I Can't Keep Up!

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
161

[quote]100meters wrote:
hedo wrote:
orion wrote:
Frankly, who cares if the Democrats leaked it?

It is the oppositions job to have their eyes on the governing party and if they time it right for the elections, well, when was this ever a game played by gentlemen?

Thank God both parties dig up dirt on another for politcal reasons, otherwise you`d never hear about it…

Plus, it is kind of strange to question the motives of your accuser if you were caught with your hands in the cookie jar, everybody and I mean everybody that reports a crime/scandal does so for selfish reasons, so that can hardly be a problem.

Actually Orion the reason the Democrats are whining so loudly is becasue they are trying to claim the Republicans knew but did nothing when in fact the Democrats knew also. If they call for resignations over it then they need to include their own party leadership who placed politics above the protection of the pages, but still try and claim a moral high ground.

It’s pure politics on both sides at this point. Very common before elections. Just wait a few weeks, it will get better.

Sigh…again, there is no evidence of this…Can someone intelligent please explain to poor hedo what evidence is?[/quote]

I understand. Why don’t you ask one of your teachers to explain it to you. Tell them you were the child that was left behind and blame Bush!

Then you can ask them what an opinion is and why opinions are often based on perception. Finally you can ask them why nobody takes your opinion seriously?

162

[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
100meters wrote:
doogie wrote:
100meters wrote:

This is still just made up. Not one republican has come foward with any evidence that this is true. Not one.

Republicans have enough political savvy not to blow their loads 28 days before the election.

This doesn’t sound too savvy to me:

MCHENRY: The question remains, though: What person, group or political entity had these nasty instant messages and possessed the e-mails in order to solicit this story? And in a partisan environment like we?re in right now in Washington, four weeks out from a national election, that question must be asked.

BLITZER: So what you?re suggesting ? and correct me if I?m wrong, because you?ve been doing this for the last few days ? that Democrats are behind the timing of the release of this information? Is that your accusation?

MCHENRY: Well, look, all the fact points lead to one question: Did Rahm Emanuel or Nancy Pelosi have any involvement on the strategic or tactical level? This morning on ?This Week with George Stephanopoulos,? the question was asked of Rahm Emanuel. His reaction was he did not see the instant messages or e-mails. He repeatedly said, he did not see. I?ve asked him to testify under oath to assure the American people that he was not involved in this issue in any way, shape or form.

BLITZER: Do you have any evidence at all that Democrats or others might have been behind the timing of this scandal?

MCHENRY: Look, let?s be honest?

BLITZER: Do you have any evidence to back that charge up?

MCHENRY: No, no, actually, if the Democrats had any issue with saying this, putting all the facts out on the table, they would say, certainly, I?ll testify under oath that I had no involvement in it. They?ve said no.

BLITZER: Well, you don?t have any evidence, though, right?

MCHENRY: Well, look at the fact points.

BLITZER: Yes or no, do you have any evidence, Congressman?

MCHENRY: Do you have any evidence that they weren?t involved?

BLITZER: I?m just asking if you?re just throwing out an accusation or if you have any hard evidence.

MCHENRY: No. It?s a question, Wolf. The question remains, were they involved? And if they were not involved, they need to say clearly. And it?s a question. It?s not an accusation.

Readers:
Substitue Hedo for the hapless republican McHenry for a good chuckle…taken to school by Blitzer of all people!

Oh so savvy!

Thanks for posting that. Instead of Blitzer trying to investigate the very real possibility of the Dems having prior knowledge he acts as if he is a paid shill for the Democratic party.

The funny thing is you think that he is unbiased![/quote]

What was the bias here? (hint:none)
Isn’t asking for the evidence of the made up claim investigating? I mean you did notice the hilarious:

MCHENRY: Do you have any evidence that they weren?t involved?

Imagine a justice system working on that principal…

163

[quote]100meters wrote:
…
What was the bias here? (hint:none)
Isn’t asking for the evidence of the made up claim investigating? I mean you did notice the hilarious:

MCHENRY: Do you have any evidence that they weren?t involved?

Imagine a justice system working on that principal…

[/quote]

I don’t understand your point.

You appear to be admitting that Wolf Blitzer is acting like a paid attourney reprsenting the Democratic party in a court of law.

Isn’t Wolf’s job more akin to being an investigator and finding out the facts rather than only representing the Democrats and badgering people he does not agree with?

You appear to be demanding our justice system requires evidence of guilt before starting an investigation!

164

I hate to bring up a different subject, because it is so hard to keep up with all the republican screw ups and cover ups, but does anybody remember that Ney guy?

The one that just plead guilty?

The one that was dealing with Jack Abramoff?

You know, the guy that the kool-aid drinkers swore up and down was a scumbag but really was doing his own thing and that going after republicans was purely a political move?

I guess that’s why he plead guilty right?

How’s that kool-aid tasting?

165

[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
I don’t understand your point.
[/quote]

LOL.

No, he is just trying to get a level playing field.

You know, innocent until proven guilty, or having some evidence before making claims. That type of thing?

166

[quote]vroom wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
I don’t understand your point.

LOL.

No, he is just trying to get a level playing field.

You know, innocent until proven guilty, or having some evidence before making claims. That type of thing?[/quote]

Those rules do not apply to journalism!

167

[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
Those rules do not apply to journalism![/quote]

What flavor is your kool-aid?

The reporter, in the case in question, asked for evidence, something which is exactly appropriate when dealing with “news”… to which the person had no response but to ask if the reporter had proof of innocence.

If you are honestly swallowing the idea that the reporter was wrong to ask for information to back the claim, you are drinking far too heavily.

A news channel, unlike FOX, is not supposed to simply exist so that any old claims and allegations can be thrown around. Instead, they are supposed to talk about what is happening, or what people are willing to say is happening.

You know, the republicans and their aides are making claims, saying what happened, what they said, what they did, that’s news. It’s not democrats just making shit up… it’s actions of parties involved that are being talked about.

The dickless wonder in question had no sources, no information, but just wanted to throw dirt. It’s laughable that people fall for this nonsense.

Damn, you guys have been getting raped anally by the so-called conservatives, who sell you bullshit all the time, say they are conservatives, and then act like anything but a group of people who are conservative, with actual conservative values, who deserve to represent your ideals.

Now, I’m not trying to claim that democrats are all roses, they are certainly human and will have human failings as well. However, at the current time it is the republicans who are not living up to their own promises and ideals, while they are in power.

I’m sure that if the democrats again get power, that they too will forget themselves and screw up. However, the big news these days is about the reality of today… not speculation on tommorow.

168

[quote]vroom wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
Those rules do not apply to journalism!

What flavor is your kool-aid?

The reporter, in the case in question, asked for evidence, something which is exactly appropriate when dealing with “news”… to which the person had no response but to ask if the reporter had proof of innocence.

If you are honestly swallowing the idea that the reporter was wrong to ask for information to back the claim, you are drinking far too heavily.

A news channel, unlike FOX, is not supposed to simply exist so that any old claims and allegations can be thrown around. Instead, they are supposed to talk about what is happening, or what people are willing to say is happening.

You know, the republicans and their aides are making claims, saying what happened, what they said, what they did, that’s news. It’s not democrats just making shit up… it’s actions of parties involved that are being talked about.

The dickless wonder in question had no sources, no information, but just wanted to throw dirt. It’s laughable that people fall for this nonsense.

Damn, you guys have been getting raped anally by the so-called conservatives, who sell you bullshit all the time, say they are conservatives, and then act like anything but a group of people who are conservative, with actual conservative values, who deserve to represent your ideals.

Now, I’m not trying to claim that democrats are all roses, they are certainly human and will have human failings as well. However, at the current time it is the republicans who are not living up to their own promises and ideals, while they are in power.

I’m sure that if the democrats again get power, that they too will forget themselves and screw up. However, the big news these days is about the reality of today… not speculation on tommorow.[/quote]

Thank you.

169

Seriously, Vroom, enough with the retarded kool-aid bullshit. Go ahead and just type out, “I don’t have a point to make so I’m going to rely on the moronic kool-aid offense.”

170

[quote]doogie wrote:
Seriously, Vroom, enough with the retarded kool-aid bullshit. Go ahead and just type out, “I don’t have a point to make so I’m going to rely on the moronic kool-aid offense.”[/quote]

If you mean what you are typing you’ve just proven you are busy swilling away yourself…

Drink up blind boy.

Obviously, I use the phrase because it is so appropriate. A bunch of blind followers soaking up any bullshit their dear leadership spews because of the brand name (party affiliation) attached. It’s pretty sad to watch.

171

[quote]sasquatch wrote:
vroom wrote:
The republicans are imploding faster than I can absorb the news…

I thought that the Woodward book was going to be a big issue, but it can hardly get any airtime anymore because the republicans are too busy getting Foley’d right now.

Never mind the various issues that have not really been discussed at any depth yet as they are squelched behind these bigger issues.

So, what’s next?

“…issues discussed at any depth…”

What planet do you live on?

…“what’s next”

another election. Let’s reelect 95% of the idiots doing a crappy job and show them we really are happy with the status quo.

And just to be fair. I’ve yet to hear a dem. any dem, say anything with depth in a very long time as well.
[/quote]

As one of my heroes, Noam Chomsky said, “The degredation of American media lies core to the belief that quantity of media introduction precedes quality explination of the topic.”

In other words, pay attention for a very long time and you might hear the whole truth. Not just snippets and allusions summed up in twenty seconds like the news. So to be fair, I too blame the “liberal” media for not bieng more in depth.

172

[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:
I would hope that they are imploding because of things like the never ending war, not the Foley shit. Although it is ironic, considering how they swept to victory back in '94 on the charges of how corrupt the Democrats were.

Until the Democrats win back Congress or Bush is impeached, I’m not going to be content.

The pedophile case is not indicitve of the party so much as one very, very fucked up individual.[/quote]

You won’t be happy until the dems win back both houses? All you’re getting is the lesser of two evils. Is that all we can settle for? There has got to be a change in our voting method!