Ghost of BiB Posted October 4, 2005 Share Posted October 4, 2005 But it's ok for you to be an apologist for the RNC. HYPOCRITE, thy name is KRC. 464386[/snapback] You don't know Ken very well, do you? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KRC Posted October 4, 2005 Share Posted October 4, 2005 But it's ok for you to be an apologist for the RNC. HYPOCRITE, thy name is KRC. 464386[/snapback] HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Live&DieBillsFootball Posted October 4, 2005 Share Posted October 4, 2005 You don't know Ken very well, do you? 464390[/snapback] I don't know him personally, just through the board. Although he doesn't call himself a Republican, he takes the Republican side of every debate and calls any comment from the left either a partisan attack, or calls the poster a Libertard, or Dummycrat. Yet he likes to act like the all knowing OZ. To me, it sounds like Right wing partisan drivel although not to the extent of some of the others like RiO and Wacko. I have yet to see him give a concrete proposal to fixing anything other than pooh poohing any idea given. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KRC Posted October 4, 2005 Share Posted October 4, 2005 I don't know him personally, just through the board. Although he doesn't call himself a Republican, he takes the Republican side of every debate and calls any comment from the left either a partisan attack, or calls the poster a Libertard, or Dummycrat. Republicans are no different than Democrats. Same sh--, different package. Yet he likes to act like the all knowing OZ. To me, it sounds like Right wing partisan drivel although not to the extent of some of the others like RiO and Wacko. I have yet to see him give a concrete proposal to fixing anything other than pooh poohing any idea given. 464403[/snapback] Then, maybe you ought to use the search function. You will find my proposals for many different issues. Why be informed before spouting off, right Sparkey? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crap Throwing Monkey Posted October 4, 2005 Share Posted October 4, 2005 Yet he likes to act like the all knowing OZ. 464403[/snapback] Compared to most of the rampant idiocy on this board, he is the all-knowing OZ. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kelly the Dog Posted October 4, 2005 Share Posted October 4, 2005 Innocent before proven guilty is only a legal imperative, not an opinion imperative. Tom Delay = Michael Jackson. He may not be guilty of this particular crime, and he should NOT be convicted of this particular crime if it isn't proved that he did it. But he's guilty of corruption, IMO. There are far too many instances and accusations and implications for him to be clean of them all. And I really don't think that dozens and dozens of little things are all just made up out of nowhere because his enemies don't like him for no reason at all. I think he's guilty of some and innocent of others. And just because there may be a conspiracy against him doesn't mean he isn't guilty of some of the accusations. Clinton was both guilty of some of the accusations AND the victim of a vast right wing conspiracy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wacka Posted October 4, 2005 Share Posted October 4, 2005 Breaking on Drudge: Earle indicted Delay on a charge that didn't exist. The law he charged Delay under didn't exist when the alleged crime took place in 2002. Now he is going to indicte him again under new charges. What is this - 6 or 7 tries? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mickey Posted October 4, 2005 Share Posted October 4, 2005 Innocent before proven guilty is only a legal imperative, not an opinion imperative. Tom Delay = Michael Jackson. He may not be guilty of this particular crime, and he should NOT be convicted of this particular crime if it isn't proved that he did it. But he's guilty of corruption, IMO. There are far too many instances and accusations and implications for him to be clean of them all. And I really don't think that dozens and dozens of little things are all just made up out of nowhere because his enemies don't like him for no reason at all. I think he's guilty of some and innocent of others. And just because there may be a conspiracy against him doesn't mean he isn't guilty of some of the accusations. Clinton was both guilty of some of the accusations AND the victim of a vast right wing conspiracy. 464452[/snapback] Maybe he can redistrict the jury so that only his immediate family is on the jury. Better yet, he could pull a Schiavo and pass a law allowing congress to steal jurisdiction over his case from the Texas courts. One could argue that his career is in a persistent vegetative state at the moment. Maybe we should put a camera on him and waive a red ballon in his face and see if he asks it to make a donation to his campaign. You know who I feel sorry for? The reporters who will have to cover this circus once the trial starts if it even gets that far. Most of them are still in hyperbaric chambers trying to de-Jackson-ify their calcified brains. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KRC Posted October 4, 2005 Share Posted October 4, 2005 Breaking on Drudge:Earle indicted Delay on a charge that didn't exist. The law he charged Delay under didn't exist when the alleged crime took place in 2002. Now he is going to indicte him again under new charges. What is this - 6 or 7 tries? 464469[/snapback] Nice job, Earle. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KRC Posted October 4, 2005 Share Posted October 4, 2005 These indictments look just like the last one, except the charges are different. In both cases, DeLay is charged with the fact that he "may or may not have been involved." DeLay Indictment Take Two First attempt... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wacka Posted October 4, 2005 Share Posted October 4, 2005 Delay is on Rush right now. Delay said Earle is paniced. He empanneled a grand jury at noon yesterday and before they were finished with orientation, he had them write up a new indictment. Also the grand jury process is supposed to be secret. Earle has been having a film crew follow him around. What a blantant partisan witch hunt. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaska Darin Posted October 4, 2005 Share Posted October 4, 2005 But it's ok for you to be an apologist for the RNC. HYPOCRITE, thy name is KRC. 464386[/snapback] Which wholly explains why he ran for President against the Republicans. Not one to let facts get in the way, are ya? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KRC Posted October 4, 2005 Share Posted October 4, 2005 Which wholly explains why he ran for President against the Republicans. Not one to let facts get in the way, are ya? 464681[/snapback] Trying to run them out of office means that I support them. What is so hard to understand about that? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Live&DieBillsFootball Posted October 4, 2005 Share Posted October 4, 2005 Which wholly explains why he ran for President against the Republicans. Not one to let facts get in the way, are ya? 464681[/snapback] I don't remember seeing any of his campaign where he laid out his opposition to the Republican party, as I don't watch much on cable access channels. I just read his posts where he parrots the same arguments as the RNC on issues such as Delay, Katrina, SCOTUS, and his intolerance of liberal viewpoints. If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, I assume it's a duck. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KRC Posted October 4, 2005 Share Posted October 4, 2005 I don't remember seeing any of his campaign where he laid out his opposition to the Republican party, as I don't watch much on cable access channels. I just read his posts where he parrots the same arguments as the RNC on issues such as Delay, Katrina, SCOTUS, and his intolerance of liberal viewpoints. If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, I assume it's a duck. 464727[/snapback] The main statement from my campaign: "I feel that this country needs a change from the direction that it is heading under the control of the Republicans and Democrats. Government spending has dramatically increased. Waste has run rampant on all levels of government, and I want that to change. I want to let people know that there are alternatives to the Republican and Democratic Parties. Time and time again, I hear people say that they are disgusted with the way politics has turned into personal attacks and mudslinging. They are also disgusted with the lies from their politicians (saying one thing to get elected, then ignoring their promises while in office). They have become apathetic to the process, and have decided not to vote. In my opinion, voting is one of the most important rights we have as United States citizens and it disgusts me to see people not exercise their right to vote because they do not like the direction either of the "Big Two" parties are taking. There are alternatives to the Republicans and Democrats, and I hope that my campaign will raise awareness to the need for viable candidates outside of the "Big Two," and that people will take these candidates seriously." Do you want to continue digging that hole for yourself, or do you just want to admit now that you are wrong? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaska Darin Posted October 4, 2005 Share Posted October 4, 2005 I don't remember seeing any of his campaign where he laid out his opposition to the Republican party, as I don't watch much on cable access channels. I just read his posts where he parrots the same arguments as the RNC on issues such as Delay, Katrina, SCOTUS, and his intolerance of liberal viewpoints. If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, I assume it's a duck. 464727[/snapback] Oh, that's right. If you're conservative you must be a Republican, because Republicans pretend to be conservative (even that's not really true, they campaign like conservatives). I guess the same is true of the Democrats. There are no disgusted former Democrats who've left the party because it's a parody of itself. Nah. We should all be more tolerant of the continuous failure that is the liberal agenda. Because eventually humanity will be just like the Starship Enterprise. People will exist to further the species and there will be a chicken in every pot. Government will surely make that happen, despite their continuing history of failure at same. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crap Throwing Monkey Posted October 4, 2005 Share Posted October 4, 2005 If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, I assume it's a duck. 464727[/snapback] And you'd be wrong. Everyone knows if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it's a witch and you should burn her... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KRC Posted October 4, 2005 Share Posted October 4, 2005 And you'd be wrong. Everyone knows if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it's a witch and you should burn her... 464936[/snapback] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Live&DieBillsFootball Posted October 4, 2005 Share Posted October 4, 2005 The main statement from my campaign: "I feel that this country needs a change from the direction that it is heading under the control of the Republicans and Democrats. Government spending has dramatically increased. Waste has run rampant on all levels of government, and I want that to change. I want to let people know that there are alternatives to the Republican and Democratic Parties. Time and time again, I hear people say that they are disgusted with the way politics has turned into personal attacks and mudslinging. They are also disgusted with the lies from their politicians (saying one thing to get elected, then ignoring their promises while in office). They have become apathetic to the process, and have decided not to vote. In my opinion, voting is one of the most important rights we have as United States citizens and it disgusts me to see people not exercise their right to vote because they do not like the direction either of the "Big Two" parties are taking. There are alternatives to the Republicans and Democrats, and I hope that my campaign will raise awareness to the need for viable candidates outside of the "Big Two," and that people will take these candidates seriously." Do you want to continue digging that hole for yourself, or do you just want to admit now that you are wrong? 464741[/snapback] I'm sorry but your presidential campaign slipped by me without notice. Hopefully, you got more votes than Gary Coleman. Here's a tip: Next time, run for Condo President or Dog Catcher and get a little momentum going before you try the Presidency again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Live&DieBillsFootball Posted October 4, 2005 Share Posted October 4, 2005 We should all be more tolerant of the continuous failure that is the liberal agenda. 464748[/snapback] I didn't say anything about being tolerant of the liberal agenda. My complaint was with his intolerance of liberal viewpoints. There's a big difference between the two. I would think that a moderator of this board would show a little more tolerance of other people's viewpoints. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts