Democrat / Clinton fundraising scandals continue

okie wrote:

old europe wrote:
okie wrote:
Conservative and proud of it, oe. Conservatism is common sense.

Liberalism is having a social conscience.

Is that what Hugo Chavez is busy doing right now, according to his "social conscience?" He not only cares about Venezuela, but the people in the U.S., right? I see he now wants to take over the schools, I guess because of his social conscience?

If we count Chavez as a liberal, then we can certainly count Ahmadinejad as a conservative? I mean, he's somebody who wants to preserve conservative values. Someone who thinks that religion is important. Someone who applies some commons sense and says "Darn, Iraq got flattened without WMD, whereas nobody dared to touch North Korea. We better get some of those thingies. Pronto."

Right?

0 Replies

And you, an a$$hole of equal proportion, can not imagine people doing something for themselves instead of relying on someone else's work.

You curse and bemoan anyone that may not have the same warped world view as yourself and can't help but add invective when none is needed. Your desire to help the wretched masses is masked by your nose as you look down it. I doubt you have seen your own dick in years as your nose obscures the view.

0 Replies

McGentrix wrote:

And you, an a$$hole of equal proportion, can not imagine people doing something for themselves instead of relying on someone else's work.

You curse and bemoan anyone that may not have the same warped world view as yourself and can't help but add invective when none is needed. Your desire to help the wretched masses is masked by your nose as you look down it. I doubt you have seen your own dick in years as your nose obscures the view.

I think that's your forehead...

0 Replies

McGentrix wrote:

And you, an a$$hole of equal proportion, can not imagine people doing something for themselves instead of relying on someone else's work.

You curse and bemoan anyone that may not have the same warped world view as yourself and can't help but add invective when none is needed. Your desire to help the wretched masses is masked by your nose as you look down it. I doubt you have seen your own dick in years as your nose obscures the view.

Oh, I just tilt my head and look around it.

Invective was necessary in this case.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

McGentrix wrote:

And you, an a$$hole of equal proportion, can not imagine people doing something for themselves instead of relying on someone else's work.

I love you like a sister, McG. But believe me, I can imagine people doing something for themselves really well.

0 Replies

old europe wrote:

okie wrote:
old europe wrote:
okie wrote:
Conservative and proud of it, oe. Conservatism is common sense.

Liberalism is having a social conscience.

Is that what Hugo Chavez is busy doing right now, according to his "social conscience?" He not only cares about Venezuela, but the people in the U.S., right? I see he now wants to take over the schools, I guess because of his social conscience?

If we count Chavez as a liberal, then we can certainly count Ahmadinejad as a conservative? I mean, he's somebody who wants to preserve conservative values. Someone who thinks that religion is important. Someone who applies some commons sense and says "Darn, Iraq got flattened without WMD, whereas nobody dared to touch North Korea. We better get some of those thingies. Pronto."

Right?

Ahmadinejad wants to preserve conservative values? Give me a break, oe, you are off your rocker. You are really stretching the word, conservative way beyond the context of a conservative American that believes in constitutional values. I would say the American lib comes closer to things said and thought by Ahmadinejad, which is more sympathetic to the Palestinians vs our friend, Israel, and more sympathetic to terrorists and wishing to negotiate with them, appease them, than American conservatives.

Worthy of note today, Jack Murtha was confronted about accusing our marines of atrocities, which has been disproven. He might as well have been Ahmadinejad saying it, as that would be typical of him. Our Democrats are bordering on very questionable behavior. Moveon.org leads the way as well. This is the liberal mindset, oe. You could swear they work for Ahmadinejad or Al-Jazeera.

So do you advocate attacking North Korea instead? This is a common argument of libs, which totally falls on its face with any serious consideration.

0 Replies

This thread needs to get back on topic, which is alot of Democratic Party corrupt fundraising, etc. to talk about. The Norman Hsu case gets bigger, now 60 million involved.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,297482,00.html

Do we really know how much of this went into Democrat campaigns yet, and next big question we don't yet know, what did it buy, and what is it buying? Another question is how did Hillary get by with the idea of giving it back to the so-called donors when we know some of them were only used and it probably wasn't their money. Hillary thinks we are all fools to believe her, but at least not all of us are. How does she get by with this, and where are the canceled checks, if that is what she is doing?

This Norman Hsu guy creates false businesses and embezzles millions to what....give it away again without wanting something? Give me a break.

0 Replies

okie wrote:

Ahmadinejad wants to preserve conservative values? Give me a break, oe, you are off your rocker. You are really stretching the word, conservative way beyond the context of a conservative American that believes in constitutional values.

Depends how you define conservative values. If you think that revoking the separation of state and religion, maintaining a strong military position, denouncing institutions like universities as dangerous and a breeding ground for enemies of the state, pursuing political goals through military means or denigrating the United Nations as a toothless tiger that can be ignored if it suits your needs - then yes, Ahmadinejad wants to preserve conservative values.

If you think that dedication to freedom and democratic values, to free speech, free elections, equal rights for all citizens - man, woman or child, heterosexual, lesbian or gay - if you think those are conservative values, then no, Ahmadinejad doesn't want to preserve conservative values.

And you can make exactly the same argument about Chavez and liberals. But only people slightly on the nutty side would actually argue that there's no difference between conservatives and some random right wing dictator, or that liberals are essentially all Stalinists at heart.

Yet you never fail to throw in Chavez pretty much in the first sentence when you're replying to any post that merely mentions "liberal values."

okie wrote:

Worthy of note today, Jack Murtha was confronted about accusing our marines of atrocities, which has been disproven. He might as well have been Ahmadinejad saying it, as that would be typical of him.

Really? See, I tend to think that Ahmadinejad would never say a bad word about the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps. And unlike very many liberals, I don't think he would favour a withdrawal from Iraq if it was Iran that was occupying its neighbour.

(Now, in all fairness, I don't think that Ahmadinejad and the majority of American conservatives have all too much in common. I have a slightly different opinion about the neocon nut jobs. But it's just too easy to play this silly little game, and you're just too willing to go into these ridiculous comparisons.)

okie wrote:

Our Democrats are bordering on very questionable behavior. Moveon.org leads the way as well. This is the liberal mindset, oe. You could swear they work for Ahmadinejad or Al-Jazeera.

Well, there are a lot of "liberal" posters here on A2K. In most conversations, the majority of them never seems to exhibit all those evil characteristics that you are so willing to ascribe to them.

Doesn't that influence your opinion about the "liberal mindset?"

0 Replies

oe, if you wonder what an American liberal is, here is a description. I realize it is generalized and one size does not fit all, but it is typical of the general mindset, esepecially the most strident.

Liberals have an idealistic view that utopia might be obtainable here on earth. And good intentions are as important as if they are practical. For example, Kyoto is wonderful, even if it doesn't work, and talking to terrorists is good intentioned and shows we want to solve problems, so we should do it, even though it isn't practical and doesn't work in reality. Throwing more money into government programs to solve problems is always the recommendation, even though central planning never solves many of the problems they are attempting to solve, but they feel good because they tried.

Liberals like to blame America first for any problem almost anywhere in the world, and it can be fixed if we would just do things differently. For example global warming, we caused it, and we can fix it by writing a new law, even if the law is impractical. If terrorists do something bad, then it is our fault for something we did sometime in the past. And if we just be nice, we will never be in danger in this world. We can talk to anyone, negotiate with anyone, and they will understand us and they will always be nice to us too.

They are antagonistic toward business and free enterprise, and favor bigger government. Every problem has a government solution. If you go down that road far enough, you always seem to end up at the doorstep of a communist dictator. Of course, if we just go a ways in that direction, but not all the way, we are fortunately just more socialistic is all.

Liberals are antagonistic toward personal moral standards in society, and the general tendency is to break down those guardrails in society, and this takes a number of different avenues. Liberals do not emphasize personal responsibility and morals, but if there is a poverty problem, childcare problem, whatever, a government solution is the only thing mentioned. Individual citizenship and responsibility of citizens are seldom mentioned as an important part of the problem or solution. Liberals instead view morality as what government does, not individuals. This explains why Clinton could do almost anything, but if he "cares" about you and taxes the rich to give to the poor, he is moral. Of course, it matters not that he really doesn't care about you at all. He only does what he does to get elected, which describes many liberals to a T.

This ties into the corruption subject. Republicans are more often criticized for hypocrisy because they recognize a need for personal morality. So the problem with corrupt Republicans is the hypocrisy, not the corruption. Democrats emphasize government morality, not personal, so this is why they skate. This explains why Hillary is still prominent and leading the party after 8 years of the most corrupt and scandal ridden administration in history. And its why we never hear anything more out of the Democrats about an obvious criminal, William Jefferson, and he will stay in office if he can find any way to skate around the court system or jail. As long as a Democrat will promise to tax the rich and give to the poor, liberals will vote for them, regardless of how pathetic they are as a person. With the shoe on the other foot, in regard to Republicans, the conservatives will stay home and just not vote at all if their candidate is personally a real loser, even if they promise every conservative agenda they can find.

0 Replies

Walter Hinteler wrote:

That (the above) has been proven incorrect. Even the thread about it died here afterwards.

And Parados:

Parados wrote:

Let's all be like okie and pretend "standby" has no meaning in the real world.

Because MoveOn may have got the date they wanted is NOT proof of any conspiracy. It is only proof that the NYTimes had space available. (You still haven't shown that MoveOn specifically wanted Monday. Sunday would have been a better day with a wider readership.)

And oe:

Quote:

Quote:
okie wrote:
Sure sure, Walter, that has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt, uh huh, yes sure, ha ha. Of course, the NYT would make their discounts very known to everyone and make sure the same price was offered to everyone NOW, and of course make sure the requested ad was placed in the chosen section of the paper on a chosen day, now that they have been called on it.

You realize that you sound a bit like Zippo over on one of the "The Government Was Behind 9/11" threads, don't you?

And blatham:

blatham wrote:

Quote:
Quote:
old europe wrote:
okie wrote:
Sure sure, Walter, that has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt, uh huh, yes sure, ha ha. Of course, the NYT would make their discounts very known to everyone and make sure the same price was offered to everyone NOW, and of course make sure the requested ad was placed in the chosen section of the paper on a chosen day, now that they have been called on it.

You realize that you sound a bit like Zippo over on one of the "The Government Was Behind 9/11" threads, don't you?

There seems little chance that either okie or zippo will ever be able to comprehend how like each other they are.

Here is what we know now, that the NYT now admits they gave moveon.org a special rate that they did not deserve, and would not have been given to other groups under the same circumstances. Other groups would be lucky to even be able to run an ad, let alone at the discount rate.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/23/opinion/23pubed.html?_r=1&oref=slogin

"But I think the ad violated The Times's own written standards, and the paper now says that the advertiser got a price break it was not entitled to."

It was obvious to some of us from Day 1 when this story broke, but the question will be, will Parados, Walter, oe, and blatham, and anyone else that habitually defend fellow libs like the NYT as they always do, have the honesty and honor to admit they were in totally wrong on this issue, and they should have known it, but chose instead to believe their own bias. oe and blatham went so far as to accuse me of being as whacky as Zippo. Maybe the question is, how whacky are oe and blatham?

0 Replies

Oh, no problem. We can verify your Zipponess right on the spot.

Here, this is what Catherine Mathis, vice president of corporate communications for The Times, said:

Quote:

"We made a mistake." She said the advertising representative failed to make it clear that for that rate The Times could not guarantee the Monday placement but left MoveOn.org with the understanding that the ad would run then. She added, "That was contrary to our policies."

Now, let me ask you: do you believe her?

0 Replies

I predicted Parados would continue to defend the liberal position, but I didn't think you would, oe. Why don't you give it up? Even the NYT is now admitting they gave a special price that was undeserved, so why do you want to persist? You were wrong, so admit it.

0 Replies

Unwilling to answer the question?

0 Replies

Your question is pointless to what happened. A mistake means what, they intentionally gave a special price when they weren't supposed to? Yes I agree they did and it was a mistake. Favoritism is a mistake, I agree.

0 Replies

okie wrote:

Your question is pointless to what happened. A mistake means what, they intentionally gave a special price when they weren't supposed to? Yes I agree they did and it was a mistake. Favoritism is a mistake, I agree.

Uhm?

I'd say it's a mistake if they unintentionally gave a special price when they weren't supposed to, or, as the NYT vice president of corporate communications said, that they unintentionally left a customer with the false impression that the regular price for a standby ad would guarantee them placement on a specific day.

That's what "mistake" seems to mean here. That's why I asked you if you believed her.

0 Replies

NYT:
"We made a mistake." She said the advertising representative failed to make it clear that for that rate The Times could not guarantee the Monday placement but left MoveOn.org with the understanding that the ad would run then. She added, "That was contrary to our policies."

First of all, you cherrypick the statement you want here, oe, and secondly, I think you continue to serve not much else but to demonstrate your likeness to zippo. You so desperately want to believe that the NYT would not intentionally give the special rate to moveon, that you will continue to equivocate. Call it a mistake, fine, but I think it was an intentional mistake. A slick word there. Like Sandy Berger was just guilty of "sloppiness" when he was smuggling classified documents out of the archives in his clothing, ha ha.

If you like the word, mistake, fine, bank robbers make a mistake when they rob the bank too, so yes, I think the lady told the truth, sort of, it was a mistake, but I think it was definitely intentional and knowing. If you wish to keep your blinders on and believe it was a mistake in the spirit of sloppiness and something inadvertant, go ahead, but I think you even know the likely truth but do not wish to admit it. These kinds of 100 grand sweetheart deal mistakes are not at all likely to be unintentional.

0 Replies

okie wrote:

First of all, you cherrypick the statement you want here, oe,

I tried to capture the essence of the statement. But feel free to provide evidence from the article you linked to that shows how the NYT "intentionally gave a special price when they weren't supposed to."

Go ahead.

okie wrote:

and secondly, I think you continue to serve not much else but to demonstrate your likeness to zippo. You so desperately want to believe that the NYT would not intentionally give the special rate to moveon, that you will continue to equivocate.

Not at all. Maybe they did, in fact, give a customer a lower rate intentionally. If you have noticed, I haven't been defending the NYT. I've been saying that for you, it all seems to be some kind of conspiracy.

okie wrote:

Call it a mistake, fine, but I think it was an intentional mistake.

Voilá. There you go.

(You base this analysis on what, specifically?)

okie wrote:

A slick word there. Like Sandy Berger was just guilty of "sloppiness" when he was smuggling classified documents out of the archives in his clothing, ha ha.

Or like the Bush administration was just relying on false data when they stated with absolute certainty that they exactly knew where Saddam was hiding all those WMD.

okie wrote:

If you like the word, mistake, fine, bank robbers make a mistake when they rob the bank too,

I think you're trying to tell me something here. I'm not getting what it is, though.

okie wrote:

so yes, I think the lady told the truth, sort of, it was a mistake, but I think it was definitely intentional and knowing.

Ah. In the future, I'm just gonna use "CT" instead of "conspiracy theory", if that's okay with you.

okie wrote:

If you wish to keep your blinders on and believe it was a mistake in the spirit of sloppiness and something inadvertant, go ahead, but I think you even know the likely truth but do not wish to admit it.

Nah. I don't know what happened. I never claimed that I did.

You, on the other side, don't seem to need any evidence in order to state that all of this was "definitely intentional."

Bit of a double standard, there.

0 Replies

I don't wish to continue to beat a dead horse here with you, the game is over, the NYT admitted they did in fact give moveon a special deal, so you were wrong, why not admit it? And as I said, these kinds of 100 grand sweetheart deal mistakes don't seem to me to be all that likely to be unintentional, but if it makes you feel better, believe whatever you want.

0 Replies

okie wrote:

I don't wish to continue to beat a dead horse here with you, the game is over, the NYT admitted they did in fact give moveon a special deal, so you were wrong, why not admit it?

Huh?

Where did I say that the NYT didn't give moveon a special price? That's not what the discussion is about.

It's about whether it was a mistake or some kind of conspiracy.

okie wrote:

And as I said, these kinds of 100 grand sweetheart deal mistakes don't seem to me to be all that likely to be unintentional,

I know. And you don't seem to have more evidence for your theory than before.

okie wrote:

but if it makes you feel better, believe whatever you want.

Why, thank you.

0 Replies

okie didn't link to an article. He linked to an opinion piece.

Quote:

The public editor serves as the readers' representative. His opinions and conclusions are his own.

0 Replies

Democrat / Clinton fundraising scandals continue

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know