Washington Post Writer Shocked to Discover the Left Has Kooks

PittsburghAfterDark

PittsburghAfterDark

CAGiversary!
The Firestorm Over My Column
By Deborah Howell

Sunday, January 22, 2006

Nothing in my 50-year career prepared me for the thousands of flaming e-mails I got last week over my last column, e-mails so abusive and many so obscene that part of The Post's Web site was shut down.

That column praised The Post for breaking the story on lobbyist Jack Abramoff's dealings, for which he has pleaded guilty to several felony counts. The column clearly pointed out that Abramoff is a Republican and dealt mainly with Republicans, most prominently former House majority leader Tom DeLay of Texas.

I wrote that he gave campaign money to both parties and their members of Congress. He didn't. I should have said he directed his client Indian tribes to make campaign contributions to members of Congress from both parties.

My mistake set off a firestorm. I heard that I was lying, that Democrats never got a penny of Abramoff-tainted money, that I was trying to say it was a bipartisan scandal, as some Republicans claim. I didn't say that. It's not a bipartisan scandal; it's a Republican scandal, and that's why the Republicans are scurrying around trying to enact lobbying reforms.

But there is no doubt about the campaign contributions that were directed to lawmakers of both parties. Records from the Federal Election Commission and the Center for Public Integrity show that Abramoff's Indian clients contributed money to 195 Republicans and 88 Democrats between 1999 and 2004. The Post also has copies of lists sent to tribes by Abramoff with his personal directions on which members were to receive what amounts.

Michael Crowley of the New Republic said in his blog that "while for all practical purposes this is indisputably a Republican scandal, the narrow liberal-blogger definition of whether any Democrats took money 'from Abramoff' -- which neatly excludes contributions he directed his clients to make -- amounts to foolish semantics.''

These facts have been reported many times in The Post and elsewhere. So why would it cause me to be called a "right-wing whore" and much worse?

Witness three printable examples:

"Yes, the WAPO needs an enema, and Howell should be the first thing that gets medicinally removed."

"You Deborah Howell, stop lying about Democrats getting money from Abramoff. Democrats do not control anything in Washington, so why would he waste money bribing them. Think and do your research, and stop being an idiot."

"This rag must be something that I pulled off a barscreen at a sewage treatment plant. Howell is simply a paid liar. How this creature endures itself is something I don't understand. What a piece of flotsam."

There is no more fervent believer in the First Amendment than I am, and I will fight for those e-mailers' right to call me a liar and Republican shill with salt for brains. But I am none of those.

My career has been a public one in journalism. You can find my biography and much of what I stand for on the Internet. You can ask anyone who worked with me in Minnesota and at Newhouse News Service what kind of journalist I am. I have spent my life working for rational reporting and passionate and reasonable opinion.

So is it the relative anonymity of the Internet that emboldens e-mailers to conduct a public stoning? Is this the increasing political polarization of our country? I don't know.

What I do know is that I have a tough hide, and a few curse words (which I use frequently) are not going to hurt my feelings.

But it is profoundly distressing if political discourse has sunk to a level where abusive name-calling and the crudest of sexual language are the norm, where facts have no place in an argument. This unbounded, unreasoning rage is not going to help this newspaper, this country or democracy.

I didn't ask washingtonpost.com to shut down an area reserved for comments about me, as it did on Thursday night. And I know the decision is being greeted with great disdain.

Jim Brady, editor of the Web site, said that when the site was set up, "there are things that we said we would not allow, including personal attacks, the use of profanity and hate speech. Because a significant number of folks who have posted in this blog have refused to follow any of those relatively simple rules, we've decided not to allow comments for the time being. It's a shame that it's come to this."

But I'm not totally pessimistic. I am grateful for an e-mail I got from San Antonio. Mark Kelch's first e-mail said: "I'm sure you are making your conservative handlers happy but journalistically it makes you look like a fool. In the end it shows you have a lack of integrity. Does that mean nothing to you?"

I wrote him back. Kelch answered: "I took some time and read an interview (online) with you, among other things. When I finished, I shuddered a little bit because it made me think I may be exhibiting an attribute that in others I despise. My e-mail to you was a cheap shot at your integrity and for that I am sorry. I sincerely hope part two of your article knocks them dead."

Going forward, here's my plan. I'll watch every word. I'll read every e-mail and answer as many legitimate complaints as I can. The vast majority of my work takes place outside this column. But I will reject abuse and all that it stands for.

To all of those who wanted me fired, I'm afraid you're out of luck. I have a contract. For the next two years, I will continue to speak my mind.

Keep smiling. I will.
Link

Apparently the whole thing was such a firestorm on their message board/blog area that the staff couldn't keep up with the DUmmies and DailyKosmunists profanity that the just shut the fucker down.

Paper Shutters Blog After Ombudsman Post
The Associated Press
Thursday, January 19, 2006; 7:28 PM

WASHINGTON -- The Washington Post shut down one of its blogs Thursday after the newspaper's ombudsman raised the ire of readers by writing that lobbyist Jack Abramoff gave money to the Democrats as well as to Republicans.

At the center of a congressional bribery investigation, Abramoff gave money to Republicans while he had his clients donate to both parties, though mostly to Republicans.

In her Sunday column, ombudsman Deborah Howell wrote that Abramoff "had made substantial campaign contributions to both major parties," prompting a wave of nasty reader postings on post.blog.

There were so many personal attacks that the newspaper's staff could not "keep the board clean, there was some pretty filthy stuff," and so the Post shut down comments on the blog, or Web log, said Jim Brady, executive editor of washingtonpost.com.

"We're not giving up on the concept of having a healthy public dialogue with our readers, but this experience shows that we need to think more carefully about how we do it," Brady wrote on the newspaper's Web site. "There are things that we said we would not allow, including personal attacks, the use of profanity and hate speech."
Link

Imagine my great surprise when I learned from this experience that the Washington Post Ombudsman is a far right wing radical extremeist on the payroll of the GOP, RNC or White House payroll :rofl:.

Yeah, gotta love those kooks.
 
She was either amazingly lazy or she lied.

Oh well.


BUT she did make a retraction and told the truth eventually.

"I wrote that he gave campaign money to both parties and their members of Congress. He didn't. ... It's not a bipartisan scandal; it's a Republican scandal, and that's why the Republicans are scurrying around trying to enact lobbying reforms."
 
Glad to see your article so clearly states that this is a republican scandal.

And you can't talk kooks without throwing in the firestorm over that vermont judge.
 
You're right 'zo.

Why should anyone be outraged by a child rapist getting 60 days. That's a pretty damn stiff sentence. People would be wrong to question such harsh precedent.
 
[quote name='PittsburghAfterDark']You're right 'zo.

Why should anyone be outraged by a child rapist getting 60 days. That's a pretty damn stiff sentence. People would be wrong to question such harsh precedent.[/QUOTE]

You do realize there's a lot more to that, right? Such as any violation of the extremely strict parole (like skipping treatment) lands him in prison for a very tough, long sentence. Or how a previous child rapist in vermont did 10 years, got no treatment, and then killed someone when he left prison (the judge mentioned this). Or that the judge never said that he didn't believe in punishment. I posted a whole thing on what actually happened in that thread, but you were long gone by then.
 
I heard your buddy Rush making fun of Howell today. Is this what inspired your C&P?

Anyway, here's the Op-Ed under fire (the original, not the rejoinder that PAD cited in the absence of the original article).

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/01/14/AR2006011400859.html

(Click it, you bums; I don't need to paste everything, do I?)

The line that ignited the ire of left-wingers was this one: "Schmidt quickly found that Abramoff was getting 10 to 20 times as much from Indian tribes as they had paid other lobbyists. And he had made substantial campaign contributions to both major parties."

That second sentence, taken *literally*, is factually incorrect at best, and an outright lie at worst. It is the gross oversimplification of those who dare to argue that this is not a Republican scandal, and doesn't speak to the fact that Abramhoff *directly* gave over a hundred thousand dollars to *ONLY* Republican members of congress. It implies that the Native American tribes to which Abramhoff was affiliated gave more money than prior to their assocaition to either the Republicans or Democrats, and that there were clearly identifiable "bribes for legislative favors" negotiations in any of those provisions. Neither of those has been shown to be true, the same can not be said of those to whom Abramhoff dealt with directly.

It is a significant difference between that which he gave directly, and that which colleagues of his gave. To try to combine the two is only a pisspoor attempt to obfuscate the issue in order to save your political pals. Glad to see your allegiance lies with your party more than with the truth.

But, wait! There's more! " Between 2001 and 2004, Abramoff gave more than $127,000 to Republican candidates and committees and nothing to Democrats, federal records show. At the same time, his Indian clients were the only ones among the top 10 tribal donors in the U.S. to donate more money to Republicans than Democrats."

Another choice quote from the article: " Between 2001 and 2004, Abramoff joined with his former partner, Michael Scanlon, and tribal clients to give money to a third of the members of Congress, including former House Majority Leader Tom DeLay, according to records of the Federal Election Commission and Internal Revenue Service. At least 171 lawmakers got $1.4 million in campaign donations from the group. Republicans took in most of the money, with 110 lawmakers getting $942,275, or 66 percent of the total."

Oops. Guess we do know now.

If you want to go that route (nothing has yet been proven in regards to what the tribes may have done), then your party is *still* more culpable than the Democrats at best, and the only culpable party at worst (and at the moment).

What bastion of the mainstream liberal media clearly forged this story, under the guiding hand of our lord and savior, Dan Rather?

Well, I'll let you see for yourself: http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=10000103&sid=arVHles5cKJc&refer=us#

So, get off your high horse, go read my diatribe on Jack Thompson's failed philosophy regarding the logical fallacy of affirming the consequent (seeing as how you do this every time you find evidence of the "liberal media," you approach it as proof of a conclusion you came to long before you found anything to support it). Think about the fact that this is undeniably a Republican scandal no matter which way you look at it, suck it up, and make like the rest of the good Republicans. Weed out the "bad seeds" and find some good white boys to run for those numerous and myriad empty seats.
 
[quote name='PittsburghAfterDark']

I wrote that he gave campaign money to both parties and their members of Congress. He didn't. I should have said he directed his client Indian tribes to make campaign contributions to members of Congress from both parties.

[/QUOTE]


and she is STILL lying or is (still lazy). There is absolutely no evidence that Ambrahoff "directed" any of his Indian Tribes to make campaign contributions to Democrats. None, zip, zilch, nada. The money the contributed was independant of that sleaze. She needs to offer proof. As the ombudsman, she has a special duty to make sure she has the facts right. She didn't and doesn't and is trying to weasel her way out my playing the "poor me" card.

and PAD bought it. You're dumber than you look.
 
Sicken what do you expect? The Moonies LOVE Bush since they get money from that prayer shit. I THINK it's the Post that's owned by them at least, pretty sure.
 
[quote name='Sarang01']Sicken what do you expect? The Moonies LOVE Bush since they get money from that prayer shit. I THINK it's the Post that's owned by them at least, pretty sure.[/QUOTE]

Yes, the Post is owned by good old rev. Sun Myung Moon (though assorted groups controlled by him.) Its far from the only one, though - he's spend the past decade hard at work building a media empire to push his ideals. I really don't think its quite fair to say that Moon and his core followers support Bush simply because of money. He's not like Pat Robertson or the like - Moon is a true believer (AKA: a complete nut.)
 
Moon owns the Washington Times. A hack-job newspaper with no readership and one that bleeds money. Funny, they bitch about Air America not making money when the times has never made money, fox didn't make $$ for many years, and not one of their "think-tanks" contributes anything to the economy.
 
[quote name='usickenme']Moon owns the Washington Times. [/QUOTE]

He owns both (and many, many, many more, as well.) As I said, he's spent a whole lot of time, effort and money the past decade building a media empire.
 
The greatest conspiracy theory in U.S. history: the "liberal media".

Chris Matthews is another nut-job "journalist" who last week compared Michael Moore, a man who opposed the Iraq War, with Osama Bin Laden, a man who brutually murdered over 3,000 Americans. Yeah, liberal media my ass. :roll:
 
It's nice to see the Right hasn't been able to completely spin this as a bipartisan scandal.

Bush is not giving back the $100,000 Abramoff raised for his reelection, only the $6000 directly given to him. So if you support the President making these kinds of distinctions, you can't turn around and argue that the money Dems got from Indian tribes is somehow tainted too.
 
I seem to remember the New York Times shutting down their forums thanks to the Freepers, so the Washington Post shutting down the forums thanks to the Daily Kos folks isn't unheard of, the internet is full of assholes of every stripe.
 
[quote name='alonzomourning23']You do realize there's a lot more to that, right? Such as any violation of the extremely strict parole (like skipping treatment) lands him in prison for a very tough, long sentence. Or how a previous child rapist in vermont did 10 years, got no treatment, and then killed someone when he left prison (the judge mentioned this). Or that the judge never said that he didn't believe in punishment. I posted a whole thing on what actually happened in that thread, but you were long gone by then.[/QUOTE]

Wow. Evidently in your opinion 60 days + parole is enough punishment for 4 continuous years of rape. Just wow.
 
Didn't say that, but I said it's not ridiculous. I would have made the punishment longer assuming the same conditions were implemented. I've said it before and I'll say it again, I'd let every prisoner walk if it would reduce future crime. Whichever I feel does the most to ensure he does not reoffend, and create a second victim by making another child suffer through that, is the course I'd take.

The parole though isn't your run of the mill parole, its extremely strict. A traditional sentence would have landed him on the street years later with no treatment. Since the states justice system (not the judge) considered him low risk he couldn't recieve treatment in prison. The issues of turning him into a vengeful, hardened offender who recieved no treatment vs. seeking justice need to be balanced. It does no good to focus entirely on justice if it means you'll have to seek justice for someone else. The normal sentence would have made treatment an option upon release, but nothing would happen if he didn't go.
 
[quote name='alonzomourning23']Didn't say that, but I said it's not ridiculous. I would have made the punishment longer assuming the same conditions were implemented. I've said it before and I'll say it again, I'd let every prisoner walk if it would reduce future crime. Whichever I feel does the most to ensure he does not reoffend, and create a second victim by making another child suffer through that, is the course I'd take.

The parole though isn't your run of the mill parole, its extremely strict. A traditional sentence would have landed him on the street years later with no treatment. Since the states justice system (not the judge) considered him low risk he couldn't recieve treatment in prison. The issues of turning him into a vengeful, hardened offender who recieved no treatment vs. seeking justice need to be balanced. It does no good to focus entirely on justice if it means you'll have to seek justice for someone else. The normal sentence would have made treatment an option upon release, but nothing would happen if he didn't go.[/QUOTE]


So with that logic if a person came and killed your mother as long as they got treatment and promised to never do it again they shouldn't be punished? Wow.
 
[quote name='rodeojones903']So with that logic if a person came and killed your mother as long as they got treatment and promised to never do it again they shouldn't be punished? Wow.[/QUOTE]

Well, there's a whole personal aspect to that. And no one ever said "promised" not to do it again, no one is taking their word. But if a particular measure will reduce crime why not take it (how this is known isn't important, since it's only hypothetical)? If punishing people for crimes that have occured results in more crimes occuring in the future (as opposed to not punishing them) then why not do it? Why make more people suffer just to get revenge for the people who have already suffered?

This is hypothetical. Obviously releasing every prisoner won't result in this, but if it did I'd support it.
 
[quote name='rodeojones903']So with that logic if a person came and killed your mother as long as they got treatment and promised to never do it again they shouldn't be punished? Wow.[/QUOTE]

Our criminal justice system is premised upon justice, not revenge. Enough punishment sufficient to prevent reoffense, and anything beyond that is cruel and unusual. Cesare Beccaria figured that out in the 18th century. Why can't you?
 
[quote name='mykevermin']Our criminal justice system is premised upon justice, not revenge. Enough punishment sufficient to prevent reoffense, and anything beyond that is cruel and unusual. Cesare Beccaria figured that out in the 18th century. Why can't you?[/QUOTE]

I agree with that completely, but what happened in the rape case was not justice. In my hypothetical a person is charged with murder. If found guilty justice is going to prison for the rest of their life or the death penalty, not slapping their wrist and making them get treatment. The punishment needs to fit the crime, which 60 days in jail certainly does not.
 
So, rodeo, are you comfortable locking this guy up for 30 years (or anything short of life) and then, upon release, telling him "hey, there's treatment you can go to if ya want. No pressure though." Since that was what normally would happen.

This guy was going to be released, this won't get life without parole (only way he won't get out) anywhere unless he actually kidnapped the girl and kept her in his basement. The concern of turning him into a hardened criminal was another issue.

edit: prosecutors asked for 8-20.
 
Have him to take that treatment the first and last 5 years of his 20. That way the punishment meets the crime and when he comes out he is not a hardened criminal if said treatment actually works. I just don't feel any pity for someone like him having to actually pay for his actions. If this happened to someone you love, do you actually feel justice was served with him out of jail in two months?
 
I don't feel victims (and family count in this, since emotionally they're victims too) should decide punishment, do you? There was a girl I used to go out with and a few days after we started going out (we'd been friends for a while) she told me about 2 weeks before a guy she went out with tried to rape her.

Now I don't know about you, but I don't think attempted rape should be a capital offense. But I wouldn't have objected to seeing him impaled on a stake and being left their in agonizing pain for days until his death. I didn't even know who the guy was, but it didn't matter. I wanted him dead.

Stepping back, what's more important? If the judge acted the way most people wanted him to (and O'reilly, the apparent ringleader, was mocking those focusing on reform) the guy would have been put back on the street years later and likely found another victim, meaning another little girl ruined, another person we need to seek justice for. This may not prevent that, but it reduces the risk.

If I remember correctly, if he doesn't go to treatment he's basically gone for life (or close to it). 5 years treatment isn't much compared to that.
 
I see your point with that argument, and I wasn't trying to say that victims should be able to deciede punishment but it might have come off as that. But as a victim, and as you said family count, you still should feel that justice was served. I couldn't disagree with O'reilly more. Reform is the most important part of serving a jail sentence, but it should be done in jail during the sentence that is equal to the crime committed.
 
[quote name='rodeojones903']I see your point with that argument, and I wasn't trying to say that victims should be able to deciede punishment but it might have come off as that. But as a victim, and as you said family count, you still should feel that justice was served. I couldn't disagree with O'reilly more. Reform is the most important part of serving a jail sentence, but it should be done in jail during the sentence that is equal to the crime committed.[/QUOTE]

But the judge was told that he would not recieve any treatment in prison. He was concerned about the delay in treatment. He even said that if he had been able to recieve treatment in prison he would have got at least 3 years. The guy who did it was borderline retarded, and the judge said he didn't even seem to understand why everyone was so angry about what he did. He felt the delay in treatment could worsen things.
 
[quote name='rodeojones903']Have him to take that treatment the first and last 5 years of his 20. That way the punishment meets the crime and when he comes out he is not a hardened criminal if said treatment actually works.[/QUOTE]

Lets ask the question this way: There are 2 options in this case (or whatever theoretical case you'd want to say we're talking about. Doesn't matter to me)
1) 5 years in prison with treatment for the entire time - when released, the convict becomes a productive member of society
2) 20 years in prison with treatments for the last 5 years - when released, the convict becomes a productive member of society

Is there any reason to selection option 2 beyond revenge?
 
[quote name='alonzomourning23']Well, there's a whole personal aspect to that.[/QUOTE]

Evidently it's easier to excuse violent crime when it's not directed at someone you know, or especially a family member.
 
[quote name='Drocket']Lets ask the question this way: There are 2 options in this case (or whatever theoretical case you'd want to say we're talking about. Doesn't matter to me)
1) 5 years in prison with treatment for the entire time - when released, the convict becomes a productive member of society
2) 20 years in prison with treatments for the last 5 years - when released, the convict becomes a productive member of society

Is there any reason to selection option 2 beyond revenge?[/QUOTE]


The answer is number two. No matter what the punishment should fit the crime. Just because he can be rehabilitated in 5 years doesn't mean to let him out in that time frame. There needs to be accountability for the crime committed. Only giving the person 5 years in prison does not deter other crimes from happening, it just shows other criminals that there is not much of a punishment to breaking the law.
 
I agree with alonzo. We must always take the course of action that results in the lowest chance of another crime being commited.
 
It's amazing how many people completely missed the Washington Post Reporter's point. Namely:

"it is profoundly distressing if political discourse has sunk to a level where abusive name-calling and the crudest of sexual language are the norm, where facts have no place in an argument. This unbounded, unreasoning rage is not going to help this newspaper, this country or democracy."

And she's right. Just because she printed an article you disagree with is NOT justification for calling her a "cunt" or other abusive language. All that does is show your own lack of maturity.



And yeah, there are "kooks" on both sides of the aisle. Is it any surprise? People don't choose sides based upon facts, but on emotion. They BELIEVE something to be true, but never bother to actually check the facts and see if it really is true. In this case, they BELIEVED the lobbyist Jack Abramhoff was pure Republican. But as it turned out, he advised his clients to donate to both Republicans AND Democrats. (No surprise there... most lobbyists/corporations donate to both sides, so they win influence no matter who wins.)

But rather than look it up, the "kooks" come out and start acting like roudy name-calling children. Immature.

.
 
[quote name='rodeojones903']The answer is number two. No matter what the punishment should fit the crime. Just because he can be rehabilitated in 5 years doesn't mean to let him out in that time frame.[/quote]

Didn't you just agree with my argument that punishment should be sufficient only to prevent future reoffense? Perhaps that is clarified below...

[quote name='rodeojones903']There needs to be accountability for the crime committed. Only giving the person 5 years in prison does not deter other crimes from happening, it just shows other criminals that there is not much of a punishment to breaking the law.[/QUOTE]

There is no deterrent effect. If there were, crime rates would have dropped in the period from the late 70's to the early 90's. Your argument that people rationally weigh risks and rewards prior to comitting a crime is falsely based on (1) similar evaluations from person to person (someone seeking money for drugs will come to the same conclusion as one who is seeking money for other means), (2) clear and consistent knowledge among people preparing to commit criminal acts as to what the legal precedents are.

If you want to suggest that people stop committing crimes because of other people who were hashly punished, you're welcome to ignore the data that put that theory to rest. You cannot, however, get past the theoretical blockade that implies a largely underclass, uneducated population has a readily-available cache of legal precedents and typical punishments for crimes that they access when deciding to commit a crime.
 
=(

untitled13vk.gif
 
I haven't seen anyone defend "abusive name-calling". Those posts were rightfully deleted. But she is the ombudsman and is supposed to be correcting factual errors, not making new ones. Abramoff only donated to Republicans, not Democrats.

As far as him "directing" his clients to contribute to Democrats - has any of that been proven yet or is it just an allegation? Just because his Indian tribe clients gave to both parties does not mean that Abramoff instructed them to. These tribes had historically supported Democrats and after they hired Jack, they gave to Republicans more than Dems.

I don't know if Abramoff told his clients to give to both parties and as far as I know now, it's just speculation. Have any of the tribes come forward to offer testimony?

Edit: After a little research, it seems like Abramoff did direct some money to Democrats as well which is standard operating procedure for lobbyists.
 
Wow MBE, you sure are all about "proof" for Democrats and not just "allegation" when traditionally, when it comes to Bush, Abramoff and Republicans all you ever need to be outraged is the "allegation".

Now why exactly is that?
 
[quote name='electrictroy']It's amazing how many people completely missed the Washington Post Reporter's point. Namely:

"it is profoundly distressing if political discourse has sunk to a level where abusive name-calling and the crudest of sexual language are the norm, where facts have no place in an argument. This unbounded, unreasoning rage is not going to help this newspaper, this country or democracy."

And she's right. Just because she printed an article you disagree with is NOT justification for calling her a "cunt" or other abusive language. All that does is show your own lack of maturity.[/QUOTE]

I wish someone would've informed "Go fuck Yourself" Cheney.
 
[quote name='PittsburghAfterDark']Wow MBE, you sure are all about "proof" for Democrats and not just "allegation" when traditionally, when it comes to Bush, Abramoff and Republicans all you ever need to be outraged is the "allegation".

Now why exactly is that?[/QUOTE]
With Bush & Co. running the place, the most we will ever get is allegations. They stonewall any investigation to find the truth. :lol:
 
If you have to have it spelled out: I am biased against Bush and his cronies because they have proven time and time again that they are not trustworthy.

And you, of all people here, calling out someone for being biased is priceless. Thanks for the laugh.
 
Oh I'm not denying your bias or covering mine.

I just want to know why an "allegation" against Bush is enough to send your blood pressure up, increase your temperature and cause you to shake in a vitriolic rage when your standard for Democrats remains hard core, unadulturated, beyond a resonable doubt "proof" and the "allegation" is just a political tool.

OH! And when you do have hard core, unadulterated, beyond a reasonable doubt proof; Clinton giving up his law license due to numerous ethical and legal charges of perjury, obstruction of justice et al..... you still maintain politics as the motivation of that course of events. Not the legal process having run its course and the Democrat in question being guilty as all hell.

Of course though you see no double standard, you never will.
 
[quote name='MrBadExample']If you have to have it spelled out: I am biased against Bush and his cronies because they have proven time and time again that they are not trustworthy.

And you, of all people here, calling out someone for being biased is priceless. Thanks for the laugh.[/QUOTE]

I couldn't agree with you more here and tbh I think you are not so blinded as PAD.

What's the difference between moderates, Libertarians, Greens, Liberals to Republicans?
The first group hold Bush accountable. Seriously PAD you need to see this shit without your complete love and worship for Bush. You really need to pay attention to your instincts instead of this "Everyone is hating on Bush because he's so great!" which is BS.
 
You'll have to refresh my memory as to when I flew off the handle at a mere allegation of Bush wrongdoing. In the current domestic spying case, he has already admitted to not getting warrants, which as far as I can tell, violates FISA. If Bush admitting he broke the law isn't enough for me to be outraged, I don't know what is.

I also don't recall excusing Clinton's behavior. He should have never lied. I wish you held Dubya to the same standard.
 
[quote name='MrBadExample']I also don't recall excusing Clinton's behavior. He should have never lied. I wish you held Dubya to the same standard.[/QUOTE]


Don't you just love it when he assumes he is using a valid argument against you by saying "WELL, CLINTON DID THIS WRONG!"

Not only is that a very one sided, and invalidated argument, it just proves that he has no standard for his president, and he is just trying to pick at the other side of the fence.
 
[quote name='Metal Boss']Don't you just love it when he assumes he is using a valid argument against you by saying "WELL, CLINTON DID THIS WRONG!"

Not only is that a very one sided, and invalidated argument, it just proves that he has no standard for his president, and he is just trying to pick at the other side of the fence.[/QUOTE]

But...but, BUSH can't do anything wrong! watches PAD run away.

You want to see how PAD is watch "Sideways" and look at Thomas Hayden Church's character.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top