first off, i think once fox lifted the ban on the word they all had to vent, and second, if your suffering from psychosis then what are the people who are trying to debunk u suffering from?
They are intelligent researchers, and they are mindful of the media. You do a good job, and become a top video, of course they will notice you(and there's no flattery in that). You revealed something really embarrassing. Of course they would respond. Hell, Chris Crocker got his 15 minutes here. Why not you?
@2erict Why shouldn't he flatter himself? He's probably right. In the previous clips they went out of their way to avoid using the word 'crime'. He made the effort to Youtube and it was damning. Like they would do a full show days later with the same tactic? They would have looked like complete clowns. He was never going to serve prison time and that's why they tried avoiding the use of the word 'crime' in the first place. Good job Liberal Viewer.
Some people commenting are out of zink with the media. People where do you think cable news gets 80% of there information? The web!! Trust me the other video got back to fox and they made the change. Happnes all the time.
@gungfu777 It's true. I have a good deal of experience in media, both TV in radio. It does happen all the time. TV stations do an obsessive amount of research on their viewers' responses and opinions. It's called "Opinion Research" and is done through many means including focus groups, surveys, and viewing of other stations, websites, and other media outlets.
Personally, i believe you have caught someones attention. This is fairly obvious if go through some of the comments on your videos which are clear attempts at smearing your often insightful & valid points. keep up the good work.
This video is a follow-up video to your other one since Fox News says Libby and "crime" in the same sentence. In your previous video you said they were avoiding the word "crime" to refer to Libby's criminal conviction. Could this be a simple case of CYA...?
I think this video is misleading because it seems to give the impression that you might be able to influence Fox News' behaviour with your videos. Was this just a cheesey attempt to get more people to comment on the videos and answer your questions by letting them think they are part of something bigger, like influencing Fox News?
FairMinded: The last Democratic debate was co-sponsored by, and the questions asked by YouTube members. I hardly think it is presumptuous to believe that politicians and pundits are paying attention.
"I hardly think it is presumptuous to believe that politicians and pundits are paying attention." So you really believe that FOX News is paying attention to these little youtube videos (this one only has 6K views) and as a result are changing their "orders" to accomodate and satify these small fish with Tivo, PC and editing software? I don't, the odd's of having a mental disorder are probably better.
What I think is that when one's success or failure hinges on public opinion, paying attention to trends on a site like youtube only makes sense. Do I think they will make changes to accomodate the makers of the videos? No. I think they might make changes to avoid losing some of their less fervent supporters.
I think you are right in the sense that it is very difficult to influence Fox News. They will 99% of the time say what they want. When you refer to "something bigger" do you mean to say that a detail so minute as weather Fox News acknowledges Libby's crimes as what they are is so big that several thousand people can't change it?
this guy never has thought he would effect fox news. fox news is a corporate giant which has the biggest impact out of every network around, which is sad because of its republican propaganda...
All news is biased and sensational. FOX is a little worse then the other but still. How often do you hear things like "Man shot dead in front of son." Why do we need to know that he was shot infront of his son? Just to "spice it up" make it a little more sad for you? That's what I hate in the news.
Guys do u realize how much of a difference we're making? Mainstream media can no longer hide da facts n control da message as dey have been for da past century! We r putting tremendous pressure on previously Zionistic propaganda machines such as Cnn, ABC, NBC, n CBS 2 provide more balanced, credible, n objective reporting. We r askin da tough questions. Now those stil sellin d hawkish agenda like FOX News, r isolated, out dated, n government manipulated
If only you could learn to write the words "the", "you", "are", "and", and "they". I might take you more seriously. I don't disagree with your message necessarily, but Life is not a text message.
No. Faux News would have had your video removed immediately for copyright infringement and then sued your ass. haha. As much as that sounds like I'm joking, I'm 100% serious.
what burns me the most about this whole issue, is that when they found Clinton guilty of perjury and obstructing justice, the conservatives got rabid and tried to impeach him and pin several other baseless crimes to Clinton, but when Scooter was found guilty of the same thing, his conservative friends raise 5 million dollars to pay for his legal fees and his fine, the president commutes his sentence in prison, and now they're trying to get rid of his probation time.
Honestly, i cant see if someone has the countrys best intrest in mind, even a republican, (who let me say do they just have different ideas of achieving it) how does this act of commuting the sentence not appaul you and raise some red flags?
We all know now what happened. Bush commuted his sentence, and may eventually give him a full pardon. Probably will, in fact, but in the tradition of past Presidents, he'll wait until just before he leaves office (and after the next Presidential election).
Bill Clinton used executive privilege 14 times. That's more than any other President in U.S. history. Why didn't that bother you (or the media, for that matter)? Double standard? I think so. Some of the scandals in which Clinton invoked executive privilege involved his wife. Isn't his wife running for President?
In President Bush's case, I don't think he has anything to hide, per se, but the since the Democrats have launched over 300 investigations, had over 350 requests for documents and interviews and they have had over 600 oversight hearings in just about 100 days, and we are at war (while power hungry Democrats are playing dirty politics) I can't say I blame Bush for putting his foot down.
how about writing more signing statements than any other president? Guess how many times Bill Clinton suspended habeaus corpous? Zero. Not to mention that he didnt abuse executive priviledge to guise his own blatant corruption
dude, he got a blowjob in the white house, and that's all we know. obstruction of justice is one thing, but fibbing about copping head from an intern is not obstruction of justice. i personally dont care. i say if you can stop genocide in the balkans and save the mexican economy and reach a peace accord in the middle east while getting head, you deserve a beer too.
Bill Clinton lied under oath in a deposition about sexually harassing Paula Jones. He has a long history of sexual misconduct with women. He abused his position of power to have sex with a woman his daughter's age in the Oval Office while discussing troop movements in Bosnia on the phone with a Senator. He commit perjury and obstructed justice. Those acts are criminal. It's not just about sex, as liberals pretend.
Lying to a prosecutor IS obstruction of justice!!! This is not some stupid game of "gotcha." This is about revealing the identity of Plame, who was COVERT. Check the congressional record. And if Libby and his boss were not involved , WHY DID HE LIE!!? If nothing illegal was done, WHY DID HE LIE!!?? Stop chugging the Kool -Aid, It's POISON!
If revealing Valerie Plame's covert identity was a crime, then why was Dick Armitage (who was the actual source of the leak, according to Special Prosecutor, Patrick Fitzgerald) not charged with a crime? Fitzgerald specifically said that revealing Plame's identity was not a crime. I watched him say it at the press conference he held.
The only crime here was that Scooter Libby gave the wrong dates for when he had the conversations about Valerie Plame and other witnesses testified he mentioned her earlier. The "crime" was that Libby's testimony appeared to be a lie, because he gave the special prosecutor the wrong dates in is account of when he talked about Plame (which, by Fitzgerald's admission, had never been a crime). The "crime" wasn't outing Plame. It was appearing to have lied about when he discussed her identity.
Now, I believe a reasonable case can be made for the idea that it can't be proven beyond a reasonable doubt that Libby intended to lie, although he may have. It was in dispute (initially) as to whether or not it was a crime to reveal Plame's identity, so that's why there would have been a motive to lie, or cover up when the conversations took place.
After Plame's identity was public knowledge, discussing it couldn't be a crime (if it ever had been). So that was why Libby may have wanted it to appear that his conversations occurred at a later time. However, he may not have been covering anything up. He may have genuinely been mistaken about when he had the conversations. Who remembers the exact date of a conversation they had months ago?
It's not like Clinton's perjury where he claimed he was not having sexual relations with someone with whom he damn well knew he'd engaged in sexual acts. It's much easier to forget when you said what than it is to forget whether or not your genitals have been inside a person's mouth!
Bottom line: Revealing Plame's identity was never a crime. Ever. Which means the whole investigation was actually unnecessary, or most of it anyway. Once it was determined that Plame's identity wasn't classified in such a way that revealing it was a crime, the investigation should have ended, especially since it was known that Richard Armitage had told reporters first, not anyone in the Bush Administration.
Bottom line: Consensual sexual relations between two adults was never a crime. EVER. which means the whole investigation was actually unnecessary, or most of it anyway. Bottom Line 2: Impeachment ends in removal from office, and voting to impeach and accually impeaching are NOT the same thing. Bottom Line 3: Robert Novak was the first to report Plames name, he got it either from Karl Rove or someone inside the Vice Presidents office. PERIOD.
Your politics have caused you to refrain from viewing facts objectively. Clinton's crime with Lewinsky wasn't having sex. He was asked about the Lewinsky affair while Paula Jones was suing him for sexual harassment and he lied about the affair while being deposed (and under oath). That was a relevant question in the Paula Jones case, because they were seeking to establish a pattern of reckless promiscuity in order to help prove Paula's case.
Clinton's lies were exposed by Linda Tripp, prompting an investigation into whether or not Clinton had perjured himself (which he had). That (and his subsequent obstruction of justice) was the crime, the sex part was incidental. Clinton could have lied about any subject under oath (we all know he often lies, even the media admits this). Whatever he lied about (if it had been something other than sex) would have been investigated.
As for the specific case you mentioned (Jonathan C. Randal), I am not familiar with any details behind that liberal talking point, but I will research it. I suspect there's more to it than what you have put forward. Fitzgerald has made it known that Richard Armitage was the first to leak Plame's name (after a thorough investigation). If doing so had been a crime, Armitage would have been prosecuted. He was not. Fitzgerald went over why it wasn't a crime to reveal her CIA job. Look it up.
unfortounatly your politics have rendered you completly indifferent to government accountability (unless of course a democrat is in office) This is about much more than Scooter Libby. Its about Iraq, its about the incompetancy of this administration, its about blatent polical firings, its about all that is wrong about the last 8 years
Libby was found guilty and given a sentance based on precedent. The president commuted his time before even the appeals process had been carried out. He has alinated almost ALL of the american public. This president has deemed himself completly irrellivant due to this action
I am not a democrat i am an independant. I have a vast ammount of respect for several republican leaders including Gingrich, Hagel, Romney, and McCain. However this presidancy has doomed the republicans to political irrelevancy for at least the next deccade. The party is about to reap what the president has sown, this case is only the cherry on top
So Scooter Libby must pay for your dissatisfaction with the Bush Administration? That sounds completely reasonable. You want to make someone pay, so Scooter will do for now. Although I was against the Iraq war, I fully support the current mission and good has come from it. I'm not thrilled with Bush, but the baby-killers the Democrats keep nominating will never get my vote.
Fully supporting the current mission is an exellent example of flip flopping my friend. It dosent matter that the reason we went there has no basis in fact as long as we change the mission in the middle in order to acheive some sort of moral high ground? is that what im hearing
Prove there was no basis in fact for the mission. Prove that Saddam and his sons didn't have rape rooms. Prove they didn't murder hundreds of thousands of their own people.
Prove they never used chemical weapons on the Kurds. Prove that al-Qa'ida operatives weren't operating in Iraq before the war and that they aren't there now. Prove that Congress, the Soviets, the Germans, and British Intelligence didn't strongly believe Saddam had WMD's (however wrong you think they may have turned out to be).
I'm tired of hearing people who support 1.5 million abortions a year in the U.S. lecture me about morality in war or any other social justice issue. I care about social justice, but killing the unborn for convenience or to save money is the ultimate injustice. Pro-abortion candidates are no more fit for public office than a candidate who would legalize rape or murdering the poor, elderly and/or disabled, yet morally bankrupt people keep voting for them and keep lecturing me about morality.
you mean people like the president who personally oversaw the execution of mentally disabled people? Abortion rights are about people who get pregnant from rape, incest, accident, and other socialy unacceptable circumstances. Abortion is not fun for anyone who has to go thru it but making it illeagal will only cause more problems
Abortions are about morals. Should a young girl who lives in a small town who got raped be forced to go through 9 months of socil scrutiny just because you say so. Or should it be her choice wheter or not to terminat the pregnancy? whats the moraly correct awnser. The fact is there is a valid argument on each side. And legalized abortion allows people to make up their own minds, instead of the government making it for them. This is a conservative cornerstone
Al Qaeda was NOT operating in Iraq before the war and had no relation with saddam its been proven look it up. The United States knew that the intelligence pointing to neuclear weapons in Iraq was wrong. Its been proven look it up. The case was based on Saddam having a neuclear weapon and giving it to terrorists
You are mistaken. George Tenet's book (which was critical of Bush) shows al-Qa'ida was in Iraq and that Saddam knew it. Look it up. Check the National Review Online. Nobody said Saddam definitely had nukes. They said they wanted to prevent hi from getting them. The projection was that he would have had them in about five to seven years, which would be just about now.
5-7 years was based on intellegence that he had an active neuclear program and was in the process of producing weapons, which he wasent. Also i wouldnt put too much trust in Tenets book. Ive read it. He has personal reasons to make the case against his mismanagment seem less rellevant
AND where exactly were these al quaeda operatives doing their work? There was almost 2/3 of the country that sadaam had next to no control over after the first gulf war. Yea mabe he did know they were there, but he probably couldnt do anything about it
You also fail to see. Its more important to save a baby that has no friends of loved ones, over a woman who has a husband and children? This is not a one lane issue my friend, it is very complicated and it is a subject that should be decided upon by the people involve who have intimate understandigs of the circumstances. Not by you or me or the government
The saving lives fantasy is a myth and an excuse. The rape, incest, mother's health hard cases are used as a lame excuse to allow the legal murder of 1.5 million babies a year, and the fact that they're developing doesn't make them not human. Human beings develop. It's part of being human, before and after birth.
Whether or not abortion is "fun" is immaterial. murder is the unjust killing of an innocent human person. A willful attack on unborn human life, no matter what the motive, direct abortion is always a grave objective evil. Abortion is murder. Society has no obligation to facilitate safe, legal murder. People hurt themselves and/or others through murder, drug use, and all sorts of other evil things. That doesn't mean we need to help them do it safely in a hospital.
murder is an OPINION of pro lifers on when life accually begins. I fail to see how terminating a pregnancy when the fetus could not live outside of the mother can be deemed murder
Also, by your own standards, the death penalty is also state sanctioned murder. IM tired of conservatives who support the death penalty turn arround and call an abortion for the health of the mother murder
The death penalty is not state sanctioned murder. Murder is the unjust killing of an innocent human person. People who receive the death penalty have been convicted as being guilty of a capital crime, had a lengthy appeals process, and are in no way innocent. There has never been concrete evidence of innocence for a single person who has received the death penalty offered.
Moreover, it has been proven the death penalty saves lives, so society is doubly protected and justice is done when (a person who is guilty, not innocent, like an unborn baby) is executed by the State.
That last sentance is a very shaky argument. There is no doubt that innocent people have been put to death. There have been death penalty casses that have been overturned before the sentance was carried out. Are you suggesting that these are the only ones? Honestly?
That proof is based on some very qustionable statistics that deal in hypotheticals. Dont put your trust in them. And dont get me wrong. I support the death penalty, and i also think that 3rd trimester abortions are moraly reprehensable. However you cannot use blanket arguments when discussing either of these topics
Almost half of all women who have abortions in the U.S. have already aborted at least one previous pregnancy, according to a recent report by the research affiliate of Planned Parenthood, the Alan Guttmacher Institute.
In the study entitled Repeat Abortion in the United States, released this month, researchers found that 48.2 percent of women who had abortions between 2000-2001 were obtaining repeat abortions. That included 29 percent who had one previous abortion, 12 percent who had two previous abortions, and 7 percent who were aborting their fourth or more pregnancy.
A majority of women aged 25 or older who had abortions had one or more previous abortions. Women having two or more abortions were almost twice as likely to be aged 30 or older, researchers found. Women having repeat abortions were somewhat more likely to be married, cohabiting, or to have been married in the past, than women having their first abortion.
Unborn babies are always innocent. whether or not they are human to your satisfaction, they are human from a biological perspective. They aren't just seeds or chromosomes. They have unique, human DNA. They are living and growing. You can't just kill them for convenience or to save money for individuals or society. You can't kill them to avoid letting people know you had sex.
And even if you did manage to outlaw the death penalty you would still have Neo Cons calling for frying up murderes and rapists. And heres something for you to chew on. Spending your life in prison cost the tax payers less, and is much more unpleasant than being executed
yea That means that over 750,000 women have abortions every year for legitimat circumstances, and less somewhere arround 500,000 women have multiple abortions. Do the math buddie, youd be hurting more than helping
When a woman becomes pregnant as the result of rape (which happens less than 1 percent of the time), abortion will not take away the trauma, the nightmares, the pain-but it may add to them.
So the innocent, unborn baby has to die because you don't like how it came into existence? Lots of people living today were conceived through rape. It's rare to get pregnant from rape, but it has happened and people do have the babies. Your position is that those lives are disposable.
My position is that it is a decision for the woman carying the babie whether or not she is willing, able, and ready to go through a pregnancy and child birth.
Dont patronize me about religion either. I have been nothing but civil durring this conversation, and up untill right now had respect for your ability to argue. I am right with god, i know that i will be in heaven, and when i see you there, we will both be able to say that we were right
Also, its not about whether or not I dislike how it came into existance, it about what the mother feels. IT IS NOT MINE NOR YOUR DECISION TO MAKE IT IS HERS
Im not saying its not human, i do however believe that its not a life until it can live on its own outside of the womb. A chicken isnt a chicken untill it hatches, same with humans, and with all life
Also that argument about not killing whats human comes right back to the DP the commandment says thou shalt not kill, theres no subtext saying "unless that person has also killed"
We can both be right my friend you are not opening your eyes widely enough. Aborting a 3rd tirmester baby just because you want to is wrong, but so is the government saying that the babies life is more important than the mothers. This is why it must be a choice, one for the mother to take, about the best action for herself, and for her family
if she makes the wrong choice then it is for her to live with. And you know exactly what i mean when i say that a first trimester fetus cannot live outside the womb, stop splitting hairs
Babies can't survive outside the womb without help either. Your standard isn't based on an objective standard of what makes someone human. Lots of people who can't survive on their own are no less human for that fact.
To support killing what you admit may be human is to support the possibility of murdering someone (and I would say it's a reality, not a possibility, as would many doctors and scientists). Yu want the death penalty outlawed on the chance of an innocent person being put to death, which is a beautiful and noble instinct. I encourage that. Apply that same conviction to the unborn.
Why would one lie be more important? All human life is important. All human life is sacred. We are here but a short time and after this, eternity. No earthly trial is worth the eternal loss of God and heaven. Why not have faith in God instead of playing God and deciding one life is more valuable?
You are saying that it is up to the government to decide which is more valuable, and i say it is up to the individual, that is what the country was founded upon. In a democracy, all citizens are responsible for a law saying one life is more important, but if the law says that it is up to the individual then it is only them who is responsible
i dont need to prove that its not a life because you cant prove that it is, saying that it has a heart beat and that it has a brain does not mean that it has been blessed with a soul
I believe that there are legitimat reasons for terminating a pregnacy, i also believe that they happen much more often than you do. I believe that god gave us freedom of thought for a reason, and i believe that most women who decide to have an abortion do not make the decision lightly, and i dont want my government saying that it is a choice that they are not allowed to make
The reason God made us free is because love isn't real unless its a free choice. Moreover, only free choices merit a reward. God made us free so we could choose the good, not so we could do as we please.
Maybe God made you to explain his intentions on YouTube. Oh wait, you're just another douchebag who says things that sound cute but mean nothing...my miistake
Why do liberals always seem to resort to calling me names when I express my opinion? It's interesting, because liberals often whine about hate speech, or name calling from people like Ann Coulter (who at least does it with a sense of humor), but those same liberals generally resort to hate speech, ad hominem attacks, poisoning the well, and demonizing anyone who disagrees with the in order to silence all opposition.
oh for fucks sake I AM NOT A FUCKING LIBERAL. every time i disagree with christian fundamentalists or ignorant rednecks on this website i get called a liberal. because i disagree with you? i'm a former GOP who's wondering where the fuck his party went. I would like to add, that i'm confident if you learned about the presidency of clinton in depth (not just the starr report?) you would find he was the best we've had since lincoln
I'm sorry for not being able to see your obvious conservative credentials. The way you mock people from Southern states and conservative Christians, as well as your claim that Bill Clinton was a great President should have signaled your true conservatism. By the way, your foul language isn't the best way to demonstrate that you are intelligent, rational, or civil.
lets not forget that republicans played dirty pollitics for the entire clinton presidency over whitewater and found absolutly nothing to it. Bush probably dosent have much to hide because he has worked relentlessly to gain plausable deniabilty
Dick Cheny, Scooter Libby, Alberto Gonzolaz, Paul Wolfawitz, and many others in the administration do have lots to hide though. Which is why gonzo cant remember anything when hes under oath and contradicts himself, its why cheney says hes not a part of the executive branch which is ludicris, its why Powell, the most respected person the administration has ever had in it resigned, its why blair resigned,
Gonzales is embarrassing and I am unhappy with him as attorney general (he's also reportedly pro-abortion), but Gonzales had every right to fire those attorneys. They serve at the pleasure of the President. Clinton fired 93 U.S. attorneys and the media didn't so much as bat an eyelash,
The broadcast network evening newscasts, which didn't care in 1993 about the Clinton administration's decision to ask for the resignation of all 93 U.S. attorneys, went apoplectic over the "controversy," (largely fueled by the media and Democrats, which is actually pretty much saying the same thing) over the Bush administration for replacing eight U.S. attorneys in late 2006.
Actually, Cheney's argument is an interesting legal tactic. He is, technically, under the U.S. Constitution, the President of the Senate, which is not part of the Executive Branch, but rather, the Legislative Branch. He has no Presidential powers under the Constitution (unless the President dies or is incapacitated). Under the Constitution, the Executive branch is restricted to the U.S. President.
There wasn't "nothing" to Whitewater. It was actually quite complicated, which is why most people don't know all the ins and outs of the case. The McDougals were partners with Bill Clinton and Hillary Rodham Clinton in the failed Whitewater real estate venture in the 1980s, and were convicted along with then-Gov. Jim Guy Tucker (D) in obtaining millions in illegal loans, including a $300,000 federally backed loan for Susan McDougal, through a small business investment firm owned by David Hale.
Susan McDougal was convicted on May 28, 1996, and spent time in prison for four counts of fraud and conspiracy relating to the Whitewater scandal. She also spent 18 months in prison including 7 weeks in solitary confinement for civil contempt of court.
U.S. District Court Judge Susan Webber Wright sentenced McDougal after she refused to answer three questions from Whitewater prosecutors before the grand jury empaneled by Independent Counsel Kenneth Starr to investigate the Whitewater deals. These questions included whether President Bill Clinton lied in his testimony during her Whitewater trial, particularly when he denied any knowledge of an illegal $300,000 loan.
During that trial, the government's star witness, Arkansas banker and former municipal judge David Hale, claimed that then-Governor Bill Clinton had discussed an illegal $300,000 loan with himself and McDougal.
McDougal received a full Presidential pardon from outgoing President Bill Clinton in the final hours of his presidency in 2001, along with Roger Clinton, Jr. (half-brother of President Bill Clinton), Marc Rich (because his wife gave the Clintons millions) and a number of other questionable people, but the Democrats were never concerned about that. They are only concerned about the commutation (not pardon) given to Scooter Libby.
Article 2 Section 1: The executive power sheall be vested in a President of the United States. He shall hold his office durring the term of four years, and, TOGETHER WITH THE VICE PRESIDENT, be elected as follows. Just because the veep is "ALSO" president of the senate does not make him NOT a part of the executive branch
The Constitution says he is to be elected together with the President. It does not say he is co-President, which is what he would need to be if he were definitely part of the Executive Branch. I suspect you will be disappointed with the legal result of the Vice-President's argument, because I think he's probably technically right and the Supreme Court will concede that he is.
He's not the President, and the President is the Executive Branch. The fact that he's President of the Senate makes him part of the Legislative Branch, though, because he has a tie breaking vote.
But you are absoulutly right about the supreme court, b/c the "strict constructionists" that bush put on the bench will be eager to pay him and his administration back because he was the only guy who could have gotten their activist, backwards asses confirmed
it is not legal to fire prosecutors for politcal reasons, which is what he was being asked about, and it can be proven that he was lying about several key parts of his testemony especially the sections relating to the deputy attorny general
saying that you did not have sexual "realtions" isnt entirely truful either. Youre setting a double standard of the same sort that you a recently railed against on this thread
id be careful before you start calling clinton godless. or i might be forced to start calling out republican leaders who have done MUCH more moraly reprehensible hypocritical godless deeds
Clinton is a sleazy, lying, baby-killer. I can't think of a single Republican who has done worse, and if you even try to say the Bush and the war, you deserve to be roundly mocked. 1.5 million innocent unborn babies a year is way more than have been killed in the war. Clinton also vetoed a ban on partial birth abortions (which makes him Godless monster).
Clinton sexually harasses women, and he is a lying, adulterous con artist. The media sugar coats it, but even they admit he lies, and his adultery is common knowledge.
Lets talk about the bastion of the christian right Tom DeLay shall we. That moraly upright beacon of christian political ambition. The staunch opposer of a womans right to choose. That is unless were talking about the US commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, or Saipan.
Saipan is a place where DeLay also opposes a womans right to choose, only in this case he opposes a womans right NOT to choose an abortion. He opposes it because the buisnesses in Saipan exploit asian workes into making cheap clothing for wall-mart and abercrombie and fitch, and strangly enough banna republic also oppose it
Why do the business force women to have abortions you might ask? well because a woman with a child cant work as hard which means they cant make as much money which means DeLay dosent get as much kick backs for making sure the economic standard in the commonwealth is upheld in the US government.
He opposes a womans right to choose in the states, and in the commonwealth, i guess hes consistant, but also Morraly bankrupt, sleazy, a harraser of women, a "womanizer" if you will and almost certainly GODLESS. The only difference between him and liberals? The "Christian" right votes for DeLay
Dont even begin to try to tell me that DeLay is a good man, and dont try to fool me that you dont like him. If you would like more examples of Godlessness in leaders who YOU voted for then by all means, please continue to make the argument that Clinton is godless because he dosnt expliot the poor and downtrodden and refuses to impose his religious beliefs on others through the force of law
I don't know much about Tom Delay. I have no particular attachment to him. If he supports abortion (as you have said) then I can't respect his judgment. People who support baby-killing have a moral blind spot. They aren't fit for public office.
You have a detachment from reality if you believe what you say, and also a detachment from god. Sins are sins period no sin is greater than another in the eyes of god and all humans are capable of forgiveness. I fyou are looking for a candidate without sin then you should never cast a vote bc no such candidate exists
It is 100% legal to fire them for political reasons. they serve at the pleasure of the President. Bush and Gonzales don't want to say that, because they didn't want to be that blunt and calloused, because it looks bad politically (which is why they're in this mess, because they should have just said, yes, we caned them for political reasons, which, truth be told is why most people are fired form any job).
Also, Merkel does not really care for the current administration, and Putin "the corrupt" as you so aptly put it is VERY GOOD BUDDIES with our own corrupt leader
And while youre talking about purjuring yourself dont forget to talk about gonzolaz who also pirjured himslef. It is not the american peoples fault that the current leadership in the house and senate have no backbone with which to persue it
Also McDougal accually spent time in PRISON for her white collar crime. Libby is not going to be punished at ALL. Im not so much concerned with a president pardoning a white collar offense for a friend as i am with a president pardoning a political apointee being found GUILTY of lying under oath about the circumstances which lead to the leak of a CIA operative
McDougal did her time, yes, and she did more time covering up the Clinton's criminal activity (which was why she was rewarded with a full pardon). President Clinton pardoned his partner in crime. That is an abuse of power.
And why do people keep fantasizing that leaking Plame's name was (a) a crime; it wasn't - Libby wasn't even charged with it; and (b) that Libby leaked her name first. The media has made it clear, Richard Armitage leaked her name to the press first. He blew her cover, not Libby. Finally, you keep ignoring the fact that Clinton clearly did everything you think Libby did, and worse, but you don't care about that, which is totally hypocritical.
I'm not sure Gonzales perjured himself, at least not in a provable way. Saying you don't recall may not be entirely truthful, but there's no way to prove it. Moreover, I'm against accusing someone of perjury when the matter over which they are being interrogated wasn't a crime. It was perfectly legal to fire those attorneys, as I have already said.
And before you say Clinton's actions weren't criminal, yes they were. Clinton perjured himself when the questioning was relevant. It was relevant to the Paula Jones case to establish a pattern of sexual misconduct. Clinton lied, under oath (and truth be told, he lied about not doing what he did to Paula Jones, which liberals ignore).
Moreover, adultery is vile. Only Godless dirtbuckets defend adultery as no big deal. It actually is a crime in some states, and Clinton's sex with Lewinski also violated Federal Law because it's legally sexual harassment, even with Lewinski's consent.
You are wrong about Merkel and Putin. Merkel isn't like Tony Blair, but she's not anti-Bush. Putin is not friends with Bush. They try to make nice, but neither trusts the other and Putin has said things about Bush that make it clear he is not a friend, as you would have people believe. Do your homework.
Do youre own. Saying the veep is not part of the executive becaues hes president of the senate is like saying chrystler isnt part of general motors, or micky mouse isnt part of disney. its a ludicris argument.
its why germany, spain, and italy all voted in guys that are against what our guys are trying to do. Our president and his administration are more corrupt that anyone this country has ever seen and EVERYONE knows it
I'm sorry you are so deluded, but let me bring you back to reality. The liberals in France lost. Nicholas Sarkozy won and he's pledged to work with the U.S., unlike Jaques Chirac. Angela Merkel beat out her anti-American, anti-Bush opponent and she is friendly with the Bush Administration.
Terrorists manipulated the Spanish election with the Madrid train bombing, which did cause José Luis Rodríguez Zapatero, an anti-American, anti-Israel, socialist (whose politics you seem to favor) to win. Vladimir Putin is as corrupt as he's always been. James Gordon Brown was appointed Prime Minister in Great Britain and was not elected to his position.
Saying it only might have a soul doesn't make killing an innocent unborn baby a morally justifiable choice. You must be certain you aren't taking a human life, otherwise you are willing to risk murder.
i think the moral dillema is that your morals aren't necessarily those of others, and you shouldn't force a woman to carry a child because it upsets you that the child will otherwise die. Also abortions, when illegal, occur anyhow and it is very dangerous to the woman. So there's more than 1 perspective
I think your morality lecture is a bit dodgy. Nobody "forces" a woman to carry a child. Unless you want to blame nature, or God. If women don't want children, the best way to avoid that is to not have sex. I'm not against abortion because it upsets me. I'm against abortion because it is the murder of innocent, unborn babies for the sake of convenience.
Laws must be based on truth and they must be just. You can't legalize rape and make rape moral or good by an act of law. Freedom is a good thing, but we aren't free to do whatever we want or use our bodies however we please. There are laws against certain drug use, prostitution, jaywalking, not paying taxes, murder, rape, robbery, theft, marrying your brother or sister or father or mother, having sex with minors (even with their consent), public nudity, etc.
Who said anything about religion? I make no judgment about where you are with God. That is between you and the Thrice Holy God. I will say that God does not support abortion, though. And we can't both be right. If I am right, then you have to be wrong. Abortion can't be both murder and a morally upright personal choice.
You can't prove the life isn't human. There is a doubt in your own mind (if you're honest). You can't kill what may be human. Just as a hunter can't shoot unless he knows there aren't people in the area he's aiming and must wait if there is a doubt (or be guilty of willing to kill people by chance) so it is with abortion.
There are never legitimate reasons for murdering an innocent, developing, unborn baby. You have a serious moral blind spot, and you really can't lecture people about morality while taking the positions you hold. You spout all the right propaganda you've been spoon-fed, but show very little critical thinking when it comes to abortion.
There's an expression: hard cases make bad law. You don't make laws based on rare exceptions or circumstances, whether with abortion or the death penalty. I would gladly outlaw the death penalty if we could guarantee people would be locked up for life and bleeding heart liberals wouldn't campaign for the release of murderers, especially if those same bleeding hearts would stop saying killing babies is a civil right.
That's why you're morally blind: because you fail to see. Check out websites on developing human life in the womb. Your argument that a girl should be able to murder her unborn baby so she won't have to worry about people possibly thinking she's a whore is monstrous. So it's better to murder a developing baby than feel uncomfortable or ashamed?
Bottom Line 4: This administration used existing laws to send Jonathan C. Randal to jail for 1 year followed by 3 years of probation and a $2000 fine for leaking NONclassified infromation to journalists.
The names of covert CIA operatives is CLASSIFIED information and leaking that information is ILLEAGAL! Lying or missleading a federal prossecutor who is investigating this illeagal activity is also ILLEAGAL! No one is going to jail for it. Bottom Line 5: NEO CONS set double standards not liberals!
Did the Marine you mentioned perjure himself during the investigation of a non-crime? In that Marine's case, did the investigation create the only crime that came out of that investigation? Was the Marine being interrogated vigorously after the prosecutor knew another man was the guilty party, but set up so as to be trapped in the appearance of a lie?
Scared of what? Clinton perjured himself and obstructed justice and has been (in my opinion) credibly accused of sexual harassment by several women and rape by one woman. Now Clinton's making millions. Even if Bush and Cheney were doing something wrong, they don't have much to fear from Scooter Libby. Besides, he's their friend. They're trying to help him. They feel bad that he was set up and is winding up the fall guy for a non-crime.
Also, i think, based on your allegations, that it was wise of Bush to not pardon Libby from the get-go. I can only imagine the conspiracy theories you'd be spinning if that had happened. This way people get to hear the facts. Bush allowed the investigation. He invited it. His justice department authorized it. If he really had all these evil secrets, I don't think he'd have done all that.
Bush allowed a full scale investigation of a non-crime to take place (talk about a waste of money) so the media and liberals and any other skeptics can't claim he's hiding things, and yet you still claim he's hiding things.
I think that is prejudiced speculation. What could he know about Bush or Cheney? Remember, it was never a crime to tell people about Valerie Plame. Even if Scooter squealed like a stuck pig and said Bush and Cheney told every reporter in Washington, there would be no crime. Fitzgerald knew Dick Armitage was the original leak before questioning Libby and Armitage can't be charged. So what would Libby be hiding?
And speaking of Armitage, since Fitgerald knew Armitage wa the source of the leak, why was he grilling Libby? It was a trap. He set Libby up. Fitzgerald essentially created the opportunity for Libby to commit a crime, thereby creating a crime through his investigation of a non-criminal act. What's up with that?
I think Bush wants Scooter to get the chance to exonerate himself. I think he didn't pardon him because (I think) even with a pardon, Scooter could still be disbarred. I think they didn't think he'd be convicted, and I think they were hoping he could continue his appeals before serving jail time.
No problem, John. I can admit loads of things Republicans did wrong. Mark Foley did lots of things that were wrong. So did Duke Cunningham. Let's see, Nixon did some things that were wrong. I frequently think G.W. Bush is wrong on domestic policy and spending. So I can admit when Republicans are wrong.
I just don't see how it's been proven Scooter lied. I can honestly believe it's reasonable to believe he was confused about the dates he had the perfectly legal conversations he was being grilled about.
Prove that Libby did something wrong. What is it you think he did? It was not a crime to tell people about Valerie Plame. So what was Libby's crime? He told Fitzgerald the wrong date on which he had a conversation. A high crime indeed!
first off, i think once fox lifted the ban on the word they all had to vent, and second, if your suffering from psychosis then what are the people who are trying to debunk u suffering from?
vikingdrizzit 11 months ago
Yet Fox News is still allowed to be called news. Pathetic.
Anyone who watches Faux News should have their academic diplomas and degrees revoked.
jerrod24 1 year ago
They are intelligent researchers, and they are mindful of the media. You do a good job, and become a top video, of course they will notice you(and there's no flattery in that). You revealed something really embarrassing. Of course they would respond. Hell, Chris Crocker got his 15 minutes here. Why not you?
phryne666 2 years ago
Liddy is nothing but Cheney foot soldier , Cheney committed treason and should be convicted
EdugeBDroN 2 years ago
Fox News?
Total wank.
Neanderthalcouzin 3 years ago
don't flatter yourself.
2erict 3 years ago
@2erict Why shouldn't he flatter himself? He's probably right. In the previous clips they went out of their way to avoid using the word 'crime'. He made the effort to Youtube and it was damning. Like they would do a full show days later with the same tactic? They would have looked like complete clowns. He was never going to serve prison time and that's why they tried avoiding the use of the word 'crime' in the first place. Good job Liberal Viewer.
illuminumnuts 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
lol im naked!
youtube keeps taking down my strip tease videos pb
KatieArlen 3 years ago
Some people commenting are out of zink with the media. People where do you think cable news gets 80% of there information? The web!! Trust me the other video got back to fox and they made the change. Happnes all the time.
gungfu777 3 years ago
@gungfu777 It's true. I have a good deal of experience in media, both TV in radio. It does happen all the time. TV stations do an obsessive amount of research on their viewers' responses and opinions. It's called "Opinion Research" and is done through many means including focus groups, surveys, and viewing of other stations, websites, and other media outlets.
xJoeEDangerouslyx 1 year ago
Personally, i believe you have caught someones attention. This is fairly obvious if go through some of the comments on your videos which are clear attempts at smearing your often insightful & valid points. keep up the good work.
magneticidiot 4 years ago 8
This video is a follow-up video to your other one since Fox News says Libby and "crime" in the same sentence. In your previous video you said they were avoiding the word "crime" to refer to Libby's criminal conviction. Could this be a simple case of CYA...?
FairMindedCitizen 4 years ago
I think this video is misleading because it seems to give the impression that you might be able to influence Fox News' behaviour with your videos. Was this just a cheesey attempt to get more people to comment on the videos and answer your questions by letting them think they are part of something bigger, like influencing Fox News?
FairMindedCitizen 4 years ago
FairMinded: The last Democratic debate was co-sponsored by, and the questions asked by YouTube members. I hardly think it is presumptuous to believe that politicians and pundits are paying attention.
CowboyGP 4 years ago
"I hardly think it is presumptuous to believe that politicians and pundits are paying attention." So you really believe that FOX News is paying attention to these little youtube videos (this one only has 6K views) and as a result are changing their "orders" to accomodate and satify these small fish with Tivo, PC and editing software? I don't, the odd's of having a mental disorder are probably better.
FairMindedCitizen 4 years ago
What I think is that when one's success or failure hinges on public opinion, paying attention to trends on a site like youtube only makes sense. Do I think they will make changes to accomodate the makers of the videos? No. I think they might make changes to avoid losing some of their less fervent supporters.
CowboyGP 4 years ago
I think you are right in the sense that it is very difficult to influence Fox News. They will 99% of the time say what they want. When you refer to "something bigger" do you mean to say that a detail so minute as weather Fox News acknowledges Libby's crimes as what they are is so big that several thousand people can't change it?
bigchew14 4 years ago
this guy never has thought he would effect fox news. fox news is a corporate giant which has the biggest impact out of every network around, which is sad because of its republican propaganda...
goldenskatearmy 3 years ago
All news is biased and sensational. FOX is a little worse then the other but still. How often do you hear things like "Man shot dead in front of son." Why do we need to know that he was shot infront of his son? Just to "spice it up" make it a little more sad for you? That's what I hate in the news.
BloggerMusicMan 4 years ago
Not the first generation....
legendary852004 4 years ago
Guys do u realize how much of a difference we're making? Mainstream media can no longer hide da facts n control da message as dey have been for da past century! We r putting tremendous pressure on previously Zionistic propaganda machines such as Cnn, ABC, NBC, n CBS 2 provide more balanced, credible, n objective reporting. We r askin da tough questions. Now those stil sellin d hawkish agenda like FOX News, r isolated, out dated, n government manipulated
SefSufi 4 years ago
If only you could learn to write the words "the", "you", "are", "and", and "they". I might take you more seriously. I don't disagree with your message necessarily, but Life is not a text message.
CowboyGP 4 years ago
No. Faux News would have had your video removed immediately for copyright infringement and then sued your ass. haha. As much as that sounds like I'm joking, I'm 100% serious.
y2kmicroboy 4 years ago
what burns me the most about this whole issue, is that when they found Clinton guilty of perjury and obstructing justice, the conservatives got rabid and tried to impeach him and pin several other baseless crimes to Clinton, but when Scooter was found guilty of the same thing, his conservative friends raise 5 million dollars to pay for his legal fees and his fine, the president commutes his sentence in prison, and now they're trying to get rid of his probation time.
killerfurby33 4 years ago
Honestly, i cant see if someone has the countrys best intrest in mind, even a republican, (who let me say do they just have different ideas of achieving it) how does this act of commuting the sentence not appaul you and raise some red flags?
grudgekeeper 4 years ago
It's possible.
DickJohnson3434 4 years ago
Libby flip? Heh, you're a dreamer, Allen.
We all know now what happened. Bush commuted his sentence, and may eventually give him a full pardon. Probably will, in fact, but in the tradition of past Presidents, he'll wait until just before he leaves office (and after the next Presidential election).
Urgelt 4 years ago
Bill Clinton used executive privilege 14 times. That's more than any other President in U.S. history. Why didn't that bother you (or the media, for that matter)? Double standard? I think so. Some of the scandals in which Clinton invoked executive privilege involved his wife. Isn't his wife running for President?
Thomistic1 4 years ago
In President Bush's case, I don't think he has anything to hide, per se, but the since the Democrats have launched over 300 investigations, had over 350 requests for documents and interviews and they have had over 600 oversight hearings in just about 100 days, and we are at war (while power hungry Democrats are playing dirty politics) I can't say I blame Bush for putting his foot down.
Thomistic1 4 years ago
how about writing more signing statements than any other president? Guess how many times Bill Clinton suspended habeaus corpous? Zero. Not to mention that he didnt abuse executive priviledge to guise his own blatant corruption
StaySaneAmerica 4 years ago
No, Bill Clinton used obstruction of justice to hide his corruption. Well, that and lying (something he's quite skilled at doing).
Thomistic1 4 years ago
dude, he got a blowjob in the white house, and that's all we know. obstruction of justice is one thing, but fibbing about copping head from an intern is not obstruction of justice. i personally dont care. i say if you can stop genocide in the balkans and save the mexican economy and reach a peace accord in the middle east while getting head, you deserve a beer too.
StaySaneAmerica 4 years ago
Bill Clinton lied under oath in a deposition about sexually harassing Paula Jones. He has a long history of sexual misconduct with women. He abused his position of power to have sex with a woman his daughter's age in the Oval Office while discussing troop movements in Bosnia on the phone with a Senator. He commit perjury and obstructed justice. Those acts are criminal. It's not just about sex, as liberals pretend.
Thomistic1 4 years ago
Lying to a prosecutor IS obstruction of justice!!! This is not some stupid game of "gotcha." This is about revealing the identity of Plame, who was COVERT. Check the congressional record. And if Libby and his boss were not involved , WHY DID HE LIE!!? If nothing illegal was done, WHY DID HE LIE!!?? Stop chugging the Kool -Aid, It's POISON!
adamsfall 4 years ago
If revealing Valerie Plame's covert identity was a crime, then why was Dick Armitage (who was the actual source of the leak, according to Special Prosecutor, Patrick Fitzgerald) not charged with a crime? Fitzgerald specifically said that revealing Plame's identity was not a crime. I watched him say it at the press conference he held.
Thomistic1 4 years ago
The only crime here was that Scooter Libby gave the wrong dates for when he had the conversations about Valerie Plame and other witnesses testified he mentioned her earlier. The "crime" was that Libby's testimony appeared to be a lie, because he gave the special prosecutor the wrong dates in is account of when he talked about Plame (which, by Fitzgerald's admission, had never been a crime). The "crime" wasn't outing Plame. It was appearing to have lied about when he discussed her identity.
Thomistic1 4 years ago
Now, I believe a reasonable case can be made for the idea that it can't be proven beyond a reasonable doubt that Libby intended to lie, although he may have. It was in dispute (initially) as to whether or not it was a crime to reveal Plame's identity, so that's why there would have been a motive to lie, or cover up when the conversations took place.
Thomistic1 4 years ago
After Plame's identity was public knowledge, discussing it couldn't be a crime (if it ever had been). So that was why Libby may have wanted it to appear that his conversations occurred at a later time. However, he may not have been covering anything up. He may have genuinely been mistaken about when he had the conversations. Who remembers the exact date of a conversation they had months ago?
Thomistic1 4 years ago
It's not like Clinton's perjury where he claimed he was not having sexual relations with someone with whom he damn well knew he'd engaged in sexual acts. It's much easier to forget when you said what than it is to forget whether or not your genitals have been inside a person's mouth!
Thomistic1 4 years ago
Bottom line: Revealing Plame's identity was never a crime. Ever. Which means the whole investigation was actually unnecessary, or most of it anyway. Once it was determined that Plame's identity wasn't classified in such a way that revealing it was a crime, the investigation should have ended, especially since it was known that Richard Armitage had told reporters first, not anyone in the Bush Administration.
Thomistic1 4 years ago
Bottom line: Consensual sexual relations between two adults was never a crime. EVER. which means the whole investigation was actually unnecessary, or most of it anyway. Bottom Line 2: Impeachment ends in removal from office, and voting to impeach and accually impeaching are NOT the same thing. Bottom Line 3: Robert Novak was the first to report Plames name, he got it either from Karl Rove or someone inside the Vice Presidents office. PERIOD.
natew1984 4 years ago
Your politics have caused you to refrain from viewing facts objectively. Clinton's crime with Lewinsky wasn't having sex. He was asked about the Lewinsky affair while Paula Jones was suing him for sexual harassment and he lied about the affair while being deposed (and under oath). That was a relevant question in the Paula Jones case, because they were seeking to establish a pattern of reckless promiscuity in order to help prove Paula's case.
Thomistic1 4 years ago
Clinton's lies were exposed by Linda Tripp, prompting an investigation into whether or not Clinton had perjured himself (which he had). That (and his subsequent obstruction of justice) was the crime, the sex part was incidental. Clinton could have lied about any subject under oath (we all know he often lies, even the media admits this). Whatever he lied about (if it had been something other than sex) would have been investigated.
Thomistic1 4 years ago
The point was determining if he commit perjury, the fact that he's been proven to be an incontinent, philandering, lying weasel was never the point.
Thomistic1 4 years ago
As for the specific case you mentioned (Jonathan C. Randal), I am not familiar with any details behind that liberal talking point, but I will research it. I suspect there's more to it than what you have put forward. Fitzgerald has made it known that Richard Armitage was the first to leak Plame's name (after a thorough investigation). If doing so had been a crime, Armitage would have been prosecuted. He was not. Fitzgerald went over why it wasn't a crime to reveal her CIA job. Look it up.
Thomistic1 4 years ago
unfortounatly your politics have rendered you completly indifferent to government accountability (unless of course a democrat is in office) This is about much more than Scooter Libby. Its about Iraq, its about the incompetancy of this administration, its about blatent polical firings, its about all that is wrong about the last 8 years
natew1984 4 years ago
Libby was found guilty and given a sentance based on precedent. The president commuted his time before even the appeals process had been carried out. He has alinated almost ALL of the american public. This president has deemed himself completly irrellivant due to this action
natew1984 4 years ago
I am not a democrat i am an independant. I have a vast ammount of respect for several republican leaders including Gingrich, Hagel, Romney, and McCain. However this presidancy has doomed the republicans to political irrelevancy for at least the next deccade. The party is about to reap what the president has sown, this case is only the cherry on top
natew1984 4 years ago
So Scooter Libby must pay for your dissatisfaction with the Bush Administration? That sounds completely reasonable. You want to make someone pay, so Scooter will do for now. Although I was against the Iraq war, I fully support the current mission and good has come from it. I'm not thrilled with Bush, but the baby-killers the Democrats keep nominating will never get my vote.
Thomistic1 4 years ago
Fully supporting the current mission is an exellent example of flip flopping my friend. It dosent matter that the reason we went there has no basis in fact as long as we change the mission in the middle in order to acheive some sort of moral high ground? is that what im hearing
natew1984 4 years ago
Prove there was no basis in fact for the mission. Prove that Saddam and his sons didn't have rape rooms. Prove they didn't murder hundreds of thousands of their own people.
Thomistic1 4 years ago
Prove they never used chemical weapons on the Kurds. Prove that al-Qa'ida operatives weren't operating in Iraq before the war and that they aren't there now. Prove that Congress, the Soviets, the Germans, and British Intelligence didn't strongly believe Saddam had WMD's (however wrong you think they may have turned out to be).
Thomistic1 4 years ago
I'm tired of hearing people who support 1.5 million abortions a year in the U.S. lecture me about morality in war or any other social justice issue. I care about social justice, but killing the unborn for convenience or to save money is the ultimate injustice. Pro-abortion candidates are no more fit for public office than a candidate who would legalize rape or murdering the poor, elderly and/or disabled, yet morally bankrupt people keep voting for them and keep lecturing me about morality.
Thomistic1 4 years ago
you mean people like the president who personally oversaw the execution of mentally disabled people? Abortion rights are about people who get pregnant from rape, incest, accident, and other socialy unacceptable circumstances. Abortion is not fun for anyone who has to go thru it but making it illeagal will only cause more problems
natew1984 4 years ago
Abortions are about morals. Should a young girl who lives in a small town who got raped be forced to go through 9 months of socil scrutiny just because you say so. Or should it be her choice wheter or not to terminat the pregnancy? whats the moraly correct awnser. The fact is there is a valid argument on each side. And legalized abortion allows people to make up their own minds, instead of the government making it for them. This is a conservative cornerstone
natew1984 4 years ago
Al Qaeda was NOT operating in Iraq before the war and had no relation with saddam its been proven look it up. The United States knew that the intelligence pointing to neuclear weapons in Iraq was wrong. Its been proven look it up. The case was based on Saddam having a neuclear weapon and giving it to terrorists
natew1984 4 years ago
Saddam had not nukes and hatted terrorists. Its been proven look it up
natew1984 4 years ago
You are mistaken. George Tenet's book (which was critical of Bush) shows al-Qa'ida was in Iraq and that Saddam knew it. Look it up. Check the National Review Online. Nobody said Saddam definitely had nukes. They said they wanted to prevent hi from getting them. The projection was that he would have had them in about five to seven years, which would be just about now.
Thomistic1 4 years ago
5-7 years was based on intellegence that he had an active neuclear program and was in the process of producing weapons, which he wasent. Also i wouldnt put too much trust in Tenets book. Ive read it. He has personal reasons to make the case against his mismanagment seem less rellevant
natew1984 4 years ago
AND where exactly were these al quaeda operatives doing their work? There was almost 2/3 of the country that sadaam had next to no control over after the first gulf war. Yea mabe he did know they were there, but he probably couldnt do anything about it
natew1984 4 years ago
You also fail to see. Its more important to save a baby that has no friends of loved ones, over a woman who has a husband and children? This is not a one lane issue my friend, it is very complicated and it is a subject that should be decided upon by the people involve who have intimate understandigs of the circumstances. Not by you or me or the government
natew1984 4 years ago
And you proved my point right there with the word DEVELOPING. Just because a fetus has a heart beat dosent mean its a life yet.
natew1984 4 years ago
The saving lives fantasy is a myth and an excuse. The rape, incest, mother's health hard cases are used as a lame excuse to allow the legal murder of 1.5 million babies a year, and the fact that they're developing doesn't make them not human. Human beings develop. It's part of being human, before and after birth.
Thomistic1 4 years ago
Whether or not abortion is "fun" is immaterial. murder is the unjust killing of an innocent human person. A willful attack on unborn human life, no matter what the motive, direct abortion is always a grave objective evil. Abortion is murder. Society has no obligation to facilitate safe, legal murder. People hurt themselves and/or others through murder, drug use, and all sorts of other evil things. That doesn't mean we need to help them do it safely in a hospital.
Thomistic1 4 years ago
murder is an OPINION of pro lifers on when life accually begins. I fail to see how terminating a pregnancy when the fetus could not live outside of the mother can be deemed murder
natew1984 4 years ago
Also, by your own standards, the death penalty is also state sanctioned murder. IM tired of conservatives who support the death penalty turn arround and call an abortion for the health of the mother murder
natew1984 4 years ago
but youre right "fun" was not the word i should have used
natew1984 4 years ago
The death penalty is not state sanctioned murder. Murder is the unjust killing of an innocent human person. People who receive the death penalty have been convicted as being guilty of a capital crime, had a lengthy appeals process, and are in no way innocent. There has never been concrete evidence of innocence for a single person who has received the death penalty offered.
Thomistic1 4 years ago
Moreover, it has been proven the death penalty saves lives, so society is doubly protected and justice is done when (a person who is guilty, not innocent, like an unborn baby) is executed by the State.
Thomistic1 4 years ago
That last sentance is a very shaky argument. There is no doubt that innocent people have been put to death. There have been death penalty casses that have been overturned before the sentance was carried out. Are you suggesting that these are the only ones? Honestly?
natew1984 4 years ago
That proof is based on some very qustionable statistics that deal in hypotheticals. Dont put your trust in them. And dont get me wrong. I support the death penalty, and i also think that 3rd trimester abortions are moraly reprehensable. However you cannot use blanket arguments when discussing either of these topics
natew1984 4 years ago
Myth and Excuse?!?!?! You my friend are severly misguided
natew1984 4 years ago
I encourage you to do some investigating on that topic. Google planed parrenthood. Youll see
natew1984 4 years ago
Abortions for convience or monatary relief ARE rare exceptions and circumstances
natew1984 4 years ago
Almost half of all women who have abortions in the U.S. have already aborted at least one previous pregnancy, according to a recent report by the research affiliate of Planned Parenthood, the Alan Guttmacher Institute.
Thomistic1 4 years ago
In the study entitled Repeat Abortion in the United States, released this month, researchers found that 48.2 percent of women who had abortions between 2000-2001 were obtaining repeat abortions. That included 29 percent who had one previous abortion, 12 percent who had two previous abortions, and 7 percent who were aborting their fourth or more pregnancy.
Thomistic1 4 years ago
A majority of women aged 25 or older who had abortions had one or more previous abortions. Women having two or more abortions were almost twice as likely to be aged 30 or older, researchers found. Women having repeat abortions were somewhat more likely to be married, cohabiting, or to have been married in the past, than women having their first abortion.
Thomistic1 4 years ago
Unborn babies are always innocent. whether or not they are human to your satisfaction, they are human from a biological perspective. They aren't just seeds or chromosomes. They have unique, human DNA. They are living and growing. You can't just kill them for convenience or to save money for individuals or society. You can't kill them to avoid letting people know you had sex.
Thomistic1 4 years ago
And even if you did manage to outlaw the death penalty you would still have Neo Cons calling for frying up murderes and rapists. And heres something for you to chew on. Spending your life in prison cost the tax payers less, and is much more unpleasant than being executed
natew1984 4 years ago
I'm all for locking people up and building more and more prisons, but they can't be let out.
Thomistic1 4 years ago
yea That means that over 750,000 women have abortions every year for legitimat circumstances, and less somewhere arround 500,000 women have multiple abortions. Do the math buddie, youd be hurting more than helping
natew1984 4 years ago
When a woman becomes pregnant as the result of rape (which happens less than 1 percent of the time), abortion will not take away the trauma, the nightmares, the pain-but it may add to them.
Thomistic1 4 years ago
if i were raped i would not want that baby growing inside of me. IT IS NOW AND ALWAYS SHOULD BE A PERSONAL CHOICE
natew1984 4 years ago
So the innocent, unborn baby has to die because you don't like how it came into existence? Lots of people living today were conceived through rape. It's rare to get pregnant from rape, but it has happened and people do have the babies. Your position is that those lives are disposable.
Thomistic1 4 years ago
My position is that it is a decision for the woman carying the babie whether or not she is willing, able, and ready to go through a pregnancy and child birth.
natew1984 4 years ago
Dont patronize me about religion either. I have been nothing but civil durring this conversation, and up untill right now had respect for your ability to argue. I am right with god, i know that i will be in heaven, and when i see you there, we will both be able to say that we were right
natew1984 4 years ago
Also, its not about whether or not I dislike how it came into existance, it about what the mother feels. IT IS NOT MINE NOR YOUR DECISION TO MAKE IT IS HERS
natew1984 4 years ago
Im not saying its not human, i do however believe that its not a life until it can live on its own outside of the womb. A chicken isnt a chicken untill it hatches, same with humans, and with all life
natew1984 4 years ago
Also that argument about not killing whats human comes right back to the DP the commandment says thou shalt not kill, theres no subtext saying "unless that person has also killed"
natew1984 4 years ago
We can both be right my friend you are not opening your eyes widely enough. Aborting a 3rd tirmester baby just because you want to is wrong, but so is the government saying that the babies life is more important than the mothers. This is why it must be a choice, one for the mother to take, about the best action for herself, and for her family
natew1984 4 years ago
if she makes the wrong choice then it is for her to live with. And you know exactly what i mean when i say that a first trimester fetus cannot live outside the womb, stop splitting hairs
natew1984 4 years ago
you know exactly what i mean when i say that a first trimester fetus cannot live outside the womb, stop splitting hairs
natew1984 4 years ago
It doesn't matter that it can't survive outside the womb. That doesn't prove it's not a human life. You need to show how it does.
Thomistic1 4 years ago
Babies can't survive outside the womb without help either. Your standard isn't based on an objective standard of what makes someone human. Lots of people who can't survive on their own are no less human for that fact.
Thomistic1 4 years ago
To support killing what you admit may be human is to support the possibility of murdering someone (and I would say it's a reality, not a possibility, as would many doctors and scientists). Yu want the death penalty outlawed on the chance of an innocent person being put to death, which is a beautiful and noble instinct. I encourage that. Apply that same conviction to the unborn.
Thomistic1 4 years ago
Why would one lie be more important? All human life is important. All human life is sacred. We are here but a short time and after this, eternity. No earthly trial is worth the eternal loss of God and heaven. Why not have faith in God instead of playing God and deciding one life is more valuable?
Thomistic1 4 years ago
I meant to type "why would one life be more important?"
Thomistic1 4 years ago
You are saying that it is up to the government to decide which is more valuable, and i say it is up to the individual, that is what the country was founded upon. In a democracy, all citizens are responsible for a law saying one life is more important, but if the law says that it is up to the individual then it is only them who is responsible
natew1984 4 years ago
i dont need to prove that its not a life because you cant prove that it is, saying that it has a heart beat and that it has a brain does not mean that it has been blessed with a soul
natew1984 4 years ago
I believe that there are legitimat reasons for terminating a pregnacy, i also believe that they happen much more often than you do. I believe that god gave us freedom of thought for a reason, and i believe that most women who decide to have an abortion do not make the decision lightly, and i dont want my government saying that it is a choice that they are not allowed to make
natew1984 4 years ago
I have to go for today friend, I have enjoyed the debate, and wish you well, maybe tomorrow we can get back to Libby
natew1984 4 years ago
The reason God made us free is because love isn't real unless its a free choice. Moreover, only free choices merit a reward. God made us free so we could choose the good, not so we could do as we please.
Thomistic1 4 years ago
Maybe God made you to explain his intentions on YouTube. Oh wait, you're just another douchebag who says things that sound cute but mean nothing...my miistake
StaySaneAmerica 4 years ago
Why do liberals always seem to resort to calling me names when I express my opinion? It's interesting, because liberals often whine about hate speech, or name calling from people like Ann Coulter (who at least does it with a sense of humor), but those same liberals generally resort to hate speech, ad hominem attacks, poisoning the well, and demonizing anyone who disagrees with the in order to silence all opposition.
Thomistic1 4 years ago
oh for fucks sake I AM NOT A FUCKING LIBERAL. every time i disagree with christian fundamentalists or ignorant rednecks on this website i get called a liberal. because i disagree with you? i'm a former GOP who's wondering where the fuck his party went. I would like to add, that i'm confident if you learned about the presidency of clinton in depth (not just the starr report?) you would find he was the best we've had since lincoln
StaySaneAmerica 4 years ago
I'm sorry for not being able to see your obvious conservative credentials. The way you mock people from Southern states and conservative Christians, as well as your claim that Bill Clinton was a great President should have signaled your true conservatism. By the way, your foul language isn't the best way to demonstrate that you are intelligent, rational, or civil.
Thomistic1 4 years ago
lets not forget that republicans played dirty pollitics for the entire clinton presidency over whitewater and found absolutly nothing to it. Bush probably dosent have much to hide because he has worked relentlessly to gain plausable deniabilty
natew1984 4 years ago
Dick Cheny, Scooter Libby, Alberto Gonzolaz, Paul Wolfawitz, and many others in the administration do have lots to hide though. Which is why gonzo cant remember anything when hes under oath and contradicts himself, its why cheney says hes not a part of the executive branch which is ludicris, its why Powell, the most respected person the administration has ever had in it resigned, its why blair resigned,
natew1984 4 years ago
Gonzales is embarrassing and I am unhappy with him as attorney general (he's also reportedly pro-abortion), but Gonzales had every right to fire those attorneys. They serve at the pleasure of the President. Clinton fired 93 U.S. attorneys and the media didn't so much as bat an eyelash,
Thomistic1 4 years ago
The broadcast network evening newscasts, which didn't care in 1993 about the Clinton administration's decision to ask for the resignation of all 93 U.S. attorneys, went apoplectic over the "controversy," (largely fueled by the media and Democrats, which is actually pretty much saying the same thing) over the Bush administration for replacing eight U.S. attorneys in late 2006.
Thomistic1 4 years ago
Clinton had every right to fire those 93 attorneys and bush had every right to fire the eight attorneys he fired (through Gonzales).
Thomistic1 4 years ago
Actually, Cheney's argument is an interesting legal tactic. He is, technically, under the U.S. Constitution, the President of the Senate, which is not part of the Executive Branch, but rather, the Legislative Branch. He has no Presidential powers under the Constitution (unless the President dies or is incapacitated). Under the Constitution, the Executive branch is restricted to the U.S. President.
Thomistic1 4 years ago
There wasn't "nothing" to Whitewater. It was actually quite complicated, which is why most people don't know all the ins and outs of the case. The McDougals were partners with Bill Clinton and Hillary Rodham Clinton in the failed Whitewater real estate venture in the 1980s, and were convicted along with then-Gov. Jim Guy Tucker (D) in obtaining millions in illegal loans, including a $300,000 federally backed loan for Susan McDougal, through a small business investment firm owned by David Hale.
Thomistic1 4 years ago
Susan McDougal was convicted on May 28, 1996, and spent time in prison for four counts of fraud and conspiracy relating to the Whitewater scandal. She also spent 18 months in prison including 7 weeks in solitary confinement for civil contempt of court.
Thomistic1 4 years ago
U.S. District Court Judge Susan Webber Wright sentenced McDougal after she refused to answer three questions from Whitewater prosecutors before the grand jury empaneled by Independent Counsel Kenneth Starr to investigate the Whitewater deals. These questions included whether President Bill Clinton lied in his testimony during her Whitewater trial, particularly when he denied any knowledge of an illegal $300,000 loan.
Thomistic1 4 years ago
During that trial, the government's star witness, Arkansas banker and former municipal judge David Hale, claimed that then-Governor Bill Clinton had discussed an illegal $300,000 loan with himself and McDougal.
Thomistic1 4 years ago
McDougal received a full Presidential pardon from outgoing President Bill Clinton in the final hours of his presidency in 2001, along with Roger Clinton, Jr. (half-brother of President Bill Clinton), Marc Rich (because his wife gave the Clintons millions) and a number of other questionable people, but the Democrats were never concerned about that. They are only concerned about the commutation (not pardon) given to Scooter Libby.
Thomistic1 4 years ago
Article 2 Section 1: The executive power sheall be vested in a President of the United States. He shall hold his office durring the term of four years, and, TOGETHER WITH THE VICE PRESIDENT, be elected as follows. Just because the veep is "ALSO" president of the senate does not make him NOT a part of the executive branch
natew1984 4 years ago
The Constitution says he is to be elected together with the President. It does not say he is co-President, which is what he would need to be if he were definitely part of the Executive Branch. I suspect you will be disappointed with the legal result of the Vice-President's argument, because I think he's probably technically right and the Supreme Court will concede that he is.
Thomistic1 4 years ago
He's not the President, and the President is the Executive Branch. The fact that he's President of the Senate makes him part of the Legislative Branch, though, because he has a tie breaking vote.
Thomistic1 4 years ago
But you are absoulutly right about the supreme court, b/c the "strict constructionists" that bush put on the bench will be eager to pay him and his administration back because he was the only guy who could have gotten their activist, backwards asses confirmed
natew1984 4 years ago
it is not legal to fire prosecutors for politcal reasons, which is what he was being asked about, and it can be proven that he was lying about several key parts of his testemony especially the sections relating to the deputy attorny general
natew1984 4 years ago
saying that you did not have sexual "realtions" isnt entirely truful either. Youre setting a double standard of the same sort that you a recently railed against on this thread
natew1984 4 years ago
id be careful before you start calling clinton godless. or i might be forced to start calling out republican leaders who have done MUCH more moraly reprehensible hypocritical godless deeds
natew1984 4 years ago
If a Republican is Godless, I want you to call them Godless. I don't defend evil.
Thomistic1 4 years ago
Clinton is a sleazy, lying, baby-killer. I can't think of a single Republican who has done worse, and if you even try to say the Bush and the war, you deserve to be roundly mocked. 1.5 million innocent unborn babies a year is way more than have been killed in the war. Clinton also vetoed a ban on partial birth abortions (which makes him Godless monster).
Thomistic1 4 years ago
Clinton sexually harasses women, and he is a lying, adulterous con artist. The media sugar coats it, but even they admit he lies, and his adultery is common knowledge.
Thomistic1 4 years ago
Lets talk about the bastion of the christian right Tom DeLay shall we. That moraly upright beacon of christian political ambition. The staunch opposer of a womans right to choose. That is unless were talking about the US commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, or Saipan.
natew1984 4 years ago
Saipan is a place where DeLay also opposes a womans right to choose, only in this case he opposes a womans right NOT to choose an abortion. He opposes it because the buisnesses in Saipan exploit asian workes into making cheap clothing for wall-mart and abercrombie and fitch, and strangly enough banna republic also oppose it
natew1984 4 years ago
Why do the business force women to have abortions you might ask? well because a woman with a child cant work as hard which means they cant make as much money which means DeLay dosent get as much kick backs for making sure the economic standard in the commonwealth is upheld in the US government.
natew1984 4 years ago
He opposes a womans right to choose in the states, and in the commonwealth, i guess hes consistant, but also Morraly bankrupt, sleazy, a harraser of women, a "womanizer" if you will and almost certainly GODLESS. The only difference between him and liberals? The "Christian" right votes for DeLay
natew1984 4 years ago
Dont even begin to try to tell me that DeLay is a good man, and dont try to fool me that you dont like him. If you would like more examples of Godlessness in leaders who YOU voted for then by all means, please continue to make the argument that Clinton is godless because he dosnt expliot the poor and downtrodden and refuses to impose his religious beliefs on others through the force of law
natew1984 4 years ago
I don't know much about Tom Delay. I have no particular attachment to him. If he supports abortion (as you have said) then I can't respect his judgment. People who support baby-killing have a moral blind spot. They aren't fit for public office.
Thomistic1 4 years ago
You have a detachment from reality if you believe what you say, and also a detachment from god. Sins are sins period no sin is greater than another in the eyes of god and all humans are capable of forgiveness. I fyou are looking for a candidate without sin then you should never cast a vote bc no such candidate exists
natew1984 4 years ago
You made no sense with the sexual relations thing. I agree that it wasn't truthful for Clinton to say that. How have I set a double standard?
Thomistic1 4 years ago
It is 100% legal to fire them for political reasons. they serve at the pleasure of the President. Bush and Gonzales don't want to say that, because they didn't want to be that blunt and calloused, because it looks bad politically (which is why they're in this mess, because they should have just said, yes, we caned them for political reasons, which, truth be told is why most people are fired form any job).
Thomistic1 4 years ago
Also, Merkel does not really care for the current administration, and Putin "the corrupt" as you so aptly put it is VERY GOOD BUDDIES with our own corrupt leader
natew1984 4 years ago
And while youre talking about purjuring yourself dont forget to talk about gonzolaz who also pirjured himslef. It is not the american peoples fault that the current leadership in the house and senate have no backbone with which to persue it
natew1984 4 years ago
Also McDougal accually spent time in PRISON for her white collar crime. Libby is not going to be punished at ALL. Im not so much concerned with a president pardoning a white collar offense for a friend as i am with a president pardoning a political apointee being found GUILTY of lying under oath about the circumstances which lead to the leak of a CIA operative
natew1984 4 years ago
McDougal did her time, yes, and she did more time covering up the Clinton's criminal activity (which was why she was rewarded with a full pardon). President Clinton pardoned his partner in crime. That is an abuse of power.
Thomistic1 4 years ago
And why do people keep fantasizing that leaking Plame's name was (a) a crime; it wasn't - Libby wasn't even charged with it; and (b) that Libby leaked her name first. The media has made it clear, Richard Armitage leaked her name to the press first. He blew her cover, not Libby. Finally, you keep ignoring the fact that Clinton clearly did everything you think Libby did, and worse, but you don't care about that, which is totally hypocritical.
Thomistic1 4 years ago
I'm not sure Gonzales perjured himself, at least not in a provable way. Saying you don't recall may not be entirely truthful, but there's no way to prove it. Moreover, I'm against accusing someone of perjury when the matter over which they are being interrogated wasn't a crime. It was perfectly legal to fire those attorneys, as I have already said.
Thomistic1 4 years ago
And before you say Clinton's actions weren't criminal, yes they were. Clinton perjured himself when the questioning was relevant. It was relevant to the Paula Jones case to establish a pattern of sexual misconduct. Clinton lied, under oath (and truth be told, he lied about not doing what he did to Paula Jones, which liberals ignore).
Thomistic1 4 years ago
Moreover, adultery is vile. Only Godless dirtbuckets defend adultery as no big deal. It actually is a crime in some states, and Clinton's sex with Lewinski also violated Federal Law because it's legally sexual harassment, even with Lewinski's consent.
Thomistic1 4 years ago
You are wrong about Merkel and Putin. Merkel isn't like Tony Blair, but she's not anti-Bush. Putin is not friends with Bush. They try to make nice, but neither trusts the other and Putin has said things about Bush that make it clear he is not a friend, as you would have people believe. Do your homework.
Thomistic1 4 years ago
Do youre own. Saying the veep is not part of the executive becaues hes president of the senate is like saying chrystler isnt part of general motors, or micky mouse isnt part of disney. its a ludicris argument.
natew1984 4 years ago
its why germany, spain, and italy all voted in guys that are against what our guys are trying to do. Our president and his administration are more corrupt that anyone this country has ever seen and EVERYONE knows it
natew1984 4 years ago
I'm sorry you are so deluded, but let me bring you back to reality. The liberals in France lost. Nicholas Sarkozy won and he's pledged to work with the U.S., unlike Jaques Chirac. Angela Merkel beat out her anti-American, anti-Bush opponent and she is friendly with the Bush Administration.
Thomistic1 4 years ago
Terrorists manipulated the Spanish election with the Madrid train bombing, which did cause José Luis Rodríguez Zapatero, an anti-American, anti-Israel, socialist (whose politics you seem to favor) to win. Vladimir Putin is as corrupt as he's always been. James Gordon Brown was appointed Prime Minister in Great Britain and was not elected to his position.
Thomistic1 4 years ago
Saying it only might have a soul doesn't make killing an innocent unborn baby a morally justifiable choice. You must be certain you aren't taking a human life, otherwise you are willing to risk murder.
Thomistic1 4 years ago
uh hello, we've killed hundreds of thousands of innocents as a nation without thinking twice about it. Hiroshima, Nagasaki, and soon, Lake Iraq.
StaySaneAmerica 4 years ago
i think the moral dillema is that your morals aren't necessarily those of others, and you shouldn't force a woman to carry a child because it upsets you that the child will otherwise die. Also abortions, when illegal, occur anyhow and it is very dangerous to the woman. So there's more than 1 perspective
StaySaneAmerica 4 years ago
I think your morality lecture is a bit dodgy. Nobody "forces" a woman to carry a child. Unless you want to blame nature, or God. If women don't want children, the best way to avoid that is to not have sex. I'm not against abortion because it upsets me. I'm against abortion because it is the murder of innocent, unborn babies for the sake of convenience.
Thomistic1 4 years ago
Laws must be based on truth and they must be just. You can't legalize rape and make rape moral or good by an act of law. Freedom is a good thing, but we aren't free to do whatever we want or use our bodies however we please. There are laws against certain drug use, prostitution, jaywalking, not paying taxes, murder, rape, robbery, theft, marrying your brother or sister or father or mother, having sex with minors (even with their consent), public nudity, etc.
Thomistic1 4 years ago
Who said anything about religion? I make no judgment about where you are with God. That is between you and the Thrice Holy God. I will say that God does not support abortion, though. And we can't both be right. If I am right, then you have to be wrong. Abortion can't be both murder and a morally upright personal choice.
Thomistic1 4 years ago
You can't prove the life isn't human. There is a doubt in your own mind (if you're honest). You can't kill what may be human. Just as a hunter can't shoot unless he knows there aren't people in the area he's aiming and must wait if there is a doubt (or be guilty of willing to kill people by chance) so it is with abortion.
Thomistic1 4 years ago
There are never legitimate reasons for murdering an innocent, developing, unborn baby. You have a serious moral blind spot, and you really can't lecture people about morality while taking the positions you hold. You spout all the right propaganda you've been spoon-fed, but show very little critical thinking when it comes to abortion.
Thomistic1 4 years ago
as do you
natew1984 4 years ago
I'm sorry you support baby-killing. One day you will regret that. Hopefully, it won't be too late.
Thomistic1 4 years ago
There's an expression: hard cases make bad law. You don't make laws based on rare exceptions or circumstances, whether with abortion or the death penalty. I would gladly outlaw the death penalty if we could guarantee people would be locked up for life and bleeding heart liberals wouldn't campaign for the release of murderers, especially if those same bleeding hearts would stop saying killing babies is a civil right.
Thomistic1 4 years ago
That's why you're morally blind: because you fail to see. Check out websites on developing human life in the womb. Your argument that a girl should be able to murder her unborn baby so she won't have to worry about people possibly thinking she's a whore is monstrous. So it's better to murder a developing baby than feel uncomfortable or ashamed?
Thomistic1 4 years ago
Bottom Line 4: This administration used existing laws to send Jonathan C. Randal to jail for 1 year followed by 3 years of probation and a $2000 fine for leaking NONclassified infromation to journalists.
natew1984 4 years ago
The names of covert CIA operatives is CLASSIFIED information and leaking that information is ILLEAGAL! Lying or missleading a federal prossecutor who is investigating this illeagal activity is also ILLEAGAL! No one is going to jail for it. Bottom Line 5: NEO CONS set double standards not liberals!
natew1984 4 years ago
Did the Marine you mentioned perjure himself during the investigation of a non-crime? In that Marine's case, did the investigation create the only crime that came out of that investigation? Was the Marine being interrogated vigorously after the prosecutor knew another man was the guilty party, but set up so as to be trapped in the appearance of a lie?
Thomistic1 4 years ago
Scared of what? Clinton perjured himself and obstructed justice and has been (in my opinion) credibly accused of sexual harassment by several women and rape by one woman. Now Clinton's making millions. Even if Bush and Cheney were doing something wrong, they don't have much to fear from Scooter Libby. Besides, he's their friend. They're trying to help him. They feel bad that he was set up and is winding up the fall guy for a non-crime.
Thomistic1 4 years ago
Also, i think, based on your allegations, that it was wise of Bush to not pardon Libby from the get-go. I can only imagine the conspiracy theories you'd be spinning if that had happened. This way people get to hear the facts. Bush allowed the investigation. He invited it. His justice department authorized it. If he really had all these evil secrets, I don't think he'd have done all that.
Thomistic1 4 years ago
Bush allowed a full scale investigation of a non-crime to take place (talk about a waste of money) so the media and liberals and any other skeptics can't claim he's hiding things, and yet you still claim he's hiding things.
Thomistic1 4 years ago
I think that is prejudiced speculation. What could he know about Bush or Cheney? Remember, it was never a crime to tell people about Valerie Plame. Even if Scooter squealed like a stuck pig and said Bush and Cheney told every reporter in Washington, there would be no crime. Fitzgerald knew Dick Armitage was the original leak before questioning Libby and Armitage can't be charged. So what would Libby be hiding?
Thomistic1 4 years ago
And speaking of Armitage, since Fitgerald knew Armitage wa the source of the leak, why was he grilling Libby? It was a trap. He set Libby up. Fitzgerald essentially created the opportunity for Libby to commit a crime, thereby creating a crime through his investigation of a non-criminal act. What's up with that?
Thomistic1 4 years ago
I think Bush wants Scooter to get the chance to exonerate himself. I think he didn't pardon him because (I think) even with a pardon, Scooter could still be disbarred. I think they didn't think he'd be convicted, and I think they were hoping he could continue his appeals before serving jail time.
Thomistic1 4 years ago
No problem, John. I can admit loads of things Republicans did wrong. Mark Foley did lots of things that were wrong. So did Duke Cunningham. Let's see, Nixon did some things that were wrong. I frequently think G.W. Bush is wrong on domestic policy and spending. So I can admit when Republicans are wrong.
Thomistic1 4 years ago
I just don't see how it's been proven Scooter lied. I can honestly believe it's reasonable to believe he was confused about the dates he had the perfectly legal conversations he was being grilled about.
Thomistic1 4 years ago
Prove that Libby did something wrong. What is it you think he did? It was not a crime to tell people about Valerie Plame. So what was Libby's crime? He told Fitzgerald the wrong date on which he had a conversation. A high crime indeed!
Thomistic1 4 years ago