LawTalkers

LawTalkers (http://www.lawtalkers.com/forums/index.php)
-   Politics (http://www.lawtalkers.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=16)
-   -   Waiting for Fitzgerald (http://www.lawtalkers.com/forums/showthread.php?t=704)

Secret_Agent_Man 10-06-2005 02:31 PM

DING!
 
Quote:

Originally posted by Penske_Account
I meant the commentator. The big lawyer.
Nope. I do not know the former Senator.

S_A_M

P.S. Tell me again what "npi"means.

Penske_Account 10-06-2005 02:31 PM

BREAKING....
 
Quote:

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
You're relying on Drudge to give you hope? Desparate times indeed.
Are you questioning the veracity of the report? Otherwise, what difference does it make where its coming from? Kristol and Buchanan are influential conversatives and representative of which way the wind is blowing.

Replaced_Texan 10-06-2005 02:33 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Sidd Finch
Schools accept money on all sorts of conditions. The danger in this instance was that the donor did not impose a specific condition, but then acted as if he had. That was why I saw a problem.

But, when you give money (or pledge money) to a school that states that it is promoting christian values or whatever, you have some expectations that this will not change. (There are enormous issues of standing, etc. that would keep you from suing to get money back -- this is an area of law that I know very well -- but I'm not talking about the technical legal issues but rather the ethical ones.)
It seems to me that part of the controversy, if that's what it is, stems from deep philosophical questions in the Episcopalian Church regarding what the "Christian values" are with regard to homosexual relationships.

Mmmm, Burger (C.J.) 10-06-2005 02:34 PM

BREAKING....
 
Quote:

Originally posted by Penske_Account
Are you questioning the veracity of the report? Otherwise, what difference does it make where its coming from? Kristol and Buchanan are influential conversatives and representative of which way the wind is blowing.
I have no reason to question that Drudge accurately reports Kristol's opinion.

I still don't see what torpedoing Miers does for you. He didn't pick her to spite the right. He picked her because the political calculus was that anyone the right was really pushing would not be confirmable. So, instead he picked someone with a sufficiently blank slate that wasn't unconfirmable from the left's view and that he convince the right to trust him on. Having the right not trust him doesn't increase the viability of a candidate they like actually getting confirmed. So you're just delaying the problem by squawking.

Secret_Agent_Man 10-06-2005 02:34 PM

BREAKING....
 
Quote:

Originally posted by Penske_Account
Another nail in the coffin......

Stand by for Janice Rogers Brown......
The chick who thinks the Social Security Act is unconstitutional?
Not a chance.

The public may not know Lochner, but they like their Social Security.

S_A_M

Sexual Harassment Panda 10-06-2005 02:36 PM

Open the closet!!!!
 
Quote:

Originally posted by Penske_Account
This is huge.
No, it's not. Nobody but you and the other members of the He-Man Hillary Haters Club gives a flying fuck. You're like the crazy uncle in the corner who blames Ike for handing the country over to the commies.

Penske_Account 10-06-2005 02:36 PM

Open the closet!!!!
 
Quote:

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
Are you expecting him to identify skeletons about which we don't already know?
He may have credible and new insight into Clinton's betrayal of classsified US military and national security information to the
RedChinese in exchange for campaign cash.

For starters. Based on the allegations to date, the breadth and depth of the crimes committed by by those people is open to the imagination and not complicated by any moral or ethical boundaries.

Penske_Account 10-06-2005 02:41 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
How is he fucked in teh arse? He gave the money. He said they should change something . They said, no thanks, here's your money back.

As for his kids' enrollment, if he thinks he's not getting what he's paying for, he's free to enroll them elsewhere, and others are free not to enroll their kids.
I guess it turns on what "christian values" means in the context. My background is Catholic so if I were to send my kids to a Catholic school that touted a mission defined as guided by by "Christian values" I would be surprised if the curricula included material that had explicit descriptions of homosexual or heterosexual, ftm, sex. I don't know what Episcolians mean by "christian values" but I think that there is at least an outside chance that the book my breach what someone could arguably think that the phrase means.



Quote:

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)

BTW, did you send your kid to the Str8 family fat camp?
I don't know what this means. I didn't read that thread, other than I am aware that str8's family has a camp for fat kids. the literal answer is no, no need. but they are also probably too young for away camp.

Penske_Account 10-06-2005 02:43 PM

DING!
 
Quote:

Originally posted by Secret_Agent_Man
Nope. I do not know the former Senator.

S_A_M

P.S. Tell me again what "npi"means.
No pun intended.

Mmmm, Burger (C.J.) 10-06-2005 02:43 PM

Open the closet!!!!
 
Quote:

Originally posted by Penske_Account
He may have credible and new insight into Clinton's betrayal of classsified US military and national security information to the
RedChinese in exchange for campaign cash.

For starters. Based on the allegations to date, the breadth and depth of the crimes committed by by those people is open to the imagination and not complicated by any moral or ethical boundaries.

What do you expect Freeh to say:

"I investigated allegations of a number of things, including Red China campaign cash. In fact, I found sufficient evidence to indict the president, but I decided not to."


For years, there was a guy who stood near the Rock Creek Parkway, outside the Watergate, holding a two-sided sign, which he rotated so passing motorists could read both sides. It said something like "Clinton Sold us Out to China/Gore was the Bag Man". He did this from at least 1999, and kept going until some time in 2002. Then he gave up. Apparently he was sane.

Penske_Account 10-06-2005 02:44 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Replaced_Texan
It seems to me that part of the controversy, if that's what it is, stems from deep philosophical questions in the Episcopalian Church regarding what the "Christian values" are with regard to homosexual relationships.
I think that there is an argument to be made that "Christian values" could exclude the teaching of explicit descriptions of sex acts between people of any genders, the same or different, to highschool students.

Penske_Account 10-06-2005 02:47 PM

BREAKING....
 
Quote:

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
I have no reason to question that Drudge accurately reports Kristol's opinion.

I still don't see what torpedoing Miers does for you. He didn't pick her to spite the right. He picked her because the political calculus was that anyone the right was really pushing would not be confirmable. So, instead he picked someone with a sufficiently blank slate that wasn't unconfirmable from the left's view and that he convince the right to trust him on. Having the right not trust him doesn't increase the viability of a candidate they like actually getting confirmed. So you're just delaying the problem by squawking.
She is not qualified. There are others who are and fit his stated philosophy. Put them up and let the process work. I honestly don't believe that the Senate could thumbs down a succession of JRB, Jones, Clement, Luttig, McConnell, et al. At some point public opinion would turn. These are, by any objective standard, qualified, accomplished, impressive jurists. Miers is a slap in the face to that concept.

Not Bob 10-06-2005 02:48 PM

Open the closet!!!!
 
Quote:

Originally posted by Penske_Account
He may have credible and new insight into Clinton's betrayal of classsified US military and national security information to the
RedChinese in exchange for campaign cash.

For starters. Based on the allegations to date, the breadth and depth of the crimes committed by by those people is open to the imagination and not complicated by any moral or ethical boundaries.
Really? And as FBI Director under Clinton, what did he do to stop these treasonous actions when he found out about them? Or to expose them? Maybe he was stymied by the fact that Clinton controlled the federal law enforcement machinery, and had to settle for a noisy resignation. No? Hmmm. He didn't do anything at all at the time? Well, I'm sure that he had a very good reason to wait for five years after W was elected to tell us about this perfidy.

Maybe he'll tell us more about that Christmas tree in the East Wing (or was it the West Wing?) with the sex toys as ornaments.

Penske_Account 10-06-2005 02:49 PM

Open the closet!!!!
 
Quote:

Originally posted by Sexual Harassment Panda
No, it's not. Nobody but you and the other members of the He-Man Hillary Haters Club gives a flying fuck. You're like the crazy uncle in the corner who blames Ike for handing the country over to the commies.
Yes, that's why a business enterprise spent millions to bring the book to print. To sell me and my uncle a copy. You're fucking idiot......



http://209.237.0.15/~jkahn/temp/stfu_animated.gif

Penske_Account 10-06-2005 02:51 PM

Open the closet!!!!
 
Quote:

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
What do you expect Freeh to say:

"I investigated allegations of a number of things, including Red China campaign cash. In fact, I found sufficient evidence to indict the president, but I decided not to."
Something close to that, perhaps.

Quote:

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)

For years, there was a guy who stood near the Rock Creek Parkway, outside the Watergate, holding a two-sided sign, which he rotated so passing motorists could read both sides. It said something like "Clinton Sold us Out to China/Gore was the Bag Man". He did this from at least 1999, and kept going until some time in 2002. Then he gave up. Apparently he was sane.
Does the homeless guy who calls himself breezy still hang out on the west end of the M street bridge? Nice guy. If so, tell him I said hi.

Penske_Account 10-06-2005 02:55 PM

Open the closet!!!!
 
Quote:

Originally posted by Not Bob
Really? And as FBI Director under Clinton, what did he do to stop these treasonous actions when he found out about them? Or to expose them? Maybe he was stymied by the fact that Clinton controlled the federal law enforcement machinery, and had to settle for a noisy resignation. No? Hmmm. He didn't do anything at all at the time? Well, I'm sure that he had a very good reason to wait for five years after W was elected to tell us about this perfidy.
Maybe he was under the standing threat/risk of Arkancide. He certainly knew Clinton had a dislike of him that manifested itself in a puerile manner (although hard to expect anything more of arrested adolescent psyche)

Later, relations got so bad that President Clinton reportedly began referring to Freeh as “that F…ing Freeh.”[

What a classless person.

Why is it that you don't want the truth to come out?

Not Bob 10-06-2005 03:01 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Penske_Account
I think that there is an argument to be made that "Christian values" could exclude the teaching of explicit descriptions of sex acts between people of any genders, the same or different, to highschool students.
IIRC, we discussed Hemingway's "Hills Like White Elephants" (abortion) and Flaubert's "Madame Bovary" (adultery) in great detail in 11th grade English III at Our Lady of Perpetual Motion Dicosean High School. Fitzgerald's "The Great Gatsby" (greed, adultery, lust, murder, drunkeness, overt symbolism) was also on the syllabus.

notcasesensitive 10-06-2005 03:06 PM

Open the closet!!!!
 
Quote:

Originally posted by Penske_Account
Yes, that's why a business enterprise spent millions to bring the book to print. To sell me and my uncle a copy. You're fucking idiot......



http://209.237.0.15/~jkahn/temp/stfu_animated.gif
In case you are wondering (and I know you are), I believe Mr Penn's version of the phrase is appropriately written as follows: Shut. The Fuck. Up.

As opposed to the Black President Bush version from Chappelle's Show, which I frequently quote (and which I invented quoting here), which is: Shut. The. Fuck. Up.

My ability to parse these subtle distinctions is why they pay me the big bucks.

Carry on.

Penske_Account 10-06-2005 03:06 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Not Bob
IIRC, we discussed Hemingway's "Hills Like White Elephants" (abortion) and Flaubert's "Madame Bovary" (adultery) in great detail in 11th grade English III at Our Lady of Perpetual Motion Dicosean High School. Fitzgerald's "The Great Gatsby" (greed, adultery, lust, murder, drunkeness, overt symbolism) was also on the syllabus.
Perhaps you did. So what? I did not say "christian values" preclude including curricula that contains explicit sexual descriptions or themes, in part. I said that there is an argument that could be made that the term "christian values" included in the mission statement, as it was in that school's mission statement, could preclude such teaching.

Are you saying that it's not possible that a reasonable person, in the context of sending their child to a school whose mission it is, explicitly, to impart "christian values" couldn't come to that conclusion?

Penske_Account 10-06-2005 03:07 PM

Open the closet!!!!
 
Quote:

Originally posted by notcasesensitive
In case you are wondering (and I know you are), I believe Mr Penn's version of the phrase is appropriately written as follows: Shut. The Fuck. Up.

As opposed to the Black President Bush version from Chappelle's Show, which I frequently quote: Shut. The. Fuck. Up.

My ability to parse these subtle distinctions is why they pay me the big bucks.

Carry on.
Thanks. that was helpful. Where do I send the cheque?

Gattigap 10-06-2005 03:09 PM

Open the closet!!!!
 
Quote:

Originally posted by Penske_Account
Yes, that's why a business enterprise spent millions to bring the book to print. To sell me and my uncle a copy. You're fucking idiot......



As it happens, I've heard this was the exact sales pitch ("Of Course, It's New and It's True! After All, We Spent Millions to Bring It To Print!") that Anonymous Press used in its pitch to Wal-mart.

http://images.amazon.com/images/P/18...CLZZZZZZZ_.jpg

Not Bob 10-06-2005 03:10 PM

Open the closet!!!!
 
Quote:

Originally posted by Penske_Account
Maybe he was under the standing threat/risk of Arkancide. He certainly knew Clinton had a dislike of him that manifested itself in a puerile manner (although hard to expect anything more of arrested adolescent psyche)

Later, relations got so bad that President Clinton reportedly began referring to Freeh as “that F…ing Freeh.”[

What a classless person.

Why is it that you don't want the truth to come out?
Calling someone a curse name makes you classless? Hmmm. Do you feel that this applies to the current president and his mother? The vice president?

I do want the truth to come out. If Bill sold military secrets to anyone, and Freuh knew about it and did nothing (despite the investigations that were looking into it), I want to know why. I'd kinda like the head of the FBI to actually, you know, do something about it when he can, rather than waiting five years and writing a book about it.

Penske_Account 10-06-2005 03:10 PM

Open the closet!!!!
 
Quote:

Originally posted by Gattigap
As it happens, I've heard this was the exact sales pitch ("Of Course, It's New and It's True! After All, We Spent Millions to Bring It To Print!") that Anonymous Press used in its pitch to Wal-mart.

http://images.amazon.com/images/P/18...CLZZZZZZZ_.jpg
this post is more appropriate for a PM than it is for the board. try to stay on substance and topic.

Secret_Agent_Man 10-06-2005 03:11 PM

Open the closet!!!!
 
Quote:

Originally posted by Sexual Harassment Panda
No, it's not. Nobody but you and the other members of the He-Man Hillary Haters Club gives a flying fuck. You're like the crazy uncle in the corner who blames Ike for handing the country over to the commies.
Maybe so, but you underestimate the size of that club.

S_A_M

Penske_Account 10-06-2005 03:15 PM

Open the closet!!!!
 
Quote:

Originally posted by Not Bob
Calling someone a curse name makes you classless? Hmmm. Do you feel that this applies to the current president and his mother? The vice president?
.
I think that there is a difference between using an explicit in a heated/emotional context and having a standing nickname for a subordinate worker that incorporates an explicitive. It is even more offputting when its the PotUS coining/using the nickname and the subordinate is the FBI Director. I think the office calls for a little more decorum, respect and dignity. If he called Freeh a fucker once, I could understand it. If its a standing nickname, something different.


Quote:

Originally posted by Not Bob

I do want the truth to come out. If Bill sold military secrets to anyone, and Freuh knew about it and did nothing (despite the investigations that were looking into it), I want to know why. I'd kinda like the head of the FBI to actually, you know, do something about it when he can, rather than waiting five years and writing a book about it.
I understand and sympathise with his desire not to die in Ft. Marcy park. Justice delayed does not have to be justice denied.

Penske_Account 10-06-2005 03:17 PM

Open the closet!!!!
 
Quote:

Originally posted by Secret_Agent_Man
Maybe so, but you underestimate the size of that club.

S_A_M
2. Truer words have not been posted.

Mmmm, Burger (C.J.) 10-06-2005 03:19 PM

Open the closet!!!!
 
Quote:

Originally posted by Penske_Account

Later, relations got so bad that President Clinton reportedly began referring to Freeh as “that F…ing Freeh.”[

What a classless person.

Nixon invented fucking _____.

Not Bob 10-06-2005 03:20 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Penske_Account
Perhaps you did. So what? I did not say "christian values" preclude including curricula that contains explicit sexual descriptions or themes, in part. I said that there is an argument that could be made that the term "christian values" included in the mission statement, as it was in that school's mission statement, could preclude such teaching.

Are you saying that it's not possible that a reasonable person, in the context of sending their child to a school whose mission it is, explicitly, to impart "christian values" couldn't come to that conclusion?
I am saying nothing of the sort. But I would assume that a person sending their child to an Episcopal or Catholic high school would understand that their child would be exposed to at least some literature which includes these themes. Heck, the Song of Songs includes these themes. I also think, however, that it's the parent's perogative to pull the money and/or their kid if she/he is not comfortable with what the school is teaching.

I haven't read the book in question. Nor have I attended the class at the school in which the book was discussed, so I don't know if the book is porn or not, or if the teacher was encouraging the students to engage in conduct Not Consistent with Episcopal Church doctrine. I'll assume (though it is a rebutable assumption) that (a) it is Not Porn, and (b) the teacher was Not NAMBLA recruiting.

Shape Shifter 10-06-2005 03:24 PM

Open the closet!!!!
 
Quote:

Originally posted by Penske_Account
You're fucking idiot......
Quote:

Originally posted by Penske_Account
Later, relations got so bad that President Clinton reportedly began referring to Freeh as “that F…ing Freeh.”[

What a classless person.
2.

Shape Shifter 10-06-2005 03:30 PM

Open the closet!!!!
 
Quote:

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
What do you expect Freeh to say:

"I investigated allegations of a number of things, including Red China campaign cash. In fact, I found sufficient evidence to indict the president, but I decided not to."


For years, there was a guy who stood near the Rock Creek Parkway, outside the Watergate, holding a two-sided sign, which he rotated so passing motorists could read both sides. It said something like "Clinton Sold us Out to China/Gore was the Bag Man". He did this from at least 1999, and kept going until some time in 2002. Then he gave up. Apparently he was sane.
I wouldn't dismiss this so easily, Burger. penke's posts included 3 sirens along with bold and red type. It looks serious.

Sexual Harassment Panda 10-06-2005 03:30 PM

Open the closet!!!!
 
Quote:

Originally posted by Gattigap
As it happens, I've heard this was the exact sales pitch ("Of Course, It's New and It's True! After All, We Spent Millions to Bring It To Print!") that Anonymous Press used in its pitch to Wal-mart.

http://images.amazon.com/images/P/18...CLZZZZZZZ_.jpg
Millions? Some hack probably banged out Freeh's book in a week in exchange for a case of Camels and a weekend in Vegas.

And lest we forget, we're talking the same guy who was a complete failure at his job - do the names Hansen, Ames, Leung ring any bells? He also didn't believe in computers for his agents, or in the need for compartmentalization within the agency. The Michael Brown of the Clinton years.
  • Facing this potential onslaught, Freeh made a tacit arrangement with the new Republican barons on the hill, as David Plotz of Slate and others have written. Freeh would focus on multiple investigations of his nominal bosses in the Clinton administration--Whitewater, Henry Cisneros, Mike Espy, Vince Foster--in exchange for a free pass on his and the bureau's many failings. That left problems in counter-intelligence free of either internal or congressional scrutiny. If Clinton administration officials were alarmed about the FBI's compartmentation problems and had plans to fix it--and it's not clear that they were--there was little they could do because of the Republican power on the Hill. Any attempt to rein in the bureau would be seen as an effort to stymie those investigations. In that climate of malign neglect, the bureau's ills were allowed to fester.

sebastian_dangerfield 10-06-2005 03:38 PM

BREAKING....
 
Quote:

Originally posted by Penske_Account
She is not qualified. There are others who are and fit his stated philosophy. Put them up and let the process work. I honestly don't believe that the Senate could thumbs down a succession of JRB, Jones, Clement, Luttig, McConnell, et al. At some point public opinion would turn. These are, by any objective standard, qualified, accomplished, impressive jurists. Miers is a slap in the face to that concept.
Nonsense. Nobody on the Rabid Right gives a shit about Miers' qualifications. The Right's sole concern is the same as the Left's - they don't know how she'll vote on Roe.

The Right's been fucked over by GOP Presidents who put pro-Roe judges on the bench twice already and doesn't want to get fucked again. Stop bullshitting about how you're concerned about her qualifications. You'd put a donkey on the SCOTUS if its trainers could assure you it would vote against Roe.

Sidd Finch 10-06-2005 03:41 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Gattigap
McCain's statement on the amendment, via Andrew Sullivan:
  • Mr. President, war is an awful business. I know that. I don’t think I’m naďve about how severe are the wages of war, and how terrible are the things that must be done to wage it successfully. It is a grim, dark business, and no matter how noble the cause for which it is fought, no matter how valiant the service, many veterans spend much of their subsequent lives trying to forget not only what was done to them and their comrades, but some of what had to be done by their hand to prevail.

    I don’t mourn the loss of any terrorist’s life nor do I care if in the course of serving their ignoble cause they suffer great harm. They have pledged their lives to the intentional destruction of innocent lives, and they have earned their terrible punishment in this life and the next.

    What I do regret, what I do mourn, and what I do care very much about is what we lose, what we -- the American serviceman and woman and the great nation they defend at the risk of their lives – what we lose when by official policy or by official negligence – we allow, confuse or encourage our soldiers to forget that best sense of ourselves, our greatest strength – that we are different and better than our enemies; that we fight for an idea – not a tribe, not a land, not a king, not a twisted interpretation of an ancient religion – but for an idea that all men are created equal and endowed by their Creator with inalienable rights.

    I have been asked before where did the brave men I was privileged to serve with in Vietnam draw the strength to resist to the best of their ability the cruelties inflicted on them by our enemies. Well, we drew strength from our faith in each other, from our faith in God, and from our faith in our country. Our enemies didn’t adhere to the Geneva Convention. Many of my comrades were subjected to very cruel, very inhumane and degrading treatment, a few of them even unto death. But everyone of us knew, every single one of us knew and took great strength from the belief that we were different from our enemies, that we were better than them, that we, if the roles were reversed, would not disgrace ourselves by committing or countenancing such mistreatment of them. That faith was indispensable not only to our survival, but to our attempts to return home with honor. Many of the men I served with would have preferred death to such dishonor.

    The enemies we fight today hold such liberal notions in contempt, as they hold the international conventions that enshrine them such as the Geneva Conventions and the treaty on torture in contempt. I know that. But we’re better than them, and we are the stronger for our faith. And we will prevail. I submit to my colleagues that it is indispensable to our success in this war that our servicemen and women know that in the discharge of their dangerous responsibilities to their country they are never expected to forget that they are Americans, the valiant defenders of a sacred idea of how nations should govern their own affairs and their relations with others – even our enemies.

    Those who return to us and those who give their lives for us are entitled to that honor. And those of us who have given them this onerous duty are obliged by our history, and by the sacrifices – the many terrible sacrifices -- that have been made in our defense – we are obliged to make clear to them that they need not risk their or their country’s honor to prevail; that they are always, always – through the violence, chaos and heartache of war, through deprivation and cruelty and loss – they are always, always Americans, and different, better, and stronger than those who would destroy us.

    God bless them as he has blessed us with their service.

Well put.

Fucking pussy terrorist-sympathizer.

taxwonk 10-06-2005 03:42 PM

Calling Penske Out
 
Quote:

Originally posted by Penske_Account
Ding. Cite please. I just question why moral compasses are awry. Murder and rape are wrong, despite Wonk's self-proclaimed checkmate.

We never discussed rape. Possibly because that is something we both know we agree is an absolute wrong. But you misrepresented where we stand on murder.

You took the position that killing is an absolute wrong. Yet you also claimed that you did not oppose the war in Iraq.

I asked you how you can argue that killing is an absolute wrong, but support a war at the same time.

Your response was that the killers would have to answer for their sins, but that was God's prerogative and not yours.

Which brings me to my next questions.

1. Will Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, and the rest of the command structure behind the war be punished for their sins? If so, then why should we as a people respect or support these sinners?

2. How about the grunts in the streets? Will they be punished for their sins? Why should we as taxpayers be foreced to pay for this sin? Why should we respect these killers?

Sidd Finch 10-06-2005 03:43 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Replaced_Texan
It seems to me that part of the controversy, if that's what it is, stems from deep philosophical questions in the Episcopalian Church regarding what the "Christian values" are with regard to homosexual relationships.

Perhaps, but I am not reading religious manifesti in order to post on this board.

OTOH, if the donor or the recipient would like to retain me, I would certainly be able to address this issue.

sebastian_dangerfield 10-06-2005 03:44 PM

Open the closet!!!!
 
Quote:

Originally posted by Penske_Account
Maybe he was under the standing threat/risk of Arkancide. He certainly knew Clinton had a dislike of him that manifested itself in a puerile manner (although hard to expect anything more of arrested adolescent psyche)

Later, relations got so bad that President Clinton reportedly began referring to Freeh as “that F…ing Freeh.”[

What a classless person.

Why is it that you don't want the truth to come out?
Now you're debating the level of "class" among politicians? Shoot me a pm when we discuss the number of Rhodes Scholars in the average trailer park...

Mmmm, Burger (C.J.) 10-06-2005 03:45 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Sidd Finch
Perhaps, but I am not reading religious manifesti in order to post on this board.

OTOH, if the donor or the recipient would like to retain me, I would certainly be able to address this issue.
Watch out for those positional conflicts. Or do you prefer to let God sort that out?

Sidd Finch 10-06-2005 03:46 PM

Open the closet!!!!
 
Quote:

Originally posted by Penske_Account
He may have credible and new insight into Clinton's betrayal of classsified US military and national security information to the
RedChinese in exchange for campaign cash.
He might also have pictures of them having secret meetings with the Tooth Fairy.



Quote:

For starters. Based on the allegations to date, the breadth and depth of the crimes committed by by those people is open to the imagination
Indeed. The more fevered the imagination, the better, apparently.


Quote:

and not complicated by any moral or ethical boundaries.
2. Although perhaps we are talking about different things.

taxwonk 10-06-2005 03:46 PM

DING!
 
Quote:

Originally posted by Penske_Account
The rights I worry about are when the TKs and Clintons and Bidens of the world start fucking with my property rights, via taxes. Thanks to the NRA I still have my 2nd Amendment rights though to trump those scurrilous bastards, murderers, and wallet rapists.
Okay, here is another example of where you're confusing me. KIlling is an absolute right, but you are implying that you would use deadly force to protect your property. How can you call yourself aa good person when you are prepared to do wrong?

What "murderers" are you talking about?

Sidd Finch 10-06-2005 03:47 PM

Open the closet!!!!
 
Quote:

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
For years, there was a guy who stood near the Rock Creek Parkway, outside the Watergate, holding a two-sided sign, which he rotated so passing motorists could read both sides. It said something like "Clinton Sold us Out to China/Gore was the Bag Man". He did this from at least 1999, and kept going until some time in 2002. Then he gave up. Apparently he was sane.

Either he was sane, or he found an Internet chat-board where he could spout similar crap.


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 05:12 PM.

Powered by: vBulletin, Copyright ©2000 - 2008, Jelsoft Enterprises Limited.
Hosted By: URLJet.com