Sordid clambake
https://mail.theoneboard.com/board/
Have you seen the latest poll numbers on California's propostions?DrDetroit wrote:Because whenever opens it, he sounds like a crazy person. Yesterday, arguing against Tom DeLay's motion to recuse the judge, who had made contributions to DeLay's political opponents, the Austin American Statesman reports that prosecutor Ronnie Earle "argued that removing judges under these circumstances could lead to a country split 'into Shiites, Sunnis and Kurds.'"
Yeah but dipsh*t Earle said we'd be splitting into 1/3rd's :wink:BSmack wrote:Have you seen the latest poll numbers on California's propostions?DrDetroit wrote:Because whenever opens it, he sounds like a crazy person. Yesterday, arguing against Tom DeLay's motion to recuse the judge, who had made contributions to DeLay's political opponents, the Austin American Statesman reports that prosecutor Ronnie Earle "argued that removing judges under these circumstances could lead to a country split 'into Shiites, Sunnis and Kurds.'"
We are splitting in half.
\ChargerMike wrote:On a serious note, how does the Left consistently get a pass on outrageous statements? yet if Trent Lott or Newt Gingrich utter a "darn" they are all but crucified and forced to resign.....can you say double standard much?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newt_GingrichThe events of 1998 ended Gingrich's career in the House. In early 1998, many House Republicans had come to see him as a liability and attempted to replace him as Speaker with suburban Buffalo, New York congressman Bill Paxon. The coup failed, and Paxon was forced from office and completely retired from politics. At the end of the year, the Republicans expected big gains from the 1998 Congressional elections. In fact, Gingrich had predicted a 30-seat Republican pickup. Instead, the Republicans lost five seats—the poorest results in 34 years for any party not in control of the White House. Gingrich took most of the blame for the defeat. Amid threats of a rebellion in his caucus, he announced that he would not only stand down as Speaker, but would leave the House as well. He had been elected to an 11th term in that election, but declined to take his seat.
BSmack wrote:\ChargerMike wrote:On a serious note, how does the Left consistently get a pass on outrageous statements? yet if Trent Lott or Newt Gingrich utter a "darn" they are all but crucified and forced to resign.....can you say double standard much?
Trent Lott was not forced to resign. He was asked to leave his leadership post BY HIS OWN PARTY. He is still in the Senate and probably will be untill he gets tired of fucking us over from the inside out and get's a job as a lobbyist.
Gingrich was forced out by his own party as well. Perhaps we should go back to those thrilling days of yesteryear?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newt_GingrichThe events of 1998 ended Gingrich's career in the House. In early 1998, many House Republicans had come to see him as a liability and attempted to replace him as Speaker with suburban Buffalo, New York congressman Bill Paxon. The coup failed, and Paxon was forced from office and completely retired from politics. At the end of the year, the Republicans expected big gains from the 1998 Congressional elections. In fact, Gingrich had predicted a 30-seat Republican pickup. Instead, the Republicans lost five seats—the poorest results in 34 years for any party not in control of the White House. Gingrich took most of the blame for the defeat. Amid threats of a rebellion in his caucus, he announced that he would not only stand down as Speaker, but would leave the House as well. He had been elected to an 11th term in that election, but declined to take his seat.
Now quit playing the whiny little bitch victim and stand up like a man.
Mike,ChargerMike wrote:Do not concur! The weakass GOP caved to pressure from the Dem's to oust Lott and Gingrich.....You can bring up all the articles you can find and we both know the Limpdicked, meely mouthed, can't we just get along, wing of the GOP asked how high when the Dem's said jump.
You're a straight up retard. Read some fucking history on Lott dating back to the runup to the '80 Republican primaries with his enthusiastic support of Reagan then tell me that W. and Rove couldn't wait to push him out the door once Frist emerged as a possible successor.ChargerMike wrote: Do not concur! The weakass GOP caved to pressure from the Dem's to oust Lott and Gingrich.....You can bring up all the articles you can find and we both know the Limpdicked, meely mouthed, can't we just get along, wing of the GOP asked how high when the Dem's said jump.
The way I remember it CM, is that Gingrich essentially excused himself from gov't service because he had talked so much smack for so long that when the Republicans lost those seats, he was left with zero credibility and basically fell on a sword to try to save some face.ChargerMike wrote: Do not concur! The weakass GOP caved to pressure from the Dem's to oust Lott and Gingrich.....You can bring up all the articles you can find and we both know the Limpdicked, meely mouthed, can't we just get along, wing of the GOP asked how high when the Dem's said jump.
The Republican leader of the US Senate stated that we would be better off had a segregationist candidate for President been elected in 1948.DrDetroit wrote:Lott's removal, on the other hand, was a function of weak-kneed Republican hand-wringing in the face of unwarranted liberal and media hysteria over Lott's comments.
On that we can agree.Hence, Lott, this week seeing Rove escaping Fitz's indictments, spouting off that Rove should resign. Political payback because Rove didn't back Lott up.
The big fucking deal is HE MEANT IT.mvscal wrote:He said it at the old coot's birthday party. Big fucking deal.BSmack wrote:The Republican leader of the US Senate stated that we would be better off had a segregationist candidate for President been elected in 1948.
C'mon, dude. I'm not one who normally calls for people's resignations over stupid PC bullshit when a statement is taken out of context, but this is in a whole class by itself. It's not like he referred to blacks as "you people" or went Fisher DeBerry and made some generalized comment about blacks that pissed some people off, he said/implied that the US would be better off if blacks were still segregated. Oh yeah, and the state he represents is predominantly black.mvscal wrote: He said it at the old coot's birthday party. Big fucking deal.
Trent Lott has every right to say what he said. And we sane people have every right to raise hell when he says it. It was the GOP who hung him out to dry in the end. Had they stood by their man, he would still be there.mvscal wrote:So? Oh...now we aren't such a big fan of free speech, are we?BSmack wrote:The big fucking deal is HE MEANT IT.mvscal wrote: He said it at the old coot's birthday party. Big fucking deal.
I don't care if it was or wasn't. The precedent has been set. From here on out you have to at least PRETEND not to be pro segregation.mvscal wrote:Had he shown some spine as Majority leader, he'd still be there. As I said, it was a convenient pretext nothing more.
Bullshit.BSmack wrote:The big fucking deal is HE MEANT IT.mvscal wrote:He said it at the old coot's birthday party. Big fucking deal.BSmack wrote:The Republican leader of the US Senate stated that we would be better off had a segregationist candidate for President been elected in 1948.