The random political thoughts thread (Part Deux) - Page 137

innerSpaceman · 10-08-2006, 07:55 AM

Not to speak for Wendybeth, but I don't think anyone's denying the Dems would be above such a thing, merely that there's zero reporting or evidence that such a thing happened. It's all been about ridiculously changing the subject ... when ALL the reporting has been about a Republican perve/idiot Congressman and warnings by his Republican staff to the staff of the Republican leadership, and warnings by his Republican colleagues directly to the Republican leadership.

I have asked for any legitimate news source of any Democratic involvement in this particular incident and have as yet seen none. Don't take that to mean a claim that Democrats are rosy-cheeked innocents.

But if you're going to completely change the subject so that we can talk about Democrat malfeasance ... then, yes, we will discuss the vast rightwing conspiracy that has used the 9/11 attacks on our country to attack and damage America far more dangerously and tangibly than a million such terrorist strikes could ever hope to do.

JWBear · 10-08-2006, 09:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by innerSpaceman

Not to speak for Wendybeth, but I don't think anyone's denying the Dems would be above such a thing, merely that there's zero reporting or evidence that such a thing happened. It's all been about ridiculously changing the subject ... when ALL the reporting has been about a Republican perve/idiot Congressman and warnings by his Republican staff to the staff of the Republican leadership, and warnings by his Republican colleagues directly to the Republican leadership.

I have asked for any legitimate news source of any Democratic involvement in this particular incident and have as yet seen none. Don't take that to mean a claim that Democrats are rosy-cheeked innocents.

But if you're going to completely change the subject so that we can talk about Democrat malfeasance ... then, yes, we will discuss the vast rightwing conspiracy that has used the 9/11 attacks on our country to attack and damage America far more dangerously and tangibly than a million such terrorist strikes could ever hope to do.

Bravo!

wendybeth · 10-08-2006, 11:17 AM

iSm, with posts like that, you can speak for me anytime!

Scaeagles, show me where I said the Dems are above this sort of thing. I said I hope they did sit on it and waited for a politically opportune time to release it, as I am resigned to the fact that we have to fight fire with fire if we want to get these assholes out of office. Which is worse- the Repubs trying to cover it up, or the Dems waiting for the best time to attack? (Something that is mere speculation and has yet to be substantiated, either here or in the press). Until there is proof that they did, I am going resist my attention being diverted by such a non-issue.

scaeagles · 10-08-2006, 11:29 AM

I don't see where I've changed the subject in the least. I'm the one who started this particluar point in this thread because I believe there was a republican cover up. All I did was say that if the dems knew and covered it as well to use politically then they are as despicable in this instance as the republicans hiding it to protect a seat. Honestly, I think they are equivalent because we are talking about holding onto info about a predator in their midst. Playing politics with it is playing politics with it regardless of the motive.

I don't think anyone should sit on info like this. For whatever reason. It's beyond sickening.

From what you are saying, WB, you support the dirtiest of dirty politics if the dirty politics are on your side. You would want to allow a predator to stay in office to use that info at a more opportune time rather than exposing the predator when you learned of it? That's something I can't subscribe to.

sleepyjeff · 10-08-2006, 01:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by innerSpaceman

... then, yes, we will discuss the vast rightwing conspiracy that has used the 9/11 attacks on our country to attack and damage America far more dangerously and tangibly than a million such terrorist strikes could ever hope to do.

1,000,000 X 3,000 = 3,000,000,000(or half the population of the entire Planet)

Is the murder of half the population of the Planet(and since the US is target 1, I guess the entire pop. of America) really "tangibly" better than the Presidents efforts to avoid such attacks

I am very confused by this commet.

innerSpaceman · 10-08-2006, 01:54 PM

At this rate, elimination of half the population of the planet is exactly what the aim of the War on Terror aka War on Islam is. Just what is the ratio of the muslim population to the entire population?

In any event, the random number "million" was a hyperbolic expression, and not meant for numerical accuracy. But if we're speaking numbers in relation to the number killed on 9/11, why don't you perform the ratio math with a comparison to civilian deaths in Iraq, and see who comes out ahead as most murderous terrorist?

sleepyjeff · 10-08-2006, 02:26 PM

^Fair enough.

Alex · 10-08-2006, 02:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by innerSpaceman

Just what is the ratio of the muslim population to the entire population?

About 20% (1.2 billion). Not taking any kind of position on what has recently been said, just answering the question.

Motorboat Cruiser · 10-08-2006, 05:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by scaeagles

I don't see where I've changed the subject in the least. I'm the one who started this particluar point in this thread because I believe there was a republican cover up. All I did was say that if the dems knew and covered it as well to use politically then they are as despicable in this instance as the republicans hiding it to protect a seat. Honestly, I think they are equivalent because we are talking about holding onto info about a predator in their midst. Playing politics with it is playing politics with it regardless of the motive.

I don't think anyone should sit on info like this. For whatever reason. It's beyond sickening.

I don't really have a problem with what you are saying here. BUT, you are the one that suggested that the democrats might have been involved. Right now, all evidence suggests a republican cover-up. There is nothing remotely fact-based that supports the idea of an "October Surprise" and the only reason it is even a part of the discussion is because of a lame attempt by some on the right recently to muddy the waters with baseless speculation for the purposes of taking the focus off the real issue.

So, I suppose it is ok, for discussion purposes, to consider the hypothetical, as long as we remember that it is only hypothetical, and has no basis in fact, whatsoever.

scaeagles · 10-08-2006, 06:08 PM

That's cool, MBC. But a question....if this was common knowledge among the pages, then how would the republican leadership have known if the democrat leadership did not?

Foley deserves to be gone. I was originally pissed at Hastert, but not so much anymore. Really, I don't think the dems knew. I am upset with a few media outlets (a couple papers I think) that had the storey months ago and did nothing with it.

10-08-2006, 07:55 AM	#1361
innerSpaceman Kink of Swank Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: Inner Space Posts: 13,075	Not to speak for Wendybeth, but I don't think anyone's denying the Dems would be above such a thing, merely that there's zero reporting or evidence that such a thing happened. It's all been about ridiculously changing the subject ... when ALL the reporting has been about a Republican perve/idiot Congressman and warnings by his Republican staff to the staff of the Republican leadership, and warnings by his Republican colleagues directly to the Republican leadership. I have asked for any legitimate news source of any Democratic involvement in this particular incident and have as yet seen none. Don't take that to mean a claim that Democrats are rosy-cheeked innocents. But if you're going to completely change the subject so that we can talk about Democrat malfeasance ... then, yes, we will discuss the vast rightwing conspiracy that has used the 9/11 attacks on our country to attack and damage America far more dangerously and tangibly than a million such terrorist strikes could ever hope to do.
	Submit to Quotes

10-08-2006, 11:17 AM	#1363
wendybeth Nevermind Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 7,847	iSm, with posts like that, you can speak for me anytime! Scaeagles, show me where I said the Dems are above this sort of thing. I said I hope they did sit on it and waited for a politically opportune time to release it, as I am resigned to the fact that we have to fight fire with fire if we want to get these assholes out of office. Which is worse- the Repubs trying to cover it up, or the Dems waiting for the best time to attack? (Something that is mere speculation and has yet to be substantiated, either here or in the press). Until there is proof that they did, I am going resist my attention being diverted by such a non-issue. __________________
	Submit to Quotes

10-08-2006, 11:29 AM	#1364
scaeagles I LIKE! Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 7,819	I don't see where I've changed the subject in the least. I'm the one who started this particluar point in this thread because I believe there was a republican cover up. All I did was say that if the dems knew and covered it as well to use politically then they are as despicable in this instance as the republicans hiding it to protect a seat. Honestly, I think they are equivalent because we are talking about holding onto info about a predator in their midst. Playing politics with it is playing politics with it regardless of the motive. I don't think anyone should sit on info like this. For whatever reason. It's beyond sickening. From what you are saying, WB, you support the dirtiest of dirty politics if the dirty politics are on your side. You would want to allow a predator to stay in office to use that info at a more opportune time rather than exposing the predator when you learned of it? That's something I can't subscribe to.
	Submit to Quotes

10-08-2006, 01:54 PM	#1366
innerSpaceman Kink of Swank Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: Inner Space Posts: 13,075	At this rate, elimination of half the population of the planet is exactly what the aim of the War on Terror aka War on Islam is. Just what is the ratio of the muslim population to the entire population? In any event, the random number "million" was a hyperbolic expression, and not meant for numerical accuracy. But if we're speaking numbers in relation to the number killed on 9/11, why don't you perform the ratio math with a comparison to civilian deaths in Iraq, and see who comes out ahead as most murderous terrorist?
	Submit to Quotes

10-08-2006, 02:26 PM	#1367
sleepyjeff Go Hawks Go! Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: Parkrose Posts: 2,632	^Fair enough. __________________ River Guardian-less
	Submit to Quotes

10-08-2006, 06:08 PM	#1370
scaeagles I LIKE! Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 7,819	That's cool, MBC. But a question....if this was common knowledge among the pages, then how would the republican leadership have known if the democrat leadership did not? Foley deserves to be gone. I was originally pissed at Hastert, but not so much anymore. Really, I don't think the dems knew. I am upset with a few media outlets (a couple papers I think) that had the storey months ago and did nothing with it.
	Submit to Quotes