Offering constructive criticism to the social cripples in our midst since early 2005.

[Gattigap]

Originally posted by Shape Shifter
You've done a good job regurgitating "leaks" from Rove's lawyer. But you still haven't explained why, if what you say is true, the CIA referred the case to DOJ for investigation.

Or, for that matter, why this is the subject of a grand jury investigation that's been going on for two years.

From all accounts I've heard, Fitzgerald is a nonideologue, and a tenacious prosecutor. If it's really true that there's nothing to this ("Plame wasn't covert!" "There's no leak, because it was disclosed years ago!") then why it Fitzgerald pursuing it so? Remember also that several appeals judges have been told what's going on in the course of the Miller case, and apparently agree about its gravity enough to toss Miller in jail.

[Penske_Account]

Originally posted by Sidd Finch
As I've said before, Penske, you are perhaps the most miserable little shit I've run across on this board, or in any other forum.


But I suppose this is just the core principal of the Republican Party: If you oppose anything Bush wants, does, or says, then you are WITH THE TERRORISTS.

Truth hurts?


eta: nice use of the politics of personal destruction. Carville & Co. have taught the Demo masses well

reta: what I am curious about is why do you appear to take so personally when I criticise Clinton? obviously he was a perjurer. Almost certainly a serial sexual harasser of women in the workplace. In all likelihood a rapist. His omissions related to National Defence because he was more interested in fellatio were, in part, responsible for 9/11. His pursuit of an agreement to ensure the end of Israel gives one pause as to whether he is an anti-semite. Why would any right thinking, morally upstanding American (as I know you Sidd) want to align oneself with someone like this? Why bilmore, why?

[Sidd Finch]

Originally posted by Penske_Account
Truth hurts?


eta: nice use of the politics of personal destruction. Carville & Co. have taught the Demo masses well

Go fuck yourself, Penske. You have previously called me, and all other Dems, a racist and a Klan supporter because I am a Dem. Now you say I am a terrorist-supporter. Go fuck yourself.


I do love, however, the suggestion that attack politics started under James Carville. Because Bush I was just always such a nice guy, right? And when you and your circle-jerk club meet and talk about how Bill is a murderer and Hillary is a lesbian*, that's just being nice and above-board too, right?


*Because, after all, calling a woman a lesbian among the worst possible smears to you and your homo-hating friends, isn't it?

[Sexual Harassment Panda]

Originally posted by Penske_Account
Truth hurts?


eta: nice use of the politics of personal destruction. Carville & Co. have taught the Demo masses well

I imagine that you were still riding the short bus around the time, but let me assure you that the POPD started with Gingrich and the whole Contract on America crowd back in the late '80s and early '90s.

[Penske_Account]

Originally posted by Sidd Finch
Go fuck yourself, Penske. You have previously called me, and all other Dems, a racist and a Klan supporter because I am a Dem. Now you say I am a terrorist-supporter. Go fuck yourself.


I do love, however, the suggestion that attack politics started under James Carville. Because Bush I was just always such a nice guy, right?

No attack politics started with the Borking incident and I didn't call you a racist or a Klan supporter, rather I called the DNC and the party apparatus racist. I am looking at your firm's website now and I think you are not part of the DNC (I also don't see Kleagle Byrd as one of the attorneys at your firm). Or are you? and if so, please explain why you have Byrd as the Conscience of your organization.

Per my re-edit above:

what I am curious about is why do you appear to take so personally when I criticise Clinton? obviously he was a perjurer. Almost certainly a serial sexual harasser of women in the workplace. In all likelihood a rapist. His omissions related to National Defence because he was more interested in fellatio were, in part, responsible for 9/11. His pursuit of an agreement to ensure the end of Israel gives one pause as to whether he is an anti-semite. Why would any right thinking, morally upstanding American (as I know you are Sidd) want to align oneself with someone like this? Why bilmore, why?

Originally posted by Sidd Finch
And when you and your circle-jerk club meet and talk about how Bill is a murderer and Hillary is a lesbian*, that's just being nice and above-board too, right?


*Because, after all, calling a woman a lesbian among the worst possible smears to you and your homo-hating friends, isn't it?

I don't criticise Hillary's lesbianism, although I am confused as to why she remains so closeted.

[Penske_Account]

Originally posted by Sexual Harassment Panda
I imagine that you were still riding the short bus around the time, but let me assure you that the POPD started with Gingrich and the whole Contract on America crowd back in the late '80s and early '90s.

you are an idiot, it started with the Borking Incident when Gingrich was still a backbencher giving speeches to no one late night at C-Span. Your ignorance exposes you as one too young and too self-centered to understand the damage the Demos have done to the national body politic.

[Sexual Harassment Panda]

Originally posted by Penske_Account
you are an idiot, it started with the Borking Incident when Gingrich was still a backbencher giving speeches to no one late night at C-Span. Your ignorance exposes you as one too young and too self-centered to understand the damage the Demos have done to the national body politic.

Funny how republicans never talk about Bork's role in the 1973 Saturday Night Massacre. For all his subsequent moaning and wailing about declines in personal morality, Bork chose keeping his job over doing the right thing in that lamentable episode. For me, that was reason enough to deny him the Supreme Court slot.

[Penske_Account]

Originally posted by Sexual Harassment Panda
Funny how republicans never talk about Bork's role in the 1973 Saturday Night Massacre. For all his subsequent moaning and wailing about declines in personal morality, Bork chose keeping his job over doing the right thing in that lamentable episode. For me, that was reason enough to deny him the Supreme Court slot.

Why? This makes no sense. He followed an order that broke no law, with his action being fully public for the obvious effect that such public act had (i.e. Nixon was seen for exactly what he was).

Bork was a qualified jurist, probably the most qualified of his generation, and the Demos leading lights then, as now, a former Klan Kleagle and a drunken liar who killed an innocent young woman 36 years ago today engaged in a vicious campaign of lies and distortions to subvert the constitutional power of the President to appoint a qualified jurist to the bench.

Sad. and pathetic. And it speaks volumes that you defend the lies and crimes of degenerates like Byrd and Kennedy.

[Sexual Harassment Panda]

Originally posted by Penske_Account
Why? This makes no sense. He followed an order that broke no law, with his action being fully public for the obvious effect that such public act had (i.e. Nixon was seen for exactly what he was).

Bork was a qualified jurist, probably the most qualified of his generation, and the Demos leading lights then, as now, a former Klan Kleagle and a drunken liar who killed an innocent young woman 36 years ago today engaged in a vicious campaign of lies and distortions to subvert the constitutional power of the President to appoint a qualified jurist to the bench.

Sad. and pathetic. And it speaks volumes that you defend the lies and crimes of degenerates like Byrd and Kennedy.

Show me where I said he broke a law. I said he had a chance to show his true character by doing the right thing. Oh wait, I forgot - if it doesn't break a law, and a republican did it, it's per se morally correct. Call it the Spanky rule.

I would agree that Bork was a qualified jurist, and more qualified than most. But his nomination was opposed mostly by women, who were afraid rightly that he would vote to overturn Roe. The Democratic senators on the Committee you mention were reflecting the concerns of the people, not acting on their own. And 50 of their colleagues agreed with them.

[Penske_Account]

Reading the posts of the leftists today I am reminded that in my youth I believed in statesmen, patriots and the vibrant leadership that a responsible and morally upright two party system produced. As a point of fact, as the child of poor immigrants my first campaign work and votes were for Democrats.

As an adult I came to the same realization that Ronald Wilson Reagan did, i.e. "I didn't leave the Democratic Party, the Democratic Party left me."

Reading the defences of liars, murderers, cheaters, rapists, klansmen and other immoral guttersnipe, I have to question whether or not the current Democratic Party hasn't left the universe of responsible American style democratically based leadership altogether.

[Penske_Account]

Originally posted by Sexual Harassment Panda


I would agree that Bork was a qualified jurist, and more qualified than most. But his nomination was opposed mostly by women, who were afraid rightly that he would vote to overturn Roe. The Democratic senators on the Committee you mention were reflecting the concerns of the people, not acting on their own. And 50 of their colleagues agreed with them.

He wasn't opposed by women at large but by a small rabid cabal of shreiking harpies who are so far outside the mainstream as to make the American Communist Party look centric. They lied about and distorted his record and should be ashamed. Eventually Roe will be overturned and that will be their just reward.

[Sidd Finch]

Originally posted by Penske_Account
No attack politics started with the Borking incident and I didn't call you a racist or a Klan supporter, rather I called the DNC and the party apparatus racist. I am looking at your firm's website now and I think you are not part of the DNC (I also don't see Kleagle Byrd as one of the attorneys at your firm). Or are you?

Nope, I'm not part of the DNC. I'm a Dem. When I see you refer to the DNC, I will believe that you are in fact referring to the DNC. When I see you refer to "Dems", I will believe that you are referring to Dems.


I'm funny that way.

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Shape Shifter
You've done a good job regurgitating "leaks" from Rove's lawyer. But you still haven't explained why, if what you say is true, the CIA referred the case to DOJ for investigation.

It's not leaks. It has now reached the level of common knowledge. I will wager 1 months sponsorship that no one will be convicted of a crime under that statute for the alleged Plame outing. Would you like to take that bet?

[Sidd Finch]

Originally posted by Penske_Account
He wasn't opposed by women at large but by a small rabid cabal of shreiking harpies who are so far outside the mainstream as to make the American Communist Party look centric. They lied about and distorted his record and should be ashamed. Eventually Roe will be overturned and that will be their just reward.

Also by virtually every African-American group if I recall correctly.


But I may not recall correctly. This was twenty years ago. It only justifies the continued Republican viciousness, exemplified by certain denizens of this Board, in Penske-land.

[Sexual Harassment Panda]

Originally posted by Penske_Account
He wasn't opposed by women at large but by a small rabid cabal of shreiking harpies who are so far outside the mainstream as to make the American Communist Party look centric. They lied about and distorted his record and should be ashamed. Eventually Roe will be overturned and that will be their just reward.

At the time, by a 52-42 count Americans agreed with the Court's pro-choice view. And Bork did himself no favors during his hearings:

• In his five days of testimony -- the longest confirmation hearing for any Supreme Court nominee since hearings began in 1939 -- Bork surprised everyone. He modified many of his most controversial views. Whereas in 1971 he had argued that constitutional protection of free speech applied only to that which was political in nature, in 1987 he conceded that First Amendment guarantees applied to news, opinion, literature and more. He had claimed that the "equal protection" clause of the Fourteenth Amendment should apply only to racial and not gender discrimination; during the hearing he stated that equal protection should in fact apply also to women. Bork's approach to the hearing was in keeping with the decision by the White House to avoid an ideological fight and tout the nominee as a moderate. This soft sell did not sit well with Bork's supporters, his detractors, or the undecided senators.

The Reagan administration screwed up the nomination by trying to recast Bork as a moderate, which was laughable and insulting. In contrast, Anthony Kennedy, whose nomination was opposed by NOW, was easily confirmed.