Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Posted: 3/5/2002 9:35:38 PM EDT
What gives, they never had a problem supporting sleezy traitorous,murdering perverts before. I'm confused....... Did they find religion? I just don't get it.
Link Posted: 3/5/2002 11:14:55 PM EDT
The trouble is that they had an alternative. The Slickster always framed it as an alternative between an imperfect human being and Satan's spawn, ohterwise known as right wing Republicans. Condit could never pull this one off.
Link Posted: 3/5/2002 11:41:02 PM EDT
it goes to show you that the demoncrats are DUMB ASSES. i dont think the repub's would stand for one of their own getting involved in a murder plot.
Link Posted: 3/6/2002 4:43:33 AM EDT
Yeah. They voted Condit's assistant in, instead. Ya hoo.
Link Posted: 3/6/2002 5:14:50 AM EDT
I'm not from California, nor am I a Condit supporter, but let me get this straight: 1. Condit is, according to all of you, a murderer or guilty of conspiring to commit murder. 2. Condit is a pervert. 3. Everything you know about Condit you have learned through the media. This would be the same media that is commonly held to be controlled by the left/"demoncrats." Now, correct me if I am wrong, but I don't think any of you have been investigating Condit on your own. In other words, your talk of him being a murderer and so on is nothing but you talking out of your a$$es.
Link Posted: 3/6/2002 5:32:01 AM EDT
Link Posted: 3/6/2002 5:43:37 AM EDT
Originally Posted By Golgo-13: I'm not from California, nor am I a Condit supporter, but let me get this straight: 1. Condit is, according to all of you, a murderer or guilty of conspiring to commit murder. 2. Condit is a pervert. 3. Everything you know about Condit you have learned through the media. This would be the same media that is commonly held to be controlled by the left/"demoncrats." Now, correct me if I am wrong, but I don't think any of you have been investigating Condit on your own. In other words, your talk of him being a murderer and so on is nothing but you talking out of your a$$es.
View Quote
You definately have a point here, but... The media, as left as it is, will still trounce on one of their own for ratings. The truth is whatever it happens to be. Condit may not have committed murder, but he has lied and obstructed justice. The conservative media like Foxnews won't let it rest and they are killing the individual liberal media outlets soundly (CNN, etc) for ratings.
Link Posted: 3/6/2002 5:50:05 AM EDT
This one is simple guys - ELECTABILITY. For Dems (and some Repubs) its all about staying in power. Condit became a liability, an easy target for even the lamest of Repubs / Libertarians So they cut him loose. And went with the faster horse.
Link Posted: 3/6/2002 5:51:19 AM EDT
Originally Posted By Golgo-13: Now, correct me if I am wrong, but I don't think any of you have been investigating Condit on your own. In other words, your talk of him being a murderer and so on is nothing but you talking out of your a$$es.
View Quote
CONDIT LOVER!! Its likely that he was involved somehow, so yes, we can throw out our opinions. Got a problem with that?
Link Posted: 3/6/2002 5:53:10 AM EDT
Originally Posted By kindstranger: The media, as left as it is, will still trounce on one of their own for ratings. The truth is whatever it happens to be. Condit may not have committed murder, but he has lied and obstructed justice.
View Quote
Is this the same media that "trounced" Bill Clitoris for having sex with an intern and then lying about it under oath and obstructing justice?? The media gave Slick Willie a pass because he is a leftwing socialist sixties-style radical and they went "mild" against Condit because he was a solidly popular (in his district) and fairly moderate Democ[b]rat[/b] who, in their opinion, needed to be replaced with a more left-leaning Kalifornistan Democ[b]rat[/b]. The media do NOT eat their own - even for ratings.
Link Posted: 3/6/2002 6:17:52 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 3/6/2002 6:42:34 AM EDT by Golgo-13]
Originally Posted By Minman72:
Originally Posted By Golgo-13: Now, correct me if I am wrong, but I don't think any of you have been investigating Condit on your own. In other words, your talk of him being a murderer and so on is nothing but you talking out of your a$$es.
View Quote
CONDIT LOVER!! Its likely that he was involved somehow, so yes, we can throw out our opinions. Got a problem with that?
View Quote
Just so you're clear that it is only your opinion. Surely all you raving constitutionalists are acquainted with the idea that here in the US we are presumed to be innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. Reviewing the thread, nobody said "in my opinion" or "I think" or "I believe" with respect to Condit as an alleged murderer. For the record, based on what has been reported about him, Condit is a sleazy character, IMO. Edited to add: "likely" he was involved with what, precisely? Do YOU know what happened to the young lady? If so, why haven't you come forward? If not, we're back to you talking out your a$$, aren't we?
Link Posted: 3/6/2002 6:32:03 AM EDT
Link Posted: 3/6/2002 6:45:13 AM EDT
Originally Posted By thebeekeeper1: Actually, and correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe the media began to "revive" Xlinton's image after he met with the owners of the major media outlets and promised a 3.1 (or so) billion $ "war on drugs" media barrage, that we are still seeing. It was as close as he could get to a direct buy-off, using our money. Payment was made to certain companies for "public service" announcements for the ONDCP. Again, correct me if I am wrong, as in blinded by hatred. [pissed]
View Quote
Heerz da t'ing - I don't knows if you be right, or be wrong. But is there ANYONE in the country that could say with a straight face that Clinton was of "higher moral charachter" than to have done just that???? (Other than those specific individuals who remained in power as long as he remained in power??) Charachter doesn't matter to the Dems. Even the truth re: Clinton and Condit (i.e. what they actually did, or DID NOT do) Only ELECTABILTY and STAYING IN POWER matter to them. That is why when you have a Condit situation that is KNOWN to be as bad as the Clinton situation (almost identical to it, as far as what is proven), they backed Clinton, and BUMPED Condit.
Link Posted: 3/6/2002 11:54:09 AM EDT
Actually Goldo we as individuals are NOT required by the constitution to assume that lying, manipulative, sleazy-assed scum like Condit are guilty until proven innocent. We can, and will, presume whatever we wish. It is the government (those who govern us, you know, the people that tell us what we can and cannot do) who are required not to pre-judge. And since the man is walking the streets as a free POS free to participate in the murder and/or abduction of his choice, clearly he is assumed innocent by our government. I can make it simpler if need be. Just ask. Politely.
Link Posted: 3/6/2002 1:10:52 PM EDT
Originally Posted By Golgo-13:
Originally Posted By Minman72:
Originally Posted By Golgo-13: Now, correct me if I am wrong, but I don't think any of you have been investigating Condit on your own. In other words, your talk of him being a murderer and so on is nothing but you talking out of your a$$es.
View Quote
CONDIT LOVER!! Its likely that he was involved somehow, so yes, we can throw out our opinions. Got a problem with that?
View Quote
Just so you're clear that it is only your opinion. Surely all you raving constitutionalists are acquainted with the idea that here in the US we are presumed to be innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. Reviewing the thread, nobody said "in my opinion" or "I think" or "I believe" with respect to Condit as an alleged murderer. For the record, based on what has been reported about him, Condit is a sleazy character, IMO. Edited to add: "likely" he was involved with what, precisely? Do YOU know what happened to the young lady? If so, why haven't you come forward? If not, we're back to you talking out your a$$, aren't we?
View Quote
My psychic advisor told me Condit was guilty of her dissappearance, so that's all I needed to know. As far as your claim that only after a court proves guilt...bla bla bla.... did you forget about the joke of a trial (and jury) that was OJ Simpson? PULEAAASE, trial my ass, when it comes to public figures we have more of a right to speak our mind and beliefs than about aboutone else.
Link Posted: 3/6/2002 4:01:48 PM EDT
Originally Posted By Minman72:
Originally Posted By Golgo-13:
Originally Posted By Minman72:
Originally Posted By Golgo-13: Now, correct me if I am wrong, but I don't think any of you have been investigating Condit on your own. In other words, your talk of him being a murderer and so on is nothing but you talking out of your a$$es.
View Quote
CONDIT LOVER!! Its likely that he was involved somehow, so yes, we can throw out our opinions. Got a problem with that?
View Quote
Just so you're clear that it is only your opinion. Surely all you raving constitutionalists are acquainted with the idea that here in the US we are presumed to be innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. Reviewing the thread, nobody said "in my opinion" or "I think" or "I believe" with respect to Condit as an alleged murderer. For the record, based on what has been reported about him, Condit is a sleazy character, IMO. Edited to add: "likely" he was involved with what, precisely? Do YOU know what happened to the young lady? If so, why haven't you come forward? If not, we're back to you talking out your a$$, aren't we?
View Quote
My psychic advisor told me Condit was guilty of her dissappearance, so that's all I needed to know. As far as your claim that only after a court proves guilt...bla bla bla.... did you forget about the joke of a trial (and jury) that was OJ Simpson? PULEAAASE, trial my ass, when it comes to public figures we have more of a right to speak our mind and beliefs than about aboutone else.
View Quote
Yet more talking out your a$$. Everything you mention in your posts is clearly stuff you "learned" about through the media, primarily TV. Why don't you just come out and admit that you believe everything Dan Rather, Peter jennings, et. al. say is gospel truth? Please, don't let me catch you bitching that the media is biased against gun owners, GW Bush, or anything else that may be close to your heart or I will loudly and publicly tar you as a hypocrite. You have already established in this thread that you accept media reports at face value. With a name like minman (unless you chose it to describe your sexual performance) I would expect a higher level of regard for the principles on which our justice system is built from you.
Link Posted: 3/6/2002 7:14:02 PM EDT
Originally Posted By Golgo-13: With a name like minman (unless you chose it to describe your sexual performance) I would expect a higher level of regard for the principles on which our justice system is built from you.
View Quote
Making fun of another member's screen name? Hmmm, [b]Golgo-13[/b], as I recall you once compared making fun of screen names to picking on spelling errors - both being examples of how to destroy your own credibility: [i]"Criticizing spelling ranks right up there with [b]making fun of screen names[/b] in the ways of destroying the credibility of one's arguments."[/i] ~ Golgo-13 Are some of my methods beginning to rub off on you? [;)] Personally, depending on the adversary, I find that as long as you draw and quarter your debating opponent with valid arguments FIRST, leaving them in a thoroughly pathetic heap of their own self-contradiction and fallacies, I find nothing wrong with finishing it off with a few ad hominem jabs just for fun.[:D]
Link Posted: 3/7/2002 2:59:37 AM EDT
Originally Posted By The_Macallan:
Originally Posted By Golgo-13: With a name like minman (unless you chose it to describe your sexual performance) I would expect a higher level of regard for the principles on which our justice system is built from you.
View Quote
Making fun of another member's screen name? Hmmm, [b]Golgo-13[/b], as I recall you once compared making fun of screen names to picking on spelling errors - both being examples of how to destroy your own credibility: [i]"Criticizing spelling ranks right up there with [b]making fun of screen names[/b] in the ways of destroying the credibility of one's arguments."[/i] ~ Golgo-13 Are some of my methods beginning to rub off on you? [;)] Personally, depending on the adversary, I find that as long as you draw and quarter your debating opponent with valid arguments FIRST, leaving them in a thoroughly pathetic heap of their own self-contradiction and fallacies, I find nothing wrong with finishing it off with a few ad hominem jabs just for fun.[:D]
View Quote
Aaaagghh. I have been hoist by my own petard. Good one, The_Macallan. I believe I had already made my case first, though.
Link Posted: 3/7/2002 4:30:34 AM EDT
Originally Posted By The_Macallan: Personally, depending on the adversary, I find that as long as you draw and quarter your debating opponent with valid arguments FIRST, leaving them in a thoroughly pathetic heap of their own self-contradiction and fallacies, I find nothing wrong with finishing it off with a few ad hominem jabs just for fun.[:D]
View Quote
Thank you, T_M, for putting into words what has always been my unspoken policy. [:D]
Top Top