| WIKI | FAQ | Tech FAQ | |
 http://csua.com/feed/ | |
| ||||||
| 5/23 |
| 2007/3/29-31 [Politics/Domestic/911, Politics/Domestic/Crime] UID:46138 Activity:moderate |
3/28 Good thing the GOP has leaders like Tom DeLay:
http://www.slate.com/id/2162672
\_ I assume this is a "Tom DeLay is evul!" article. Seriously, get
over the whole "our guys are angels, your guys are the devil" thing.
You've got land scammers, bribe takers, nation security document
destroyers and various other assorted and sundry felons walking
around free and in power in the majority party. Few things are
uglier than hypocrites.
\_ Pot, kettle, black. Your "defence" for Tom DeLay's hatred and
\_ Pot, Bongwater, Hash. Your "defence" for Tom DeLay's hatred and
corruption is that Democrats do it too? I am actually an
independent and despise (and actually do something about,
which is probably more than you can say) corruption in
both parties. You "assume"? You can't even be bothered to
read the article, but you feel qualified to offer up your
opinion on it? On second thought, this is actually pretty
funny and emblematic of why the GOP is in such bad shape.
\_ can we please stop the use of "Pot, kettle, black"? It's
\_ I don't defend Delay at all. I point out hypocrisy. If
DeLay is evuul, so be it, but to turn a blind eye to (D)
corruption or write it all off as 'not as bad' or to say
'charges haven't been filed so no problemo!' is painfully
and ridiculously intellectually dishonest. And no, I can't
be bothered to read the article. Tell me, was I wrong about
what was in it?
\_ You "pointed out hypocrisy" because I didn't condemn
both Democrats and Republicans in the same motd entry?
You are the hypocrite, padawan.
\_ can we please stop the use of "Pot, Bongwater, Hash"? It's
hackneyed, awkward, and stupid. -tom
\_ Pot, kettle, black.
\_ Pot, Bongwater, Hash.
\_ Pot, Bongwater, Hash.
\_ Pot, Bongwater, Hash.
\_ See, you're misunderstanding the post. The pp didn't say he
was defending DeLay. He said "stop attacking everyone on the
right while ignoring the corruption on the left". Expose the
problems on the left as well. -emarkp
\_ Name a corruption problem on the left. "Voter fraud"
will lose you -2 troll points.
\_ First of all, I have to ask, do you really thing there's
no corruption on the left. Secondly, look up "William
Jefferson"--the guy caught with $90K in his fridge.
-emarkp
\_ 1. That guy was not a major leader of his party.
\_ so what?
2. There is always corruption, but there are levels.
\_ *cough* No! There are no levels! Your
office holders are corrupt or they're not. If
they are corrupt they are undeserving of your
support and should get kicked out and
prosecuted. No level of corruption is ok.
\_ You obviously have not thought about this
too hard. Is Halliburton getting no bid
contracts an example of corruption or not?
How about companies giving big contributions
to office holders and then lobbying them
after they win office. Both of these are
legal, but borderline cases of corruption.
And not everyone is going to agree with
your black and white definition of what
corruption is, so you should stop trying
to force your vision of it on the world,
to force your vision of it on the motd,
and accept that there are going to be
grey areas in the real world.
The modern republican leadership has raised
the level of corruption to where something
like $90K is pocket change. William Jefferson
is more like Cunningham, not like Delay.
\_ Stuffing raw hard cash in your fridge is the
most base form of corruption possible. Even
if your 'relativist corruption' view point was
valid, it doesn't seem to bother you at all.
\_ So you're limiting corruption t leadership? Okay,
then refer beck to the pp about Harry Reid and his
shady land deals. Oh, and I agree that William
Jefferson is more like Cunningham. So why is
Cunningham in jail and Jefferson isn't? -emarkp
\_ Um, time? AFAIK, Jefferson has not been
charged with anything yet. He maintains his
innocence and was recently reelected. Now, I
personally would love to see him resign both
for the horrible appearance of impropriety, and
for the fact that his still being in the House
serves as a football for people like you who
want to say "Democrats do it too!" as cover for
the corrupt party you support. But for now,
he is a duly elected representative of the
people of his district. --scotsman
\_ The fact that months have gone by with no
prosecution or charges while some shmuck
like Libby is facing prison time for nothing
is insane and the root of the problem. His
own party has not only not disowned him but
put him on the DHS committee. Sure makes me
feel so much safer knowing he's only a few
bucks away from screwing over the entire
nations security to the best of his ability.
\_ He asked to be on the DHS committee. He
has not been seated yet. He may never
be. So just chill yourself.
\_ Someone had evidence on Cunningham, presented
such in court, and had him arrested; Jefferson
has been accused, and evidence has been alleged
but neither evidence nor charges have been
forthcoming. This is why C is in jail and J is
not. I agree that "cold hard cash" in his
fridge is fishy, but if he committed a crime,
charge him. --erikred
\_ Fishy? It's only fishy? If it was a (R)
you'd be calling for his political death
along with the rest of the left. *shakes
head* at thought of $90 in the fridge being
merely 'fishy'.
\_ Forgot to mention, why the silence about
Harry Reid's shady land deals? -emarkp
\_ Is there an indictment? Is there
anything beyond allegations? Are you
going to bring up the boxing thing
again? How 'bout Vince Foster again?
\- i shot vince foster, just to watch
him die. --wjc@organ.org
\_ Caught with hand in cookie jar. If
he was a (R) you'd be calling him
the worst sort of criminal. Getting
lawerly is the last sign of a lost
cause.
\_ Cookie Jar? Where? Would you
like to cite evidence, an
investigation, anything?
\_ So why is congress in uproar about AG when
they haven't said word one or done anything
to investigate WJ? They can police their
own members. -emarkp
\_ Politics and priorities, duh.
\_ As noted by above response, for the same
reason that RDC wasn't censured and
ejected when the GOP ran Congress. I will
certainly grant you that. But remember
that uproar over the AG need not preclude
investigation of WJ; these things are not
mutually exclusive as though there were
limited resources to investigate ethical
violations. A lack of political will to
pursue WJ until the charges are leveled
has nothing to do with the investigation
of whether the AG fired US Atys in order
to punish them for not embarassing the
opposition party. --erikred
\_ The USAGs can be fired for any reason
at all. They are politically
appointed positions. How you can say
their firing is worse than stuffing
your fridge with hot cash is beyond
my ability to understand. $90k in
your fridge is just fishy, though.
WJ is not defensible yet you defend
it. The USAG firing were handled
poorly but are in no way illegal, yet
you find this outrageous.
\_ Actually, what I find outrageous is
the idea that the Admin was so
blatant about firing these people
for not launching fruitless and
embarassing investigations of its
political rivals. I find partisan
use of the US Atys as your own
Gestapo utterly outrageous, but
I find the lack of circumspection
and careful planning insulting.
What they're saying is, we'll do
what we like, and you'll shut up
and take it. At least the Reagan
White House went through the
motions; these guys are strictly
amateurs. As for WJ, unlike you,
my capacity for outrage is not
limited to the opp. party; if he's
done wrong here, he's a scumbag,
and he should be censured. I've
got no problem with that. But at
least show me some proof. Also,
am I still talking to emarkp or
just to some AC? --erikred
\_ That swath of entries reeks of
reiffin. --scotsman
\_ Since the Democrats have been out of power in Washington
for so long, there is probably not a lot at the national
level to expose. I have (literally) campaigned for more
oversight at the local level, where the politicians are
all Democrats. Believe me, there is plenty of Democratic
machine corruption in San Francisco, but at least
Newsome is doing someting about it finally.
Newsom is doing someting about it finally.
\_ Newsom is the benefactor of the SF political machine.
He was Willie Brown's boy. I don't live in SF though so
I'm curious what he is doing to cut his own support?
\_ No, he is not really Willie's boy. Willie endorsed
him, but Gavin's "base" is in the Marina/Pac Heights
crowd, where Willie's was in Hunter's Point and
the Projects and the City's municipal unions. Newsom
fired the old corrupt Police Chief and Fire Chief
fired the old corrupt Police of Chief and Fire Chief
and replaced them with reasonably competent
technocrats, has upended the planning dept and
indicted a number of corrupt building inspectors,
and cleaned out the whole rat's nest of corruption
that surrounded placement in public housing.
I am sure there is more that I am unware of. |
| 5/23 |
|
| www.slate.com/id/2162672 No Retreat, No Surrender, former House majority leader Tom DeLay, R-Texas, writes of former President Bill Clinton, "I openly admit that I just don't like the man, and my disgust is both personal and political." Enough to recite as fact a story about the Clinton White House that's acquired wide currency within the military but has been shown again and again to be false. As DeLay tells it, the story is a smear against Bill Clinton, but as the Hammer no doubt knows, it is really a smear against Hillary Clinton, who is running for president. went back on his word to enter the Reserve Officer Training Corps upon completing his Rhodes scholarship. In unloading on Clinton, DeLay steers clear of the ROTC saga, perhaps because it might raise the question of why DeLay, in reciting his own life story, never explains how he avoided the Vietnam draft when he graduated from the University of Houston in 1970. The only time I'm aware of that DeLay has ever answered this question publicly was at the 1988 Republican convention, amid the ruckus surrounding the vice-presidential selection of Dan Quayle, who'd sat out the war in the National Guard. highly original complaint that he'd been a victim of reverse discrimination. So many African-American kids joined up that there was no room for patriotic white kids! high draft-lottery number (312 in a year when the highest number called was 195) and, though already a Goldwater Republican, apparently saw no reason to enlist. Here is DeLay's accusation, on Pages 108 and 109: What sent me over the top about Clinton is that his brand of liberalism had an almost anti-American feel to it. Because it received scant treatment in the press many Americans don't know that when the Clintons first moved into the White House, they seriously considered banning all military uniforms from White House grounds. From the generals briefing the president to the Marines guarding the front door, no one would have been allowed to wear a military uniform. Fortunately, someone talked the Clintons out of this treachery, but take a moment to think about what even considering such a thing says about them. This was the president of the United States and his wife saying that something about military uniforms offended them. Apparently the noble symbols of martial honor and sacrifice so disturbed their unpatriotic, liberal sensibilities that they wanted to forbid them in the home of the nation's commander in chief. We should have kicked them out of office right then and there! The only part of the preceding passage that's true is that the purported consideration of a ban on military uniforms received "scant treatment in the press." It received scant treatment because no such ban was ever considered. The few news accounts to mention this rumor did so only to point out that it was entirely false. first knocked down by Kenneth Walsh, Bruce Auster, and Tim Zimmerman in US News & World Report, March 7, 1993: Poisoned rumors. At the Pentagon, the stories about White House insensitivity are numerous, and, some Clinton defenders say, approach paranoia. Perhaps the most virulent is the story that Chelsea Clinton refused to enter a government car destined to drive her to school because she didn't want to ride with a uniformed officer. Knowledgeable sources say Chelsea has always ridden with Secret Service agents and the occasion has never arisen where a military escort was asked to fill in for her regular agents. Among other poisonous rumors is the tale that the Clintonites are preparing to order military personnel to wear civilian clothes, not their uniforms, whenever they enter the White House. Another rumor is that Clinton advisers have forbidden the military aide who carries "the football"--a suitcase containing nuclear launch codes--to dress in uniform. The following month, the Washington Post's Barton Gellman tracked down these same rumors and once again reported that they were not true. Still, the rumors have persisted, and increasingly they've identified the culprit as then-First Lady Hillary Clinton. The trouble with Klein's (and Patterson's) version is that it has Hillary proposing the ban in 1996--three years after US News and the Post had knocked down the exact same rumor. from 1996 to 1998, so it isn't possible that he merely got his dates confused. To believe Klein and Patterson, then, we must believe that Hillary consciously made happen something that, three years earlier, had been identified by at least two prominent news sources as something that hadn't happened but, if it had, would have been a political disaster. David Horowitz Freedom Center, a right-wing agitprop mill in Los Angeles (my description, not Patterson's, but not all that different from the Center's self-description in its year-end report; calls itself "a battle-tank, not just a think-tank," and boasts that it has, among other things, persuaded DeLay, Bill O'Reilly, and Sean Hannity to make frequent use of the terms "fifth column" and "hate-America left"); and 4) The column you have on your screen is "rife with lies." On this last point, Patterson elaborates: It happened in the spring of 1996. I was the Air Force Aide to the President so I had firsthand knowledge of the First Lady's edict. Others who served in the White House Military Unit at the time can corroborate. In the grand scheme of things, it was a drop in the bucket in the Clinton's overall disdain for the military. I rectified that upon my retirement from the USAF in 2001. I've e-mailed Patterson, asking him to clarify from whom he acquired "firsthand knowledge of the First Lady's edict," and to put me in touch with the others who "can corroborate." I've also solicited his thoughts about the US News and Washington Post stories describing and knocking down his story three years before he says it unfolded. Correction, March 27, 2007: An earlier version of this column misstated the publication year of Dereliction of Duty as 2006. |