[spacefreak]

Isn't amazing that all those on the left who were outraged at Jack Abramoff are tellingly silent over much larger, recently-disclosed financing schemes?

The Hsu campaign financing scandal gets more disturbing with each new revelation, and we have George Soros funding and deceiving citizens into believing that (1) the NASA whistleblower was guided by his soul, and (2) that pro-illegal immigration rallies were a result of grass roots movements.

Not so. The NASA whistleblower got $720,000 from Soros, while millions were spent by Soros to fund the pro-illegal immigration rallies. And illegal immigrant activist groups are on the Soros payroll, too.

http://ibdeditorial.com/IBDArticles....75526219598836

[Cold Warrior]

No joke. This is getting quiet treatment in the press.

[subego]

Anyone have a more level-headed source on the Soros thing?

"Meanwhile, OSI cash backed terrorist-friendly court rulings, too.

Do people know last year's Supreme Court ruling abolishing special military commissions for terrorists at Guantanamo was a Soros project?"

Can you believe it? That Soros actually assisted the Supreme Court to overturn something that was unconstitutional. OMFG! He's clearly a danger to society.

As for Hsu. I find that to be a yawner. Maybe if he wore a Boris Badinov hat and had sad teddy bear eyes. And yes, I know the hat was a religious thing, but it was still a Boris Badinov hat and thus was hilariously funny.

Seriously. The watery orbs and the hat were about as far as I cared.

[Cold Warrior]

OMG non-citizen, non-resident terrorists need the rights of US citizens?!

Uh, no.

[tie]

Isn't amazing that those on the right who were tellingly silent about the Abramoff scandal are still tellingly silent about every other scandal to hit the White House?

E.g.,
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/19/wa...inspector.html

A top House Democrat began an inquiry on Tuesday into accusations that the State Department’s inspector general repeatedly interfered with investigations into fraud and abuse in Iraq and Afghanistan, including security defects at the new United States Embassy in Baghdad.
...
Last year, when Republicans still controlled Congress, they tried to do away with the Office of the Special Inspector General for Iraq Reconstruction, which had uncovered numerous construction abuses and contract violations.
...
One accusation against Mr. Krongard is that he interfered with an investigation of Kenneth Y. Tomlinson, at the time the head of Voice of America and a close associate of Karl Rove, President Bush’s former political adviser. Mr. Krongard was accused of passing information about the inquiry to Mr. Tomlinson.

Yawn.

[subego]

Originally Posted by Cold Warrior 

OMG non-citizen, non-resident terrorists need the rights of US citizens?!

Uh, no.

With habeas corpus, yes.

It's an all or nothing proposition. If you withdraw it for a certain class of people, everyone loses their protection because there is no check upon who determines that class.

This is an artifact of the way our system was designed. Habeas corpus is the fundamental counterbalance to unlawful detention. You can't just diddle with it without breaking (literally) everything else that follows.

That being said, I'm not against the concept of wanting to detain these people. I'm not a legal expert, but I imagine there may be cleverer ways to accomplish this beyond whaling on the Constitution with a meat tenderizer.

[Cold Warrior]

Non-citizens snatched off of foreign battlefields have no civilian habeas corpus rights in the United States.

[subego]

Originally Posted by Cold Warrior 

Non-citizens snatched off of foreign battlefields have no civilian habeas corpus rights in the United States.

Because?

[Weyland-Yutani]

Originally Posted by subego 

Because?

Because we say so™

[peeb]

Originally Posted by Cold Warrior 

Non-citizens snatched off of foreign battlefields have no civilian habeas corpus rights in the United States.

Yes, they do. I thought you were still in hiding after your smackdown yesterday - need more? The constitution distinguishes between the rights it grants to citizens, and the inalienable rights of all people, one of which is hc. Nobody can be held (even if the people holding them claim they were 'snatched off a battlefield') without having the right to challenge the basis of their detention. That's not just a constitutional right, it's a human right.

[Cold Warrior]

they get it in military court.

[Cold Warrior]

Originally Posted by peeb 

I thought you were still in hiding after your smackdown yesterday

If that's what you call me repeatedly exposing your failed logic and lies.

[peeb]

Originally Posted by Cold Warrior 

If that's what you call me repeatedly exposing your failed logic and lies.

So come on, where is it, because I missed the place where you showed me one commentator in print who used the same definition of 'invade' as you. Come on, show us. No? Thought not - go hide again if you've still got nothing.

[peeb]

Originally Posted by Cold Warrior 

they get it in military court.

Erm, no, they don't. It's a fundamental principle of justice that the judiciary is independent. You can't be tried by the same people who hold you.

[Sherman Homan]

It's a fundamental principle of justice that the judiciary is independent. You can't be tried by the same people who hold you.

I don't want this to come across as hostile, please understand, but have you ever been impaneled on a jury?

[peeb]

No, but whatever failing of trial by jury you are wanting to point out, it will not justify military tribunals.

[subego]

Originally Posted by peeb 

No, but whatever failing of trial by jury you are wanting to point out, it will not justify military tribunals.

Actually, CW is right. I clearly needed to do more research (like most times). For the Gitmo detainees, habeas corpus would be granted by a military court. The issue is that the Pentagon wants to try them with a military commission.

Of course, CW can decide if he was right about this accidentally, or was intentionally deceptive by bringing up the rights of U.S. citizens if he full well knew this right was provided by the U.C.M.J. and the Geneva Convention.

[peeb]

Originally Posted by Cold Warrior
If that's what you call me repeatedly exposing your failed logic and lies.

Originally Posted by peeb 

So come on, where is it, because I missed the place where you showed me one commentator in print who used the same definition of 'invade' as you. Come on, show us. No? Thought not - go hide again if you've still got nothing.

Cold Warrior, your cowardice is evident and shamefull. Answer the question, or beg my humble forgiveness and stop dissembling.

[peeb]

Originally Posted by subego 

Actually, CW is right. I clearly needed to do more research (like most times). For the Gitmo detainees, habeas corpus would be granted by a military court. The issue is that the Pentagon wants to try them with a military commission.

Of course, CW can decide if he was right about this accidentally, or was intentionally deceptive by bringing up the rights of U.S. citizens if he full well knew this right was provided by the U.C.M.J. and the Geneva Convention.

No, The Man Who Thinks Iran Invaded Afghanistan is wrong on this too. 'The Pentagon' doesn't want to try them at all - that is why it is vital that Americans stand up for the constitution in the face of this kind of thing.

[subego]

Originally Posted by peeb 

'The Pentagon' doesn't want to try them at all

On 29 June 2006, the Supreme Court handed down its decision[2] in the case "Hamdan v. Rumsfeld" Docket 05-194, with a 5-3 decision for Salim Ahmed Hamdan, effectively declaring that trying Guantanamo Bay detainees under the Guantanamo military commission (known also as Military Tribunal) was illegal under US law and the Geneva Conventions. [emphasis added]

Link.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by spacefreak 

Isn't amazing that all those on the left who were outraged at Jack Abramoff are tellingly silent over much larger, recently-disclosed financing schemes?

Yes. I find it so amazing that i posted a similar thread weeks ago!

http://forums.macnn.com/95/political...cked-to-learn/

More and more it's clear that without the help of their friends in the media, the Clinton's and the far left would likely find it much harder to get anywhere these days with their rank hypocrisy and corruption (well...the Clinton's anyways).

The Clinton administration was pretty much as corrupt as it gets without being removed from office (I guess an impeachment was enough). YET, Hillary Clinton is the current democrat front runner. That exposes the lie that Democrats are anti-corruption or that the media really cares about that sort of stuff. If they did, they'd be asking Hillary time and again why it is that she and her husband seem to be CONSTANTLY involved in illegal big money foreign donations or other unethical schemes to get cash (White House "coffees", selling the Lincoln Bedroom, Monk fund raising events, putting all their political operatives in at the commerce department to reward donors, etc.).

Now...having said that, I don't think that either Clinton are without any merits. I think that Bill could have been one of the best Presidents we ever had if he'd cared a little less about his poll numbers and a little bit more about making some tough choices. That and his total lack of self control. I don't think that there's anything wrong with "triangulation" as he implemented it, and that's one of the reasons his numbers were so high his second term. You just can't rely on it jUST for politics and be afraid to make some of the tough choices which might make your numbers go down.

That, and you've kind of got to NOT be a corrupt sell-out to foreign interests. But I guess that's what the Democrats like. As I've stated before...in the long run, their romance with the Clintons will leave them with broken hearts. If you thought 1994 was bad.....just wait. Hillary doesn't have Bill's personality and isn't half as good a liar as he is. That (and the media's love for him) is the only reason he stayed in office. Hillary....uh. No.

[BadKosh]

It would have been easier to kill them on the battlefield and be done with it.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by tie 

Isn't amazing that those on the right who were tellingly silent about the Abramoff scandal are still tellingly silent about every other scandal to hit the White House?

E.g.,
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/19/wa...inspector.html



Yawn.

Um....for the most part, "those on the right" booted the guys who where involved from office and I don't remember anyone defending them. Especially with "yawns". On the other hand, Hillary Clinton who has been involved with one money scandal after another, on top of all the other unethical things she had her hand in at the White House, is now the Democrat front-runner for President. Kind of sends a mixed message on "the culture of corruption" doesn't it. I think most call it "hypocrisy". Again...Democrats (and the country) would be much better off with Obama, IMO...even if I disagree with him on most issues.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by subego 

Anyone have a more level-headed source on the Soros thing?

level headed?

Originally Posted by Cold Warrior 

If that's what you call me repeatedly exposing your failed logic and lies.

Yes, peed and the facts don't seem to know each other very well. His posting style reminds me of someone else that used to post here but got banned...

[peeb]

So Kevin, I take it you agree with 'The Man Who Thinks Iran Invaded Afghanistan' (Cold Warrior) that Iran invaded Afghanistan?

[subego]

Originally Posted by Kevin 

level headed?

Did I make a funny, or a stupid?

Or both?

[stupendousman]

Still no explanation on how the Democrats can make the Clinton's the front runners, and STILL be the anti-corruption party?

If Hilary is their party's nominee...that leg will be effectively knocked from under them. They WILL be the party that endorses corruption and a lack of ethics.

[peeb]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

If Hilary is their party's nominee...that leg will be effectively knocked from under them. They WILL be the party that endorses corruption and a lack of ethics.

Erm? How do yo figure that out?

[Cold Warrior]

Originally Posted by peeb 

Erm? How do yo figure that out?

Because the Clintons are corrupt.

[Weyland-Yutani]

Originally Posted by Cold Warrior 

Because the Clintons are corrupt.

Yes, we own the Clintons. We own the Bush family as well. The Weyland-Yutani corporation takes no chances.

[peeb]

Originally Posted by Cold Warrior 

Because the Clintons are corrupt.

Are you going to back that up with any facts? Or is this another "Iran invaded Afghanistan"?

[Cold Warrior]

Originally Posted by peeb 

Iran invaded Afghanistan

At last, you admit the truth. Let it wash over you like a cleansing footbath.

[peeb]

Originally Posted by Cold Warrior 

At last, you admit the truth. Let it wash over you like a cleansing footbath.

You know, that's sort of like saying "I know you are" in the schoolyard. It makes you look stupider. Are you admitting that you waded unwisely out of your depth on an issue you knew nothing about, or still too embarrassed to admit it? Enquiring minds want to know?

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by Cold Warrior 

Because the Clintons are corrupt.

News flash: politicians, Left and Right, are corrupt.

[Cold Warrior]

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak 

News flash: politicians, Left and Right, are corrupt.

yes they are.

[peeb]

Cold Warrior - at the risk of discovering that you are using the word 'corrupt' in your own personal sense of 'fine upstanding citizens', are you going to justify that statement ('the Clintons are corrupt'), or is it more of your unsubstantiated nonsense?

[Cold Warrior]

I shall call it 'unsubstantiated nonsense,' in the hope that your bizzaro world translates it into 'they are corrupt, and many other politicians with them, and it's true.'

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak 

News flash: politicians, Left and Right, are corrupt.

True. Greed and corruption is common. It's part of human nature.

What matters is that if we see that our fellow man engaging in corruption, we hold them accountable. That is, unless they are the Clinton's apparently.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by peeb 

Are you going to back that up with any facts? Or is this another "Iran invaded Afghanistan"?

Have you not read this thread and the links from it?

[tie]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

Um....for the most part, "those on the right" booted the guys who where involved from office and I don't remember anyone defending them. Especially with "yawns".

I don't agree with this. I remember a lot of defenders here for DeLay.

For example, spacefreak himself, who started this thread, defended DeLay.

Originally Posted by stupendousman

I think most call it "hypocrisy."

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by tie 

I don't agree with this. I remember a lot of defenders here for DeLay.

What IS Delay doing these days? Is he the front runner for some kind of Republican leadership position?

Thanks for helping me make my point!

[peeb]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

Have you not read this thread and the links from it?

I've read it, and found no evidence of corruption.

[peeb]

Originally Posted by Cold Warrior 

I shall call it 'unsubstantiated nonsense,' in the hope that your bizzaro world translates...

I'm glad that it's me and literally everyone else who lives in 'bizzaro world', and you that live in your own island of normality. Must get lonely there, though, no?

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by peeb 

I've read it, and found no evidence of corruption.

Since when has illegal fundraising not been "corrupt"?

[tie]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

What IS Delay doing these days? Is he the front runner for some kind of Republican leadership position?

Thanks for helping me make my point!

Sorry, if your point was what you said in your earlier post, then I contradicted it. If your point is something you didn't say in your earlier post, then perhaps you should state it now, and also clarify your earlier post.

Originally Posted by stupendousman

"those on the right" booted the guys who where involved from office and I don't remember anyone defending them.

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak 

News flash: politicians, Left and Right, are corrupt.

Ding, ding ding! Correct.

They all have their hands in someone's pockets, and usually they're giving them a good pecker tug to boot.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by tie 

Sorry, if your point was what you said in your earlier post, then I contradicted it. If your point is something you didn't say in your earlier post, then perhaps you should state it now, and also clarify your earlier post.

I was specifically referring to taking money from Abramoff for bribes.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by Cold Warrior 

Because the Clintons are corrupt.

To be fair all politicians I have ever known have been corrupt. You need to clarify yourself. "Clinton's are more corrupt than the average politician"

I even voted for Bill in 91. I wont for Hillary since she has already had her run. Since she was basically running the country through Bill.

Originally Posted by peeb 

I've read it, and found no evidence of corruption.

I surely hope you aren't trying to say that administration wasn't corrupt peeb. That's a steep climb up bullcrap mountain I don't think you want to take.

Again, I am saying ALL Presidents that have been in the white house that I know of had corruption and did things they should not have. If they didn't, they wouldn't be human. But the Clinton's really took the cake and brought it to a new level.

[peeb]

Originally Posted by Kevin 

I surely hope you aren't trying to say that administration wasn't corrupt peeb. That's a steep climb up bullcrap mountain I don't think you want to take.

Again, I am saying ALL Presidents that have been in the white house that I know of had corruption and did things they should not have. If they didn't, they wouldn't be human. But the Clinton's really took the cake and brought it to a new level.

In what respect? I'm asking for evidence - I haven't seen any.

[Cold Warrior]

The Marc Rich pardon, for one among a number of out-the-door pardons.

But I have a feeling no amount of 'proof' will satisfy you. Anything maligning your agenda will meet with complete and unwavering skepticism and denial.