or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › Pelosi May Have Committed A Felony
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Pelosi May Have Committed A Felony - Page 2

post #41 of 170
Quote:
Originally Posted by addabox View Post

You are the king of strawmen, I'll give you that. And for those of you that think this term is tossed around casually: the above is virtually a text-book example.


Get real, take the blinders off and stop being a water-boy for massive, systematic corruption.

OK. How many times to I need to trash Bush and the right to be deemed holy in thy immaculate sight? Jeez, 'box. I usually give you credit for actually THINKING here, but come on. You are swerving into jimmac territory.

So give me a number. 10 posts? 50? One a day? How much do I need to post in agreement with your posts so as not to be a "water boy" when I post what you disagree with?

Wait, uh... I don't care.
"Stand Up for Chuck"
Reply
"Stand Up for Chuck"
Reply
post #42 of 170
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jubelum View Post

Cent•rist. adj. :
Another Hillary-ism, not as much about the political center as about central planning, central control, central banking, and further concentration of power in Washington DC.

Just another word game that sells policy better- like "undocumented worker" or "War on Terror"

Yep, "centrist" is a term of expedience. My experience, however, is that it is most frequently used to normalize things like never leaving Iraq, ignoring Republican abuses of power and talking about whatever Drudge or Dick Cheney says we should talk about.

It means any position proffered by the right, no matter how completely, fiercely divorced from reality it may be, must be treated as one pole of a "he said she said" "debate", said debate to be carried out by a belligerent, sneering advocate on the right and a semi-apologetic, "well, I wouldn't go quite that far" fake "liberal".

In other words, the term of choice for lazy, "sensible" pundits who just cannot imagine that anything that isn't business as usual on the beltway cocktail circuit could possibly find favor with the average American, of whom they know nothing about, despite their frequent posturing as spokespersons for same and who rely on "access" to the power brokers in a manner obliges them to act as stenographers for the White House (as long as the White House is occupied by one of their own and not some lowlife usurper).

Hence: "Has Pelosi's hubris in demanding a big old luxury jet for herself and her 'entourage' mortally wounded the Democrats before they even get going? Discuss."

So the "centrist" position ends up being "No, not mortally wounded but a grave faux pas and certainly an early stumble", even though the genesis of the whole story was nonsense .

See how fun that is? You can insert almost anything into the public discourse, not matter how made up and meaningless, and let the "centrist" consensus develop that made up things are a black-eye for Democrats but there may be mitigating circumstances.

Wheeeeeeeee!
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
Reply
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
Reply
post #43 of 170
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jubelum View Post

OK. How many times to I need to trash Bush and the right to be deemed holy in thy immaculate sight? Jeez, 'box. I usually give you credit for actually THINKING here, but come on. You are swerving into jimmac territory.

So give me a number. 10 posts? 50? One a day? How much do I need to post in agreement with your posts so as not to be a "water boy" when I post what you disagree with?

Wait, uh... I don't care.

Except you "disagree" with Bush in some sort of vague principal but "disagree" with Democrats in excruciating detail.
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
Reply
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
Reply
post #44 of 170
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jubelum View Post

OK. How many times to I need to trash Bush and the right to be deemed holy in thy immaculate sight? Jeez, 'box. I usually give you credit for actually THINKING here, but come on. You are swerving into jimmac territory.

So give me a number. 10 posts? 50? One a day? How much do I need to post in agreement with your posts so as not to be a "water boy" when I post what you disagree with?

Wait, uh... I don't care.

God! You're not even sincere are you?
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #45 of 170
Quote:
Originally Posted by addabox View Post

Except you "disagree" with Bush in some sort of vague principal but "disagree" with Democrats in excruciating detail.

Nailed!!

post #46 of 170
Quote:
Originally Posted by addabox View Post

Yep, "centrist" is a term of expedience. My experience, however, is that it is most frequently used to normalize things like never leaving Iraq, ignoring Republican abuses of power and talking about whatever Drudge or Dick Cheney says we should talk about.

It means any position proffered by the right, no matter how completely, fiercely divorced from reality it may be, must be treated as one pole of a "he said she said" "debate", said debate to be carried out by a belligerent, sneering advocate on the right and a semi-apologetic, "well, I wouldn't go quite that far fake "liberal".

In other words, the term of choice for lazy, "sensible" pundits who just cannot imagine that anything that isn't business as usual on the beltway cocktail circuit could possibly find favor with the average American, of whom they know nothing about, despite their frequent posturing as spokespersons for same and who rely on "access" to the power brokers that obliges them to act as stenographers for the White House.

Hence: "Has Pelosi's hubris in demanding a big old luxury jet for herself and her 'entourage' mortally wounded the Democrats before they even get going? Discuss."

So the "centrist" position ends up being "No, not mortally wounded but a grave faux pas and certainly an early stumble", even though the genesis of the whole story was nonsense .

See how fun that is? You can insert almost anything into the public discourse, not matter how made up and meaningless, and let the "centrist" consensus develop that made up things are a black-eye for Democrats but there may be mitigating circumstances.

Wheeeeeeeee!

I agree with you. The plane issue was a non-issue. To pretend for a second that the cost of whatever Pelosi wants (near as i can figure, what her predecessor had) is even a sneeze in the massive waste of the Federal budget is laughable. The Republicans wasted billions of our tax dollars in limitless spending and an expensive, nonsensical war. I'm mad when OUR money is spent for meaningless excess, by both parties. That's why I prefer the antifederalist model that gets our money out of Washington and back to the states and our pockets.
"Stand Up for Chuck"
Reply
"Stand Up for Chuck"
Reply
post #47 of 170
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gilsch View Post

Nailed!!


Exactly.
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #48 of 170
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

God! You're not even sincere are you?

Please. Look up "sarcasm."
"Stand Up for Chuck"
Reply
"Stand Up for Chuck"
Reply
post #49 of 170
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jubelum View Post

I agree with you. The plane issue was a non-issue. To pretend for a second that the cost of whatever Pelosi wants (near as i can figure, what her predecessor had) is even a sneeze in the massive waste of the Federal budget is laughable. The Republicans wasted billions of our tax dollars in limitless spending and an expensive, nonsensical war. I'm mad when OUR money is spent for meaningless excess, by both parties. That's why I prefer the antifederalist model that gets our money out of Washington and back to the states and our pockets.


Oooo! Nice backpeddling!
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #50 of 170
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jubelum View Post

Please. Look up "sarcasm."

Please look up the term : Backpeddling.

Or " Saving face ".
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #51 of 170
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

Oooo! Nice backpeddling!

Whatever. Go fight your useless partisan battle. There is no reasoning with you.
"Stand Up for Chuck"
Reply
"Stand Up for Chuck"
Reply
post #52 of 170
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jubelum View Post

Whatever. Go fight your useless partisan battle. There is no reasoning with you.


Well if you had something to reason with........
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #53 of 170
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

Well if you had something to reason with........

yea...like another member of the board who actually wants to have an issues based discussion, not the kind of discussion you are apt to emoticon to death.
"Stand Up for Chuck"
Reply
"Stand Up for Chuck"
Reply
post #54 of 170
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

Please look up the term : Backpeddling.

Or " Saving face ".

with who? a bunch of people I'll never meet nor care about once I log off? Why bother?
"Stand Up for Chuck"
Reply
"Stand Up for Chuck"
Reply
post #55 of 170
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jubelum View Post

yea...like another member of the board who actually wants to have an issues based discussion, not the kind of discussion you are apt to emoticon to death.


For someone who wants a " issues based discussion " your main issue seems to be me!

Once again back on topic.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17946481/

And you wonder why Pelosi found it necessary to go on her own.
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #56 of 170
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jubelum View Post

1. Clinton ignore plenty of laws. As did Bush I. As did Carter. As did Nixon. As they will forever.
2. Roosevelt- Japanese interment camps- no process or oversight
3. Bush fucked up, should have never gone to war, and misused intel. See #1.

If you are not angry, you are not paying attention. It's all the same. Since the Wilson administration.

But as in all things political, it's a matter of degree. For instance, it is true that presidents since Reagan have made use of signing statements to avoid compliance with congressional action which they deemed overly restrictive.

But Bush has eclipsed all that came before him, and not just in shear volume (over 750 signing statements and counting) but by dint of the fact that he never vetoes anything, which would give Congress a chance to revisit the disputed legislation.

From a Boston Globe article:

Quote:
Still, Reagan, George H.W. Bush, and Clinton used the presidential veto instead of the signing statement if they had a serious problem with a bill, giving Congress a chance to override their decisions.

But the current President Bush has abandoned the veto entirely, as well as any semblance of the political caution that Alito counseled back in 1986. In just five years, Bush has challenged more than 750 new laws, by far a record for any president, while becoming the first president since Thomas Jefferson to stay so long in office without issuing a veto.

Or in the matter of Roosevelt's incarceration of Japanese Americans: shameful, yes, but we were in the middle of an actual for-real-hope-they-don't-start-shelling-our-coasts-or-bombing-our-cities-if-we-lose-we'll-all-be-speaking-German-war. A war that would be won or lost in a finite period of time, against the specific armies of specific countries.

Bush's "war on global terror", on the other hand, has no metric for "winning", no foreseeable end, and no hard and fast definition of who the "enemy" even is, much less what constitutes an "enemy combatant" (as in the case of Iraqi insurgents who are uniformly regarded as "terrorists", no different from the al Qaeda plotters of 9/11, even though it is clear that many of them are simply responding to our occupation of their country).

Such open-ended definitions render comparisons with WWII meaningless. The "global war on terror" becomes simply a carte blanche prescription for practically unlimited executive power, with no expectation for ever "standing down" and returning to normative constitutional practices.
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
Reply
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
Reply
post #57 of 170
Quote:
Originally Posted by addabox View Post

But as in all things political, it's a matter of degree. For instance, it is true that presidents since Reagan have made use of signing statements to avoid compliance with congressional action which they deemed overly restrictive.

But Bush has eclipsed all that came before him, and not just in shear volume (over 750 signing statements and counting) but by dint of the fact that he never vetoes anything, which would give Congress a chance to revisit the disputed legislation.

From a Boston Globe article:



Or in the matter of Roosevelt's incarceration of Japanese Americans: shameful, yes, but we were in the middle of an actual for-real-hope-they-don't-start-shelling-our-coasts-or-bombing-our-cities-if-we-lose-we'll-all-be-speaking-German-war. A war that would be won or lost in a finite period of time, against the specific armies of specific countries.

Bush's "war on global terror", on the other hand, has no metric for "winning", no foreseeable end, and no hard and fast definition of who the "enemy" even is, much less what constitutes an "enemy combatant" (as in the case of Iraqi insurgents who are uniformly regarded as "terrorists", no different from the al Qaeda plotters of 9/11, even though it is clear that many of them are simply responding to our occupation of their country).

Such open-ended definitions render comparisons with WWII meaningless. The "global war on terror" becomes simply a carte blanche prescription for practically unlimited executive power, with no expectation for ever "standing down" and returning to normative constitutional practices.

Yes I just love it when they compare the current situation to a real war like WWII.

Quite a stretch!

The fact that there's no clear definition even works for Bush because there's no direct accountablity.

It's really very 1984esk.
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #58 of 170
It's very instructive to note that Newt Gingrich, when he was Speaker of the House, went way beyond anything Pelosi has done without (naturally) running afoul of conservative notions about "supporting the president":

Quote:
DAVID ENSOR, ABC News: (voice-over) It's beginning to look as if the days when American partisan politics ended at the water's edge may be over.

Rep. NEWT GINGRICH (R), Speaker of the House:... Jerusalem, as the united and eternal capital of Israel.

DAVID ENSOR: (voice-over) That runs directly contrary to official US policy, which holds that Jerusalem's future is a matter for negotiation between Palestinians and Israelis.

Next, Speaker Gingrich took on the Clinton administration's effort to convince Israel to give up about 13 percent more of the West Bank. He said, quote, "We cannot allow non- Israelis to substitute their judgment for the generals that Israel has trusted with its security." The non-Israelis in question are Secretary of State Madeleine Albright and her aides, one of whom reacted sharply.

JAMES RUBIN, State Department Spokesman: Rather stunning comments that would undermine the efforts we're trying to make to advance America's national interest.

DAVID ENSOR: (voice-over) But it was a comment made two weeks ago that has Albright's team simmering with anger. "I think it's wrong," Gingrich said then, "for the American secretary of state to become the agent for the Palestinians."

JAMES RUBIN: I found particularly appalling an outrageous his suggestion that the secretary of state of the United States was an agent for the Palestinians.


Remember, Pelosi has said that she "delivered the White House's message" and did nothing to contradict our professed policy towards Syria, other then, you know, talking to them.

In contrast, Gingrich was expressly defying the White House's position, and belittling the Secretary of State while he was at it, and was cheered by the right. IOKIYAR, I guess.

Then, of course, there's Gingrich telling the Chinese that we would intervene if they attacked Taiwan, a breach so egregious that the Chinese actually had to ask us to get our act together and speak in one voice:

New York Times, April 4, 1997:

Quote:
China admonished the United States today to speak with one voice on foreign policy and accused Newt Gingrich of making ''improper'' statements on Washington's commitment to defend Taiwan from any military attack by the mainland.

The criticism was made by the Foreign Ministry spokesman, Shen Guofang, who earlier this week had expressed basic satisfaction with remarks made by Mr. Gingrich, the Speaker of the House, during a three-day visit to China.

The visit followed Vice President Al Gore's first trip to Beijing. Both men spoke on issues of contention between Washington and Beijing, but Mr. Gingrich's remarks were noteworthy for their directness and for exceeding the normal State Department formulations on American commitments to Taiwan.

China's decision to criticize Mr. Gingrich came after he traveled to Taiwan on Wednesday and met with President Lee Teng-hui.

That would be the same Gingrich that has been making the rounds of the liberal media explaining why Pelosi is a dangerous nutjob. Sigh.
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
Reply
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
Reply
post #59 of 170
Good point...

When was the outcry then over supposedly violating a statute from 1799 that hasn't been invoked in a criminal proceeding in over 200 years and has never seen anyone convicted under it?
post #60 of 170
Jesus, SDW. This isn't even ridiculous. It's just fucking sad. This? This is all you got? Chaff?!
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
post #61 of 170
THIS ought to really help our relations with the Egyptian government.
"Stand Up for Chuck"
Reply
"Stand Up for Chuck"
Reply
post #62 of 170
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jubelum View Post

THIS ought to really help our relations with the Egyptian government.

Yeah, it will certainly negate the fact that we pay for a big chunk of Egypt's military.
post #63 of 170
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jubelum View Post

THIS ought to really help our relations with the Egyptian government.

Probably not as much as royally fucking up Iraq and Afghanistan.
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
post #64 of 170
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

Condi Rice. A strong woman? She's a yes woman for Bush you mean.

Not my idea of a strong woman who thinks for herself.

Condoleezza Rice is the first African American woman to serve as Secretary of State, a former professor of Political Science at Stanford and offered counsel to the George H.W. Bush administration during the breakup of the Soviet Union and during German reunification. She speaks five languages. Wikipedia says "She is also one of only two African Americans to have been repeatedly ranked among the world's 100 most influential people by Time magazine."

You, on the other hand, spend your nights presenting lame arguments that are thoroughly bested on internet boards by people with no degrees, qualifications or high office.

You are not exactly one who should be casting aspersions on Ms. Rice.
The evil that we fight is but the shadow of the evil that we do.
Reply
The evil that we fight is but the shadow of the evil that we do.
Reply
post #65 of 170
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frank777 View Post

Condoleezza Rice is the first African American woman to serve as Secretary of State, a former professor of Political Science at Stanford and offered counsel to the George H.W. Bush administration during the breakup of the Soviet Union and during German reunification. She speaks five languages. Wikipedia says "She is also one of only two African Americans to have been repeatedly ranked among the world's 100 most influential people by Time magazine."

You, on the other hand, spend your nights presenting lame arguments that are thoroughly bested on internet boards by people with no degrees, qualifications or high office.

You are not exactly one who should be casting aspersions on Ms. Rice.

A true classic.
"Stand Up for Chuck"
Reply
"Stand Up for Chuck"
Reply
post #66 of 170
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frank777 View Post

Condoleezza Rice is the first African American woman to serve as Secretary of State

I thought we weren't supposed to notice that stuff.

Quote:
a former professor of Political Science at Stanford

She was the PROVOST at Stanford. Way more impressive than just being a professor.

Quote:
and offered counsel to the George H.W. Bush administration during the breakup of the Soviet Union and during German reunification.

Appropriate, considering the Soviet Union was her area of expertise. Personally, I wish she'd stuck with the piano.

Quote:
She speaks five languages.

It is common for PhDs to have proficiency in at least 2.

Quote:
Wikipedia says "She is also one of only two African Americans to have been repeatedly ranked among the world's 100 most influential people by Time magazine."

Influential does not always mean "positively." Hitler was their man of the year, once.

Quote:
You, on the other hand, spend your nights presenting lame arguments that are thoroughly bested on internet boards by people with no degrees, qualifications or high office.

There are a fair number of PhDs on these boards. A fair number of experts in a variety of areas. If those people spend their nights on these boards having it out with other people, so be it. They likely spend their days doing something else.

And on that note, back to the essay I'm finishing up.
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
post #67 of 170
Midwinter, I understand your answers, but I think you missed my point.

The popular political comparison to Rice is to Hillary Clinton.

I personally think Hillary would be a disaster as President, and I think her outlook or worldview on basic issues is downright wrong in any number of ways.

I would not, however, dismiss her as weak or irrelevant. Her life to date has been anything but.

On what basis does Jimmac brand Rice as he does? I think it's sad that your side allows him to get away with it.
It is disgraceful, dishonest and demeaning to both sides.
The evil that we fight is but the shadow of the evil that we do.
Reply
The evil that we fight is but the shadow of the evil that we do.
Reply
post #68 of 170
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frank777 View Post

Midwinter, I understand your answers, but I think you missed my point.

Your point seemed to be that Rice is smart and well-credentialed. Other than her being the Provost at Stanford and a pretty hot-shit poli sci professor from her day (isn't she a game theory Soviet specialist?), I don't disagree. But she is certainly no more well-credentialed than any of a fairly large number of candidates for her job.

Here's a question for you, Frank: why would you want a USSR specialist as your secretary of state when the action is in the middle east?

Quote:
The popular political comparison to Rice is to Hillary Clinton.

I haven't seen this comparison anywhere in months, and even then only in terms of wild-eyed hypotheticals. The fact of the matter is that she will leave office as a horribly ineffective SoS in one of the worst administrations in the history of the country. Period. Did you see the Sunday NYTimes piece on her last week? HUGE spread about her reversal of position on Israel, the upshot of which was that maybe Clinton's/Albright (the first woman Jew SoS...should we compete to see which trumps the other?) approach was better.

Quote:
I personally think Hillary would be a disaster as President, and I think her outlook or worldview on basic issues are downright wrong in any number of ways.

I don't want you to answer here, but I think it might be interesting for you to consider why you think that and what evidence you have to support whatever thinking you have on her.

Quote:
I would not, however, dismiss her as weak or irrelevant. Her life to date has been anything but.

I agree. But the fact of the matter is that our SoS is an expert in the USSR when the game is in the ME. She has all the right credentials to be SoS under Bush I.

Quote:
On what basis does Jimmac brand Rice as he does? I think it's sad that your side allows him to get away with it.
It is disgraceful, dishonest and demeaning to both sides.

What Jimmac does is Jimmac's business.
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
post #69 of 170
Quote:
Originally Posted by midwinter View Post

Your point seemed to be that Rice is smart and well-credentialed. Other than her being the Provost at Stanford and a pretty hot-shit poli sci professor from her day (isn't she a game theory Soviet specialist?), I don't disagree. But she is certainly no more well-credentialed than any of a fairly large number of candidates for her job.

Here's a question for you, Frank: why would you want a USSR specialist as your secretary of state when the action is in the middle east?

Entirely reasonable and defensible point of view.

Quote:
Originally Posted by midwinter View Post

I don't want you to answer here, but I think it might be interesting for you to consider why you think that and what evidence you have to support whatever thinking you have on her.

I'll answer anyway.

Having looking at her past statements and political positions, I think she's completely offside on the idea of limited government. I also don't agree with her take on social issues, such as (but not limited to) abortion and gay rights.

Quote:
Originally Posted by midwinter View Post

What Jimmac does is Jimmac's business.

No, when a member of the board does what he did, he deserves to be called on it.
The evil that we fight is but the shadow of the evil that we do.
Reply
The evil that we fight is but the shadow of the evil that we do.
Reply
post #70 of 170
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frank777 View Post

Having looking at her past statements and political positions, I think she's completely offside on the idea of limited government. I also don't agree with her take on social issues, such as (but not limited to) abortion and gay rights.

The reason I didn't want you to answer here is because I'd be forced to ask you to be specific when you gave this response. I can only assume that you also disagree with Romney and Giuliannnni on these issues, as well. In fact, the entire GOP field kind of sucks right now, although I'm pulling for Huckabee.

Quote:
No, when a member of the board does what he did, he deserves to be called on it.

Great. I will commence equating you with the GOP. Get it, Frank? Jimmac is not the Democratic party.
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
post #71 of 170
Quote:
Originally Posted by midwinter View Post

The reason I didn't want you to answer here is because I'd be forced to ask you to be specific when you gave this response. I can only assume that you also disagree with Romney and Giuliannnni on these issues, as well.

I do. If I had a vote, I wouldn't waste it on Giuliani. I don't know enough about Romney, but if he's the same, ditto.

Quote:
Originally Posted by midwinter View Post

Great. I will commence equating you with the GOP. Get it, Frank? Jimmac is not the Democratic party.

Perhaps this is where we went off the rails. I didn't chastize all Dems for what Jimmac did, I addressed him.
For some reason, you picked up the ball and ran with it.
The evil that we fight is but the shadow of the evil that we do.
Reply
The evil that we fight is but the shadow of the evil that we do.
Reply
post #72 of 170
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frank777 View Post

I do. If I had a vote, I wouldn't waste it on Giuliani. I don't know enough about Romney, but if he's the same, ditto.

Wait. I just noticed your location. You're not even an American? What are you, some kind of frostback coming down here to steal our political commentator jobs?

Quote:
Perhaps this is where we went off the rails. I didn't chastize all Dems for what Jimmac did, I addressed him. For some reason, you picked up the ball and ran with it.

Hrm. I seem to remember you saying

Quote:
On what basis does Jimmac brand Rice as he does? I think it's sad that your side allows him to get away with it.
It is disgraceful, dishonest and demeaning to both sides.

You know, it's sad that your side allows Dobson, Wildmon, Donohue, the GOP, and Frank777 (CANADIAN CITIZEN) to get away with it. It is disgraceful, dishonest and demeaning to both sides.

See? Isn't that fun? Nevermind that I don't know what "it" refers to or that I have somehow equated FRANK777, CANADIAN CITIZEN, with major political players.

Why is it, FRANK777, CANADIAN CITIZEN, that you allow the BQ to speak for all of Canada? It's a shame that you don't do anything to denounce them. I don't notice any of the Brits around here denouncing the BNP on a regular basis. Or any of our resident Spaniards denouncing the PSOE. I don't notice SDW denouncing the Klan on a regular basis, either. Clearly, he must speak for them.
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
post #73 of 170
The evil that we fight is but the shadow of the evil that we do.
Reply
The evil that we fight is but the shadow of the evil that we do.
Reply
post #74 of 170
Quote:
Originally Posted by midwinter View Post

Wait. I just noticed your location. You're not even an American? What are you, some kind of frostback coming down here to steal our political commentator jobs?

Warning! Apple Insider has adopted a zero tolerance policy for slurring of Canadians! If Grahamw gets wind of this you will receive demerits, or something.

(Frank777 knows about this-- he could have you demerited or whatever at any time)
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
Reply
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
Reply
post #75 of 170
Quote:
Originally Posted by addabox View Post

Warning! Apple Insider has adopted a zero tolerance policy for slurring of Canadians! If Grahamw gets wind of this you will receive demerits, or something.

(Frank777 knows about this-- he could have you demerited or whatever at any time)

Listen, CITIZEN OF THE PEOPLES' REPUBLIC OF CALIFORNIA, you don't get to speak. Only we real Americans are allowed to comment. AND HOW DARE YOU POST A COMMENT HERE WITHOUT DENOUNCING THE COMMUNIST PARTY OF AMERICA?!?!
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
post #76 of 170
Quote:
Originally Posted by midwinter View Post

Listen, CITIZEN OF THE PEOPLES' REPUBLIC OF CALIFORNIA, you don't get to speak. Only we real Americans are allowed to comment. AND HOW DARE YOU POST A COMMENT HERE WITHOUT DENOUNCING THE COMMUNIST PARTY OF AMERICA?!?!

BECAUSE I HEART THE COMMUNIST PARTY OF AMERICA!

There, I said it! All power to the people! The workers, united, will never be divided! Kill whitey!

MUAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
Reply
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
Reply
post #77 of 170
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frank777 View Post

Condoleezza Rice is the first African American woman to serve as Secretary of State, a former professor of Political Science at Stanford and offered counsel to the George H.W. Bush administration during the breakup of the Soviet Union and during German reunification. She speaks five languages. Wikipedia says "She is also one of only two African Americans to have been repeatedly ranked among the world's 100 most influential people by Time magazine."

You, on the other hand, spend your nights presenting lame arguments that are thoroughly bested on internet boards by people with no degrees, qualifications or high office.

You are not exactly one who should be casting aspersions on Ms. Rice.


I've heard her speak several times. That's all I have to know.

Also I'll give you my stock answer when someone asked dumb questions like this. Who am I to judge a government official?

A servant of the public.

Who do I have to be?
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #78 of 170
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jubelum View Post

A true classic.


I'd call it classic B.S.
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #79 of 170
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frank777 View Post

I do. If I had a vote, I wouldn't waste it on Giuliani. I don't know enough about Romney, but if he's the same, ditto.



Perhaps this is where we went off the rails. I didn't chastize all Dems for what Jimmac did, I addressed him.
For some reason, you picked up the ball and ran with it.

By the way.

Just as a point of interest.

I'll say it slowly for you again Frank.

R E G I S T E R E D I N D E P E N D E N T !

I do favor generally the democratic party over the republicans but not always and in all things.

Here's a Little something on Pelosi's backgroung from Wikipedia.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nancy_Pelosi
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #80 of 170
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Flounder View Post

Did you not read his post? It said quite clearly that they did.

Here's a link with a photo that shows Assad meeting with Frank Wolf, Joe Pitts, and Robert Aderholt.

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7...383862,00.html

I will ask again. Do you think these lawmakers also may have committed a felony? If not, what is the difference?

Sorry I didn't see that. It would seem that they may have. I doubt anything will come of it...in fact I'd bet solidy against it.
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: PoliticalOutsider
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › Pelosi May Have Committed A Felony