Kenneth Starr

Off Topic Politics and World Issues
21

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
Beowolf wrote:

Please stop. Your making us look like idiots.

Finally, someone with some sense. Well stated, Beowolf.

The GOP has some ironic scandals, yes, but that doesn’t mean the entire party is corrupt. The Dems have an equal amount of scandal creating asshats.

Was it ridiculous to investigate Bill like they did? Yes. Was it totally political? Yes. Disgusting? Yes.

Get over it.

I can’t believe some people are defending the people using “escorts”. I also can’t believe are using this as a serious attack on the party as a whole.

The guy is an idiot, and obviously shouldn’t be holding the position he does. Thats just something we’ve seen throughout the Bush admin, incompetents appointed because they’ve supported the president. It’s called the spoils system, and it has been around since Andrew Jackson.

What current position are you referring to?[/quote]

I actually confused the hell outta myself in here, sorry. I was talking about how Mark Foley was head of the commission to investigate/stop child abuse. As well, one of the people supposedly on the madame’s list is on the head of the commission to investigate/stop prostitution. As well, example of incompetence can be seen in FEMA (self explanatory).

For the life of me I have no idea how that came out so weird.

It’s the spoils system, through and through. That’s what has guided Bush’s appointing of many US government officials thus far. However, I will commend him for his choice of supreme court justices, who I believe to be not yes men at all, but competents who happen to share some of his views.

22

I wonder if there are any Journalist’s names on this list. If so, will they hold those back?

23

[quote]Sloth wrote:
I wonder if there are any Journalist’s names on this list. If so, will they hold those back?[/quote]

Would they matter that much anyway? So a journalist likes prostitutes… they’re not the one claiming to set moral standards for America. They’re not in charge of anything but what they write. And most importantly, they’re not elected.

24

[quote]Beowolf wrote:
Sloth wrote:
I wonder if there are any Journalist’s names on this list. If so, will they hold those back?

Would they matter that much anyway? So a journalist likes prostitutes… they’re not the one claiming to set moral standards for America. They’re not in charge of anything but what they write. And most importantly, they’re not elected.[/quote]

Sure it would matter, to me. If you’re going to out people on the list, don’t be selective.

I don’t know that they will be, but I do wonder if they’ll protect the privacy of their comrades. If it doesn’t matter to you, that’s cool. I just want all the names divulged, if any are to be divulged.

25

[quote]Sloth wrote:
Beowolf wrote:
Sloth wrote:
I wonder if there are any Journalist’s names on this list. If so, will they hold those back?

Would they matter that much anyway? So a journalist likes prostitutes… they’re not the one claiming to set moral standards for America. They’re not in charge of anything but what they write. And most importantly, they’re not elected.

Sure it would matter, to me. If you’re going to out people on the list, don’t be selective.

I don’t know that they will be, but I do wonder if they’ll protect the privacy of their comrades. If it doesn’t matter to you, that’s cool. I just want all the names divulged, if any are to be divulged.

[/quote]

Why embarrass a whole bunch of people who we really don’t need to know about? Personally, I think the entire list shouldn’t be released.

They’re allowed to release it, of course. I will hardly care either way, unless of course, one of the names is of the leader of a council dedicated to stopping prostitution.

26

[quote]Beowolf wrote:
Sloth wrote:
Beowolf wrote:
Sloth wrote:
I wonder if there are any Journalist’s names on this list. If so, will they hold those back?

Would they matter that much anyway? So a journalist likes prostitutes… they’re not the one claiming to set moral standards for America. They’re not in charge of anything but what they write. And most importantly, they’re not elected.

Sure it would matter, to me. If you’re going to out people on the list, don’t be selective.

I don’t know that they will be, but I do wonder if they’ll protect the privacy of their comrades. If it doesn’t matter to you, that’s cool. I just want all the names divulged, if any are to be divulged.

Why embarrass a whole bunch of people who we really don’t need to know about? Personally, I think the entire list shouldn’t be released.

They’re allowed to release it, of course. I will hardly care either way, unless of course, one of the names is of the leader of a council dedicated to stopping prostitution. [/quote]

Wasn’t his name released already? Or at least speculated… Oh well, I bet the jewelry stores in DC are BUSY!

27

[quote]Beowolf wrote:
…

Why embarrass a whole bunch of people who we really don’t need to know about? Personally, I think the entire list shouldn’t be released.
… [/quote]

Sell newspapers.

28

[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
Beowolf wrote:
…

Why embarrass a whole bunch of people who we really don’t need to know about? Personally, I think the entire list shouldn’t be released.
…

Sell newspapers.[/quote]

Wha? Is this supposed to say “Tell Newspapers” as in, tell them not to release them? I’m confused. Explain please?

29

I am disgusted.

Especially in a society like the US it is part of the job description of a Madame to keep her mouth shut.

O tempora, oh mores!

30

[quote]Beowolf wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
Beowolf wrote:
…

Why embarrass a whole bunch of people who we really don’t need to know about? Personally, I think the entire list shouldn’t be released.
…

Sell newspapers.

Wha? Is this supposed to say “Tell Newspapers” as in, tell them not to release them? I’m confused. Explain please?[/quote]

Relkeasing the list would be pure sensationalism intended to sell newspapers. There is no other reason for it.

31

[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
Beowolf wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
Beowolf wrote:
…

Why embarrass a whole bunch of people who we really don’t need to know about? Personally, I think the entire list shouldn’t be released.
…

Sell newspapers.

Wha? Is this supposed to say “Tell Newspapers” as in, tell them not to release them? I’m confused. Explain please?

Relkeasing the list would be pure sensationalism intended to sell newspapers. There is no other reason for it.[/quote]

Oooh. Gotcha. Agreed.

32

[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
Beowolf wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
Beowolf wrote:
…

Why embarrass a whole bunch of people who we really don’t need to know about? Personally, I think the entire list shouldn’t be released.
…

Sell newspapers.

Wha? Is this supposed to say “Tell Newspapers” as in, tell them not to release them? I’m confused. Explain please?

Relkeasing the list would be pure sensationalism intended to sell newspapers. There is no other reason for it.[/quote]

You know how shitty newspaper sales are? It may sell a few, but it would expose the assholes who use “Christianity” to get into office. Both sides have problems, but the Republicans seem to like to be fisted more than the Dems.

Oh well, they can all eat shit, this country is full of politicians who vote or say what the trend is currently. That equals pussys.

33

[quote]micromuscle wrote:

Oh well, they can all eat shit, this country is full of politicians who vote or say what the trend is currently. That equals pussys.[/quote]

Substantively – I don’t care any more about who needed to hire a hooker than I did about who bill clinton was screwing.

If somehow people get investigated for this, and they perjure themselves and lie about, I hope they are afforded the same punishment as clinton did. None. Perjury is only a crime if you lie about things that democrats care about.

On side note: Come on. Admit it. You’d take any one of those politicians. It’d be the first washed pecker that you’ve had since high school. Not your usual dreadlock-wearing, rage against the machine unemployed scumbags that you’ve been dating lately.