Janklow Guilty on all counts..........

Here's one Republican congressman who couldn't talk his way out of his crimes, even in a conservative state:

Lawmaker Guilty of Manslaughter; Says He'll Resign

By MONICA DAVEY

New York Times

Published: December 9, 2003

LANDREAU, S.D., Dec. 8 — Representative Bill Janklow, who for 30 years was a towering political figure in South Dakota, was convicted of second-degree manslaughter on Monday evening and quickly announced that he would resign from the House.

After about five hours of deliberation on Monday, 12 jurors, including many who said they had voted for Mr. Janklow in past elections, convicted him on all charges in an August wreck that left a motorcyclist dead on a country road a few miles from this courthouse.

Mr. Janklow, a Republican and the state's sole representative in the House, leaves a political gap for South Dakota, and for a Republican Party here that will have to fight hard to hold onto the seat when a special election is held.

Mr. Janklow, who had long been known as a blunt, outspoken leader here, walked slowly down the steps of his hometown courthouse after the verdict, entered a waiting car and was driven off. He said nothing. But an hour later, he had prepared a letter that he said he would send to Speaker J. Dennis Hastert on Tuesday.

"I wish to inform you that because of present circumstances, I will be unable to perform the duties incumbent on me in representing the people of South Dakota as their U.S. representative," Mr. Janklow, who is serving his first term in Congress, wrote. "Representing the people of South Dakota in all the capacities that I have over the years has brought a treasure of memories and friends. This includes the year I have spent in the U.S. House."

Mr. Janklow, 64, will be sentenced on Jan. 20, when he faces up to 11 years in prison, 10 for the most serious crime, a felony charge of manslaughter. His letter said that his resignation would be effective the same day.

Many said that Mr. Janklow had little choice but to resign. House rules call on those convicted of crimes that carry prison sentences of two years or more to refrain from voting in the full House or participating in the business of House committees until the charges against them are overturned or they are re-elected. But the decision was certain to send Republicans in this state, which has not supported a Democrat for president since 1964, scrambling to find a viable alternative.

Stephanie Herseth, a Democrat who lost to Mr. Janklow in 2002, had already announced her hopes to run again. Some observers had suggested that John Thune, a Republican and the state's former House member, might be a possibility for the special election in June.

Around the Moody County Courthouse, the verdict and the sudden resignation came as a shock to many who had watched the trial the past week. Mr. Janklow, whose family comes from tiny Flandreau and whose name is posted on highway signs into town, was a celebrity here, and some had insisted that while the locals might be mad at him, they would never convict him.

James G. Mitchell, the jury foreman, stood up and read the verdicts in a quiet but steady voice, never looking at Mr. Janklow: guilty of failing to stop at a stop sign; guilty of speeding; guilty of reckless driving; guilty of manslaughter.

Afterward, Mr. Mitchell said the jurors had entered their sparsely furnished third-floor room on Monday afternoon, hoping that this would not be the outcome. "We started off not wanting that to happen," he said, describing quiet and somber hours of conversation. "But in the end, we worked our way through the evidence and the judge's instructions, and we all came to the conclusion that it was all we could do."

Mr. Janklow's political career — he had been state attorney general, then governor, and now congressman — was known to all in the room, Mr. Mitchell said. Many, including Mr. Mitchell, had voted for him over his long career. "But that wasn't what mattered in the end," Mr. Mitchell said. "We feel terrible for him, but this was the conclusion that we had to come to. We had to be honest with it."

Mr. Mitchell, 44, who said he worked several jobs and lived in a small town not far from here, Elkton, said jurors felt they could not worry about what their verdict would mean for the state's political landscape.

On either side of the courtroom gallery this evening, there seemed to be stunned silence.

And here's a Democratic Congressman who couldn't - what does that prove?

Move To Expel Traficant

WASHINGTON, April 16, 2002

Rep. James A. Traficant Jr. (Photo: AP)

"Felons belong in jail and not in Congress."

Rep. Jim Sensenbrenner, R-Wisc.

(CBS) House Judiciary Chairman Jim Sensenbrenner said Tuesday he was introducing a resolution calling for Rep. James A. Traficant Jr. to be expelled from the U.S. House if the Ohio congressman does not resign.

Sensenbrenner, R-Wisc., said, "Felons belong in jail and not in Congress."

Traficant, a nine-term congressman, was convicted last week in federal court in Cleveland on 10 counts of racketeering, bribery, kickbacks and fraud.

The charges carry a maximum penalty of 63 years in jail, though under federal sentencing guidelines, Traficant is likely to get a much lighter sentence. Sentencing was scheduled for June 27.

"He has broken our public trust by breaking the law and if he will not voluntarily leave this House, our duty is to remove him," Sensenbrenner said on the House floor.

Traficant, D-Ohio, has said he will not resign and will appeal the jury's decision and run for re-election as an independent.

House Democratic Leader Dick Gephardt has already called for Traficant to resign, and the House Ethics Committee has announced that it will meet to consider disciplinary action against Traficant.

Expulsion requires the approval of two-thirds of the 435-member House and has happened to only one congressman since the Civil War. In 1980, Rep. Michael Myers, D-Pa., was expelled for accepting money from undercover FBI agents posing as Arab sheiks seeking favors from Congress.

Sensenbrenner was a member of the House ethics committee when Myers was expelled. He introduced a resolution calling for former Rep. Walter Tucker III, D-Calif., to be expelled after Tucker was convicted in 1995 of accepting and demanding bribes while mayor of a Los Angeles suburb. Tucker resigned from Congress a week later.

Sensenbrenner said a motion to expel Traficant is necessary because he "foolishly" rejected Gephardt's call for him to resign.

On Monday, the House ethics committee warned Traficant "in the strongest possible terms" not to vote on the House floor while lawmakers review his recent conviction on racketeering and other charges.

In a letter, the committee told Traficant he risks action by the full House if he tries to vote.

Here's a nice summary of all of the criminal, corrupt and sleazy behavior of a sitting Democratic Congressman - including physically abusing his wife. Why would your party allow someone like this to have power in Congress - and how can you belong to a party with people like this in it:

By the staff

of Capitol Hill Blue

August 17, 1999

Neighbors in the prosperous Del Rey residential area of Alexandria weren't surprised earlier this year when police cars showed up at the home of Democratic Congressman James Moran and his wife of 11 years.

It wasn't the first time the cops had shown up.

"There was always a lot of screaming going on there," said one neighbor. "They fought like cats and dogs."

Mary Moran called the Alexandria police that June night and said her husband was attacking her. The police came, talked to both, and left.

No charges were filed.

The next day, Mary Moran filed for divorce, saying - among other things - that the five-term Congressman had abused her.

Moran claimed the charges were "trumped up" and filed a counter suit for divorce the following month.

But the incident is just the latest violent act by the bombastic Virginia congressman who has a history of bar brawls, physical assaults, threats, intimidation and even fistfights on the floor of the House of Representatives.

And he has a history of getting away with it.

Jay Armington remembers his first and only encounter with Moran, then mayor of Alexandria, in a bar near the Potomac River in 1988.

"He and another guy went from arguing to shouting to fists in just a few minutes. One of my buddies pulled the other guy away and I grabbed the mayor," Armington recalls.

Moran, he said, wheeled around and slammed him against the bar.

"His cheeks were bulging and he was snorting like a bull," Armington said. "I realized I was looking into the eyes of a madman."

Arne Wilkens tended bar in Alexandria, where Moran served as mayor of the city from 1985-1990. He says the Mayor often got into fights.

"He was a bully and a thug," Wilkens said. "We'd call the cops, but they wouldn't do anything."

Jonathan Schnapp, a former Alexandria resident, tried to file a criminal complaint with the Alexandria police after the Mayor threatened him following an argument outside a city council meeting. The cops just laughed.

"They said they weren't going to risk their jobs by trying to arrest the Mayor," Schnapp said. Schnapp said he moved out of Alexandria because he felt both the Mayor and the police department were corrupt.

Alexandria police refuse to discuss Moran's tenure as Mayor publicly, but several officers admitted privately that his behavior would have led to the arrest of "ordinary citizens."

"The Mayor was clearly guilty of assault on more than one occasion," said one officer, who refused to be identified out of fear for his job. "But the word came down. The Mayor was off limits. Ordinary citizens go to jail. Not the Mayor."

Winning a seat in Congress in 1990 didn't change Moran's violent ways. He got into more than one shoving match with other members of Congress, including Indiana Republican Dan Burton and California Republican Randy "Duke" Cunningham.

Moran was an amateur boxer in his youth and told Washingtonian Magazine that had he not become a politician, he might have tried professional boxing because "I like to hit people."

Supporters of the temperamental Congressman say he is just a "typical Irish rogue," charming one minute, belligerent the other.

"Alexandria likes rogues," says one political supporter. "The city has a long, colorful history of flamboyant politicians.

But political opponents say Moran is a "violent man, a time bomb who is always ticking and ready to go off."

"He's always boiling," says Sam Asrets, a former Alexandria activist who opposed Moran on many issues during his term as mayor.

"He knows he can get away with this because there's never any accountability," Asrets says. "He gets breaks that ordinary people don't get. Had he learned early on that there would be punishment for his behavior, he would have been a lot better off."

Supporters say Moran deserves a break because his daughter, Dorothy, was diagnosed with brain and spinal cancer six years ago. The daughter, now 8, has gone into remission, but the Morans spent more than $15,000 on alternative care on top of $200,000 in insured treatment.

However, Moran, who was also a stockbroker before becoming mayor of Alexandria, is nearly a million dollars in debt from failed investments and out-of-control spending patterns that go far beyond what the couple spent on their daughter.

The financial problems have become a central part of the increasingly nasty divorce proceedings between Moran and his wife. Mary Moran, 44, went heavily into debt buying gifts and antiques the year her daughter was diagnosed with cancer.

Moran also lost $120,000 in high-risk stock options and futures contracts in 1995 and 1996, according to his financial disclosure forms on file in Congress. Two years later, he reported increasingly heavy debts

Alexandria public records show Moran more than doubled the mortgage on his home, from $202,000 to $447,000, and is frequently late with payments. Moran earns $136,700 a year as a Congressman, but has more than $7,000 a month in housing and loan payments.

Ironically, the Congressman sits on the powerful House Appropriations Committee, which controls the finances of the nation. He serves on subcommittees overseeing defense and interior expenditures.

But the Congressman shows little ability to control his own finances and increasingly taps his campaign funds to pay personal bills.

In her divorce petition, attorneys for Mary Moran say the congressman has a history of "wasting the family assets on his stock market gambling." Mrs. Moran seeks $25,000 in support and possession of their home. She says her husband "has wasted marital funds on the excessive purchases for unnecessary items."

Moran played the stock market and lost. He wiped out earlier stock holdings and used income tax refunds as seed money, losing $34,000 in more than 80 trades in 1995. In 1996, he lost another $93,000 in more than 100 failed trades.

Even though the stock market was booming, Moran risked his money on high-risk, potentially lucrative futures and options trading, seeking higher profits by trading on the direction of general market index funds, as well as on an array of U.S. and foreign technology and industrial stocks. He lost it all.

As his losses mounted, Moran borrowed heavily against both his Alexandria home and a vacation home in King George County, VA. The two mortgages amount to more than $600,000.

Both loans came at above-market rates from MBNA Consumer Services Inc., a finance operation that makes high interest loans to high-risk customers.

Moran has tried, and failed, to sell both of his houses over the past 18 months. Public appraisals put the value of both homes below the amount that the Congressman owes on his loans.

Congressional disclosure forms also show the Morans tripled their credit card debt from 1993 to 1997 and now owe more than $45,000 on the cards. Moran also has borrowed the maximum against his congressional retirement fund -- $20,000.

Moran sold his car in 1996 and turned to his campaign fund to lease a car for his personal use, according to his campaign financial statements. While other members of Congress use campaign funds for a car in their districts far from Washington, Moran's actions have raised eyebrows in Congress.

He also tripled his reimbursement requests from the campaign in 1997--an off year for elections--for meals and gifts, increasing the amount the campaign pays from $4,000 in 1995 to more than $12,000 in 1997. Aides say he is increasing his use of campaign funds to pay such expenses.

"The campaign now pays for a lot of his personal expenses," says one former staff member. "It has to. He's broke."

Although the Morans refuse to discuss their finances or personal lives, attorneys for Moran told The Washington Post earlier this month: "The Morans, like millions of Americans, made investments. Mr. Moran used the knowledge he acquired as a stockbroker during the 1980s. Unfortunately it didn't work out."

Moran has moved out of his home and is renting a residence in Alexandria. He plans to run for a sixth term in Congress in 2000.

(This report was coordinated and written by Capitol Hill Blue editor Jack Sharp with assistance from researcher Marilyn Crosslyn and private investigator James Hargill.)

And I won't even mention Former Mayor and Crack Smoker Marion Barry (D - convicted and imprisoned), or Former Democratic Master Dan Rostenkowski (D - convicted and imprisoned), or Current Presidential Candidate Al Sharpton (D - liable for defamation, repeatedly arrested), or former President Bill Clinton (D - disbarred), or former Clinton Housing Secretary Henry Cisneros (D - convicted). I won't even mention them.

Yeah - that's a great tactic - exploiting the conviction of a single Republican Congressman in order to make a political point: namely, that Republicans are law-breakers and criminals and Democrats are pure law-abiding citizens. Good point.

>And I won't even mention Former Mayor and Crack Smoker Marion

>Barry (D - convicted and imprisoned),

I can understand why you don't want to mention him. In the thread on Rush Limbaugh's drug crimes you argued that Limbaugh should receive lenient treatment because first time offenders in such cases are seldom treated harshly. I asked why Rush should be treated more leniently than Marion Barry and you didn't have an answer.

or Former Democratic

>Master Dan Rostenkowski (D - convicted and imprisoned),

You forgot to mention he was prosecuted and convicted by Clinton's Justice Department.

or

>Current Presidential Candidate Al Sharpton (D - liable for

>defamation, repeatedly arrested),

Defamation is not a crime. And Sharpton's arrests have been for his participation in political demonstrations. To the best of my knowledge, the only jail time he has ever served was for participating in a demonstration against the bombing of Vieques.

> or former President Bill

>Clinton (D - disbarred),

When was Clinton disbarred? Last I heard, he was suspended from practice in Arkansas.

>or former Clinton Housing Secretary

>Henry Cisneros (D - convicted). I won't even mention them.

You also didn't mention Mike Espy, former congressman and Agriculture Secretary during the Clinton Administration who was hounded for years by a special prosecutor at the insistence of Republicans and who was ultimately acquitted by a jury on all charges.

>Yeah - that's a great tactic - exploiting the conviction of a

>single Republican Congressman in order to make a political

>point: namely, that Republicans are law-breakers and

>criminals and Democrats are pure law-abiding citizens. Good

>point.

I think the point is not that Republicans are law-breakers, but that they are a pack of sanctimonious hypocrites.

Limbaugh has said again and again that those who buy drugs illegally should go to prison. Now that he has been caught, he has hired marquee defense lawyer Roy Black to keep his fat behind OUT of prison.

While Republicans all over America were denouncing Clinton for adultery, their hero Gingrich was secretly boffing a young woman who worked in his office. When the adultery of Republicans like Dan Burton, J.C. Watts and Henry Hyde was revealed, their Republican colleagues in the House didn't kick them out. Instead, each man was chosen for an important House leadership position by his Republican colleagues AFTER it was known that he had lied and cheated. That is why all the sermons we hear from Republicans on "character" and "values" should be greeted with nothing but contemptuous laughter.

it's really all the same with Doug. Never address the shortcomings of Republicans when you can bring out a Democrat to bash. Doug also conveniently forgets the most corrupt President of all, Tricky Dicky (R-pardoned by his former VP), and his spiritual heir, Shrub (R- http://www.bushlies.com).

http://cagle.slate.msn.com/news/RushLimbaugh/RushGIFS/signe.gif

>it's really all the same with Doug. Never address the

>shortcomings of Republicans when you can bring out a Democrat

>to bash.

You're projecting; I think it's clear who the blind party hacks are. I think Rep. Janklow belongs in jail, where he is headed. I think that any politician, Democratic or Republican, who breaks the law and harms others deserves to be punished.

The difference between me and people like you and your socialist friends like Woodlawn is that I don't think that corrupt behavior and criminal misconduct is confined to one political party. I recognize, unlike you, that both parties have their share of sleazy criminals, liars, hypocrites, etc.

Nor do I believe that the actions of one particular member of a party (such as Rep. Janklow or Marion Barry) can be fairly attributed to the Party itself, nor do I believe that the views of one member of the Party (such as Pat Buchanan or Rep. Cynthia McKinney) can be fairly attriibuted to the Party itself. I posted in response to Bucky that Rep. Janklow's conviction has nothing to say about any political debate; it's just a smear tactic which can be used equally against both parties.

That's because, unlike you, I'm not a partisan slave to a political party, sacrificing my objectivity and intellectual honesty in order to become a blindly obedient soldier for either party.

I trust you see the difference - at least one of them - between me and those like you and Woodlawn who are actually so brainwashed and/or dishonest that you actually claim to believe that one of our two equally corrupt political parties has a monopoly on integrity and honesty.

>I can understand why you don't want to mention him. In the

>thread on Rush Limbaugh's drug crimes you argued that Limbaugh

>should receive lenient treatment because first time offenders

>in such cases are seldom treated harshly. I asked why Rush

>should be treated more leniently than Marion Barry and you

>didn't have an answer.

I don't know enough about the details of Marion Barry's convictions to opine on whether he received a fair sentence. If he went to prison for a crime for which most people don't go to prison, then that was wrong. In general, I think that the possession of narcotics should not be a crime, and so I am inclined to believe that nobody, regardless of political ideology, should go to prison for that crime.

> or Former Democratic

>>Master Dan Rostenkowski (D - convicted and imprisoned),

>

>You forgot to mention he was prosecuted and convicted by

>Clinton's Justice Department.

So what? He's still a corrupt Democrat who exerted great influence in the Democratic Party for decades. What does THAT say about your Party - that one of its leaders was corrupt to his core with regard to the exercise of that power?

>or

>>Current Presidential Candidate Al Sharpton (D - liable for

>>defamation, repeatedly arrested),

>

>Defamation is not a crime.

It may not be a crime, but smearing a prosecutor with racist rhetoric and falsely accusing him of rape is totally repulsive, but it wouldn't surprise me to hear that you disagree. After all, he's black and liberal, so you're required to defend him.

>And Sharpton's arrests have been

>for his participation in political demonstrations. To the

>best of my knowledge, the only jail time he has ever served

>was for participating in a demonstration against the bombing

>of Vieques.

Do you think it's ok for Al Sharpton to violate the law if he believes that doing so is necessary to make a point? Who else has that right?

>> or former President Bill

>>Clinton (D - disbarred),

>

>When was Clinton disbarred? Last I heard, he was suspended

>from practice in Arkansas.

He was disbarred - the correct term - from practicing in front of the U.S. Supreme Court.

>>or former Clinton Housing Secretary

>>Henry Cisneros (D - convicted). I won't even mention them.

>

>You also didn't mention Mike Espy, former congressman and

>Agriculture Secretary during the Clinton Administration who

>was hounded for years by a special prosecutor at the

>insistence of Republicans and who was ultimately acquitted by

>a jury on all charges.

Just as numerous Republicans who have been hounded in the past by special prosecutors and Justice Department investigations have been exonerated. But what did you say about former Clinton Housing Secretary Henry Cisneros, convicted of being a liar under oath?

>I think the point is not that Republicans are law-breakers,

>but that they are a pack of sanctimonious hypocrites.

>

>Limbaugh has said again and again that those who buy drugs

>illegally should go to prison. Now that he has been caught,

>he has hired marquee defense lawyer Roy Black to keep his fat

>behind OUT of prison.

Yeah - Rush Limbaugh is a hypocrite. What does that have to do with Rep. Janklow?

>While Republicans all over America were denouncing Clinton for

>adultery, their hero Gingrich was secretly boffing a young

>woman who worked in his office. When the adultery of

>Republicans like Dan Burton, J.C. Watts and Henry Hyde was

>revealed, their Republican colleagues in the House didn't kick

>them out. Instead, each man was chosen for an important House

>leadership position by his Republican colleagues AFTER it was

>known that he had lied and cheated. That is why all the

>sermons we hear from Republicans on "character" and "values"

>should be greeted with nothing but contemptuous laughter.

Given the Democrats' history and record of convictions and lying, how should we treat THEIR lectures on "character" and "integrity" and "values"?

>>I can understand why you don't want to mention him. In the

>>thread on Rush Limbaugh's drug crimes you argued that

>Limbaugh

>>should receive lenient treatment because first time

>offenders

>>in such cases are seldom treated harshly. I asked why Rush

>>should be treated more leniently than Marion Barry and you

>>didn't have an answer.

>I don't know enough about the details of Marion Barry's

>convictions to opine on whether he received a fair sentence.

To the best of my knowledge, his conviction for buying crack was his first criminal conviction. Nevertheless, he got six months. As I recall, the Repubs who are now saying that Limbaugh should be treated with compassion and understanding for his addiction did not say the same thing about Barry -- they said what a terrible thing it is for such a prominent man to set such a bad example. Bunch of fucking hypocrites.

>>You forgot to mention he was prosecuted and convicted by

>>Clinton's Justice Department.

>So what? He's still a corrupt Democrat who exerted great

>influence in the Democratic Party for decades. What does THAT

>say about your Party - that one of its leaders was corrupt to

>his core with regard to the exercise of that power?

What the above says is that you don't know what the fuck you are talking about, as usual. Rosti went to jail for using House funds that were provided to pay office expenses to pay personal expenses instead. There was never any accusation that he was involved in bribery or that his official actions were in any way influenced by monetary concerns.

>>Defamation is not a crime.

>It may not be a crime, but smearing a prosecutor with racist

>rhetoric and falsely accusing him of rape is totally

>repulsive, but it wouldn't surprise me to hear that you

>disagree. After all, he's black and liberal, so you're

>required to defend him.

I simply don't want you to get away with lying. Sharpton has consistently maintained that he believed Tawana Brawley's accusations. It was for repeating those accusations publicly that he was sued for defamation. Brawley herself has never wavered from her story and continues to maintain its truth to this day.

>>And Sharpton's arrests have been

>>for his participation in political demonstrations. To the

>>best of my knowledge, the only jail time he has ever served

>>was for participating in a demonstration against the bombing

>>of Vieques.

>Do you think it's ok for Al Sharpton to violate the law if he

>believes that doing so is necessary to make a point? Who else

>has that right?

I think Sharpton has engaged in acts of civil disobedience and has paid the appropriate penalty for doing so. If that makes him unfit to be a leader, then Dr. King and all those who marched with him are unfit.

>Just as numerous Republicans who have been hounded in the past

>by special prosecutors and Justice Department investigations

>have been exonerated. But what did you say about former

>Clinton Housing Secretary Henry Cisneros, convicted of being a

>liar under oath?

I didn't say anything yet, but I will now. Cisneros was prosecuted for lying to federal agents about payments he made to his mistress. In other words, he was attacked by Republicans for something in his personal life that had nothing to do with his official duties.

>>I think the point is not that Republicans are law-breakers,

>>but that they are a pack of sanctimonious hypocrites.

>>

>>Limbaugh has said again and again that those who buy drugs

>>illegally should go to prison. Now that he has been caught,

>>he has hired marquee defense lawyer Roy Black to keep his

>fat

>>behind OUT of prison.

>Yeah - Rush Limbaugh is a hypocrite. What does that have to

>do with Rep. Janklow?

Not a thing. Except that both men are part of a political organization that is constantly telling Americans they represent character and virtue while their opponents do not.

>>While Republicans all over America were denouncing Clinton

>for

>>adultery, their hero Gingrich was secretly boffing a young

>>woman who worked in his office. When the adultery of

>>Republicans like Dan Burton, J.C. Watts and Henry Hyde was

>>revealed, their Republican colleagues in the House didn't

>kick

>>them out. Instead, each man was chosen for an important

>House

>>leadership position by his Republican colleagues AFTER it

>was

>>known that he had lied and cheated. That is why all the

>>sermons we hear from Republicans on "character" and "values"

>>should be greeted with nothing but contemptuous laughter.

>Given the Democrats' history and record of convictions and

>lying, how should we treat THEIR lectures on "character" and

>"integrity" and "values"?

The meth you take must be affecting your brain even more than usual. Democrats giving lectures on integrity and values? Since when?

Doug:

You really ought to get your eyes checked.......I said ONE Republican. I have not concluded that all Republicans are corrupt, just most of them. And of course, rather than addressing the issue of Janklow, you use your tired ploy of trotting out a corrupt Democrat. Yes, both parties have their share of scumbags, but the Republicans deserve special attention, especially since we have a President who has the unique distinction of the longest criminal record for any sitting president in the nation's history. You only see the flaws in the Democrats, because that's all you want to see. In short, you're ignorant and myopic. I'll bet you believed Neil Bush when he said that hookers just showed up at his hotel room. You'll believe anything a Republican says.

>>>I can understand why you don't want to mention him. In

>the

>>>thread on Rush Limbaugh's drug crimes you argued that

>>Limbaugh

>>>should receive lenient treatment because first time

>>offenders

>>>in such cases are seldom treated harshly. I asked why Rush

>As I recall, the Repubs who are now saying that

>Limbaugh should be treated with compassion and understanding

>for his addiction did not say the same thing about Barry --

>they said what a terrible thing it is for such a prominent man

>to set such a bad example. Bunch of fucking hypocrites.

Right - just like Democrats wanted leniency for Marion Barry and every freakish Hollywood liberal who got caught with illegal drugs - but these same compassionate people want to see Rush in handcuffs and imprisoned. "Bunch of fucking hypocrites."

>I simply don't want you to get away with lying. Sharpton has

>consistently maintained that he believed Tawana Brawley's

>accusations. It was for repeating those accusations publicly

>that he was sued for defamation. Brawley herself has never

>wavered from her story and continues to maintain its truth to

>this day.

And, in a court of law, he was found to have been lying and having defamed a prosectuor by accusing him, falsely, of rape.

Only the sickest people on the planet - who put their petty party loyalty above all else, such as the truth - would defend that incomparably repugnant behavior.

>I didn't say anything yet, but I will now. Cisneros was

>prosecuted for lying to federal agents about payments he made

>to his mistress. In other words, he was attacked by

>Republicans for something in his personal life that had

>nothing to do with his official duties.

Cisneros lied to FBI agents during an investigation to determine if he's fit for office. That is a federal felony. That you can defend that speaks volumes about your character.

Rep. Trafficant (D) was convicted of bribery in the exercise of his official duties. And Dan Rostenkowski (D) misappropriated governmetn money which he received in his official capacity.

And it's beyond hilarious how you mentioned that it was the Clinton DOJ which convicted Rostenkowski, but neglected to mention that it was Clinton himself, disbarred lawyer, who pardoned him.

Yeah - integrity and honesty really abounds in the Democratic Party.

>>Given the Democrats' history and record of convictions and

>>lying, how should we treat THEIR lectures on "character" and

>>"integrity" and "values"?

>

>The meth you take must be affecting your brain even more than

>usual.

What's your basis for claiming I take meth? You have none. No wonder you defend things like Al Sharpton's lying smear campaign. How could you criticize it, since it's a favorite tactic of yours.

>Democrats giving lectures on integrity and values?

>Since when?

Ever heard of Joe Lieberman? Or Bill Clinton? Are you saying that they never talked about intergiry and values? Are you really willing to lie THAT OBVIOUSLY in order to make a point?

YOu better check your story on Brawley. She has for several years admitted that it was a lie and that Sharpton got her to tell that lie. That came out when the men who were accused had their day in court and Tawana Brawley admitted in court and to the press that the whole story was a lie and then said that Sharpton was the one who got her to tell the story.

WHAT does this have to do with his party affiliation?

we don't go around accusing all democrats of murder based on what teddy kennedy did, do we?

>>As I recall, the Repubs who are now saying that

>>Limbaugh should be treated with compassion and understanding

>>for his addiction did not say the same thing about Barry --

>>they said what a terrible thing it is for such a prominent

>man

>>to set such a bad example. Bunch of fucking hypocrites.

>Right - just like Democrats wanted leniency for Marion Barry

>and every freakish Hollywood liberal who got caught with

>illegal drugs - but these same compassionate people want to

>see Rush in handcuffs and imprisoned. "Bunch of fucking

>hypocrites."

Nothing hypocritical about demanding that people who preach incarceration for drug addicts keep to the same rule when someone THEY like gets caught. Not at all.

>And, in a court of law, he was found to have been lying and

>having defamed a prosectuor by accusing him, falsely, of rape.

You are the one who is lying, Doug. The verdict in that trial did NOT state that Sharpton or anyone else deliberately told a lie, and that is NOT the standard for proving a case of defamation. Why lie about that?

>Only the sickest people on the planet - who put their petty

>party loyalty above all else, such as the truth - would defend

>that incomparably repugnant behavior.

Sharpton needs no defense from me. The jury found that he defamed the plaintiff by repeating accusations which the jury determined were false. And he was penalized in the manner prescribed by law based on that finding. But I can think of plenty of Republicans who committed serious crimes and were never penalized at all. When are Ollie North and Casper Weinberger going to jail, eh?

>Cisneros lied to FBI agents during an investigation to

>determine if he's fit for office. That is a federal felony.

>That you can defend that speaks volumes about your character.

Tell it to Ollie North, Doug. He stole missile components from the Defense Department and sold them to an enemy nation to finance a civil war in Nicaragua and he lied to Congress about it, but he never spent a day in jail. We don't need lectures on character from people who defend behavior like that. Or lectures on the sanctity of the law from a whoremonger and drug user like you.

>Rep. Trafficant (D) was convicted of bribery in the exercise

>of his official duties. And Dan Rostenkowski (D)

>misappropriated governmetn money which he received in his

>official capacity.

And they both went to prison for it. When do North and Poindexter and Weinberger go to prison, Doug? When do their sentences begin?

>And it's beyond hilarious how you mentioned that it was the

>Clinton DOJ which convicted Rostenkowski, but neglected to

>mention that it was Clinton himself, disbarred lawyer, who

>pardoned him.

As YOU neglected to mention that Clinton took NO action until AFTER Rosti had already served a prison sentence?

>Yeah - integrity and honesty really abounds in the Democratic

>Party.

Whether or not integrity and honesty can be found there, the kind of self-righteous hypocrisy we see in your lot is blessedly absent.

>What's your basis for claiming I take meth? You have none.

Oh, just the fact that you scream insults at anyone who criticizes the practice. Let's see a show of hands from all those who believe that you do that out of completely disinterested and unselfish motives. Anyone? Hello?

>No wonder you defend things like Al Sharpton's lying smear

>campaign. How could you criticize it, since it's a favorite

>tactic of yours.

Doug, given the filth you smear on this screen on a regular basis it should amaze me that you have the nerve to object to anything that anyone else says here. It should, but it doesn't.

>Ever heard of Joe Lieberman? Or Bill Clinton? Are you saying

>that they never talked about intergiry and values? Are you

>really willing to lie THAT OBVIOUSLY in order to make a

>point?

No, Doug, I'm saying that unlike the self-righteous shits YOU hang out with, they don't prance around pretending that they stand for character and values while their political opponents are the nasty opposite. It's YOUR group who do that, remember?

>YOu better check your story on Brawley. She has for several

>years admitted that it was a lie and that Sharpton got her to

>tell that lie. That came out when the men who were accused

>had their day in court and Tawana Brawley admitted in court

>and to the press that the whole story was a lie and then said

>that Sharpton was the one who got her to tell the story.

I followed the coverage of the trial of Sharpton et al. in The Times, and I remember quite distinctly reading in that coverage that Brawley, who had moved to the D.C. area, explicitly and publicly reaffirmed her original accusations at that time. I do NOT recall reading that she ever recanted. If you claim she did, let's see some evidence.

>Nothing hypocritical about demanding that people who preach

>incarceration for drug addicts keep to the same rule when

>someone THEY like gets caught. Not at all.

If - as so many liberals do in the case of Rush Limbaugh - you believe that all people who share your political views should be given leniency for committing crime X, but simultaneously believe that those who commit the same crime but who have different political views should be tossed in prison and the key thrown away, that's about as intellectually dishonest and hypocritical as it gets.

So it's no surprise at all that you defend such blatantly dishonest double standards. Not at all.

>>And, in a court of law, he was found to have been lying and

>>having defamed a prosectuor by accusing him, falsely, of

>rape.

>

>You are the one who is lying, Doug. The verdict in that trial

>did NOT state that Sharpton or anyone else deliberately told a

>lie, and that is NOT the standard for proving a case of

>defamation. Why lie about that?

Here's what you said about that trial: "The jury found that he (Sharpton) defamed the plaintiff by repeating accusations which the jury determined were false."

I'm not going to debate with you whether that constitutes "lying" or not. The fact is that he was found to have falsely accused a prosecutor of raping someone - a false accusation he repeated as publicly as possible over many years, and almost ruine the life of that Prosecutor and his family.

I realize that you think there's nothing wrong with that behavior - which you are forced to think because you can't acknowledge that a black liberal Democratic Presidential Candidate did anything bad becasue your party line doesn't allow you to do that - but that behavior is about as despicable as it gets.

How can you belong to a party where one if its leaders - who is obsequiously praised by every candidate in your party - has totally smeared someone's reputation in this way?

>Sharpton needs no defense from me. The jury found that he

>defamed the plaintiff by repeating accusations which the jury

>determined were false. And he was penalized in the manner

>prescribed by law based on that finding. But I can think of

>plenty of Republicans who committed serious crimes and were

>never penalized at all. When are Ollie North and Casper

>Weinberger going to jail, eh?

Yeah, asshole - you finally stumbled into the point. For every Rep. Janklow, there is a Dan Rotenkowski. For every Oliver North, there is a James Trafficant. For every Casper Weinberger, there is a Henry Cisneros. For every Ted Kennedy, there is a . . . well . . . nobody - I can't think of any Republicans who killed a girl, lied about it, left the scene of the crime and then continuously got re-elected.

That's precisely why it's so stupid to try and claim that the types of incidents such as Rep. Janklow's conviction signifies anything relevant about the nature of each party.

Nor, by the way, can I think of any Republican who is a former KKK member who is repeatedly elected to the Senate, like Sen. Robert Byrd (D) is. Can you?

>>Cisneros lied to FBI agents during an investigation to

>>determine if he's fit for office. That is a federal felony.

>

>>That you can defend that speaks volumes about your

>character.

>>Rep. Trafficant (D) was convicted of bribery in the exercise

>>of his official duties. And Dan Rostenkowski (D)

>>misappropriated governmetn money which he received in his

>>official capacity.

>

>And they both went to prison for it.

Yes - there are lots of Democrats who ascended to high office who are convicted felons. Why is that?

>>What's your basis for claiming I take meth? You have none.

>

>Oh, just the fact that you scream insults at anyone who

>criticizes the practice. Let's see a show of hands from all

>those who believe that you do that out of completely

>disinterested and unselfish motives. Anyone? Hello?

I've heard of 15 year-olds who don't understand that defending the right of people to do Activity X does not mean that you do Activity X yourself, but I've never encountered an adult incapable of understanding that painfully basic premise before - until you.

For instance, you've defended the right of terrorists to have due process. I guess, according to your "rationale," that this means you must be a terrorist.

I guess people who have advocate the right of adults to smoke must, themsleves, be smokers. I guess that people who advocate the right of Communists to express their views must themselves be Communists.

Do you see yet how stupid your "reasoning" is? I realize that everything you say and think is derived from a completely self-referential, selfish perspective, but that's no reason to assume that everyone else is burdened with that same affliction.

>No, Doug, I'm saying that unlike the self-righteous shits YOU

>hang out with, they don't prance around pretending that they

>stand for character and values while their political opponents

>are the nasty opposite. It's YOUR group who do that,

>remember?

Democrats frequently talk about integrity and values even while forging alliances with the likes of James Trafficant and James Moran and Al Sharpton and Dan Rostenkowski and scores of other criminals, liars, and thieves. Period.

>>Nothing hypocritical about demanding that people who preach

>>incarceration for drug addicts keep to the same rule when

>>someone THEY like gets caught. Not at all.

>

>If - as so many liberals do in the case of Rush Limbaugh - you

>believe that all people who share your political views should

>be given leniency for committing crime X,

No need for me to read any farther to know that you are just making shit up again. I haven't heard any liberal commentator take such a position.

>So it's no surprise at all that you defend such blatantly

>dishonest double standards. Not at all.

You're lying again. I don't defend the double standards of people who ask for leniency for rich, white drug addicts but demand that the rest go to jail.

>>You are the one who is lying, Doug. The verdict in that

>trial

>>did NOT state that Sharpton or anyone else deliberately told

>a

>>lie, and that is NOT the standard for proving a case of

>>defamation. Why lie about that?

>Here's what you said about that trial: "The jury found that

>he (Sharpton) defamed the plaintiff by repeating

>accusations which the jury determined were false."

>I'm not going to debate with you whether that constitutes

>"lying" or not.

No need for a debate. I don't think you'll find too many people on this board (or anywhere else) who will say it's lying to repeat something that you believe is true. But the very same action CAN constitute defamation under the law.

The fact is that he was found to have falsely

>accused a prosecutor of raping someone - a false accusation he

>repeated as publicly as possible over many years, and almost

>ruine the life of that Prosecutor and his family.

Ruined his life? In what way? Or are you just making shit up again? How much money did the jury award him? Did the award indicate they thought the matter was that serious?

>I realize that you think there's nothing wrong with that

>behavior

Why are you lying again, Doug? I just got through saying that Sharpton was found to have done what he did and was penalized according to that finding. Where in that statement do you find any indication I have no problem with his behavior?

>but that behavior is about as

>despicable as it gets.

No, Doug. Despicable is selling weapons to America's enemies and then attacking the patriotism of others. And we all know who did that, right?

>How can you belong to a party where one if its leaders - who

>is obsequiously praised by every candidate in your party - has

>totally smeared someone's reputation in this way?

Oh, let's see . . . because the choice that you made to belong to a party that smears as unpatriotic a Vietnam veteran like Max Cleland who had both legs blown off nauseates me? Could that be the reason?

>But I can think of

>>plenty of Republicans who committed serious crimes and were

>>never penalized at all. When are Ollie North and Casper

>>Weinberger going to jail, eh?

>Yeah, asshole

Blow it out your dessicated bunghole, shithead.

- you finally stumbled into the point. For

>every Rep. Janklow, there is a Dan Rotenkowski. For every

>Oliver North, there is a James Trafficant.

For every vacant room in a mental asylum, there is a Doug69. Anyone who compares the financial offenses of Rosti or Traffi to killing a human being or -- in North's case -- giving terrorists money so THEY can kill a whole bunch of people, belongs in the looney bin.

> For every Casper

>Weinberger, there is a Henry Cisneros.

For every Republican who helps an enemy nation get its hands on our missile technology there is a Democrat who lies about giving money to his mistress? I'll buy that.

>For every Ted Kennedy,

>there is a . . . well . . . nobody - I can't think of any

>Republicans who killed a girl, lied about it, left the scene

>of the crime and then continuously got re-elected.

Maybe not, but I can think of several Republicans who sold our weapons to an enemy nation and never spent a day in jail, and so can you. And I can think of several more who helped to arm Saddam with weapons that were later used against our own troops in 1991. Why are they still running around loose, Doug?

>That's precisely why it's so stupid to try and claim that the

>types of incidents such as Rep. Janklow's conviction signifies

>anything relevant about the nature of each party.

Its only relevance, as I've said before, is in exposing the hypocrisy of the Republicans' tirades about values.

>

>Nor, by the way, can I think of any Republican who is a former

>KKK member who is repeatedly elected to the Senate, like Sen.

>Robert Byrd (D) is. Can you?

I can think of a well-known segregationist who was repeatedly elected to the Senate as a Republican and who, unlike Byrd, never recanted his racist past. His name was Thurmond. Ring a bell?

>>>Cisneros lied to FBI agents during an investigation to

>>>determine if he's fit for office. That is a federal

>felony.

So is defrauding the United States. And trading with the enemy in violation of an arms embargo. So why is Ollie North on Fox News instead of in Leavenworth?

>>>That you can defend that speaks volumes about your

>>character.

That you dodge the points I make in your replies -- as you have done about North and his gang -- shows you up as the coward you are.

>Yes - there are lots of Democrats who ascended to high office

>who are convicted felons. Why is that?

Because they haven't had corrupt presidents like Bush and Ford to pardon them and get them out of it?

>>>What's your basis for claiming I take meth? You have none.

>>

>>Oh, just the fact that you scream insults at anyone who

>>criticizes the practice. Let's see a show of hands from all

>>those who believe that you do that out of completely

>>disinterested and unselfish motives. Anyone? Hello?

>I've heard of 15 year-olds who don't understand that defending

>the right of people to do Activity X does not mean that you do

>Activity X yourself,

Well, not if you're William Kunstler perhaps. But if you're a known liar and hysteric like Doug69? That's a different story altogether.

>For instance, you've defended the right of terrorists to have

>due process. I guess, according to your "rationale," that

>this means you must be a terrorist.

I defend the right of EVERYONE to due process, Dougie. It's a distinction that a peabrain like you probably can't appreciate.

>Do you see yet how stupid your "reasoning" is?

No, Doug. What I see is you, a desperate old fag who comes to this board to scream invective at anyone who has the temerity to disagree with him on any issue. And it is NOT a pretty sight.

>I realize that

>everything you say and think is derived from a completely

>self-referential, selfish perspective,

This is coming from the same guy who urged escorts to increase their income by taking advantage of the befuddlement of meth users. A "selfish perspective." Uh huh.

>>No, Doug, I'm saying that unlike the self-righteous shits

>YOU

>>hang out with, they don't prance around pretending that they

>>stand for character and values while their political

>opponents

>>are the nasty opposite. It's YOUR group who do that,

>>remember?

>Democrats frequently talk about integrity and values even

>while forging alliances with the likes of

I'll be happy to repeat this as often as it takes for you to get it through your little head. One can talk about character and values without holding oneself up as an exemplar of the same, and without stating or even implying that one's opponents are devoid of the same. But for some reason Republicans refuse to do that. Why?

>James Trafficant and

>James Moran and Al Sharpton and Dan Rostenkowski and scores of

>other criminals, liars, and thieves. Period.

Tell it to Ollie North, Doug.

You are so boring. You say the same thing over and over, regardless of the topic, in the same format. It's why I stop answering you after an average of 2 posts and just let your ramblings dangle.

Woodlawn: "This is untrue."

Woodlawn: "I never said that, liar."

Woodlawn: "You're a stupid piece of shit, shithead."

Woodlawn: "Because Republicans are filthy hypocrites like you, liar."

YAWN.

Over and over and over and over. Unlike me, who has the luxury of ignoring when I want, you have to hear it every day. How can you refrain from taking a gun and just blowing your head off?

>No need for me to read any farther to know that you are just

>making shit up again. I haven't heard any liberal commentator

>take such a position.

Many people have said exactly that on this very Board. And in this very thread you defended them from charges of hypocrisy. Now you're denying that they said it and calling me a "liar" for referencing the very comments you defended in the prior post. Stupid and boring.

>>So it's no surprise at all that you defend such blatantly

>>dishonest double standards. Not at all.

>

>You're lying again. I don't defend the double standards of

>people who ask for leniency for rich, white drug addicts but

>demand that the rest go to jail.

You think that certain people should get leniency for possessing illegal drugs, but think that others, such as Rush, should have the book thrown at them for the same thing. Yell all you want - that's a classic double standard, the refuge of the corrupt.

>No need for a debate. I don't think you'll find too many

>people on this board (or anywhere else) who will say it's

>lying to repeat something that you believe is true.

Oh, so I guess that means that Bush didn't "LIE!!!!!!!" when he said before the war that he - along with the rest of the universe - thougth that Iraq had WMDs.

>Ruined his life? In what way? Or are you just making shit up

>again? How much money did the jury award him? Did the award

>indicate they thought the matter was that serious?

If you understood anything about defamation law, you would know that it is very difficult for a plaintiff to recover substantial damages without demonstrating serious harm to his reputation and to his life. The jury awarded him several hundred thousand dollars, which the court upheld.

Only a sick worthless virus would doubt whether someone's life and his family were harmed - especially a prosecutor's - by being repeatedly and falsely accused in the media over the course of several years of raping a teenage girl.

But that's the Democratic Party for you - Rev. Al Sharpton - they do things like that, and then have lowlifes like you to defend them.

False accusations of rape. Girls drowning in rivers and leaving them for dead. Stealing governmental money and spending it on their personal needs. Beating their wives. Pardoning fugitives because they are rich.

No big deal. They're Democrats, so who cares. Let's talk about how corrupt those Republicans are instead.

>Oh, let's see . . . because the choice that you made to belong

>to a party that smears as unpatriotic a Vietnam veteran like

>Max Cleland who had both legs blown off nauseates me? Could

>that be the reason?

What a stupid cliche. It's possible to fight in a war and then turn against your country. It's also possible to fight in a war and then not be willing to do what's necessary to defend your country.

Liberals like you always want to create special classes of victims who are not allowed to be criticized - blacks, the disabled, veterans (when they're Democrats). Nobody is buying that stupid game. That's why Max Cleland lost.

>For every vacant room in a mental asylum, there is a Doug69.

>Anyone who compares the financial offenses of Rosti or Traffi

>to killing a human being . . .

You mean like Ted Kennedy? Or Robert Byrd's KKK membership? Or Rep. Moran beating his wife?

>Maybe not, but I can think of several Republicans who sold our

>weapons to an enemy nation and never spent a day in jail, and

>so can you. And I can think of several more who helped to arm

>Saddam with weapons that were later used against our own

>troops in 1991. Why are they still running around loose,

>Doug?

Because the judicial system took its course and no punishment was imposed. Too bad we don't live in a tyrannical society where you can just put people in prison because you don't like their views, but we don't.

< Here's one Republican congressman who couldn't talk his way out of his crimes, even in a conservative state >

I know it's not fashionable ;-) , but to get back to Bucky's original post, Janklow is a guy who's been a giant in South Dakota politics for several decades. He's also widely known as a reckless driver/speeder. He flaunted traffic laws once too often, and it caught up with him. And, yes, Bucky's right -- not only couldn't he talk his way out of the rap in his own fairly conservative state, the bastard was convicted by a jury in the very COUNTY where he grew up.

Other posters have noted situations where powerful people in both parties escaped justice. Here's one exception to that outrageous history. :7

As a foreign observer of the US political scene, I'm always fascinated by the fact that the USA claims to have political parties at all.

Republicans are essentially indistinguishable from Democrats. True, the trend is for Democrats to be more liberal and for Republicans to be more conservative. But there is a strong and respectable liberal heritage to the Republicans, and an equally strong conservative, even red neck, heritage to the Southen Democrats in particular.

The difference between the US political parties is minor. US politics is very largely the politics of personality, right down to the local level, far more so than in other countries. Hence it seems unlikely that you could label all Democrats or all Republicans anything at all by way of political stance, attitude towards law and order, or even a tendency towards ethical behaviour.

The Ninth Circle Of Hell

back and forth, back and forth, back and forth

>You are so boring.

Yeah, that's why you keep responding to my posts again and again and again. Because they bore you. Uh huh.

>YAWN.

LOL! I can see you yawning with boredom as you write another five-page long response to me. Yup, I'm sure everyone believes that.

>How can you refrain from taking a gun and just blowing your

>head off?

My mission to contradict the lies of shits like you keeps me too busy.

>Many people have said exactly that on this very Board.

Oops! Here we go again with citing "many" people to prove your point. These nonexistent "many" people you keep citing sure come in handy, don't they?

>You think that certain people should get leniency for

>possessing illegal drugs, but think that others, such as Rush,

>should have the book thrown at them for the same thing. Yell

>all you want - that's a classic double standard, the refuge of

>the corrupt.

You're a fucking liar, Doug. And the reason I keep saying that is because you keep telling these stupid lies, over and over and over. You can't find any post of mine in which I call for lenient treatment for drug possession. For anyone.

>Oh, so I guess that means that Bush didn't "LIE!!!!!!!" when

>he said before the war that he - along with the rest of the

>universe - thougth that Iraq had WMDs.

To tell you the truth, I am not at all sure that Bush lied about that. If he did, then he knowingly set himself up for accusations that he lied, and that isn't like him.

>If you understood anything about defamation law, you would

>know that it is very difficult for a plaintiff to recover

>substantial damages without demonstrating serious harm to his

>reputation and to his life. The jury awarded him several

>hundred thousand dollars, which the court upheld.

Yes, idiot, that was my point. The plaintiff asked for a sum in the nine figures, did he not? But he couldn't persuade the jury that he had suffered anything like the harm that would justify more than a couple of years' salary for a reasonably successful lawyer in his area.

>Only a sick worthless virus would doubt whether someone's life

>and his family were harmed

Well, I suppose the jury must have been made up of just such "viruses," since the sum they awarded him in no way matches the kind of damage he claimed.

>But that's the Democratic Party for you - Rev. Al Sharpton -

>they do things like that, and then have lowlifes like you to

>defend them.

Insults from a piece of filth like you are meaningless. It's like being called "cruel" by Stalin.

>False accusations of rape. Girls drowning in rivers and

>leaving them for dead. Stealing governmental money and

>spending it on their personal needs. Beating their wives.

>Pardoning fugitives because they are rich.

Stealing American missile technology and selling it to an enemy nation. Using the money to fund a civil war in another country after Congress cut off federal funding. Pardoning the people who engaged in that treasonous conspiracy. Starting a war with another country after lying to the American people about a "threat" from that country that never really existed. Just a few of the more recent Republican pecadilloes.

>>Oh, let's see . . . because the choice that you made to

>belong

>>to a party that smears as unpatriotic a Vietnam veteran like

>>Max Cleland who had both legs blown off nauseates me? Could

>>that be the reason?

>What a stupid cliche.

Go fuck yourself, moron.

It's possible to fight in a war and

>then turn against your country.

Yes, Ollie North certainly proves that.

It's also possible to fight

>in a war and then not be willing to do what's necessary to

>defend your country.

Sure. Except that neither of those statements ever had anything to do with Cleland. You shits simply smeared him. And you have the fucking nerve to complain about Sharpton. Filthy, lying hypocrite!

>Liberals like you always want to create special classes of

>victims who are not allowed to be criticized - blacks, the

>disabled, veterans (when they're Democrats). Nobody is buying

>that stupid game. That's why Max Cleland lost.

What a lying piece of excrement you are, Doug. Cleland lost because you scum smeared a decent man. You hypocrites defeated a war hero and elected in his place a cowardly draft dodger like Chambliss, after spending eight years screaming about Clinton's draft dodging. Just one more example of what rotten, lying turds you all are.

>>For every vacant room in a mental asylum, there is a Doug69.

>

>>Anyone who compares the financial offenses of Rosti or

>Traffi

>>to killing a human being . . .

>You mean like Ted Kennedy? Or Robert Byrd's KKK membership?

>Or Rep. Moran beating his wife?

Whom did Kennedy kill? Didn't our judicial system rule that an accident? Whom did Byrd or Moran kill?

But how many people were killed with the money North sent to the Contras, Doug?

>>Maybe not, but I can think of several Republicans who sold

>our

>>weapons to an enemy nation and never spent a day in jail,

>and

>>so can you. And I can think of several more who helped to

>arm

>>Saddam with weapons that were later used against our own

>>troops in 1991. Why are they still running around loose,

>>Doug?

>Because the judicial system took its course and no punishment

>was imposed. Too bad we don't live in a tyrannical society

>where you can just put people in prison because you don't like

>their views, but we don't.

The same judicial system that exonerated Ted Kennedy? So why are you still yammering about that, Doug? You fucking hypocrite.

Woodie:

You're wasting your breath on Doug....he's an old syphilitic neo-nazi who thinks that someday he'll rule the world. Guys like him live in constant fear.....I'll bet he pisses the bed every night, worried that the big bad terrorists are coming for him. Now why would they? He's such an insignificant little gnat on the ass of a dead armadillo that they wouldn't even bother with him. Actually, he should be president of "Friends of Terrorists" since his support of the lunacy of Bush & Company actually increases the terrorist ranks.

>Woodie:

>

>You're wasting your breath on Doug....he's an old syphilitic

>neo-nazi who thinks that someday he'll rule the world.

Oh, look - 2 little leftists commiserating and agreeing with each other. What a shock. Are there any conservatievs who aren't stupid morons in your view, "Bucky"? Every one I've seen here who falls into that category - Dick, Ethan, Merlin, me - is someone at whom, at one time or another, you've unleashed this same spewing vomit.

As I pointed out in the other thread, you just can't stand dissent from your liberal orthodoxies, and it makes your blood boil ( which I fucking LOVE!!!!) when you get exposed to it.

So save your breath (or, better yet, hold it until you're dead) - we already know that you think all leftists like Woodlawn are great guys and all conservatives are lying idiots. Do you think that there's some point in repeating your cliches over and over?

>Actually, he should be president of

>"Friends of Terrorists" since his support of the lunacy of

>Bush & Company actually increases the terrorist ranks.

An excellent summary of what is known and scorned as Appeasement - "don't confront the Nazis/terrorists; you'll only make them madder. Find out what they want and give it to them so they stop attacking us."

Fortunately, the overwhelming majority of Americans have rejected this cowardice as the dangerous, spineless, historically discredited pussy behavior that it is, leaving you and Woodlawn and the others who advocate capitulation in an ever-shrinking and increasingly irrelevant minority.

That's why you want to be able to hang out in little liberal-faggot ghetto places like this without having to be contradicted - because it's the only place you can still come and feel safe with your surrender, liberal views. Too bad for you that even here is not safe. That's why you get so furious when you read my stuff and that of the others here who don't fall into your leftist party line - which, I'm not sure if I mentioned yet, I FUCKING LOVE TO SEE SO MUCH!!!!!

>Every one I've

>seen here who falls into that category - Dick, Ethan, Merlin,

>me - is someone at whom, at one time or another, you've

>unleashed this same spewing vomit.

Gosh -- you make him sound like some mirror-image version of you! How awful!!!!

>As I pointed out in the other thread, you just can't stand

>dissent from your liberal orthodoxies, and it makes your blood

>boil which I fucking LOVE!!!!)when you get exposed

>to it.

You've got it backwards, as usual, shit-for-brains. Bucks and I participate in these threads because we like pulling YOUR chain, isn't that so, Bucks? And you make the same noises each and every time we do so -- just like a toilet.

>So save your breath (or, better yet, hold it until you're

>dead)

When the maggots start eating you, Doug, it will be a true cause for celebration among all patriotic Americans.

- we already know that you think all leftists like

>Woodlawn are great guys and all conservatives are lying

>idiots.

Bucks is a man of rare judgment, no doubt of that.

> Do you think that there's some point in repeating

>your cliches over and over?

Don't disparage cliches. They are the best way of getting simple ideas into the heads of idiots like you.

>An excellent summary of what is known and scorned as

>Appeasement - "don't confront the Nazis/terrorists; you'll

>only make them madder. Find out what they want and give it to

>them so they stop attacking us."

Here we go again with the appeasement crap. What next, you will start playing recordings of Winston's speeches and of Dame Vera Lynn singing "The White Cliffs of Dover"?

>Fortunately, the overwhelming majority of Americans have

>rejected this cowardice

Here we go again with Doug citing the imaginary "huge number of people" who support his opinions. When the truth is that a majority of Americans NOW think Bush is pursuing the wrong course.

>That's why you want to be able to hang out in little

>liberal-faggot ghetto places like this without having to be

>contradicted

Hear that, everyone? According to Doug, this is now a "liberal faggot ghetto place." You're going to regret saying that, Dougie. Because I'm going to be reminding you of it over and over and over again from now on. For a long, long time. What a delicious prospect!!

That's why you get so furious

>when you read my stuff and that of the others here who don't

>fall into your leftist party line - which, I'm not sure if I

>mentioned yet, I FUCKING LOVE TO SEE SO MUCH!!!!!

Congrats, Bucks, on baiting Doug into revealing himself for the nazi hatemonger that he is once more. This post has provided lots of extreme quotes that I will be using in my future replies to his posts on just about every subject.