do you run it? I’m not sure of the answer myself.

That’s a lie. You’re totally sure of the answer. The answer is “Yes if it ruins the lives of Republicans, no if it ruins the lives of Democrats.” After all you’ve said here, don’t you dare try to take the moral high ground when we all know damn well what you are.

#26  Posted by WisDem United States on 05/11 at 03:52 AM -

But don’t you realize that the ways conservatives use “morality” and “family values” are usually code words for racism/bigotry/homophobia?

Jesus Christ you’re an asshole.  Do you live your life making those kind of radical and unsupported assumptions about everyone you see?

I misspoke-I meant the extremists on your end not all conservatives.  But that doesn’t mean you didn’t know perfectly well what I meant.

But the interesting thing is, I took you at your face value and answered your question straight-up, and your pals piled on.  I ask you a question in turn.  Even if I inadvarently insulted you, none of you guys answered my question.  I’m genuinely curious about what you guys would’ve done, as human beings who, theoretically, are a member of the media. Would you have published the list, regardless of who was on it?  Not a right/left wing thing here.  And not one of you bothered to answer.  Interesting, hmm?  That, to me, says you guys are more interested in screaming than discussing.  I know when I first came here, I did the same thing, mostly as a response to the tone here, but hey, I tried to have a conversation here. 

And let’s face it, the kind of stuff we’ve been doing here gets old FAST. At least for me, anyway, but if you’re perfectly happy to do that...that’s your thing, I guess.

Jim, I enjoyed your TV reviews-I’m a Battlestar Galactica fan, too, and I use your American Idol reviews just so I know what the heck other people are talking about.  I’ll probably stop by now and then still for your reviews.  But that’s pretty much it for me in the comments. 

But fellas...it couldn’t hurt you guys to talk in a civil tone to people once in a while?

#27  Posted by Drumwaster United States on 05/11 at 10:42 AM -

it couldn’t hurt you guys to talk in a civil tone to people once in a while?

Hey, Mr. Pot, there’s a Mr. Kettle on line two…

Even if I inadvarently insulted you, none of you guys answered my question.

Lie. I answered it. Rann answered it. You just didn’t like that we nailed exactly what (has happened/is happening/will be happening again).

There are way too many examples of people with that coveted ‘D’ who get caught up in scandals who have stories stifled by the media, with very little coverage, if any; yet when identical (or highly similar) scandals might develop around a GOP member, it’s “ScandalGate” 24/7/365.

You want examples?
* Harry Reid and his real estate scams - he’s the Majority Leader in the Senate.
* William Jefferson (D-LA), misappropriating emergency assets during a Federal Disaster, and caught on tape accepting a $100K bribe ($90K of which was found stuffed into his freezer - he is now sitting on the House subcommittee that oversees the FBI (the agency investigating him)
* whoever that junior Kennedy was that got caught driving under the influence of both drugs and alcohol, claiming he was going to a floor vote at 2am (which he had clearly been told would get him out of any crime, due to Article 1, Section 6, Paragraph 1)
* Cynthia McKinney who was obviously too busy to follow the security rules set up, and assaulting a police officer who was doing a tough job, yet serving not a single day in jail

The list goes on, exposing the inherent racism, class warfare and anti-American threads that are inextricably intertwined with being a modern liberal Democrat these days.

#28  Posted by Buzzion United States on 05/11 at 12:03 PM -

Drum look up Feinstein corruption husband.  Now imagine if that was a Republican.

#29  Posted by WisDem United States on 05/11 at 12:05 PM -

Hey, Mr. Pot, there’s a Mr. Kettle on line two…

My last two posts were much move civil than any of your bunch’s.

Lie. I answered it. Rann answered it. You just didn’t like that we nailed exactly what (has happened/is happening/will be happening again).

I asked, “would you run the list.” You, Jim, never answered it.  And here’s what Rann said;

That’s a lie. You’re totally sure of the answer. The answer is “Yes if it ruins the lives of Republicans, no if it ruins the lives of Democrats.” After all you’ve said here, don’t you dare try to take the moral high ground when we all know damn well what you are.

That’s far from being an answer to my question.  Insulting someone’s question is not an answer.  I still don’t know what any of you would’ve done. Apparently I never will.

I’ll even throw in Drumwaster who took the same strategy of insulting the question;

Obviously not, unless that politician has an ‘R’ after his name. I mean, that “behind closed doors” thing doesn’t apply to Republicans, does it? (Paging Barney Frank...)

Interesting line about Barney Frank...what was I saying about some Republicans and homophobia?

Jim, you then go on to list five Democratic scandals.  Most I heard of, one I didn’t.  Most got media coverage.  And please tell me you’re not trying to make a woman slapping someone into a major scandal...there were plenty of coverage on that.

Some of those are legitimate stories, some aren’t.  But I for one think that the Attorney General lying to Congress, the Department of Justice hiding e-mails, etc. deserves far more play than some woman slapping a cop.

But I find interesting parallels about your mention of Harry Reid to Dennis Hastert’s sweetheart land deals in which he pushed for a new highway in a bill he wrote that nobody really wanted to increase the value of his land.  I’ve only seen Hastert’s deal once in the media. 

You know, you guys really seem offended that I came in here. Many of your posts have this...tone of outrage and incredulity. 

Just remember, the next time you accuse someone on the left of being partisan, that it was Republicans who created this climate. Heck your behavior on this website contributes to that.

What was that line about reaping what you sow?

#30  Posted by Drumwaster United States on 05/11 at 12:24 PM -

Not to mention Pelosi and her husband, and Clinton and her husband.

#31  Posted by Drumwaster United States on 05/11 at 12:41 PM -

what was I saying about some Republicans and homophobia?

No, I was pointing out the (horrified-if-you’re-a-Dem) difference between how you Donks stifled the Barney Frank scandal and how they screamed and moaned over Mark Foley. (Since feigning ignorance if your main tactic, I’ll remind everyone about how one of the underage - as in “actually under the age of 18” - Congressional pages who had been sleeping with Rep. Frank was also running a gay prostitution ring out of Frank’s apartment, yet nothing ever came of it, and Barney is still in office. Meanwhile Mark Foley sending e-mails to other pages - who were actually over the age of 18 yet still got called “children” - got run out of office on a rail.)

Homophobia has nothing to do with it, either, because I am not afraid of homosexuals, or of “catching cooties from them”, as you seem so eager to project onto us. Homosexuality is much like Astrology. I do not agree with the practice, I think it is a waste of time (and it is, from a biological standpoint), and I hold the practitioners in faint disdain, but that isn’t a phobia.

Jim, you then go on to list five Democratic scandals.  Most I heard of, one I didn’t.

That wasn’t Jim, that was me, dumbass. Look at the comment authors’ names. They get listed along with the rest of the comment. You can read, can you not?

#32  Posted by Drumwaster United States on 05/11 at 12:57 PM -

And please tell me you’re not trying to make a woman slapping someone into a major scandal...there were plenty of coverage on that.

And how much jail time did she spend for assaulting a police officer in the course of his duties? Did she get any pressure to resign?

Of course not.

But by all means, let’s try and hang the fact that two people remembered a conversation in two different ways (neither way would have actually resulted in any crime having been committed - and, indeed, no other crimes were ever charged, much less indicted or prosecuted), yet one person was charged with perjury and obstruction - without, let me repeat, any underlying crime to be perjorious or obstructionist in regards to - and the general consensus advanced at full volume is that he was covering something up for his boss’s boss.

One is an actual crime (caught on videotape, in front of dozens of witnesses, and freely admitted to by the criminal herself) yet the perp neither did any time nor paid any kind of financial penalty whatsoever, and only lost her job because of an intervening election cycle; while the other was a ginned-up scandal over an obstruction of nothing at all, yet the guy might serve jail time and has already lost his job, not to mention costly legal fees.

Guess which political parties those two persons respectively represent? Guess how they were played out in the media?

I’ve only seen Hastert’s deal once in the media.

I haven’t seen any sign at all of Reid’s deal in the MSM - it has only shown up on blogs.

Rann Aridorn#33  Posted by Rann Aridorn United States on 05/11 at 07:57 PM -

But fellas...it couldn’t hurt you guys to talk in a civil tone to people once in a while?

Sure. Except that you don’t currently rate being qualified as a person.


Post a Comment:

The trackback URL for this entry is: http://www.right-thoughts.us/index.php/trackback/3122/Z6gdkgmO/

Trackbacks:

No trackbacks yet.