| Topic: |
Politics > Politics-USA |
| User: |
"Harry Hope" |
| Date: |
30 Jan 2006 12:39:27 PM |
| Object: |
Republicans on crack cocaine, vomit out "Abramoff Democrats" |
Of course, it helps that supporters of the RNC are easily confused.
Last week Howard Dean had to face down the remarkably uninformed Katie
Couric when she threw the stale old "Abramoff is a bipartisan scandal"
at him.
Here's the transcript:
http://thinkprogress.org/2006/01/26/couric-caught-on-tape/
COURIC: Hey, wait a second. Democrats took - Democrats took money from
Abramoff too, Mr. Dean.
DEAN: That is absolutely false. That did not happen. Not one dime of
money from Jack Abramoff went to any Democrat at any time.
COURIC: Let me just tell you - According to the Center for Responsive
Politics, Abramoff and his associates gave $3 million to Republicans
and $1.5 million to Democrats, including Sen. Minority Leader Harry
Reid.
DEAN: Not one dime of Jack Abramoff money ever went to any Democrat.
We can show you the FEC reports, we’d be very happy to do it. There’s
a lot of stuff in the press that the Republican National Committee’s
been spinning that this is a bipartisan scandal. It is a
Republican-financed scandal. Not one dime of money from Jack Abramoff
ever went to any Democrat, not one dime.
COURIC: Well, we'll obviously have to look into that and clarify that
for our viewers at a later date.
Dean was, of course, absolutely correct - not one dime of Jack
Abramoff money ever went to any Democrat.
http://www.newsmeat.com/washington_political_donations/Jack_Abramoff.php
But here comes the spin:
the RNC promptly made a masterful attempt to drag Democrats into the
very Republican Jack Abramoff scandal with this stunningly-crafted
piece of literature: http://www.gop.com/News/Read.aspx?ID=6083
Howard Dean can engage in all the Clintonian word games he wants, but
the bottom line is Democrats have been on the receiving end of
Abramoff affiliated money.
Efforts by Abramoff Democrats to indicate otherwise only reminds
Americans that their minority party is overtly hypocritical and will
stop at nothing to score cheap political points.
Our country expects its leaders to speak the truth, rather than engage
in a partisan blame game when it behooves them politically.
Excuse me, "Abramoff Democrats?"
You mean Jack "Bush Pioneer" Abramoff?
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/01/23/politics/main1227860.shtml
Jack "K Street Project" Abramoff?
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=K_Street_Project
Jack "It is not our job to seek peaceful coexistence with the Left,
our job is to remove them from power permanently" Abramoff?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jack_Abramoff
Honestly, I think someone needs to hide the RNC's crack pipe.
From The Democratic Underground
http://www.democraticunderground.com/
Harry
.
|
|
| User: "Bert Hyman" |
|
| Title: Re: Republicans on crack cocaine, vomit out "Abramoff Democrats" |
30 Jan 2006 01:13:37 PM |
|
|
(Harry Hope) wrote in
news:oanst1tpko1drj2rusq2sgn9tb5p1caev8@4ax.com:
DEAN: That is absolutely false. That did not happen. Not one dime
of money from Jack Abramoff went to any Democrat at any time.
Typical fine parsing of a statement by a weasel, rather like asking
the meaning of "is".
Apparently, unless the money went directly from Abramoff's hand into
the hand of the Democrat, it can't be counted.
--
Bert Hyman | St. Paul, MN |
.
|
|
|
| User: "monkeyhawk" |
|
| Title: Re: Republicans on crack cocaine, vomit out "Abramoff Democrats" |
30 Jan 2006 02:14:11 PM |
|
|
"Bert Hyman" <bert@iphouse.com> wrote
DEAN: That is absolutely false. That did not happen. Not one dime
of money from Jack Abramoff went to any Democrat at any time.
Typical fine parsing of a statement by a weasel, rather like asking
the meaning of "is".
You hate "parsing?"
Try this on for size:
"weapons of mass destruction-related program activities"
The true parsing is the GOP's trying to attach Abramoff "associates" in a
desperate attempt to make lifelong Republican activist Abramoff a equal
opportunity corruptor. Sure some of Abramoff's alleged "associates" might
have given money to some Democrats.
But, according to the White House, the 200-some visits Abramoff made to the
West Wing have no, ahem, "associatioin" with George WMD Bush.
The "K-Street Project" was designed by Abramoff and DeLay to bully lobbyists
into hiring only Republican operatives and giving only to Republican
campaigns. Look it up. It was in the papers.
But then again, DeLay was merely an Abramoff "associate," right?
Why should Abramoff be a big deal anyway? After all, it's not like anybody
got murdered.
Oops...
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Bradley K. Sherman" |
|
| Title: Re: Republicans on crack cocaine, vomit out "Abramoff Democrats" |
30 Jan 2006 01:14:56 PM |
|
|
In article <Xns975B86B81D66FVeebleFetzer@127.0.0.1>,
Bert Hyman <bert@iphouse.com> wrote:
rivrvu@ix.netcom.com (Harry Hope) wrote in
news:oanst1tpko1drj2rusq2sgn9tb5p1caev8@4ax.com:
DEAN: That is absolutely false. That did not happen. Not one dime
of money from Jack Abramoff went to any Democrat at any time.
Typical fine parsing of a statement by a weasel, rather like asking
the meaning of "is".
Apparently, unless the money went directly from Abramoff's hand into
the hand of the Democrat, it can't be counted.
Bert, this story has been checked fifty times. Abramoff was a
fundraiser for the GOP. Why *would* he have given money to
Democrats? You're flogging a dead horse.
--bks
.
|
|
|
| User: "Rich Travsky " |
|
| Title: Re: Republicans on crack cocaine, vomit out "Abramoff Democrats" |
31 Jan 2006 09:41:50 PM |
|
|
"Bradley K. Sherman" wrote:
In article <Xns975B86B81D66FVeebleFetzer@127.0.0.1>,
Bert Hyman <bert@iphouse.com> wrote:
rivrvu@ix.netcom.com (Harry Hope) wrote in
news:oanst1tpko1drj2rusq2sgn9tb5p1caev8@4ax.com:
DEAN: That is absolutely false. That did not happen. Not one dime
of money from Jack Abramoff went to any Democrat at any time.
Typical fine parsing of a statement by a weasel, rather like asking
the meaning of "is".
Apparently, unless the money went directly from Abramoff's hand into
the hand of the Democrat, it can't be counted.
Bert, this story has been checked fifty times. Abramoff was a
fundraiser for the GOP. Why *would* he have given money to
Democrats? You're flogging a dead horse.
Yeah Bert, why do you think he made Bush Piobeer???
RT
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Bert Hyman" |
|
| Title: Re: Republicans on crack cocaine, vomit out "Abramoff Democrats" |
30 Jan 2006 01:20:59 PM |
|
|
(Bradley K. Sherman) wrote in
news:drlojg$6gu$1@reader2.panix.com:
Bert, this story has been checked fifty times. Abramoff was a
fundraiser for the GOP. Why *would* he have given money to
Democrats? You're flogging a dead horse.
So, the reports of Democrats scrambling to get rid of money they
received from "Abramoff associates", they're all false?
Now, that's interesting.
--
Bert Hyman | St. Paul, MN |
.
|
|
|
| User: "Larry Hewitt" |
|
| Title: Re: Republicans on crack cocaine, vomit out "Abramoff Democrats" |
30 Jan 2006 01:46:13 PM |
|
|
"Bert Hyman" <> wrote in message
news:Xns975B87FFB3D60VeebleFetzer@127.0.0.1...
bks@panix.com (Bradley K. Sherman) wrote in
news:drlojg$6gu$1@reader2.panix.com:
Bert, this story has been checked fifty times. Abramoff was a
fundraiser for the GOP. Why *would* he have given money to
Democrats? You're flogging a dead horse.
So, the reports of Democrats scrambling to get rid of money they
received from "Abramoff associates", they're all false?
Now, that's interesting.
No, they're valid.
But they've learned that repuglicons hav eno honor. They have watched war
heroes be slimed, opponents be accused of fathering illegitiamte biracil
chilfren, and all manner of repuglicon dirty tricks.
All they are doing is trying to remove a possible repugliicon lie.
But it apparently ain;t working, becaue here you are spouting those lies.
Larry
--
Bert Hyman | St. Paul, MN |
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bert Hyman" |
|
| Title: Re: Republicans on crack cocaine, vomit out "Abramoff Democrats" |
30 Jan 2006 01:55:00 PM |
|
|
(Larry Hewitt) wrote in
news:drlql8$un1$1@news3.infoave.net:
All they are doing is trying to remove a possible repugliicon lie.
But it apparently ain;t working, becaue here you are spouting those
lies.
They ->did take money from "Abramoff associates" didn't they? They
->are scrambling to get rid of the money, aren't they?
So, just what lies are you talking about?
--
Bert Hyman | St. Paul, MN |
.
|
|
|
| User: "Larry Hewitt" |
|
| Title: Re: Republicans on crack cocaine, vomit out "Abramoff Democrats" |
30 Jan 2006 02:43:07 PM |
|
|
"Bert Hyman" <> wrote in message
news:Xns975B8DA3F8703VeebleFetzer@127.0.0.1...
larryhewi@comporium.net (Larry Hewitt) wrote in
news:drlql8$un1$1@news3.infoave.net:
All they are doing is trying to remove a possible repugliicon lie.
But it apparently ain;t working, becaue here you are spouting those
lies.
They ->did take money from "Abramoff associates" didn't they? They
->are scrambling to get rid of the money, aren't they?
So, just what lies are you talking about?
Swiftboatlairs for dishonety.
Accusations against Murtha.
Accusations against Cleland
Accusations against McCain.
You know, the stuff you deleted in terror.
Larry
--
Bert Hyman | St. Paul, MN |
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bert Hyman" |
|
| Title: Re: Republicans on crack cocaine, vomit out "Abramoff Democrats" |
30 Jan 2006 02:54:02 PM |
|
|
(Larry Hewitt) wrote in
news:drltvs$1034$1@news3.infoave.net:
"Bert Hyman" < > wrote in message
news:Xns975B8DA3F8703VeebleFetzer@127.0.0.1...
(Larry Hewitt) wrote in
news:drlql8$un1$1@news3.infoave.net:
All they are doing is trying to remove a possible repugliicon
lie. But it apparently ain;t working, becaue here you are
spouting those lies.
They ->did take money from "Abramoff associates" didn't they? They
->are scrambling to get rid of the money, aren't they?
So, just what lies are you talking about?
Swiftboatlairs for dishonety.
Accusations against Murtha.
Accusations against Cleland
Accusations against McCain.
You know, the stuff you deleted in terror.
If I'd actually said anything about any of those things, you might
have a point.
Since I didn't what the hell are you going on about?
--
Bert Hyman | St. Paul, MN |
.
|
|
|
| User: "Larry Hewitt" |
|
| Title: Re: Republicans on crack cocaine, vomit out "Abramoff Democrats" |
30 Jan 2006 03:30:12 PM |
|
|
"Bert Hyman" <> wrote in message
news:Xns975B97A8F5249VeebleFetzer@127.0.0.1...
larryhewi@comporium.net (Larry Hewitt) wrote in
news:drltvs$1034$1@news3.infoave.net:
"Bert Hyman" < > wrote in message
news:Xns975B8DA3F8703VeebleFetzer@127.0.0.1...
larryhewi@comporium.net (Larry Hewitt) wrote in
news:drlql8$un1$1@news3.infoave.net:
All they are doing is trying to remove a possible repugliicon
lie. But it apparently ain;t working, becaue here you are
spouting those lies.
They ->did take money from "Abramoff associates" didn't they? They
->are scrambling to get rid of the money, aren't they?
So, just what lies are you talking about?
Swiftboatlairs for dishonety.
Accusations against Murtha.
Accusations against Cleland
Accusations against McCain.
You know, the stuff you deleted in terror.
If I'd actually said anything about any of those things, you might
have a point.
Since I didn't what the hell are you going on about?
Deleted too much and forgot what you replied to, huh?
Larry
--
Bert Hyman | St. Paul, MN |
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bert Hyman" |
|
| Title: Re: Republicans on crack cocaine, vomit out "Abramoff Democrats" |
30 Jan 2006 03:40:26 PM |
|
|
(Larry Hewitt) wrote in
news:drm0o5$11ph$1@news3.infoave.net:
"Bert Hyman" < > wrote in message
news:Xns975B97A8F5249VeebleFetzer@127.0.0.1...
(Larry Hewitt) wrote in
news:drltvs$1034$1@news3.infoave.net:
"Bert Hyman" < > wrote in message
news:Xns975B8DA3F8703VeebleFetzer@127.0.0.1...
(Larry Hewitt) wrote in
news:drlql8$un1$1@news3.infoave.net:
All they are doing is trying to remove a possible repugliicon
lie. But it apparently ain;t working, becaue here you are
spouting those lies.
They ->did take money from "Abramoff associates" didn't they?
They ->are scrambling to get rid of the money, aren't they?
So, just what lies are you talking about?
Swiftboatlairs for dishonety.
Accusations against Murtha.
Accusations against Cleland
Accusations against McCain.
You know, the stuff you deleted in terror.
If I'd actually said anything about any of those things, you might
have a point.
Since I didn't what the hell are you going on about?
Deleted too much and forgot what you replied to, huh?
I repeat:
If I'd actually said anything about any of those things, you might
have a point.
Since I didn't what the hell are you going on about?
Did I mention "swiftboaters"?
Did I mention Murtha?
Did I mention Cleland?
Did I mention McCain?
You're apparently being distracted by the voices yammering inside
your head.
Good luck in your future endeavors.
--
Bert Hyman | St. Paul, MN |
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "monkeyhawk" |
|
| Title: Re: Republicans on crack cocaine, vomit out "Abramoff Democrats" |
30 Jan 2006 03:34:30 PM |
|
|
"Bert Hyman" <bert@iphouse.com> wrote
So, just what lies are you talking about?
Swiftboatlairs for dishonety.
Accusations against Murtha.
Accusations against Cleland
Accusations against McCain.
You know, the stuff you deleted in terror.
If I'd actually said anything about any of those things, you might
have a point.
Since I didn't what the hell are you going on about?
Okay, "Bert Hyman," here's what it's about.
For the life of me, I can't understand how so completely compartmentalized
is the thinking of contemporary "conservatives."
On one hand, you can rail against "jack-booted thugs" from the government
coming to wrest your precious guns away from you, but you think it's just
fine of George WMD Bush thinks it's his privilege to listen in on all your
phone calls, monitor all your e-mails, track every web site you've ever
linked to.
On one hand, you carp about Howard Dean's (proven correct) statement that no
Democrat ever received money from Jack Abramoff, but glom onto the re-parsed
GOP-driven rephrasing (Abramoff associates), all the while claiming that any
connection between Abramoff's admitted felonies and Tom DeLay's indictable
crimes are, somehow, unfair application of guilt by association.
On one hand, you backed the election of George WMD Bush who, in 2000,
promised that he would not engage in "nation building," and who has run
through all sorts of excuses for his Iraqi invasion that he's left with
"building democracy" in Iraq as his only plausible excuse for the quagmire
he has wrought; and on the other hand you people justify Shrub's actions by
saying, "Bill Clinton did it (or something vaguely similar), too!" when
everyone knows that everything and anything President Clinton did in office
was vilified by Republican partisans.
How does that "logic" work, anyway?
On the one hand, the "conservatives" *say* they support federalism; the
sovereign rights of the states. So when Oregon or California or Nevada, or
Colorado, or Rhode Island pass a clearly states'-oriented issue such as
"Right to Die," or medical marijuana rights, "conservatives" pull out the
feds and start busting Multiple Sclerosis victims for toking a joint.
On the one hand, "conservatives" *claim* to be "originalists" when it comes
to interpreting the Constitution of the United States, then champion the
ascension to the Supreme Court of an ideologue who, in defiance of the 4th
Amendment, sanctions the warrantless strip-search of a 10-year-old girl.
On one hand, Rush Limbaugh can demand that drug abusers be shipped off to
prison and the key be thrown away, but when the Round Mound of Reactionary
Sound sends his maid to the local Pizza Hut parking lot to score thousands
of hits of Hillbilly Heroin to support his habit (a side-effect that often
results in pathological deafness...hear that?), ol' Rusty depends on the
ACLU to make his case against "intrusive governmental action."
As a good "conservative," you seem to be able to compartmentalize all the
issues along political biases.
It reminds me of the recent "BTK Killer," case in Kansas. Here we had a law
enforcement officer, the president of his church's congregation, a
"dedicated Boy Scout leader," who, in his free time, found at least 10
victims to "Bind, Torture, and Kill." He could compartmentalize his
thoughts and actions perfectly.
Betcha Dennis Rader also voted Republican.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bert Hyman" |
|
| Title: Re: Republicans on crack cocaine, vomit out "Abramoff Democrats" |
30 Jan 2006 03:41:52 PM |
|
|
(monkeyhawk) wrote in
news:SHvDf.332580$0l5.103536@dukeread06:
"Bert Hyman" < > wrote
So, just what lies are you talking about?
Swiftboatlairs for dishonety.
Accusations against Murtha.
Accusations against Cleland
Accusations against McCain.
You know, the stuff you deleted in terror.
If I'd actually said anything about any of those things, you might
have a point.
Since I didn't what the hell are you going on about?
Okay, "Bert Hyman," here's what it's about.
It's about this Hewitt person claiming that I've said things I never
said.
That's all.
No more.
Does he pay you to speak for him, or are you two just real close
friends?
--
Bert Hyman | St. Paul, MN |
.
|
|
|
| User: "Larry Hewitt" |
|
| Title: Re: Republicans on crack cocaine, vomit out "Abramoff Democrats" |
30 Jan 2006 07:04:22 PM |
|
|
"Bert Hyman" <> wrote in message
news:Xns975B9FCDD25ABVeebleFetzer@127.0.0.1...
monkeyhawk@cox.net (monkeyhawk) wrote in
news:SHvDf.332580$0l5.103536@dukeread06:
"Bert Hyman" < > wrote
So, just what lies are you talking about?
Swiftboatlairs for dishonety.
Accusations against Murtha.
Accusations against Cleland
Accusations against McCain.
You know, the stuff you deleted in terror.
If I'd actually said anything about any of those things, you might
have a point.
Since I didn't what the hell are you going on about?
Okay, "Bert Hyman," here's what it's about.
It's about this Hewitt person claiming that I've said things I never
said.
No. You replied to me, deleted half my post, then forgot what I was talking
about.
You, in your paranod delusions, thought I was referring to you specifically,
when in fact what you deled was a general reference.
And monkeyhawk has it right. You compartmentalize, you rationalize, you
excuse, you reinterpret.
Larry
That's all.
No more.
Does he pay you to speak for him, or are you two just real close
friends?
--
Bert Hyman | St. Paul, MN |
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "monkeyhawk" |
|
| Title: Re: Republicans on crack cocaine, vomit out "Abramoff Democrats" |
30 Jan 2006 04:06:25 PM |
|
|
"Bert Hyman" <bert@iphouse.com> wrote
It's about this Hewitt person claiming that I've said things I never
said.
That's all.
No more.
Actually, no.
If you hadn't snipped my post, you might have noticed that it was about the
mindless compartmentlization that somehow makes folks like you advocate one
thing, then another, and not succomb to the obvious cognitive dissonance you
create.
Here's my the relevant issues from my original post:
Okay, "Bert Hyman," here's what it's about.
For the life of me, I can't understand how so completely compartmentalized
is the thinking of contemporary "conservatives."
On one hand, you can rail against "jack-booted thugs" from the government
coming to wrest your precious guns away from you, but you think it's just
fine of George WMD Bush thinks it's his privilege to listen in on all your
phone calls, monitor all your e-mails, track every web site you've ever
linked to.
On one hand, you carp about Howard Dean's (proven correct) statement that no
Democrat ever received money from Jack Abramoff, but glom onto the re-parsed
GOP-driven rephrasing (Abramoff associates), all the while claiming that any
connection between Abramoff's admitted felonies and Tom DeLay's indictable
crimes are, somehow, unfair application of guilt by association.
On one hand, you backed the election of George WMD Bush who, in 2000,
promised that he would not engage in "nation building," and who has run
through all sorts of excuses for his Iraqi invasion that he's left with
"building democracy" in Iraq as his only plausible excuse for the quagmire
he has wrought; and on the other hand you people justify Shrub's actions by
saying, "Bill Clinton did it (or something vaguely similar), too!" when
everyone knows that everything and anything President Clinton did in office
was vilified by Republican partisans.
How does that "logic" work, anyway?
On the one hand, the "conservatives" *say* they support federalism; the
sovereign rights of the states. So when Oregon or California or Nevada, or
Colorado, or Rhode Island pass a clearly states'-oriented issue such as
"Right to Die," or medical marijuana rights, "conservatives" pull out the
feds and start busting Multiple Sclerosis victims for toking a joint.
On the one hand, "conservatives" *claim* to be "originalists" when it comes
to interpreting the Constitution of the United States, then champion the
ascension to the Supreme Court of an ideologue who, in defiance of the 4th
Amendment, sanctions the warrantless strip-search of a 10-year-old girl.
On one hand, Rush Limbaugh can demand that drug abusers be shipped off to
prison and the key be thrown away, but when the Round Mound of Reactionary
Sound sends his maid to the local Pizza Hut parking lot to score thousands
of hits of Hillbilly Heroin to support his habit (a side-effect that often
results in pathological deafness...hear that?), ol' Rusty depends on the
ACLU to make his case against "intrusive governmental action."
As a good "conservative," you seem to be able to compartmentalize all the
issues along political biases.
It reminds me of the recent "BTK Killer," case in Kansas. Here we had a law
enforcement officer, the president of his church's congregation, a
"dedicated Boy Scout leader," who, in his free time, found at least 10
victims to "Bind, Torture, and Kill." He could compartmentalize his
thoughts and actions perfectly.
Betcha Dennis Rader also voted Republican.
Does he pay you to speak for him, or are you two just real close
friends?
I have no idea who "Hewitt" might be.
It's just you and me.
Care to speak to the issues at hand, or would you prefer to continue with
the pathological compartmentalization of issue that seems to serve you so
well?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bert Hyman" |
|
| Title: Re: Republicans on crack cocaine, vomit out "Abramoff Democrats" |
30 Jan 2006 04:51:24 PM |
|
|
In news:i5wDf.332582$0l5.122952@dukeread06 "monkeyhawk"
<monkeyhawk@cox.net> wrote:
Okay, "Bert Hyman," here's what it's about.
Sorry, you don't get to wander into the middle of an argument and tell the
participants what it's all about.
--
Bert Hyman St. Paul, MN bert@iphouse.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "monkeyhawk" |
|
| Title: Re: Republicans on crack cocaine, vomit out "Abramoff Democrats" |
30 Jan 2006 05:04:38 PM |
|
|
"Bert Hyman" <bert@iphouse.com> wrote
In news:i5wDf.332582$0l5.122952@dukeread06 "monkeyhawk"
<monkeyhawk@cox.net> wrote:
Okay, "Bert Hyman," here's what it's about.
Sorry, you don't get to wander into the middle of an argument and tell the
participants what it's all about.
Uhm, I'm a participant now.
And here's what you somehow feel compelled to repeatedly snip:
Here's my the relevant issues from my original post:
Okay, "Bert Hyman," here's what it's about.
For the life of me, I can't understand how so completely compartmentalized
is the thinking of contemporary "conservatives."
On one hand, you can rail against "jack-booted thugs" from the government
coming to wrest your precious guns away from you, but you think it's just
fine of George WMD Bush thinks it's his privilege to listen in on all your
phone calls, monitor all your e-mails, track every web site you've ever
linked to.
On one hand, you carp about Howard Dean's (proven correct) statement that no
Democrat ever received money from Jack Abramoff, but glom onto the re-parsed
GOP-driven rephrasing (Abramoff associates), all the while claiming that any
connection between Abramoff's admitted felonies and Tom DeLay's indictable
crimes are, somehow, unfair application of guilt by association.
On one hand, you backed the election of George WMD Bush who, in 2000,
promised that he would not engage in "nation building," and who has run
through all sorts of excuses for his Iraqi invasion that he's left with
"building democracy" in Iraq as his only plausible excuse for the quagmire
he has wrought; and on the other hand you people justify Shrub's actions by
saying, "Bill Clinton did it (or something vaguely similar), too!" when
everyone knows that everything and anything President Clinton did in office
was vilified by Republican partisans.
How does that "logic" work, anyway?
On the one hand, the "conservatives" *say* they support federalism; the
sovereign rights of the states. So when Oregon or California or Nevada, or
Colorado, or Rhode Island pass a clearly states'-oriented issue such as
"Right to Die," or medical marijuana rights, "conservatives" pull out the
feds and start busting Multiple Sclerosis victims for toking a joint.
On the one hand, "conservatives" *claim* to be "originalists" when it comes
to interpreting the Constitution of the United States, then champion the
ascension to the Supreme Court of an ideologue who, in defiance of the 4th
Amendment, sanctions the warrantless strip-search of a 10-year-old girl.
On one hand, Rush Limbaugh can demand that drug abusers be shipped off to
prison and the key be thrown away, but when the Round Mound of Reactionary
Sound sends his maid to the local Pizza Hut parking lot to score thousands
of hits of Hillbilly Heroin to support his habit (a side-effect that often
results in pathological deafness...hear that?), ol' Rusty depends on the
ACLU to make his case against "intrusive governmental action."
As a good "conservative," you seem to be able to compartmentalize all the
issues along political biases.
It reminds me of the recent "BTK Killer," case in Kansas. Here we had a law
enforcement officer, the president of his church's congregation, a
"dedicated Boy Scout leader," who, in his free time, found at least 10
victims to "Bind, Torture, and Kill." He could compartmentalize his
thoughts and actions perfectly.
Betcha Dennis Rader also voted Republican.
Does he pay you to speak for him, or are you two just real close
friends?
I have no idea who "Hewitt" might be.
It's just you and me.
Care to speak to the issues at hand, or would you prefer to continue with
the pathological compartmentalization of issue that seems to serve you so
well?
.
|
|
|
| User: "monkeyhawk" |
|
| Title: Re: Republicans on crack cocaine, vomit out "Abramoff Democrats" |
19 Feb 2006 02:58:58 AM |
|
|
"monkeyhawk" <monkeyhawk@cox.net> wrote in message
news:uYwDf.332591$0l5.308390@dukeread06...
"Bert Hyman" <bert@iphouse.com> wrote
In news:i5wDf.332582$0l5.122952@dukeread06 "monkeyhawk"
<monkeyhawk@cox.net> wrote:
Okay, "Bert Hyman," here's what it's about.
Sorry, you don't get to wander into the middle of an argument and tell
the
participants what it's all about.
Uhm, I'm a participant now.
And here's what you somehow feel compelled to repeatedly snip:
Here's my the relevant issues from my original post:
Okay, "Bert Hyman," here's what it's about.
For the life of me, I can't understand how so completely compartmentalized
is the thinking of contemporary "conservatives."
On one hand, you can rail against "jack-booted thugs" from the government
coming to wrest your precious guns away from you, but you think it's just
fine of George WMD Bush thinks it's his privilege to listen in on all your
phone calls, monitor all your e-mails, track every web site you've ever
linked to.
On one hand, you carp about Howard Dean's (proven correct) statement that
no
Democrat ever received money from Jack Abramoff, but glom onto the
re-parsed
GOP-driven rephrasing (Abramoff associates), all the while claiming that
any
connection between Abramoff's admitted felonies and Tom DeLay's indictable
crimes are, somehow, unfair application of guilt by association.
On one hand, you backed the election of George WMD Bush who, in 2000,
promised that he would not engage in "nation building," and who has run
through all sorts of excuses for his Iraqi invasion that he's left with
"building democracy" in Iraq as his only plausible excuse for the quagmire
he has wrought; and on the other hand you people justify Shrub's actions
by
saying, "Bill Clinton did it (or something vaguely similar), too!" when
everyone knows that everything and anything President Clinton did in
office
was vilified by Republican partisans.
How does that "logic" work, anyway?
On the one hand, the "conservatives" *say* they support federalism; the
sovereign rights of the states. So when Oregon or California or Nevada,
or
Colorado, or Rhode Island pass a clearly states'-oriented issue such as
"Right to Die," or medical marijuana rights, "conservatives" pull out the
feds and start busting Multiple Sclerosis victims for toking a joint.
On the one hand, "conservatives" *claim* to be "originalists" when it
comes
to interpreting the Constitution of the United States, then champion the
ascension to the Supreme Court of an ideologue who, in defiance of the 4th
Amendment, sanctions the warrantless strip-search of a 10-year-old girl.
On one hand, Rush Limbaugh can demand that drug abusers be shipped off to
prison and the key be thrown away, but when the Round Mound of Reactionary
Sound sends his maid to the local Pizza Hut parking lot to score thousands
of hits of Hillbilly Heroin to support his habit (a side-effect that often
results in pathological deafness...hear that?), ol' Rusty depends on the
ACLU to make his case against "intrusive governmental action."
As a good "conservative," you seem to be able to compartmentalize all the
issues along political biases.
It reminds me of the recent "BTK Killer," case in Kansas. Here we had a
law
enforcement officer, the president of his church's congregation, a
"dedicated Boy Scout leader," who, in his free time, found at least 10
victims to "Bind, Torture, and Kill." He could compartmentalize his
thoughts and actions perfectly.
Betcha Dennis Rader also voted Republican.
Does he pay you to speak for him, or are you two just real close
friends?
I have no idea who "Hewitt" might be.
It's just you and me.
Care to speak to the issues at hand, or would you prefer to continue with
the pathological compartmentalization of issue that seems to serve you so
well?
(crickets chirping)
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bert Hyman" |
|
| Title: Re: Republicans on crack cocaine, vomit out "Abramoff Democrats" |
19 Feb 2006 10:39:38 AM |
|
|
In news:HxWJf.123420$0G.12599@dukeread10 "monkeyhawk"
<monkeyhawk@cox.net> wrote:
(crickets chirping)
Did you ->really expect me to respond to your rant?
Why? So far as I can extract any meaning from it, it has nothing to do
with anything I was talking about.
--
Bert Hyman St. Paul, MN bert@iphouse.com
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Rich Travsky " |
|
| Title: Re: Republicans on crack cocaine, vomit out "Abramoff Democrats" |
31 Jan 2006 09:43:48 PM |
|
|
Bert Hyman wrote:
monkeyhawk@cox.net (monkeyhawk) wrote in
news:SHvDf.332580$0l5.103536@dukeread06:
"Bert Hyman" < > wrote
So, just what lies are you talking about?
Swiftboatlairs for dishonety.
Accusations against Murtha.
Accusations against Cleland
Accusations against McCain.
You know, the stuff you deleted in terror.
If I'd actually said anything about any of those things, you might
have a point.
Since I didn't what the hell are you going on about?
Okay, "Bert Hyman," here's what it's about.
It's about this Hewitt person claiming that I've said things I never
said.
He made no such claim. Here's the context you snipped:
"Bert Hyman" <> wrote in message
news:Xns975B8DA3F8703VeebleFetzer@127.0.0.1...
larryhewi@comporium.net (Larry Hewitt) wrote in
news:drlql8$un1$1@news3.infoave.net:
All they are doing is trying to remove a possible repugliicon lie.
But it apparently ain;t working, becaue here you are spouting those
lies.
They ->did take money from "Abramoff associates" didn't they? They
->are scrambling to get rid of the money, aren't they?
So, just what lies are you talking about?
That's all.
No more.
Does he pay you to speak for him, or are you two just real close
friends?
--
Bert Hyman | St. Paul, MN |
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Kilgore Trout" |
|
| Title: Re: Republicans on crack cocaine, vomit out "Abramoff Democrats" |
30 Jan 2006 01:18:56 PM |
|
|
On 30 Jan 2006 19:13:37 GMT, Bert Hyman <bert@iphouse.com> wrote:
rivrvu@ix.netcom.com (Harry Hope) wrote in
news:oanst1tpko1drj2rusq2sgn9tb5p1caev8@4ax.com:
DEAN: That is absolutely false. That did not happen. Not one dime
of money from Jack Abramoff went to any Democrat at any time.
Typical fine parsing of a statement by a weasel, rather like asking
the meaning of "is".
Apparently, unless the money went directly from Abramoff's hand into
the hand of the Democrat, it can't be counted.
Well, when somebody says "Abramoff gave money to Democrats as well as
Republicans", then pointing out that in fact Jack Abramoff gave NO
MONEY to Democrats is an entirely appropriate answer.
As to money from tribes that Abramoff came to represent being
contributed to Democrats, this article puts it into appropriate
perspective:
"The analysis shows that when Abramoff took on his tribal clients, the
majority of them dramatically ratcheted up donations to Republicans.
Meanwhile, donations to Democrats from the same clients either
dropped, remained largely static or, in two cases, rose by a far
smaller percentage than the ones to Republicans did. This pattern
suggests that whatever money went to Democrats, rather than having
been steered by Abramoff, may have largely been money the tribes would
have given anyway."
http://www.prospect.org/web/page.ww?section=root&name=ViewWeb&articleId=10924
You guys can try to deflect and distract all that you want, but the
cold, hard fact is that the Abramoff scandal is a Republican scandal.
Period.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Rick Hohensee" |
|
| Title: Re: Republicans on crack cocaine, vomit out "Abramoff Democrats" |
30 Jan 2006 05:22:07 PM |
|
|
In article <oanst1tpko1drj2rusq2sgn9tb5p1caev8@4ax.com>,
Harry Hope <rivrvu@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
Of course, it helps that supporters of the RNC are easily confused.
Last week Howard Dean had to face down the remarkably uninformed Katie
Couric when she threw the stale old "Abramoff is a bipartisan scandal"
at him.
Here's the transcript:
http://thinkprogress.org/2006/01/26/couric-caught-on-tape/
COURIC: Hey, wait a second. Democrats took - Democrats took money from
Abramoff too, Mr. Dean.
DEAN: That is absolutely false. That did not happen. Not one dime of
money from Jack Abramoff went to any Democrat at any time.
COURIC: Let me just tell you - According to the Center for Responsive
Politics, Abramoff and his associates gave $3 million to Republicans
Who's that, Karl Rove?
and $1.5 million to Democrats, including Sen. Minority Leader Harry
Reid.
DEAN: Not one dime of Jack Abramoff money ever went to any Democrat.
We can show you the FEC reports, we’d be very happy to do it. There’s
a lot of stuff in the press that the Republican National Committee’s
been spinning that this is a bipartisan scandal. It is a
Republican-financed scandal. Not one dime of money from Jack Abramoff
ever went to any Democrat, not one dime.
COURIC: Well, we'll obviously have to look into that and clarify that
for our viewers at a later date.
Dean was, of course, absolutely correct - not one dime of Jack
Abramoff money ever went to any Democrat.
http://www.newsmeat.com/washington_political_donations/Jack_Abramoff.php
But here comes the spin:
the RNC promptly made a masterful attempt to drag Democrats into the
very Republican Jack Abramoff scandal with this stunningly-crafted
piece of literature: http://www.gop.com/News/Read.aspx?ID=6083
Howard Dean can engage in all the Clintonian word games he wants, but
the bottom line is Democrats have been on the receiving end of
Abramoff affiliated money.
Efforts by Abramoff Democrats to indicate otherwise only reminds
Americans that their minority party is overtly hypocritical and will
stop at nothing to score cheap political points.
Our country expects its leaders to speak the truth, rather than engage
in a partisan blame game when it behooves them politically.
Excuse me, "Abramoff Democrats?"
You mean Jack "Bush Pioneer" Abramoff?
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/01/23/politics/main1227860.shtml
Jack "K Street Project" Abramoff?
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=K_Street_Project
Jack "It is not our job to seek peaceful coexistence with the Left,
our job is to remove them from power permanently" Abramoff?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jack_Abramoff
Honestly, I think someone needs to hide the RNC's crack pipe.
From The Democratic Underground
http://www.democraticunderground.com/
Harry
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bradley K. Sherman" |
|
| Title: Re: Republicans on crack cocaine, vomit out "Abramoff Democrats" |
30 Jan 2006 05:56:40 PM |
|
|
Name the Democrats. Give a citation. No need to argue.
--bks
.
|
|
|
| User: "Rich Travsky " |
|
| Title: Re: Republicans on crack cocaine, vomit out "Abramoff Democrats" |
31 Jan 2006 09:44:07 PM |
|
|
"Bradley K. Sherman" wrote:
Name the Democrats. Give a citation. No need to argue.
<silence>
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Tag Heuer" |
|
| Title: Re: Republicans on crack cocaine, vomit out "Abramoff Democrats" |
30 Jan 2006 01:09:25 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 30 Jan 2006 18:39:27 GMT, Harry Hope <rivrvu@ix.netcom.com>
wrote:
Of course, it helps that supporters of the RNC are easily confused.
Last week Howard Dean had to face down the remarkably uninformed Katie
Couric when she threw the stale old "Abramoff is a bipartisan scandal"
at him.
Here's the transcript:
http://thinkprogress.org/2006/01/26/couric-caught-on-tape/
COURIC: Hey, wait a second. Democrats took - Democrats took money from
Abramoff too, Mr. Dean.
DEAN: That is absolutely false. That did not happen. Not one dime of
money from Jack Abramoff went to any Democrat at any time.
COURIC: Let me just tell you - According to the Center for Responsive
Politics, Abramoff and his associates gave $3 million to Republicans
and $1.5 million to Democrats, including Sen. Minority Leader Harry
Reid.
DEAN: Not one dime of Jack Abramoff money ever went to any Democrat.
We can show you the FEC reports, we’d be very happy to do it. There’s
a lot of stuff in the press that the Republican National Committee’s
been spinning that this is a bipartisan scandal. It is a
Republican-financed scandal. Not one dime of money from Jack Abramoff
ever went to any Democrat, not one dime.
COURIC: Well, we'll obviously have to look into that and clarify that
for our viewers at a later date.
Dean was, of course, absolutely correct - not one dime of Jack
Abramoff money ever went to any Democrat.
http://www.newsmeat.com/washington_political_donations/Jack_Abramoff.php
But here comes the spin:
the RNC promptly made a masterful attempt to drag Democrats into the
very Republican Jack Abramoff scandal with this stunningly-crafted
piece of literature: http://www.gop.com/News/Read.aspx?ID=6083
Howard Dean can engage in all the Clintonian word games he wants, but
the bottom line is Democrats have been on the receiving end of
Abramoff affiliated money.
Efforts by Abramoff Democrats to indicate otherwise only reminds
Americans that their minority party is overtly hypocritical and will
stop at nothing to score cheap political points.
Our country expects its leaders to speak the truth, rather than engage
in a partisan blame game when it behooves them politically.
Excuse me, "Abramoff Democrats?"
You mean Jack "Bush Pioneer" Abramoff?
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/01/23/politics/main1227860.shtml
Jack "K Street Project" Abramoff?
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=K_Street_Project
Jack "It is not our job to seek peaceful coexistence with the Left,
our job is to remove them from power permanently" Abramoff?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jack_Abramoff
Honestly, I think someone needs to hide the RNC's crack pipe.
From The Democratic Underground
http://www.democraticunderground.com/
Harry
Hm. Presumably at the "behest" of Abramoff's clients did those other
than Republican receive funds. Jack Abramoff never DIRECTLY gave
money to say, Now, just who were those "clients?" The one's Abramoff
had swindled? Go figure.
Consider, the "detail by donor" & "donor" (ie. Abramoff, Jack A. &
Pamela) where it is clearly a Republican matter in terms of direct
contributions and where no "Abramoff Democrats" appear listed:
http://www.capitaleye.org/abramoff_donor.asp
When Scat McClellan says, "The president does not know him, nor does
the president ever recall meeting him," it should go without saying
and many should indeed take notice, even if he did attend a few
cabinet level staff meetings at the Whitehouse, right?
"I will bring honor to the process and honor to the office I seek
.....I will repair the broken bonds of trust between Americans and
their government." --- George W. Bush, March 7, 2000
http://tinyurl.com/dt7xy
http://tagheuerblog.blogspot.com/
http://tagheuerblog.blogspot.com/atom.xml
.
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
