Some Republicans Idea of Family values .....

[W*GS]

Originally Posted by §Pide®

since when ? has she announced her intent to Run ?

Under what rock have you been living?

[Spider]

Originally Posted by W*GS

Under what rock have you been living?

when did she announce her intent to run ?

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Originally Posted by §Pide®

when did she announce her intent to run ?

Don't hold your breath waiting for him to provide a link.

[W*GS]

Originally Posted by §Pide®

when did she announce her intent to run ?

She and her minions in the Party have been positioning her for years now.

Is this news to you?

[Spider]

Originally Posted by W*GS

She and her minions in the Party have been positioning her for years now.

Is this news to you?

They can position all they want , Now again When did she announce her intent ?

[Blueflame]

Originally Posted by W*GS

You're doing the same thing as Spider - how does the list relate to "conservative wrongdoing"?

OK... it deals with pedophilia... which is a felony... thus would fall into the category of "wrongdoing" by almost any standards. The names on that list are followed by "R" which denotes affiliation with the Republican party... which is pretty much synonymous with "conservative" whether their policies are, in actuality, conservative or not. Therefore, the list chronicles "conservative wrongdoing".

Only those individuals who are on the list or who are adulterers can't legitimately criticize Clinton's adultery; others (Republicans, conservatives and others, including even progressives) can criticize Clinton's adultery (and his other actions), and Spider's cheap smear is worthless.

Most truly moral people deplore Clinton's adultery. And there's nothing wrong with those who are not guilty of doing the same or worse criticizing that kind of behavior. Throwing stones from a glass house as some of the House managers did, however, damages their credibility.

Guilt-by-association is a pathetic tactic, that's all.

I didn't see where guilt by association was alleged...

So, if a given politician doesn't run on the "family values" platform, he can engage in pedophilia at will, because then he won't be as hypocritical?

He'd still be a predatory slimeball... but perhaps not a hypocritical one pretending to be moral.

Spider was out to smear Republicans, all his coyness notwithstanding.

It seems to me that those Republicans named on the list were well deserving of being smeared.

I don't care, particularly. Spider can do a whole lot better, certainly - but this sort of nonsense is easy, and doesn't require any thought. Genuine criticism takes effort, and it's clear that Spider isn't up to the task.

Not caring doesn't jibe with the number of posts you've made protesting the posting of the list, W*GS...

And I'm not a member of the Libertarian Party, which is what a capital "L" implies. I have strong libertarian tendencies.

Now I'm confused.... does this mean you're a Republican with strong lbertarian tendencies?

[W*GS]

Originally Posted by §Pide®

They can position all they want , Now again When did she announce her intent ?

http://www.ovaloffice2008.com

No candidate has announced just yet, but the pundit class has Hillary as the leading Democrat.

[Spider]

Originally Posted by W*GS

http://www.ovaloffice2008.com

No candidate has announced just yet, but the pundit class has Hillary as the leading Democrat.

Thats what I thought ........ Now can you show me where she has talked about Running ?

[W*GS]

Originally Posted by Blueflame

OK... it deals with pedophilia... which is a felony... thus would fall into the category of "wrongdoing" by almost any standards. The names on that list are followed by "R" which denotes affiliation with the Republican party... which is pretty much synonymous with "conservative" whether their policies are, in actuality, conservative or not. Therefore, the list chronicles "conservative wrongdoing".

Still too broad a brush.

The list is composed of pedophiles who happen to be affiliated in one way or another with the Republican Party - and what that implies about the Republican Party is absolutely nothing, despite Spider's best attempts otherwise.

Originally Posted by Blueflame

I didn't see where guilt by association was alleged...

The mention of political affiliation, which is wholly irrelevant.

Originally Posted by Blueflame

Not caring doesn't jibe with the number of posts you've made protesting the posting of the list, W*GS...

I don't protest the list - I protest its intent, which is entirely fallacious.

Originally Posted by Blueflame

Now I'm confused.... does this mean you're a Republican with strong lbertarian tendencies?

I'm not a member of any political party. The Republicans are far too dependent on the evangelical Christians, among many other reasons, for me to be a member.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Originally Posted by Blueflame

Not caring doesn't jibe with the number of posts you've made protesting the posting of the list, W*GS...

Yep.

If you want confirmation that W*GS is a GOP/right-wing apologist, then watch what he does (as opposed to listening to what he says.)

[W*GS]

Originally Posted by §Pide®

Thats what I thought ........ Now can you show me where she has talked about Running ?

She hasn't. Yet. But it's pretty clear she's putting herself in a position to make a serious attempt at it. Why do you think she ran for the Senate, having held no elected office before? So she could serve the fine people of New York? They've got a bridge there they can sell you, too.

[Blueflame]

Originally Posted by W*GS

A special prosecutor is very unlikely to be appointed, because politicians in both parties have a mutual interest in keeping their tawdry little activities as secret as possible.

Obviously that was not the case with Clinton and the rules were changed in order to attempt to elevate his extramarital affair to an impeachable offense.

All politicians are scum, and they have the benefit of being able to rig the system to protect themselves from true justice and accountability.

No argument here... but some politicians are better able to bury their misdeeds than others are.

I question her ability to be President - for that reason as well as many more. I also think it's a travesty that she's a Senator, but that's the fault of New Yorkers.

There are far slimier people than Hillary serving in Congress (ex: Tom DeLay... but that's the fault of Texans )

I'm talking here more about his various policies and his other actions, not things Starr was investigating.

You mean with virtually-unlimited money and authority, Starr missed some things that needed investigation?

Things like his use of the Justice Department as a means to bypass Congress.

Specifics?

[Spider]

Originally Posted by W*GS

She hasn't. Yet. But it's pretty clear she's putting herself in a position to make a serious attempt at it. Why do you think she ran for the Senate, having held no elected office before? So she could serve the fine people of New York? They've got a bridge there they can sell you, too.

so you have her Posturing for being president without Proof ? Why ?

[W*GS]

Originally Posted by L.A. BRONCOS FAN

If you want confirmation that W*GS is a GOP/right-wing apologist, then watch what he does (as opposed to listening to what he says.)

You never listen, LABF - that's one of your (many) problems.

What about that Soros/Carlyle connection, anyway?

[W*GS]

Originally Posted by §Pide®

so you have her Posturing for being president without Proof ? Why ?

I'm far from the only person who believes Hillary is going to make a run in 2008. Some Democratic strategists think the party didn't do as much for Kerry in 2004 so the way would be clearer for Hillary in 2008, and in fact, Kerry was nominated because defeating Bush would have been too problematic for them to use their "best" candidate, i.e., Hillary.

[Spider]

Originally Posted by W*GS

The list is composed of pedophiles who happen to be affiliated in one way or another with the Republican Party - and what that implies about the Republican Party is absolutely nothing, despite Spider's best attempts otherwise.

Better yet tell them to stop ........

The mention of political affiliation, which is wholly irrelevant.

Despite they are a Party of God , Good ole Fashion american Values ....

I don't protest the list - I protest its intent, which is entirely fallacious.

Protest the messenger , meanwhile ignore the perps ......

I'm not a member of any political party. The Republicans are far too dependent on the evangelical Christians, among many other reasons, for me to be a member.

Uh huh .........Sure thing batman

[W*GS]

Originally Posted by §Pide®

Protest the messenger , meanwhile ignore the perps ......

Most have been convicted (at least one was acquitted, BTW) - what else should be done with them? A lynching?

[Spider]

Originally Posted by W*GS

Most have been convicted (at least one was acquitted, BTW) - what else should be done with them? A lynching?

works for me

[W*GS]

Originally Posted by §Pide®

works for me

What about the one who was convicted but then his sentence was commuted? What should happen to him - and especially the guy who got his record wiped clean?

[Spider]

Originally Posted by W*GS

What about the one who was convicted but then his sentence was commuted? What should happen to him - and especially the guy who got his record wiped clean?

Mel Reynolds ? you underestimate me W*GS .. of course . But his was statutory Rape , so tar and Feathering with life in Prision .........

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Originally Posted by Blueflame

... but some politicians are better able to bury their misdeeds than others are.

Indeed.



And you won't hear a peep of protest about them from W*GS.

[Spider]

Originally Posted by L.A. BRONCOS FAN

Indeed.



And you won't hear a peep of protest about them from W*GS.

I dont know I can see W*GS getting tweaked over the name Buck Fush

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Originally Posted by §Pide®

I dont know I can see W*GS getting tweaked over the name Buck Fush

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

[Blueflame]

Originally Posted by W*GS

Still too broad a brush.

How so?

The list is composed of pedophiles who happen to be affiliated in one way or another with the Republican Party - and what that implies about the Republican Party is absolutely nothing, despite Spider's best attempts otherwise.

The fact that so many pedophiles are affiliated with one party reflects on that party's ability to assess its candidates' moral character... but the culpability for the pedophilia was solidly assigned to the individuals named.

The mention of political affiliation, which is wholly irrelevant.

It is irrelevant to the criminality facet... but not to the hypocrisy angle.

I don't protest the list - I protest its intent, which is entirely fallacious.

I'm not a member of any political party. The Republicans are far too dependent on the evangelical Christians, among many other reasons, for me to be a member.

Yeah, the mixture of religion and politics bothers me, too.