Vice President Cheney hospitalized.

He'll be out by the end of today, probably.

Seems that list of 201 lawyers who signed the letter to Arlen Specter about Alito, included the name of former special prosecutor Kenneth Starr. Wow, what an endorsement.

Anyone see Ed Gillespie on CSPAN Washington Journal this morning? I don't know anything about him, but at least 3 callers were literally gushing his praises like he was a rock star. It was really giving me the creeps.

More Cheney/Bush thuggery:

Monday January 9, 2006
The Guardian

American troops in Baghdad yesterday blasted their way into the home of an Iraqi journalist working for the Guardian and Channel 4, firing bullets into the bedroom where he was sleeping with his wife and children.
Ali Fadhil, who two months ago won the Foreign Press Association young journalist of the year award, was hooded and taken for questioning. He was released hours later.

Dr Fadhil is working with Guardian Films on an investigation for Channel 4's Dispatches programme into claims that tens of millions of dollars worth of Iraqi funds held by the Americans and British have been misused or misappropriated.

The troops told Dr Fadhil that they were looking for an Iraqi insurgent and seized video tapes he had shot for the programme. These have not yet been returned.

The director of the film, Callum Macrae, said yesterday: "The timing and nature of this raid is extremely disturbing. It is only a few days since we first approached the US authorities and told them Ali was doing this investigation, and asked them then to grant him an interview about our findings.

"We need a convincing assurance from the American authorities that this terrifying experience was not harassment and a crude attempt to discourage Ali's investigation."

Dr Fadhil was asleep with his wife, their three-year-old daughter, Sarah, and seven-month-old son, Adam, when the troops forced their way in.

"They fired into the bedroom where we were sleeping, then three soldiers came in. They rolled me on to the floor and tied my hands. When I tried to ask them what they were looking for they just told me to shut up," he said.

Why hasn't Tom DeLay been censured? He's still going to sit on the House Approprations Committee!

Anybody having problems with the newest version of Firefox?

The comments box pops up without a scrollbar, and I have to drag the window all the way over to find it.

This screws me at AA, as I cant drag the window there, and all the controls(volume) are out of sight.

Also got some script about blacklists or something when I tried to post. Couldn't post a lot of times, got paranoid and thought Steve might have banned me for being mean to poor old crappy.

Enjoying the Thuglican meltdown, but have the eiry feeling that a thousand little NSA eyes are looking at me all the time. Been feeling that every since Camp Casey and the Summer of the Hurricanes.

Interesting times indeed!

GREAT NEWS. THE RIGHT TO ABORTION IS NOW KILLING WOMEN DISPROPORTIONATELY.....YEAH! WOMEN ARE INFERIOR AND Us guys need to learn more about our feminine side and enjoy gay sex,

http://www.sawf.org/newedit/edit11182002/reflections.asp

Just thought you wonderful loving liberals would love to know that the world embraces your Right to Privacy so much so that they are now ever increasing the amount of selective abortions. Now only male children are wanted. So the ratio of women to men, 980/1000 in India several years back has dropped to 920s/1000.

This does three things. Increases the amount of abortions, which is a good thing, increases the animosity that society fosters for the lesser sex,--- because if people openly kill females before they are born, then this re-emphasizes, not only that fetus' have no rights, but that females do not either since nobody really wants them. Oh and of course the third good thing, is guys will have to become gay to get along....(or more violence to kill off the competing men for the limited number of women.....)

Nonetheless, its a wonderful day that at least 2 million more females have been "chosen" by the "right of Privacy" not to be born...

Yaaaaa Roe v. Wade.....Fewer women like Boxer, Fienstien, Hillary and of course Martha Stewart is a good thing.

Two, four, six, eight...
Who do I appreciate?

Al Qeada...yeah...rah...yeah

You do know crappy, that men are prized over women because they need them to work? However wrong, it's brutal in the third world. Let's keep striving for a better society together.
Here you go crappy, one woman's story. How decent, loyal and kind of men!

Why hasn't Tom DeLay been censured? posted by bbtb

*******
Didn't you hear bbtb, Delay's indictment is the result of the Democrats wanting to remove him from power. It is all a ploy from the Dems and he will be completely exonerated.

I know, because he said it on faux news last night.

The text bar under his slimy face also had lists of Dems who received money from Abramoff, oh, it was very telling about where all of the corruption exists in Congress.

Sheesh - if I had only watched faux news all of this time, I would be soooo enlightened.

(Gotta vomit now.)

Anjha, More on DeLay! Keep implicating more!

As Howard Dean told Wolf Blitzer: There is no proof any Dem took any money from Abramoff.

Bliter had no comeback and ended the interview.

SnarkyShark, I don't know about Firefox but I've been having trouble getting Crooks and Liars. I too am concerned about being watched. A sister at DoD in CENTCOM, a brother in law who works for Blackwater, both conservatives! Shit, I don't know which one had my computer tracked.

Weird litle Howie said to Blitzer that not one Democrat took money from Abramoff or his clients.

He is absolutely correct. There were dozens and dozens and dozens.

That's like when Michael Moore said he didn't own a single share of stock. He doesn't....he owns hundreds of thousands of them....including (gasp) Haliburton

Ah, no...celler dweller, they took money from Indian Tribes not Abramoff.

Crappy, before making any judgements about what occurs in India, go live there for a while. Different cultures have different ways of dealing with what you or I could ever possibly understand.

As for abortion rights; a woman's right to choose reproduction and sexual health and what occurs with their body, also, do not judge this until you grow a uterus and ovaries and deal with an unplanned pregnancy, lack of access to birth control, inability to support a child, forced pregnancy through rape, get pregnant while a teenager, have no spousal or parental support, or are simply unprepared to have a child during whatever position you are at in your life.

Criminalizing abortion is just one more way of controlling women. No man should have anything to say about it - it can absolutely not affect a man in the same way that it does a woman.

I will say it again - you want abortion outlawed, make it a crime. Then what should the punishment be for a woman who makes the most difficult choice of having an abortion? Should it be life in prison? Electrocution? Death by hanging? No, it would be much better just to burn them at the stake.

Transcript below:

BLITZER: Should Democrats who took money from Jack Abramoff, who has now pleaded guilty to bribery charges, among other charges, a Republican lobbyist in Washington, should the Democrat who took money from him give that money to charity or give it back?

DEAN: There are no Democrats who took money from Jack Abramoff, not one, not one single Democrat. Every person named in this scandal is a Republican. Every person under investigation is a Republican. Every person indicted is a Republican. This is a Republican finance scandal. There is no evidence that Jack Abramoff ever gave any Democrat any money. And we've looked through all of those FEC reports to make sure that's true.

BLITZER: But through various Abramoff-related organizations and outfits, a bunch of Democrats did take money that presumably originated with Jack Abramoff.

DEAN: That's not true either. There's no evidence for that either. There is no evidence...

BLITZER: What about Senator Byron Dorgan?

DEAN: Senator Byron Dorgan and some others took money from Indian tribes. They're not agents of Jack Abramoff. There's no evidence that I've seen that Jack Abramoff directed any contributions to Democrats. I know the Republican National Committee would like to get the Democrats involved in this. They're scared. They should be scared. They haven't told the truth. They have misled the American people. And now it appears they're stealing from Indian tribes. The Democrats are not involved in this.

BLITZER: Unfortunately Mr. Chairman, we got to leave it right there.

bbtb

I know I get survaliance from time to time.

When you hear that shark attack music in your head, you know theres a big carnivore(tm) in the near vicinity.

And it's not like I didnt see the two goons in the DRUGWAR(tm) special Bronco burning through a couple rolls of film at Crawford last summer.

Ummm....bbtb....

The Indian tribes were Abramoffs clients. And, don't for get the "in kind" payments that Dorgan and the others got....like using Abranoff's skybox.

What about it, huh, huh?

Crappy is so busy avoiding his party's culture of corruption, he has to make up a controversy!

I got one: Did you know that in some South American countries, they JUGGLE KITTENS FOR PROFIT???? It's an abomination!!!! And the evil Republicans are just hunky dorky with the whole setup because - you guessed it - Jack Abramoff is running the book!

btw, in case you've forgotten, Michael Moore is still fat!

Carp-troll as usual serves as the poster boy for post-natal abortion.

Watching his slow slide into incoherence has been midly entertaining and somewhat pathetic.

Nothing lamer than a needy troll.

bbtb, et al....

You need to go oer to Jeff Goldstein's blog and read what he wrote about the left trying to create its own reality.

SnarkyShark, I'm sure I was followed last week, first at my bank, then the grocery store and lastly he drove away in an unmarked car in the Target parking lot. Totally shaved head, a little extra tool belt, and wearing a flack jacket underneath.
And where the hell is Billmon?

iamacoyote,

Just which Republicans took cash directly from Abramoff?

The Indian tribes were Abramoffs clients. And, don't for get the "in kind" payments that Dorgan and the others got....like using Abranoff's skybox.

What about it? Let the games begin and let the chips fall where they may. If some dumbass Democrats got caught up in SLEAZE(inc) then good riddance.

We dont do hero worship over here. Demopcrats that take big coperate bribes are exactly the ones we would like to run out on a rail.

It's your party thats going to effectivly be losing its leadership.

Scoring a debating point on this blog isn't going to stop this choo-choo.

And where the hell is Billmon?

Billmon likes to take nice long vacations from blogging. He cares to much, and it is casuing him to have to gaze to far into the abyss. Burnouts with talanted guys like him are never pretty, and I am glad he tends to his sanity.

Matter of fact, I saw him post at firedogs not to long ago.

Should it be life in prison? Electrocution? Death by hanging? No, it would be much better just to burn them at the stake.

I told you before Anjha, that kind of talk makes the trolls get all hot. Nothing more disgusting than an aroused troll, they start babbling about George Soros, Streisand, and Hillary, then prematurely post a "but Clinton did it, too" comment and promptly fall asleep.

There goes the Republican Attack Machine in full gear! Let's RAM the Democrats, tie them into the Abramoff scandal. It ain't gonna happen, Abramoff defrauded the Indian Tribes, he donated money to repukes only, not Dems. Dear leader's war chest was donated over 100,000K from Abramoff and only gave back 6K to charity.
And how much were the donations to Dems compared to repukes from Indian Tribes? Not nearly as equal!

SnarkyShark wrote...

"What about it? Let the games begin and let the chips fall where they may. If some dumbass Democrats got caught up in SLEAZE(inc) then good riddance."

I agree completely. All the sleazebags, whether they be Dem or Rep should be thrown under the bus.

When bbtb, iamcoyote, and pessimist try to propagate the Democrat party line by saying it's only Republicans, it just makes them look either dumb of intellectually dishonest.

ooops...typo...

should have written "dumb OR intellectually dishonest"

"but Clinton did it, too" comment and promptly fall asleep.

Posted by iamcoyote at January 9, 2006 08:18 AM
***********
Do they have a smoke first, cuddle, or just roll over and start snoring?

Yaaaaa Roe v. Wade.....Fewer women like Boxer, Fienstien, Hillary and of course Martha Stewart is a good thing.

You are truly dim. Roe v. Wade has nothing, NOTHING to do with selective abortion in China or India.

Don't you get it Ann?

It's the culture of death that Liberals have created.

Silly.

Unlike George Bush who has done nothing but propogate life around the globe since taking office. If it weren't for all the abortions there'd be more children around the globe for him to love to death.

What is it that people do not understand about the separation of powers?

I keep hearing, blah blah blah, the president won (HA) the election and he gets to choose Supreme Court Justices, that he wants.

Uh, No.

He gets to nominate, the Senate gets to advise and consent.

Remember this?

2. He shall have power, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, to make treaties, provided two-thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, shall appoint ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, judges of the Supreme Court, and all other officers of the United States, whose appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by law: but the Congress may by law vest the appointment of such inferior officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the courts of law, or in the heads of departments.

Oh, wait, I forgot - Bu$hCo has made the Constitution null and void.

The Indian tribes were Abramoffs clients. And, don't for get the "in kind" payments that Dorgan and the others got....like using Abranoff's skybox.

Why yes, the Indian tribes were Abramoff clients - the ones he screwed! Do you even know what the Abramoff scandal is about? He took money from clients, such as Indian tribes (who Abramoff called "monkeys") and did not perform the work for them that he said he would do. I happen to have a friend whose business paid Abramoff several million dollars, but Abramoff did not perform the work that he said he would. That's called fraud, in case you were wondering.

And one more time, because I have the feeling we are going to have to repeat this one over and over: no Democrats took money from Abramoff. Indian tribes have made legal contributions to some Democrats, but they did not work for Abramoff, nor did they represent Abramoff with these contributions. Indian tribes paid money to Abramoff to lobby on their behalf and he gave that money to Republicans, but not to Democrats.

The trolls are truly desperate on this one.

It gets even worse around the world now...GW made a recess appointment of Ellen Saurebrey - after the committee rejected her - for some bogus title such as 'world head ambassador of family and women' (I do not recall the exact title, but this is basically her role.) Of course she is completely unqualified.

She is anti birth control, anti abortion and pro marriage. This works real well in over populated an poor countries and countries where there are forced marraiges of children.

Real smart action.

Are the trolls trying to imply that Jack Abramoff gave money to various Indian Tribes that they then proceeded to distribute to congressional Democrats?

The trolls are attempting to muddy the waters, anon, by implying that legal contributions by tribes to some Dems were at Abramoff's request. The trolls themselves don't understand the nuances, they're just parrotting what the Trollmasters (Hannity, et al) are trying to do on Faux "news."

They're scared, that's why they're getting shriller lately. Scared of the "terr-ists" under their beds, scared of women with autonomy over their own bodies, scared because they're on their way out, and soon, they'll be just plain ol' trolls under the bridge again.

"Are the trolls trying to imply that Jack Abramoff gave money to various Indian Tribes that they then proceeded to distribute to congressional Democrats?"

No, not at all. We are implying that Abramoff directed the Indian tribes to give money to whom he told them to, not just Republicans,but dozens and dozens of Democrats also...even Harry Reid.

I'm sure they are trying to imply that Abramoff gave money directly to Dems.
I've been looking for the link that showed the breakdown of the money given by Abramoff and to who but cannot find it. It also had the link of where the Indian Tribe money was dispersed and shows the difference between the 2 parties.

iamcoyote....

Grow up. Quit the adolescent name calling and peurile hyperbole.

No, not at all. We are implying that Abramoff directed the Indian tribes to give money to whom he told them to, not just Republicans,but dozens and dozens of Democrats also...even Harry Reid.

That is simply an absurd implication. Abramoff worked for the tribes, not the other way around. I guess you buy into Abramoff's assertion that the Indian tribes are just "monkeys."

But stay in desperation mode, it suits you.

OK, the Alito fight begins today. Opening statements occuring now. (the SPAN)

Here are truths about this danger.

Here is the Senate Judiciary Committee:
And Call Judiciary Committee Members - Capitol switchboard number: 202-224-3121
• Chair Arlen Specter (R-PA)
• Ranking Member Patrick Leahy (D-VT)
• Edward Kennedy (D-MA)
• Joseph Biden (D-DE)
• Herbert Kohl (D-WI)
• Dianne Feinstein (D-CA)
• Russsell Feingold (D-WI)
• Charles Schumer (D-NY)
• Richard Durbin (D-IL)
• Orrin Hatch (R-UT)
• Charles Grassley (R-IA)
• John Kyl (R-AZ)
• Mike DeWine (R-OH)
• Jeff Sessions (R-AL)
• Lindsay Graham (R-SC)
• John Cornyn (R-TX)
• Sam Brownback (R-KS)
• Tom Coburn (R-OK)

And here are direct phone numbers for the Senators and the links to their websites to write via email form.

Alito is GWs ace in the hole (eeww) - he is the way out for GW and all of his illegal acts. Alito supports "Unilateralism" or Supreme Power of the Executive. He is anti-women, anti-environment, pro-business and anti-Congress.

I have to get into the office ASAP today, so I will begin writing letters later.

The Christian Right is mobilized with a big multi-mega-church rally yesterday. It was satellited to a ton of Mega Churches and they are also going to be writing and calling.

Alito cannot be confirmed.

Grow up. Quit the adolescent name calling and peurile hyperbole.

Flash! Bulletin! Kettle calls pot black! Video at 11!

I love it when our wrong-wing friends demonstrate that, without their master's voice ringing in their crania, they wouldn't have a single coherent idea between their collective ears!

"That is simply an absurd implication. Abramoff worked for the tribes, not the other way around. I guess you buy into Abramoff's assertion that the Indian tribes are just "monkeys."
'But stay in desperation mode, it suits you."

No, not desperate. Sure Abramoff worked for the Indian tribes, but his job was to direct them as to whom to donate money...which included not only Reublicans, but also dozens and dozens of Democrats.

As for the individual campaign contributions that Abramoff gave to ....sure, they were probably done to give him more access. Howvere, there is no law against donating to a candidate, no matter what you think his motivations may be.

Where is the quid pro quo?

Some trolls are coming in anon today, don't even have the guts to log a nom de plume.

"I love it when our wrong-wing friends demonstrate that, without their master's voice ringing in their crania, they wouldn't have a single coherent idea between their collective ears!"

Seems that pessimist needs to mature a little, also.

Steve, I think we need a new archive called "Desperate Trolls." We can include such fabulous assertions as the Abramoff ones here and the ones about how Plame and Wilson would be indicted.

Something tells me that 2006 will be a banner year for desperate trolls.

Looks like bu$h wants to hide from the brewing scandal and association to Abramoff.

anon - bite me, dipshit. Why don't you quit the oh-so-innocent queries that you already have decided the answers to, and just come out and declare yourself a troll? Chicken? Unsure of the facts? Think you're clever?

If you were really interested in the truth, you would do actual research instead of coming to a partisan site with your silly, childish games that we adults have seen a million times. But since you're too scared to name yourself - I'll do it. I dub thee, Dipshit.

iamcoyote, ann, pessimist, bbtb, et al....

It's not just in my deluded little mind. Consider this excerpt from that bastion of conservatism, The Washington Post:

"But Abramoff didn't work just with Republicans. He oversaw a team of two dozen lobbyists at the law firm Greenberg Traurig that included many Democrats. Moreover, the campaign contributions that Abramoff directed from the tribes went to Democratic as well as Republican legislators.

Among the biggest beneficiaries were Capitol Hill's most powerful Democrats, including Thomas A. Daschle (S.D.) and Harry M. Reid (Nev.), the top two Senate Democrats at the time, Richard A. Gephardt (Mo.), then-leader of the House Democrats, and the two lawmakers in charge of raising funds for their Democratic colleagues in both chambers, according to a Washington Post study. Reid succeeded Daschle as Democratic leader after Daschle lost his Senate seat last November.

Democrats are hoping to gain political advantage from federal and Senate investigations of Abramoff's activities and from the embattled lobbyist's former ties to House Majority Leader Tom DeLay (R-Tex.). Yet, many Democratic lawmakers also benefited from Abramoff's political operation, a fact that could hinder the Democrats' efforts to turn the lobbyist's troubles into a winning partisan issue."

Coyote, thanks for the tech-support.

As much as it pains me, I need to get ready for work now.

Avaroo loves to asks questions! Then try to make himself look smarter.
Maybe, Steve will give us a hint later as to who the troll is.

from the Time article bbtb refers to:

Abramoff was one of the Bush-Cheney re-election campaign's "pioneers"—meaning he raised at least $100,000, most of it from others, in increments of $2,000. After Abramoff pleaded guilty, Bush aides announced they had donated to the American Heart Association $6,000 that had been given to the campaign by Abramoff, his wife and one of his Indian-tribe clients. But Republican officials said they plan to keep the remaining $94,000. A Bush aide said it cannot be assumed that the other donors, who were simply recruited by Abramoff, have done anything wrong: "That's not a fair standard."

So, as for anon's conspiracy theory, even the Bushies don't agree.

The point is that the Tribes themselves are legitimate actors and their funds are legitimate, untouched by Abramoff's illegal money laundering and campaign finance shenanigans. Untouched, that is, unless one considers how they were royally duped by him.

And if we're going to look into who received money from Abramoff's CLIENTS, then why would we stop with the Tribes? He had dozens of clients. Let's see who got the lion's share of the rest of his clients' contributions. Any takers WaPo? Ooops, that would be real reporting, not just scandal management for the Criminal Republican Party.

And anon/dipshit seems to have the same "style" as assaroo.

dipshit, Which columnist wrote the piece. We have jounalistic integrity at stake. Could he/she be a republican sympathizer?

bbtb, who cares who the newest troll is, they're all dipshits to me. Anjha, no problem. dipshit, keep telling yourself you're not a coward and a traitor, maybe you'll convince your dog.

The Alito show's on!

A great post on Political Cortex about the Reps' blame game technique:

cloudy skies, muddy waters

Dumbest argument for outlawing abortion that I've heard: It hurts women because they regret it afterward. Hmmm, should we outlaw marriage because some people regret it? OK, you can get divorced and you can't undo an abortion...Should we outlaw adoption, because some women regret giving their baby up? Should we outlaw having children in the first place because some women regret that?

I was reading an article in the Washington Post Style section about Jan LaRue from Concerned Women of America. She apparently regrets the abortion she once had. Um, the *illegal* abortion she once had. So it's not like outlawing abortion will keep women from regretting an abortion, and as so many on the right point out, overturning Roe doesn't outlaw abortion--just kicks it back to the states.

coyote, Point taken.
e, Thanks for explaining it so eloquently, simple english is hard for some trolls to decipher. Even links to prove that the republican party is corrupt doesn't persuade them.

"dipshit, Which columnist wrote the piece. We have jounalistic integrity at stake. Could he/she be a republican sympathizer?"

It was written by Democrat and Kerry supporter/ campaign contributor, Jeff Birnbaum.

iamcoyote wrote..

"dipshit, keep telling yourself you're not a coward and a traitor, maybe you'll convince your dog."

What have I posted that would cause you to infer that I was a coward or traitor?

bbtb, 'salright. I woke up punchy today and am not about to take crap from the crappies of the world. Forgive me in advance if I get too puerile?? Heh.

It was written by Democrat and Kerry supporter/ campaign contributor, Jeff Birnbaum.

Jeff "Fox News" Birnbaum? Could you provide a link to the article you referenced? I would like to read it in context.

What have I posted that would cause you to infer that I was a coward or traitor?

Well, first you refused to name yourself, then you immediately surrendered when I named you. That seems pretty cowardly. And since when did your cohort ever need a reason to call someone traitor? Besides, I was just attempting to speak in your native language, but I guess I'm not fluent yet. Maybe I should mention Hillary or Michael Moore? Or is it Chomskey on the third comment? Sheesh, trollese is so hard to master!

ann..

Yes, Jeff Birnbaum does occasionally appear on Fox, as do Juan Williams, Mara Liasson, Wesley Clark, Bob Beckel, and others.

Anyway, here's the link:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/06/02/AR2005060202158_pf.html

coyote wrote:

"Well, first you refused to name yourself, then you immediately surrendered when I named you. That seems pretty cowardly. And since when did your cohort ever need a reason to call someone traitor?"

That really doesn't make sense. What difference does it make if I posted using a psuedonym or no signature at all. And, who is this cohort you are referring to?

coyote, You know I wouldn't deprive you of a little fun. Remember, their your test subjects also!

Yawn. You've bored me now.

Not you, bbtb, the dipshit, who is hilariously now anon again. Kitty chew toy is boring me now. Off to find out what's happening in the Alito hearings again!

Here's a list of Abramoff's political donations:

and not one Dem.

Dumbest argument for outlawing abortion that I've heard: It hurts women because they regret it afterward.
************
I guarantee you all that forcing women to be incubators for unplanned children or children who they have no means to care for or children born addicted to heroin or children born in abusive homes - hurts the children FAR more than the woman who regrets her abortion.

I know many who 'regret' their abortions, but they are far more thankful that they did not bring the children into the environment that they would have been brought into if they had that child at the time.

Ann wrote:

"Here's a list of Abramoff's political donations:

and not one Dem."

This is not news to anyone. Campaign donations are perfectly legal. All of the donations were at or under the legal personal limit of $2000.00.
What is suspect is the money given to lawmakers on both sides from Abramoff clients, i.e. the Indian tribes. Some of these were upwards of $90,000.00.

Woo-hooo...

The DOW just broke 11,000!!!!!!!!

Way to go ann!

Okay, anon, we proved our point on Abramoff, now quit asking qusetions and prove your point! Or get off the thread! Let's see your list, so we can compare and contrast.

I am trying to figure out how Roe V Wade has anything to do with the abortion rate in India? I wasn't aware that India followed our laws...

This is not news to anyone. Campaign donations are perfectly legal. All of the donations were at or under the legal personal limit of $2000.00.
What is suspect is the money given to lawmakers on both sides from Abramoff clients, i.e. the Indian tribes. Some of these were upwards of $90,000.00.

Oh, hurt me. I wasn't saying it was "news," I was merely posting it to refute the claim that Abramoff gave money to Dems. He did not.

"Oh, hurt me. I wasn't saying it was "news," I was merely posting it to refute the claim that Abramoff gave money to Dems. He did not."

Who made that claim?

"Okay, anon, we proved our point on Abramoff, now quit asking qusetions and prove your point! Or get off the thread! Let's see your list, so we can compare and contrast."

Why all the hostlity? Have I offended you in any way.? If I have done so inadvertantly, I apologize.

I am simply trying to have a reasoned discourse.

The DOW just broke 11,000!!!!!!!!

Good. My portfolio should be up again.

ann...

Most campaigns receive thousands and thousands of individual contributions...again perfctly within the law.

Why should the Abramoff's contributions be extrordinary?

"Reasoned discourse"? No, you are being a pompous ass and condescending!
Now prove your point! Or get off the thread.

""Reasoned discourse"? No, you are being a pompous ass and condescending!
Now prove your point! Or get off the thread."

How am I being pompous and condescending? Seriously. I want to know.

As far as proving my point, That is what I am trying to do with a civil give and take.

How has the stock market done during President Bush's term? After inheriting the bear market and getting slammed by 9/11, the market has recovered nicely and is now up for Bush's term. Lets check the DOW and some well-diversified indexes...

Jan 19, 2001: DOW 10,587
Jan 09, 2006: DOW 11,015

Jan 19, 2001: NYSE Composite: 6836
Jan 09, 2006: NYSE Composite: 8052

Jan 19, 2001: Russell 2000: 488
Jan 06, 2006: Russell 2000: 699

1/19/01: Vanguard Total Stock Market Index (VTSMX): $29.78
1/06/06: Vanguard Total Stock Market Index (VTSMX): $30.95

From the bottom in 2002...

10/07/2002 VTSMX: $17.67
01/06/2006 VTSMX: $30.95

What gives investors cause for joy?
What is Alito's confirmation hearings?

Gee, corporate america wasn't eagerly awaiting Alito's confirmation hearings were they?

"What gives investors cause for joy?'

Don't Democrats invest, also?

So muck when is the statue of Bush going up in your front yard?

Wahooo! The markets up! The markets up!

Surely Bush is a genius.

Isn't it true that historically the market is always up?

If that's the case Bush would really be a complete moron if he couldn't achieve a positive market result during his terms.

But I guess if an up market is the be all and end all of your existance I can see how you'd get yourself all arroused.

Why should the Abramoff's contributions be extrordinary?

Gee, I don't know. Maybe because he's a confessed felon? Or, if you're still confused, why don't you call up some Reps and ask them why they're donating money equivalent to what they received from Abramoff to charity?

"Gee, I don't know. Maybe because he's a confessed felon? Or, if you're still confused, why don't you call up some Reps and ask them why they're donating money equivalent to what they received from Abramoff to charity? "

As are some Dems, which is exactly my point. I really do not understand what you are differetiating here.

I'd wager that Abramoff and Scanlon will be testifying that people like DeLay were actively soliciting "donations" from Abramoff, who forwarded those solicitations to his clients, as a means of helping the congressmen see the virtues of the clients interests. And who do you need to convince to support your agenda? Well the party and the individuals in that party that controls the strings to what gets on the agenda. And that party has been the Republican party for the past decade.

ann...

Read the 4th paragraph very, very carefully.

Democrat on Panel Probing Abramoff to Return Tribal Donations

By Jonathan Weisman and Derek Willis
Washington Post Staff Writers
Wednesday, December 14, 2005; Page A04

The senior Democrat on the Senate committee investigating former lobbyist Jack Abramoff announced this week that he will return $67,000 in donations from Indian tribes represented by the indicted Republican.

Sen. Byron L. Dorgan (N.D.), vice chairman of the Indian Affairs Committee, said he has never met Abramoff, nor did he advocate any program backed by Abramoff's tribal clients that he would not have otherwise embraced. But his move, reported yesterday in the Forum of Fargo, N.D., illustrates how broadly the political stain of Abramoff's money is spreading on Capitol Hill.

"I have returned all contributions to my campaign committee and my leadership political action committee from tribes represented by Mr. Abramoff's law firm and from individuals employed by his law firm during the time he was at the firm," Dorgan said in a statement. "Even though those contributions were legal and fully reported as required by law, I will not knowingly keep even one dollar in contributions if there is even a remote possibility that they could have been the result of any action Mr. Abramoff might have taken."

Aides conceded that the senator did advocate for programs pushed by Abramoff's clients around the time he was accepting tens of thousands of dollars from associates and clients of the lobbyist.

Dorgan's reimbursement came as a number of lawmakers move to amend campaign disclosure forms to reflect in-kind contributions from Abramoff and his clients, particularly the use of Abramoff's MCI Center skybox.

The Justice Department is leading a wide-ranging criminal investigation of Abramoff and his former partner, Michael D. Scanlon, based on evidence that points to possible corruption in Congress and the executive branch, according to lawyers involved in the case. Scanlon pleaded guilty on Nov. 21 to conspiring to bribe a congressman and other public officials, and he agreed to pay back more than $19 million he fraudulently charged Indian tribal clients. Scanlon has agreed to cooperate with prosecutors.

Must remember NY resolution:

do not feed the trolls.

Especially not anon troll that sounds so much like j.west I could scream.

THE RIGHT TO ABORTION IS NOW KILLING WOMEN DISPROPORTIONATELY

I remember the day when mothers, wives and daughters died in droves from back alley abortions or from ramming coat hangers into their own uterus. I can only hope that you find a woman you love dead on the floor with her blood pooled between her legs from shredding her own body trying to get rid of your bastard. Maybe your own daughter! That would be poetic!

We tend to forget what Roe v Wade was really about.

what do you think the point of the fourth paragraph is, anon?

Do you think Dorgan voted differently on Indian issues as a result of the contribution?

what is the point of your posting of the article?

what is your take on the Abramoff scandal?

do you actually have anything substantive to say or observe?

"what do you think the point of the fourth paragraph is, anon?"

The point is that Dems were receiving money from Abramoff's, just as were Reps.

There are all kinds of accusations of quid pro quo on the part of the Reps, but there are no specific instances where this can be substantiated. But there, in the 4th parargraph, is an exampled where quid pro quo could possibly be alleged. Dorgan received money from Abramoff's clients on issues where he was directly advocating for them.

My point is that this is a bi-partisan issue. I say that whoever, whether they be Dem or Rep, acted illegally, they should be punished to the fullest extent of the law.

Dorgan returned the money, in my opinion, because it's likely that some of it was donated as a result of fraudulant advice from Abramoff to his Indian clients. And in the event that it wasn't given under fraudulant circumstances Dorgan says he still does not want the impression to be that he supported the Indian tribes agenda simply because they gave him money.

If one supports someones political or ideological agenda that person is likely to reciprocate with political donations. You give your support to those politicians who support you and what you believe in. Dorgan was simply saying he does not want the appearance of impropriety. Now, if Abramoff or Scanlon testify that Dorgan solicited money in order to support the Indians agenda then I'll expect Dorgan to defend himself from such charges. And I would hope that he could defend himself from them.

anon (j.west) thinks that by saying "Democrats did it too" we'll forget about Abramoff. But, as was pointed out above, Democrats did not receive contributions from Abramoff. So, anon is attempting to muddy the waters by pointing out that some Democrats received contributions from Abramoff clients. SOP: bait and switch.

If Dems did anything wrong, they should be convicted as well, but at this point and time, it appears that this is a Republican scandal. I, for one, cannot wait to hear Abramoff start singing.

Let's see, exactly how many congressmen/women read specific statements into the congressional record which were directly connected to Abramoff business deals?

(euzoius -- I like this new interrogative style that you and -- was it emal on an earlier thread? --- have adopted so much, I thought I'd try it myself. Of course anyone can answer -- but if you know the answer, then why answer?)

s are some Dems, which is exactly my point. I really do not understand what you are differetiating here.

Since you quoted me out of context above, I feel more than qualifieed to chime in.

The difference is...K-Street is a republican invention. It was set-up specifically to cut Dems out of the action. Jack-off and the rest are creatures of K-Street, which is the toxic swamp from which all evil spews forth.

Should Dems caught up in this go down hard? Yes!

Are there any dems caught in this? Doubtfull.

So I totally agree with this

I say that whoever, whether they be Dem or Rep, acted illegally, they should be punished to the fullest extent of the law.

But worse case scenario maybe a couple of stray Dems who were too much into the sleaze machine get jammed. No downside for me.

The machine is directly ensnared in Republican leadership. Its the poisen-well from which their illegitamite power springs.

Without dirty money, what are Republicans to do? Reley on popular support? Campaign on the merits?

Stop making me laugh.

dipshit brings the conversation back to the beginning of the thread. Once again:

BLITZER: Should Democrats who took money from Jack Abramoff, who has now pleaded guilty to bribery charges, among other charges, a Republican lobbyist in Washington, should the Democrat who took money from him give that money to charity or give it back?

DEAN: There are no Democrats who took money from Jack Abramoff, not one, not one single Democrat. Every person named in this scandal is a Republican. Every person under investigation is a Republican. Every person indicted is a Republican. This is a Republican finance scandal. There is no evidence that Jack Abramoff ever gave any Democrat any money. And we've looked through all of those FEC reports to make sure that's true.

BLITZER: But through various Abramoff-related organizations and outfits, a bunch of Democrats did take money that presumably originated with Jack Abramoff.

DEAN: That's not true either. There's no evidence for that either. There is no evidence...

BLITZER: What about Senator Byron Dorgan?

DEAN: Senator Byron Dorgan and some others took money from Indian tribes. They're not agents of Jack Abramoff. There's no evidence that I've seen that Jack Abramoff directed any contributions to Democrats. I know the Republican National Committee would like to get the Democrats involved in this. They're scared. They should be scared. They haven't told the truth. They have misled the American people. And now it appears they're stealing from Indian tribes. The Democrats are not involved in this.

The point is that Dems were receiving money from Abramoff's, just as were Reps.

What A Maroon!

The point is that any Indian Tribe associated with Abramoff is now tainted. Indian Tribes lobby all of the time. The Dems are giving the money back to these tainted tribes IN CASE it was somehow influenced by Abramoff's relationship with these tribes. The money did not come from Abramoff. A subtle yet fucking massive fucking difference that you can't seem to get your head wrapped around.

"anon (j.west) thinks that by saying "Democrats did it too" we'll forget about Abramoff. But, as was pointed out above, Democrats did not receive contributions from Abramoff. So, anon is attempting to muddy the waters by pointing out that some Democrats received contributions from Abramoff clients. SOP: bait and switch.

If Dems did anything wrong, they should be convicted as well, but at this point and time, it appears that this is a Republican scandal. I, for one, cannot wait to hear Abramoff start singing."

ann...

I don't know who j. west is, but I can assure you that it is not I.

Again, yes..Abramoff did give very legal campaign donations to several Republicans. But why is this a scandal? Where is evidence of his getting something in return?

Which do you think is more likely to influence a politician, a $2000.00 individual donation just like thousands and thousands of others he has received, or $67,000 from a client of the same individual (lobbyist) who gave the two grand where the the politician is advocating directly on issues on behalf of said client?

To try to frame this as a Republican scandal only is ridiculous on its face. In this instance cited previously, Dorgan's aides admitted that he was advocating for the clients that gave him large sums of money. Dorgan himself gave the ongodly lame explanation that he would be advocating for them even if they had not given him tens of thousands of dollars.

Jeesh!

Wasn't their calling card the "Contract on America"?

"The Dems are giving the money back to these tainted tribes IN CASE it was somehow influenced by Abramoff's relationship with these tribes. The money did not come from Abramoff. A subtle yet fucking massive fucking difference that you can't seem to get your head wrapped around."

Umm.. the Reps are doing the same thing. As far as I am aware, none of the Reps is returning the perfectly legal individual campaign contributions they got from Abramoff himself.

Dorgan's aides admitted that he was advocating for the clients that gave him large sums of money

Dang! There we go again. The Tribes gave him the money, not Abramoff. Abramoff is a republican scandal...period. Read it and weep, dumbshit. Is it similar to finding out your parents had sex to make you?

from WAPO:

Greenwich, Conn.: Mr. Birnbaum,

The press is suggesting that the Abramoff scandal will primarily affect Republicans. I understand that a total of 220 congressmen have received money from Jack Abramoff, either directly or indirectly, and an entry on Daily Kos noted that 20 of 25 congressmen and senators who took more than $20,000 from him are Republicans.

Is there any additional information illuminating how many Republicans versus Democrats have received cash from Abramoff? And are there any figures detailing what percentage of Abramoff's cash went to the Republicans?

Jeffrey H. Birnbaum: The Post has published a few things on this subject. Many of the lobbyists (about a third of them) that Abramoff oversaw were Democrats and gave money to Democratic lawmakers. Abramoff directed roughly a third of the Indians' giving to Democrats, too. Whether any wrong-doing was involved with those Democrats, we have to wait and see. We know that the Justice Department is looking as at Democrats as well as Republicans. In general, though, I think it's useful to think of the Abramoff caper as mostly a Republican problem. Most of the funds went to Republicans. The Republicans are in the majority in the House and Senate. If incumbents are hurt by the scandal, then the GOP has the most to lose. Certainly Republican congressional leaders are approaching the issue as if the problem is mostly theirs--which is very wise with a midterm election coming in November.

Umm.. the Reps are doing the same thing.

The problem is the republi-cons did oh so much more than accept tainted funds. That's the delicious part of it. It taints you all the way to the White House. The real Republicans and Conservatives are outraged at your ilk. Republi-con heads will roll. Too sweet!

"The Post has published a few things on this subject. Many of the lobbyists (about a third of them) that Abramoff oversaw were Democrats and gave money to Democratic lawmakers. Abramoff directed roughly a third of the Indians' giving to Democrats, too."

ann...thank you for proving my point. According to your post, although Democrats did not receive money directly from Abramoff himself, the associates at his firm did give them money directly. I don't see how Abramoff can be separated from his firm.

He also states that Abramoff DID INDEED direct the tribes to give money to the Democrats.

Thank you again ,Ann.
it al

"The problem is the republi-cons did oh so much more than accept tainted funds. That's the delicious part of it. It taints you all the way to the White House. The real Republicans and Conservatives are outraged at your ilk. Republi-con heads will roll. Too sweet"

What more did they do?

Guys, dipshit is goofing on us, as I told you in the beginning. He is not here to learn, he's here to rack up the number of posts so he can get paid. He has been answered 10 different ways, you think another 100 will convince him? No, because he's a cowardly dipshit, with his ass full of cheney's schlong, and he's loving it so much he wants to spread the joy.

Now, what has he taught us? Trying to argue the fine print won't work with cheney's leather slaves. Ignore the opposition's efforts to muddy the waters! Keep pounding Dean's words over and over "This is a Republican scandal!" Otherwise, you're arguing in circles and amusing the trolls.

Here is a partial list of Democrats that have received money from Abramoff's tribal clients, or ....more significantly....directly from individuals of Abarmoff's firm in the form of individual campaign contributions (keep scrolling):

Tribal Clients And Associates Of Jack Abramoff Have Contributed Over $3.1 Million To Democrat Party Interests Between 1997 And 2004. (Campaign Finance Analysis Project Website, http://www.campaignfinanceanalysisproject.com/, Accessed December 2005; Political Money Line Website, http://www.tray.com/, Accessed December 2005)

National Democrat Party Affiliated Committees Received Over $1.2 Million From Indian Tribe Clients And Lobbying Associates Of Jack Abramoff. (Campaign Finance Analysis Project Website, http://www.campaignfinanceanalysisproject.com/, Accessed December 7, 2005; Political Money Line Website, http://www.tray.com/, Accessed December 7, 2005; Internal Revenue Service Website, http://www.irs.gov/, Accessed April 21, 2005)

The Democrat Senatorial Campaign Committee (DSCC) Received Over – $430,000 The Democrat Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC) Received Over – $629,000 The Democrat National Committee (DNC) Received Over – $177,000

Incumbent Senate Democrat-Affiliated Campaign And Leadership Committees Received Over $729,000 From Indian Tribe Clients And Lobbying Associates Of Jack Abramoff*. (Campaign Finance Analysis Project Website, http://www.campaignfinanceanalysisproject.com/, Accessed December 7, 2005; Political Money Line Website, http://www.tray.com/, Accessed December 7, 2005; Internal Revenue Service Website, http://www.irs.gov/, Accessed April 21, 2005)

40 Of The 45 Members Of The Senate Democrat Caucus:

Senator Max Baucus (D-MT) Received At Least – $22,500 Senator Evan Bayh (D-IN) Received At Least – $6,500 Senator Joseph Biden (D-DE) Received At Least – $1,250 Senator Jeff Bingaman (D-NM) Received At Least – $2,000 Senator Barbara Boxer (D-CA) Received At Least – $20,250 Senator Maria Cantwell (D-WA) Received At Least – $21,765 Senator Tom Carper (D-DE) Received At Least – $7,500 Senator Hillary Clinton (D-NY) Received At Least – $12,950 Senator Kent Conrad (D-ND) Received At Least – $8,000 Senator Jon Corzine (D-NJ) Received At Least – $7,500 Senator Chris Dodd (D-CT) Received At Least – $14,792 Senator Byron Dorgan (D-ND) Received At Least – $79,300 Senator Dick Durbin (D-IL) Received At Least – $14,000 Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) Received At Least – $2,000 Senator Russ Feingold (D-WI) Received At Least – $1,250 Senator Tom Harkin (D-IA) Received At Least – $45,750 Senator Daniel Inouye (D-HI) Received At Least – $9,000 Senator Jim Jeffords (I-VT) Received At Least – $2,000 Senator Tim Johnson (D-SD) Received At Least – $14,250 Senator Ted Kennedy (D-MA) Received At Least – $3,300 Senator John Kerry (D-MA) Received At Least – $98,550 Senator Mary Landrieu (D-LA) Received At Least – $28,000 Senator Pat Leahy (D-VT) Received At Least – $4,000 Senator Carl Levin (D-MI) Received At Least – $6,000 Senator Joe Lieberman (D-CT) Received At Least – $29,830 Senator Blanche Lincoln (D-AR) Received At Least – $14,891 Senator Barbara Mikulski (D-MD) Received At Least – $10,550 Senator Patty Murray (D-WA) Received At Least – $78,991 Senator Bill Nelson (D-FL) Received At Least – $20,168 Senator Ben Nelson (D-NE) Received At Least – $5,200 Senator Barack Obama (D-IL) Received At Least – $7,500 Senator Mark Pryor (D-AR) Received At Least – $2,300 Senator Jack Reed (D-RI) Received At Least – $3,500 Senator Harry Reid (D-NV) Received At Least – $68,941 Senator John Rockefeller (D-WV) Received At Least – $4,000 Senator Ken Salazar (D-CO) Received At Least – $4,500 Senator Paul Sarbanes (D-MD) Received At Least – $4,300 Senator Chuck Schumer (D-NY) Received At Least – $29,550 Senator Debbie Stabenow (D-MI) Received At Least – $6,250 Senator Ron Wyden (D-OR) Received At Least – $6,250

The usual suspects:

Senator Harry Reid (D-NV) Rec. At Least – $68,941
Senator John Kerry (D-MA) Rec. At Least – $98,550
Senator Chuck Schumer (D-NY) Rec. At Least – $29,550
Senator John Kerry (D-MA) Rec. At Least – $98,550

Shall we just call this the Democratic culture of corruption?

Guys, dipshit is goofing on us, as I told you in the beginning. He is not here to learn, he's here to rack up the number of posts so he can get paid. He has been answered 10 different ways, you think another 100 will convince him? No, because he's a cowardly dipshit, with his ass full of cheney's schlong, and he's loving it so much he wants to spread the joy.

"Now, what has he taught us? Trying to argue the fine print won't work with cheney's leather slaves. Ignore the opposition's efforts to muddy the waters! Keep pounding Dean's words over and over "This is a Republican scandal!" Otherwise, you're arguing in circles and amusing the trolls. "

Seriously, coyote, quit the chilishness.

Senator Byron Dorgan and some others took money from Indian tribes. They're not agents of Jack Abramoff. There's no evidence that I've seen that Jack Abramoff directed any contributions to Democrats. I know the Republican National Committee would like to get the Democrats involved in this. They're scared. They should be scared. They haven't told the truth. They have misled the American people. And now it appears they're stealing from Indian tribes. The Democrats are not involved in this.

What dipshit is saying is that he's been busted in his game and now it's "chilish" whatever that is.

"Senator Byron Dorgan and some others took money from Indian tribes. They're not agents of Jack Abramoff. There's no evidence that I've seen that Jack Abramoff directed any contributions to Democrats"

This is true, but there is proof that some Democrats took money directly from members of Abarmoff's firm. They, therefore, according to Dean's reasoning, be considered agents of Abramoff's firm.

"What dipshit is saying is that he's been busted in his game and now it's "chilish" whatever that is."

No, I'm not saying that at all. And, excuse me, but that was a typo. It should have been "childishness."....sorry.

But why is this a scandal? Where is evidence of his getting something in return?

Uhh, I believe that in the same BIA meeting that Scanlon pronounced the religious right to be whackos, they as much as admitted their scheme. on the public fricken record.

You know, the kind that holds up in a court of law?

Scanlon gets busted, pleads out, big Jack gets indicted, pleads out, Delay gives up and rolls over, Republican spin machine goes nuclear.

Any of this sound familiar? If you can't get a grip on this picture, you need to immeadiatly up your thorazine dosage.

Seriously dude, get a grip.

And now we know why dipshit's pumping so hard:

WASHINGTON (AP) — In President Bush's first 10 months, GOP fundraiser Jack Abramoff and his lobbying team logged nearly 200 contacts with the new administration as they pressed for friendly hires at federal agencies and sought to keep the Northern Mariana Islands exempt from the minimum wage and other laws, records show.

Gosh, there's more:

Abramoff, a $100,000-plus fundraiser for Bush, is now under criminal investigation for some of his lobbying work. His firm boasted its lobbying team helped revise a section of the Republican Party's 2000 platform to make it favorable to its island client.

In addition, two of Abramoff's lobbying colleagues on the Marianas won political appointments inside federal agencies.

"Uhh, I believe that in the same BIA meeting that Scanlon pronounced the religious right to be whackos, they as much as admitted their scheme. on the public fricken record."

They as much as admitted their scheme, huh? Just exactly what meeting was that, and what scheme that "they as much as admitted" ( which means that they did not admit anything at all, but you realy wish they had.)?
Again, I ask, where is the evidence that they got something in return?

Do you know what he actual indictment is for?

And now we know why dipshit's pumping so hard:

"WASHINGTON (AP) — In President Bush's first 10 months, GOP fundraiser Jack Abramoff and his lobbying team logged nearly 200 contacts with the new administration as they pressed for friendly hires at federal agencies and sought to keep the Northern Mariana Islands exempt from the minimum wage and other laws, records show."

What the heck does this have to do with anything, and why should I care?

"Gosh, there's more:

Abramoff, a $100,000-plus fundraiser for Bush, is now under criminal investigation for some of his lobbying work. His firm boasted its lobbying team helped revise a section of the Republican Party's 2000 platform to make it favorable to its island client.

In addition, two of Abramoff's lobbying colleagues on the Marianas won political appointments inside federal agencies.'

Gosh..really? Maybe those colleagues are the ones that gave cash money directly to the Democrats.

Seriously, what the heck are you throwing this in for?

Since the sites don't make clear what "Lobbying Associates of Jack Abramoff" might be, and since you need a subscription to get in, I'm not inclined to think that these contributions (which are admittedly not directly from Abramoff or his firm) are as big a problem as receiving contributions directly from the indicted suspect---which all agree no Democrat did.

Anon has got access to some cutting edge Right Wing talking points sites---he's not generating this stuff himself.

Do you know what he actual indictment is for?

Yes.

Again, I ask, where is the evidence that they got something in return?

First of all, youre way behind. To the learned people in the reality comunity, this is old news and there is no need hash it out for you.

I am not going to jump for your monkey ass on command.

Google using Scanlon whackos Indian gambling.

Short interpratation- we will use the money from the SE whackos(religious-right) to bribe the whacko Texas guys to kill Indian casinos. This is important because if Texas had its own casinos, all the good christians wouldn't ever need to go to LA.

I know it seems incrediable, but it is in the public record.

Thats what its about.

Any more stupid questions?

And now dipshit is back full circle to playing stupid. Okay, got the pattern down now. So typical.

It's the Republican pattern of corruption, dipshit, that's what we are talking about and that's what you're trying to deny. And it goes all the way to the top - and I don't mean cheney in your ass, dipshit, since you're apparently a bottom. Bush is the CinC of the Republican Army of Corruption.

So, dipshit, how much they paying you? Is the ripped anus worth it?

And the best part of this whole thing is that we can staple Ralph Reed's scrotum to a tree and turn the Dobermans loose. I hate that repulsive bastard with a passion.

'First of all, youre way behind. To the learned people in the reality comunity, this is old news and there is no need hash it out for you.

I am not going to jump for your monkey ass on command.

Google using Scanlon whackos Indian gambling.

Short interpratation- we will use the money from the SE whackos(religious-right) to bribe the whacko Texas guys to kill Indian casinos. This is important because if Texas had its own casinos, all the good christians wouldn't ever need to go to LA.

I know it seems incrediable, but it is in the public record.

Thats what its about.

Any more stupid questions?"

Well, that sure says a lot, but it doesn't answer my question.

Since anon has now decided that he has no idea what we're discussing (rollong my eyes) I thought this might open his eyes. But I'm not laying any money on it.

um, that would be (rolling my eyes.)

"And now dipshit is back full circle to playing stupid."

I question why you post something completely irelevant to the topic, and you claim I'm playing stupid?

Why?

"Since anon has now decided that he has no idea what we're discussing (rollong my eyes) I thought this might open his eyes. But I'm not laying any money on it.'

Why would a message that says "no such article found" open my eyes to anything?

Why would a message that says "no such article found" open my eyes to anything?

It works on my system. Perhaps you are using mozilla or are unfamiliar with the internet. But maybe you can comprehend copy and paste:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abramoff-Reed_Indian_Gambling_Scandal

"Short interpratation- we will use the money from the SE whackos(religious-right) to bribe the whacko Texas guys to kill Indian casinos. This is important because if Texas had its own casinos, all the good christians wouldn't ever need to go to LA"

Ummm... you may want to go back and re-read your article. The truth is they used Ralph Reed and other members of the religious right as pawns to help them win for one tribe over another. There is nothing that even suggests that any politician received payment of any kind.

"Why would a message that says "no such article found" open my eyes to anything?

It works on my system. Perhaps you are using mozilla or are unfamiliar with the internet. But maybe you can comprehend copy and paste:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abramoff-Reed_Indian_Gambling_Scan'

Wikipedia??? Shame on you, for goodness sake.

ann...

Abramoff-Reed Indian Gambling Scandal/
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
Jump to: navigation, search
We don't have an article called "Abramoff-Reed Indian Gambling Scandal/"
Start this article
Search for "Abramoff-Reed Indian Gambling Scandal/" in...
...other Wikipedia articles
...Wiktionary (our sister dictionary)
...the Commons (images, music, sound, and video)
Wrote an article that isn't appearing? Wikipedia may have a delay, or it might have been deleted. Wait a few minutes, or check the deletion log.

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abramoff-Reed_Indian_Gambling_Scandal/"
ViewsArticle Discussion Edit this page Personal toolsSign in / create account

*sigh* iamcoyote is correct. time to ignore the anon trolls. they aren't interested in anything here so we shouldn't try to feed them.

I thought Alito was pretty impressive today. What do you guys think?

"sigh* iamcoyote is correct. time to ignore the anon trolls. they aren't interested in anything here so we shouldn't try to feed them."

ann... all I did was show you that your link did not work. Why are you pouting like a little child?

ann, don't feel bad, this one has the tactics down pretty good. He completed a circle without saying anything without learning anything and without proving anything. But that's okay. He and his overlords are terrified of Abramoff, so they need to get those memes out there. Remember, it doesn't have to be true, it just has to be said often enough. Howard Dean is trying to show us how to do it with his admonition to Wolfie yesterday. Keep repeating it:

There are no Democrats who took money from Jack Abramoff, not one, not one single Democrat. Every person named in this scandal is a Republican. Every person under investigation is a Republican. Every person indicted is a Republican. This is a Republican finance scandal. There is no evidence that Jack Abramoff ever gave any Democrat any money. And we've looked through all of those FEC reports to make sure that's true.

All the other side issues dipshit brings up are to keep you arguing, because that's how he gets paid. It's all fluff to the Bush fluffers.

"Anon has got access to some cutting edge Right Wing talking points sites---he's not generating this stuff himself."

Nope...it's all coming from my own little noggin.

"ann, don't feel bad, this one has the tactics down pretty good. He completed a circle without saying anything without learning anything and without proving anything. But that's okay. He and his overlords are terrified of Abramoff, so they need to get those memes out there. Remember, it doesn't have to be true, it just has to be said often enough. Howard Dean is trying to show us how to do it with his admonition to Wolfie yesterday."

I don't have overlords, and I'm not terrified of anything. All I am saying is that this goes to both sides of the aisle, and that anyone who acted in violation of the law should be punished to its fullest extent.

Just because Howard Dean, in his typical idiotic style, played word games with Wolf Blitzer does not mean that is does not extend to the Dems as well. Read his words carefully. He said not one Democrat took money from Abramoff. That may very well be true. It has been proven true, however, that many Dems did take money from Abramoff's partners.

ann, don't feel bad, this one has the tactics down pretty good. He completed a circle without saying anything without learning anything and without proving anything. But that's okay. He and his overlords are terrified of Abramoff, so they need to get those memes out there. Remember, it doesn't have to be true, it just has to be said often enough. Howard Dean is trying to show us how to do it with his admonition to Wolfie yesterday.

Oh, I don't feel bad. But it is sad when a troll invades and does the circle jerk all day rather than engage in intelligent conversation.

You're right, they are scared shitless and somehow believe that flaming on a site like this is somehow going to have an impact.

I know, ann, frustrating, but I had a fun day, and I learned a few things that were valuable to me. In any case, while Mr. Denial P. Dipshit is still saying the same exact thing he said 130 comments ago, I'm off to the next bit o' fun! See ya!

"Oh, I don't feel bad. But it is sad when a troll invades and does the circle jerk all day rather than engage in intelligent conversation.

You're right, they are scared shitless and somehow believe that flaming on a site like this is somehow going to have an impact. "

ann...comments like this should be beneath you. I was nothing but polite and civil in the whole colloquy. My objective analysis is that I was able to rebut any and all of your arguments. I understand you may be frustrated, but that is no reason to be so...well, mean.

Ok, I'm going to try once more and then maybe for all of us we can move beyond this. I'm not responding to anyone in particular. I'm simply going to provide a link to the actual documents in the Abramoff plea deal. Yes, it is from Talking Points Memo, but I don't have access to the direct source. Nevertheless, they are the actual documents.

There is no other official evidence at this point of any additional wrong doing, except that Abramoff and Scanlon have agreed to cooperate. Yes, there are lots of reports, some more damning than others. As of this moment, however, this is a republican scandal. Period.

Your link is not working. ( Now don't get all pissy like ann did when I pointed this out.) Could you summarize, or maybe cut-and-paste the salient points?

Here's the Scanlon plea. It's a pdf.

How about the old-fashioned way :)

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/docs/abramoff-plea-deal23.html

I almost forgot, thanks, dipshit, for the great time. I enjoyed tromping all over your ass today. Of course, I'm sure my tromping doesn't make you squeal quite so delightedly as cheney's schlong between your buttocks, but there it is. Come back again when you feel brave enough to actually sign a name, and I'll kick your butt once again! TTFN.

iamcoyote -- you've given me such mental pictures today, that I must please beg you please -- for my sake -- please stop. Or I promise to put that link from the general's site on this thread -- promise!

This civil discussion with the anon IS circular.

The truth is it doesn't really matter what the truth is. The real importance lies only in the perception. And the perception at this point is this is a Republican only problem.

I believe the anon talking point should be approached as two separate ideas. 1. That it is a problem for both sides of the aisle (which it isn't up to now), not "goes to both sides of the aisle" and 2. that anyone who acted in violation of the law should be punished (which any sane person will accept).

Until the perception changes, the first point anon attempts to make, that it "goes to both sides..." is irrelevant, no matter how many times anon repeatedly tries to make it. The real question is whether it's a problem for both sides.

So, as I believe iamcoyote pointed out more than once, just ignore anon and repeat Dean's version of the truth if you want this to remain a Republican only problem. Don't let anon keep mixing the two ideas to muddy and confuse.

"I almost forgot, thanks, dipshit, for the great time. I enjoyed tromping all over your ass today. Of course, I'm sure my tromping doesn't make you squeal quite so delightedly as cheney's schlong between your buttocks, but there it is. Come back again when you feel brave enough to actually sign a name, and I'll kick your butt once again! TTFN."

You kicked my butt? Really, I wasn't aware. I would think that any honest, objective person would state quite the opposite. Why do you have to be so fatuous in your posts? It's so undignified. Why all the base language and comments?

Well, as dear old grandma used to say, "Profanity is the refuge of the illiterate."

"Dean's version of the truth"

That says it all right there. The real truth does not have "versions."

The hermeneutic circle is thusly closed. The cognitive dissonance of those who stick to "a version" of the truth while ignoring all evidence to its contrary is quite telling.

Well we know that avaroo is indeed anon. I remember the grandma quote quite well!

Why all the base language and comments?

Because in the end, all you are good for is to spit on.

Call it a guilty pleasure.

You want honesty, so what's the problem? That there is a Dean's version of the truth implies there is also another "version" as well- which I say is what you've been arguing. Truth is always in the eye of the beholder, or teller.

More importantly, there is no absolute here. There is no "real" truth. Only gray areas to muddle around in. This is politics, remember? All that matters is perception, and THAT is what the Republicans are losing at the moment.

To argue the "real" truth is important is not being intelectually honest. No more so than saying with a straight face that today there is no difference between a political donation from Abramoff, and from any other donor. Get real.

First, there is no democrat identified in either the Scanlon or Abramoff pleas. A republican is.

Second, no democrat has ever entered anything into the Congressional Record for Abramoff. A republican did.

Finally, it is a republican problem.

"Well we know that avaroo is indeed anon. I remember the grandma quote quite well!'

Nope..not avaroo, nor j. west.

"There is no "real" truth"

Wow...this is getting scarier by the minute.Are you saying that the truth is whatever you want it to be?

"Why all the base language and comments?

Because in the end, all you are good for is to spit on.

Call it a guilty pleasure.

Posted by SnarkyShark at January 9, 2006 03:58 PM "

Now that's what I call class.

"No more so than saying with a straight face that today there is no difference between a political donation from Abramoff, and from any other donor. Get real."

Who in the heck ever said that?

http://glenngreenwald.blogspot.com/2006/01/using-christian-conservatives-for-fun.html

Glenn breaks it down. They had Coryn in the bag, the whackos were the window dressing. Troll goes down in flames.

Now that's what I call class.

And what you think matters why?

"Now that's what I call class.

And what you think matters why?"

You sure have spent quite a bit of time and effort responding to my posts. You tell me.

Crap, now I have to look it up!

OK anon, I think that it was deep throat who said, "follow the money." (Although it has been proven that I have a difficulty attributing quotes to the correct people.)

What I will say is, follow the bouncing ball.

It was called The K Street Project. In addition to locking any former Dems out of these lobbying firms, they insisted that the firms only deal in Republican agenda and with Republicans in Congress.

The K Street Project also used Santorum and Delay to further this Republican agenda. Delay had even more sinister tactics: "Lobbyists were invited into DeLay's office and shown their place in "friendly" or "unfriendly" columns. ("If you want to play in our revolution," DeLay told The Washington Post, "you have to live by our rules.") Another was to oust Democrats from trade associations, what DeLay and Norquist dubbed "the K Street Strategy.""

As you can see this was a Republican Scandal.

K Street Project is background information. The Repukes controlled K Street.

As for Abramoff, he not only wanted an enormous piece of the pie, he wanted contacts and favors in exchange for lavish gifts and money - not only in campaign contributions, but in laundering through phony charities. (This is where it gets really sickening.)

Abramoff used people in positions within charities, some already established - who were not charities at all, but political propagandists - and had them use their contacts in the Interior Department (under the executive branch) to do 'favors'.

Abramoff also told the Indian Tribes that there were threats to their casinos, when there were not, in order to direct monies in certain directions so that he 'could fix these threats.' Then he would claim that he 'fixed the [non-existent] threat' in order to get more money. Money which was funneled through charities that did not exist - many of the tribes gave to the charities in hopes that they could save their business.

Delay owned one such charity, as did Abramoff. They have not yet located the missing money - but it is well documented that it never went to the children.

So, you see, if a Dem received a campaign contribution - without ever being told by ANYONE that this was for an "expected favor" - they are guilty of NOTHING. Now, if a Repuke received a special favor for doing a special favor - this is called bribery.

If a Dem did succumb to bribery, then they should be prosecuted as well, but I have seen no proof of this.

Remember K STREET = owned by Republicans.

'nuff said.

Does it really matter who this particular commenter is? IMHO his/her identity is simply a distraction.

I'll check back later to see if anyone can show that a single democrat has been identified in either of the two plea deals.

"Money which was funneled through charities that did not exist - many of the tribes gave to the charities in hopes that they could save their business.

Delay owned one such charity, as did Abramoff. They have not yet located the missing money - but it is well documented that it never went to the children."

Anyone else see the silliness here?

Steve Duncan, it's just business as usual in the treatment of journalists. He is lucky they didn't kill him, which is the usual outcome in situations such as that. It was no mistake, but a warning to him and others. The tapes will never be returned.

Well, I guess that's one way to end a discussion. . .

Crap, now I have to look it up!

Don't bother. Dipshit will ignore it anyhow.

This is politics, remember? All that matters is perception, and THAT is what the Republicans are losing at the moment.

Corsai, thank you. This is exactly what this long, drawn-out thread has been about.

Dipshit wants to implant the impression that Dems took dirty money from Abramoff, and I want to prevent that impression from taking hold. Both dipshit and I know the truth, that this is the most corrupt administration in the last 100 years, maybe more. He's okay with that. We're not. He's practicing his patter for the rubes at the office, or going for some sort of TLC comment count. We're learning to solidify the message.

Fooking politics...some crazy shit, right?

bbtb, unfortunately for Bush there are too many pictures of the two of them together. Huffingtonpost just did an article on the same subject.

So far: not one democrat named in a plea bargain by Scanlon or Abramoff.

It's a republican corruption problem.

It has been proven true, however, that many Dems did take money from Abramoff's partners.

You go to Target automotive for whatever. I go to Target jewelry for whatever. We both get change for a $20. The Target automotive cashier is a thief. So I got my change from your partner? Please. You can't be that stupid.

This is probably too late to matter, but I had to leave yesterday and would like to answer a couple of points.

Anon, you wrote, Wow...this is getting scarier by the minute.Are you saying that the truth is whatever you want it to be?

No, I'm saying the truth is whatever the beholder believes it to be. While theoretically there might be an absolute when it comes to what occurred in a chain of events, in the daily world of human beings there is no absolute when it comes to what is commonly called the truth. Two people can witness the exact same event and come away with two completely different recountings. Have you never been involved in a court proceeding? Or at the least, have you never watched Court TV?

Second, I wrote "No more so than saying with a straight face that today there is no difference between a political donation from Abramoff, and from any other donor. Get real."

To which you responded, Who in the heck ever said that?

To which I quote you from earlier in the thread: Most campaigns receive thousands and thousands of individual contributions...again perfctly within the law.

Why should the Abramoff's contributions be extrordinary?

While not verbatim, I believe the message is the same.

This should have been in italics as well: Why should the Abramoff's contributions be extrordinary?