Don Vito Corleone
Elite
Originally posted by: Condor
He did nothing that the Democrats didn't teach him!
:roll: What do you call a pointless non sequitur that also happens to be a troll? I shall call it a Condor Dropping.
Originally posted by: Condor
He did nothing that the Democrats didn't teach him!
Originally posted by: DonVito
Originally posted by: Condor
He did nothing that the Democrats didn't teach him!
:roll: What do you call a pointless non sequitur that also happens to be a troll? I shall call it a Condor Dropping.
Originally posted by: Condor
He did nothing that the Democrats didn't teach him!
Originally posted by: zendari
Originally posted by: Condor
He did nothing that the Democrats didn't teach him!
Definitely Clinton's protege and trying to outscandal him.
Originally posted by: JustAnAverageGuy
Logical Fallacy; Ad Hominem
However unlikely the following scenario may be, assume it is true.
Bush Urges Investigation of Congressional Corruption
Tuesday, October 4, 2005; Posted: 12:15 p.m. EDT (16:15 GMT)
WASHINGTON D.C. (AP) -- President Bush is taking fire from House Republicans after announcing Monday that he fully intended to investigate recent accusations that former House Majority Leader, Tom DeLay, had participated in a financial scandal. Bush: "If there were crimes commited, they will be persecuted to the full extend of the law. "
Would you still defend DeLay?
No? Then you're attacking the accuser and not his claim. That is NOT a valid arguement.
Originally posted by: zendari
Originally posted by: Condor
He did nothing that the Democrats didn't teach him!
Definitely Clinton's protege and trying to outscandal him.
Originally posted by: zendari
Originally posted by: Condor
He did nothing that the Democrats didn't teach him!
Definitely Clinton's protege and trying to outscandal him.
Do some more research on Earle. You'll find he attacks his political rivals whether they are Republican or Democrat. Just because he gives the appearance of being non-partisan does not imply this is not politically motivated. If it weren't politically moivated, he wouldn't have worked for 3 years trying to find something on Delay, only to come up with this lame charge to pin on him. Delay is such a schmuck and a conspiracy charge is the best he could do?Originally posted by: Uhtrinity
Funny how the GOP immediatly start attacking the prosecutor saying it is partisan politics.
Just Google Ronnie Earle.
One small article on his record Prosecution record
quote:
'over the scope of Earle's 28-year career, he's prosecuted 16 elected officials ? 12 of whom were Democrats. If this is a DA with a partisan agenda, he has a funny way of showing it.'
Doesn't sound partisan to me, unless of course he wants to bring down Texas Democrats. Hold final judgement until this is finished. In counter I challenge someone to dig up Kenneth Starr's prosecution record.
Originally posted by: Taggart
Of course it's politically motivated. The Dems want to take out the Hammer. All of these stupid scandals are politically motivated, on both sides.
Originally posted by: dirtboy
Of course it is politically motivated. The left is deperate. You can tell this by how many liberal sheep the DNC sends to this forum on a daily basis!
Originally posted by: rickn
Originally posted by: dirtboy
Of course it is politically motivated. The left is deperate. You can tell this by how many liberal sheep the DNC sends to this forum on a daily basis!
nothing is more desperate than trying to impeach a president over some extra-marital blow jobs.
Originally posted by: dirtboy
Of course it is politically motivated. The left is deperate. You can tell this by how many liberal sheep the DNC sends to this forum on a daily basis!
Nonsense. It was pure partisan hatred coupled with a heaping dose of bruised ego after he beat their incumbent. The BJ, the lies, the "obstruction of justice", and everything else were all excuses.Originally posted by: Taggart
It wasn't the BJ, it was the obstruction of justice after the BJ! In hindsight the whole thing was silly, but don't throw out misinformation like that.Originally posted by: rickn
nothing is more desperate than trying to impeach a president over some extra-marital blow jobs.Originally posted by: dirtboy
Of course it is politically motivated. The left is deperate. You can tell this by how many liberal sheep the DNC sends to this forum on a daily basis!
Originally posted by: umbrella39
Originally posted by: dirtboy
Of course it is politically motivated. The left is deperate. You can tell this by how many liberal sheep the DNC sends to this forum on a daily basis!
The right is more desparate than the left has ever been in recent history. And it is funny as hell! :thumbsup: Liberalism has and will continue to be around forever. Neoconervativs had their few years in the sun and will go back underground like the cicadas they are for 17 or so years only to pop their ugly little heads back out. Liberalism will be there, again, waiting with mallots in hand like real-life a whack-a-mole game, to lay the smack back down when they do. Your kind shrills too loudly to be taken seriously and are nothing more than an annoying noise. :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:
If you're saying, Nixon's crimes were politically motivated, you're right. If you think prosecuting him for his crimes were strictly politically motivated, you need to research what happened.Originally posted by: Strk
Watergate was politically motivated too!
Originally posted by: Bowfinger
Nonsense. It was pure partisan hatred coupled with a heaping dose of bruised ego after he beat their incumbent. The BJ, the lies, the "obstruction of justice", and everything else were all excuses.
Yeah, what a trouncing! Only one half of one million more Americans voted for Gore than voted for Bush.Originally posted by: zendari
Are you talking about Bush trouncing Albert Gore?
Originally posted by: Perknose
Yeah, what a trouncing! Only one half of one million more Americans voted for Gore than voted for Bush.Originally posted by: zendari
Are you talking about Bush trouncing Albert Gore?
There hasn't been a "trouncing" like that since Dewey defeated Truman!
It's just the "faithful" under attack again.Originally posted by: totalcommand
LMAO!!! He said "persecuted"? hahhaOriginally posted by: JustAnAverageGuy
Logical Fallacy; Ad Hominem
However unlikely the following scenario may be, assume it is true.
Would you still defend DeLay?Bush Urges Investigation of Congressional Corruption
Tuesday, October 4, 2005; Posted: 12:15 p.m. EDT (16:15 GMT)
WASHINGTON D.C. (AP) -- President Bush is taking fire from House Republicans after announcing Monday that he fully intended to investigate recent accusations that former House Majority Leader, Tom DeLay, had participated in a financial scandal. Bush: "If there were crimes commited, they will be persecuted to the full extend of the law. "
No? Then you're attacking the accuser and not his claim. That is NOT a valid arguement.