Illegal to be a Republican In Washington

Calabrio

Dedicated LVC Member
Joined
Oct 14, 2005
Messages
8,793
Reaction score
3
Location
Sarasota
SHOOTING ELEPHANTS IN A BARREL
By Ann Coulter
Wed Mar 7, 6:41 PM ET

Lewis Libby has now been found guilty of perjury and obstruction of justice for lies that had absolutely no legal consequence.

It was not a crime to reveal Valerie Plame's name because she was not a covert agent. If it had been a crime, Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald could have wrapped up his investigation with an indictment of the State Department's Richard Armitage on the first day of his investigation since it was Armitage who revealed her name and Fitzgerald knew it.

With no crime to investigate, Fitzgerald pursued a pointless investigation into nothing, getting a lot of White House officials to make statements under oath and hoping some of their recollections would end up conflicting with other witness recollections, so he could charge some Republican with "perjury" and enjoy the fawning media attention.

As a result, Libby is now a convicted felon for having a faulty memory of the person who first told him that Joe Wilson (news, bio, voting record) was a delusional boob who lied about his wife sending him to Niger.

This makes it official: It's illegal to be Republican.

Since Teddy Kennedy walked away from a dead girl with only a wrist slap (which was knocked down to a mild talking-to, plus time served: zero), Democrats have apparently become a protected class in America, immune from criminal prosecution no matter what they do.

As a result, Democrats have run wild, accepting bribes, destroying classified information, lying under oath, molesting interns, driving under the influence, obstructing justice and engaging in sex with underage girls, among other things.

Meanwhile, conservatives of any importance constantly have to spend millions of dollars defending themselves from utterly frivolous criminal prosecutions. Everything is illegal, but only Republicans get prosecuted.

Conservative radio personality Rush Limbaugh was subjected to a three-year criminal investigation for allegedly buying prescription drugs illegally to treat chronic back pain. Despite the witch-hunt, Democrat prosecutor Barry E. Krischer never turned up a crime.

Even if he had, to quote liberal Harvard Law professor Alan Dershowitz: "Generally, people who illegally buy prescription drugs are not prosecuted." Unless they're Republicans.

The vindictive prosecution of Limbaugh finally ended last year with a plea bargain in which Limbaugh did not admit guilt. Gosh, don't you feel safer now? I know I do.

In another prescription drug case with a different result, last year, Rep. Patrick Kennedy (news, bio, voting record) (Democrat), apparently high as a kite on prescription drugs, crashed a car on Capitol Hill at 3 a.m. That's abuse of prescription drugs (BEGIN ITAS)plus a DUI offense. Result: no charges whatsoever and one day of press on Fox News Channel.

I suppose one could argue those were different jurisdictions. How about the same jurisdiction?

In 2006, Democrat and major Clinton contributor Jeffrey Epstein was nabbed in Palm Beach in a massive police investigation into his hiring of local underage schoolgirls for sex, which I'm told used to be a violation of some kind of statute in the Palm Beach area.

The police presented Limbaugh prosecutor Krischer with boatloads of evidence, including the videotaped statements of five of Epstein's alleged victims, the procurer of the girls for Epstein and 16 other witnesses.

But the same prosecutor who spent three years maniacally investigating Limbaugh's alleged misuse of back-pain pills refused to bring statutory rape charges against a Clinton contributor. Enraging the police, who had spent months on the investigation, Krischer let Epstein off after a few hours on a single count of solicitation of prostitution. The Clinton supporter walked, and his victims were branded as whores.

The Republican former House Whip Tom DeLay is currently under indictment for a minor campaign finance violation. Democratic prosecutor Ronnie Earle had to empanel six grand juries before he could find one to indict DeLay on these pathetic charges -- and this is in Austin, Texas (the Upper West Side with better-looking people).

That final grand jury was so eager to indict DeLay that it indicted him on one charge that was not even a crime -- and which has since been tossed out by the courts.

After winning his primary despite the indictment, DeLay decided to withdraw from the race rather than campaign under a cloud of suspicion, and Republicans lost one of their strongest champions in Congress.

Compare DeLay's case with that of Rep. William "The Refrigerator" Jefferson, Democrat. Two years ago, an FBI investigation caught Jefferson on videotape taking $100,000 in bribe money. When the FBI searched Jefferson's house, they found $90,000 in cash stuffed in his freezer. Two people have already pleaded guilty to paying Jefferson the bribe money.

Two years later, Bush's Justice Department still has taken no action against Jefferson. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (news, bio, voting record) recently put Rep. William Jefferson (news, bio, voting record) on the Homeland Security Committee.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (news, bio, voting record), Democrat, engaged in a complicated land swindle, buying a parcel of land for $400,000 and selling it for over $1 million a few years later. (At least it wasn't cattle futures!)

Reid also received more than four times as much money from Jack Abramoff (nearly $70,000) as Tom DeLay ($15,000). DeLay returned the money; Reid refuses to do so. Why should he? He's a Democrat.

Former Clinton national security adviser Sandy Berger literally received a sentence of community service for stuffing classified national security documents in his pants and then destroying them -- big, fat federal felonies.

But Scooter Libby is facing real prison time for forgetting who told him about some bozo's wife.

Bill Clinton was not even prosecuted for obstruction of justice offenses so egregious that the entire Supreme Court staged a historic boycott of his State of the Union address in 2000.

By contrast, Linda Tripp, whose only mistake was befriending the office hosebag and then declining to perjure herself, spent millions on lawyers to defend a harassment prosecution based on far-fetched interpretations of state wiretapping laws.

Liberal law professors currently warning about the "high price" of pursuing terrorists under the Patriot Act had nothing but blood lust for Tripp one year after Clinton was impeached (Steven Lubet, "Linda Tripp Deserves to be Prosecuted," New York Times, 8/25/99).

Criminal prosecution is a surrogate for political warfare, but in this war, Republicans are gutless appeasers.

Bush has got to pardon Libby.

Copyright © 2007 Yahoo! Inc. All rights reserved.
 
Yeah, I read that article on her site. As always, extremely acurate and to the point. But of course she can't be believed because she has "hate" in her heart and is a "homophobe". LOL
 
That article by Ann Coulter illustrates something that we as conservatives aren't taking seriously enough. This is a real problem and it's only going to get worse as long as we do nothing about it. It goes back to my "Voting doesn't matter" thread. This will not change unless more direct action is taken. The left has control of the judiciary, the prosecutors, the education system, and the media. They walk with impunity, prosecuting and persecuting willy-nilly throughout the land, and we conservatives sit by and "tsk tsk" ourselves to death. This is no laughing matter. This is America being turned into Amerika.
 
The left has control of the judiciary, the prosecutors, the education system, and the media.

Like I have said and have been working on for several years now is a consortium of conservative groups to come together to buy up a few key liberal media groups. The NYT, the Washington Post, PMSNBC, CNN, cBS, AP, etc.. Media places like that. At least get voting control of the board or enough ownership in the stock of these companies to force them to include more viewpoints from conservative journalists. We need to balance the editorial boardrooms so they can't continue to be mouthpieces for Democrats and the liberal agenda.
 
What a bunch of crybabies. :runaway: :blah:

Ann's article is so full of lies and distortions I can't even begin to comment, yet you swallow her vile hook line and sinker. SUCKERS! Make sure your tin hats are firmly in place!
 
Lies?! U can say a lot about Coulter, but she doesn't lie. She backs up her work better then anyone I have read! U can't begin to comment because u can't find any lies.
 
Though I can’t say for sure since I wasn’t at the trial and don’t know what evidence was presented, I would hazard a guess that Libby probably did lie. Why he would sacrifice his reputation, respectability, and possibly his freedom escapes me. If I were him, I wouldn’t have lied for anyone. My view is that don’t put me in a position where the only way to save your bacon is to lie for you, because I won’t.
 
Though I can’t say for sure since I wasn’t at the trial and don’t know what evidence was presented, I would hazard a guess that Libby probably did lie. Why he would sacrifice his reputation, respectability, and possibly his freedom escapes me. If I were him, I wouldn’t have lied for anyone. My view is that don’t put me in a position where the only way to save your bacon is to lie for you, because I won’t.

What are you saying? You say Libby lied. Then you say he sacrificed his reputation and freedom lying for someone else. But it's not even apparent that's what happened.

Your view that says don't put in a position to lie in order to save your bacon is valid, but the reality is, it doesn't apply to this story.

As for Johnny, we're all familiar enough around here so that the "I'm not even going to bother to post" comments usually don't work in a specific column like that. In fact, that's the best kind of article to critique because it is so specific.

When you get a chance, take a few minutes and explain how that column is incorrect. I recognize that you probably don't agree with the assertion, but you have called the facts into question.
 
What are you saying? You say Libby lied. Then you say he sacrificed his reputation and freedom lying for someone else. But it's not even apparent that's what happened.
My premise is that Libby might have lied. In other words, I don't necessarily buy the 'I don't remember' defense. But again, I'm not in a position to definitively conclude one way or another since I was not at the trial and thus didn't hear the arguments. However, since Mr. Libby was not the one who leaked Valerie Plame's status as an undercover operations officer and therefore it would seem he had no reason to lie to protect himself. Therefore, it would stand to reason that he could have been motivated to lie in order to protect someone else or perhaps the Bush administration in general.
 
What a bunch of crybabies. :runaway: :blah:

Ann's article is so full of lies and distortions I can't even begin to comment, yet you swallow her vile hook line and sinker. SUCKERS! Make sure your tin hats are firmly in place!

Troll (n.)

In Internet terminology, a troll is a person who enters an established community such as an online discussion forum and intentionally tries to cause disruption, often in the form of posting messages that are inflammatory, insulting, or off-topic, with the intent of provoking a reaction from others.

*owned*
 
Liberals in Bureaucracy, Courts, Media and
Academia Are Immune from Election Results


March 8, 2007

BEGIN TRANSCRIPT


RUSH: David in Louisville. You're next, sir, on the EIB Network. Hello.

CALLER: Mega dittos, Rush.

RUSH: Thank you.

CALLER: I need your advice, and I really believe it's panic time for the conservatives right now.

RUSH: Yeah?

CALLER: We've shown that we can go out and educate the people, get Republicans elected, and win the legislation. The problem is, I think, that we have an institutional problem in government that voting is not going to be able to fix. What's the good of putting Republicans in office when the judiciary and the education and the media can just have them all thrown in jail?

RUSH: This call is plagiarism. I made this point yesterday, two different times.

CALLER: Yes. But my question is: What do we do about it? Because educating the people did not fix the issue. What you said yesterday, I heard you say it, and I needed to call you because I had said the same thing an hour before.

RUSH: Oh, so I plagiarized you?

CALLER: No, you didn't, but we were on the same wavelength.

RUSH: Ah.

CALLER: I just want to know, what are we supposed to do? It feels like it's 1775 and we have no Bill of Rights. What are we supposed to do?

RUSH: Well, in terms of the judiciary, that is the result of who wins elections. The judiciary we're talking about -- the federal judges, appellate judges, Supreme Court judges -- those are all appointed by the administration in power. It's obviously important to have the same party running the Senate when those appointments are made. So that's something that can be changed. It takes some time because these are lifetime appointments. The Supreme Court is a good example of it. The Supreme Court, you know, the liberals are quaking in fear that there's going to be another opening there before Bush leaves. That Supreme Court has seen some fairly decent progress, with Alito and John Roberts to go along with Clarence Thomas and Justice Scalia. There’s some health issues and ageism issues on the Democrat side, the left side of the Supreme Court.


As to the other things, one of the points that I made yesterday -- and it is contradictory, when you talk about the liberals populating government bureaucracies and agencies like the CIA, state department, Pentagon, where there are career people. There's a stark difference between the way liberals look at life and their futures and the way conservatives do. You know full well that liberals aspire to these jobs because they aspire to power over people. They want the government to be the biggest entity it can be, and they want to run it, and they want to be in charge of the regulations and the laws that come out of government because they have a basic contempt for the average citizen. They think the average citizen is incompetent and incapable. But it's beyond that. They literally want to change the way this government is, and the way the country is. They want to make it an image in their own ideology.

CALLER: Can I ask you a question?

RUSH: Yeah.

CALLER: Putting the right judge in place in the Supreme Court, how does that fix the problem that the judiciary is still too powerful and has authority that was not granted to it by the Constitution? It still doesn't fix the problem because that just means that we've bought ourselves some time.

RUSH: No, no, no, no. You misunderstand. It's not just the Supreme Court. Look at how many Clinton judges have ruled to take power away, constitutional power away from the president --

CALLER: Exactly.

RUSH: -- regarding the war on terror.

CALLER: Exactly.

RUSH: Well, those judges were appointed by a Democrat president.

CALLER: Right.

RUSH: Now, you go back to last November's election, and does anybody recall the appointment of federal judges, Supreme Court judges, being on the table?

CALLER: Yes, thanks to John McCain, it got punted because of the Terrorist Bill of Rights. He distracted the Senate away from it and weren't able to fix it, the Gang of 14.

RUSH: Well, it's not just this. The conservative voters did. They were so angry at Republicans for a host of reasons, and maybe angry at Bush over Iraq. You know, there are all kinds of Republicans out there saying, “Republicans need to be taught a lesson. They need to lose. They need to find out what it's like to lose.” Okay, they did. Well, elections have consequences. So my point is that somewhere during the campaign it should have been important. I made the point that it's important for the Senate to be held by Republicans so that when these judicial nominations come up, they can be confirmed -- and of course that wasn't part of the campaign. That's my question. Far and away what McCain was doing, speaks for itself. But look, the judiciary is something that can take awhile to change but it can be changed by elections. Now, what I was going to say about this other stuff. You're right in confirming how difficult it's going to be, because most conservatives who are going to Ivy League schools are not there to finally take over positions in the bureaucracy.

CALLER: Right. Conservatives don't seek government jobs. You said it yourself.

RUSH: They don’t aspire to it.

CALLER: Right.


RUSH: Conservatives, by definition, do not seek power over people. Conservatives want to remove government power out of people's way. Liberals want just the opposite.

CALLER: So how do we do that?

RUSH: Liberalism's whole existence revolves around government and having control of it. Ours doesn't. Well, the strategery has to be one of getting into government to deny them that power. But look, when you get a president elected, the president is going to have to clean out as much of these places as he can. He can't clean it all out obviously because there are career people in there, but you need a president who is also a conservative and a movement conservative who's leading a movement, not just a Republican. We can't storm the agencies and force people out of there. Look, I think all this can be done, but it's just going to take time, and those areas where it can't be done, strategies need to be developed to blunt the effect and the power of career liberals in some of these institutions. Now, education is another place. Institutions of higher learning, academia? I don't know what about that.

CALLER: I talked to you awhile back about conservatives buying up media networks, and you said it wasn't a good idea. How do you feel about that now? We talked about five years ago about that.

RUSH: (sigh) This is something that sounds sexy. It's not that I'm opposed to it. I just don't see it ever happening.

CALLER: Yeah.

RUSH: Individuals don't own these networks anymore. Corporations do. The news divisions of these corporations are just that: they are divisions. You look at General Electric. Jack Welch ran General Electric when NBC was what it was. It's one of the liberal institutions of the Drive-By Media, and Welch wasn't going to change it, and Welch is not that. He has his underlings. The last individual to own a network was Ted Turner.

CALLER: Right.

RUSH: So it would be cool. It would be nice. I just don't see it as something that's realistically going to happen. I think maybe I'm more optimistic than some people are because I've been involved in this evolution of change that has brought about this new media. To me, what exists in the media today is so much better and diverse than it was in 1988 when I started this program, and I see it as progress. I think demographics is going to take care of some of this. For example, the age of the people who watch the nightly newscasts is 65-plus (you can tell that by the advertisements), and that largely is all they watch. They're watching soap operas during the day or playing croquet, whatever they do. That's all they watch. Some people, all they read is the New York Times. Some people, all they read is the Washington Post. We conservatives, I think, sample all of this media. But the liberals do not. They’ve been trying to get the Democrats to cancel the debate on the Fox News Channel even though it's going to deliver a larger audience than any other cable news channel could.

I think that as the yutes of America who are getting their information a whole different way (Internet, cell phones, and who knows what), the evening newscasts are going to go the way of the dinosaurs because it's not going to be "appointment television" for people who are now 30 and 40 to sit around and watch an anchor at the end of the day. They already know what the news of the day is before that happens. But these seasoned citizens are the largest voting bloc, and that's the only view they got. So demographics is going to take care of some of this. The trick for conservatives is to stay on the cutting edge of technology in terms of how the information is gotten. But it's all about content, content, content. If conservatives are going to continue to do well in the media, it has to be stuff that people want to hear, listen to and read, and it can't be just totally ideologically based.


END TRANSCRIPT
 
Lies?! U can say a lot about Coulter, but she doesn't lie. She backs up her work better then anyone I have read! U can't begin to comment because u can't find any lies.

Calabrio said:
When you get a chance, take a few minutes and explain how that column is incorrect. I recognize that you probably don't agree with the assertion, but you have called the facts into question.

This is a blatent LIE:

Ann Cun-tier said:
Democrats have apparently become a protected class in America, immune from criminal prosecution no matter what they do.

All I have to do is merely point to the impeachment of Bill Clinton, of which you RWWs are so quick to keep reminding all of us.

Ann Cun-tier has no credibility whatsoever. And you RWWs who moan and groan about Libby's conviction for perjury are quick to forget the exact same thing happened to Clinton. Anyone who would try to rationalize Libby getting pardoned for this while praising Clinton's conviction of perjury is a hypocrite for applying a double standard. But mark my words, Libby won't spend a day in jail. I'm sure part of the deal for playing the scape-goat for BuSh, Rove and Cheney was a promise to pardon him days before he would go to jail, or before BuSh leaves office, which ever occurs first. Meanwhile Libby's trial has been an effective smokescreen to divert attention away from the real crime. Libby hasn't sacrificed his reputation one iota from all this. After being part of the BuSh administration, the only way for his reputation to go is UP.
 
This is a blatent LIE:



All I have to do is merely point to the impeachment of Bill Clinton, of which you RWWs are so quick to keep reminding all of us.

Ann Cun-tier has no credibility whatsoever. And you RWWs who moan and groan about Libby's conviction for perjury are quick to forget the exact same thing happened to Clinton. Anyone who would try to rationalize Libby getting pardoned for this while praising Clinton's conviction of perjury is a hypocrite for applying a double standard. But mark my words, Libby won't spend a day in jail. I'm sure part of the deal for playing the scape-goat for BuSh, Rove and Cheney was a promise to pardon him days before he would go to jail, or before BuSh leaves office, which ever occurs first. Meanwhile Libby's trial has been an effective smokescreen to divert attention away from the real crime. Libby hasn't sacrificed his reputation one iota from all this. After being part of the BuSh administration, the only way for his reputation to go is UP.
Hey troll,

You are absolutely incorrect and a liar to boot. The same exact thing did NOT happen to Clinton. He was NOT convicted of anything. He was found in contempt of court for perjury, but all that happened was he lost his law license. He did not serve one minute in jail, nor was he fingerprinted or arrested. Moreover, the special prosecutor in that case, one Kenneth Starr, unlike the one in the Libby case who is being heralded as a hero, was called names by the Clintonistas such as Hitler and a pervert.

Everything else you said after that wild, phony assertion was a bunch of speculative crap as well, especially the part about "distracting from the real crime." Ha. There WAS NO REAL CRIME, since the real leaker was Richard Armitage, not Rove, not Cheney, not Bush. In fact, Fitzfong knew about Armitage 2 years ago, yet he went ahead with his bogus investigation anyway, and VOILA! there was NO CRIME COMMITTED except the entrapment of Libby during the process of the investigation which should never have occurred.

So, in summary, Clinton was NEVER PROSECUTED. Ergo, he is IMMUNE from prosecution. Still waiting to hear you explain why Ann Coulter has no credibility whatsoever. DEE DEE DEE!

*owned*
 
This is a blatent LIE:All I have to do is merely point to the impeachment of Bill Clinton, of which you RWWs are so quick to keep reminding all of us.
So what consequence befell Bill Clinton, a man who committed perjury and conspired for others to perjure themself as well?

Eventually the judge found that Clinton gave "false, misleading and evasive answers that were designed to obstruct the judicial process" and contempt of court.

So what was the consequence? Jail time? His reputation and credibility ruined in the public?

He had to pay Paula Jones attorney's fees.
He was temporarily disbarred from the Arkansas bar for 5 years.
And he lost the privilege of being allowed to argue before the Supreme Court.



Ann Cun-tier
Seriously, you're a vulgar arse. If you think that passes as wit or humor, you're sadly mistake. That crap might fly on the the DailyKos, but it's distasteful and vile behavior. Cut it out.

has no credibility whatsoever. And you RWWs who moan and groan about Libby's conviction for perjury are quick to forget the exact same thing happened to Clinton.
ENTIRELY DIFFERENT SITUATION.
Anyone who would try to rationalize Libby getting pardoned for this while praising Clinton's conviction of perjury is a hypocrite for applying a double standard.
Explain to me the similarities. Explain to me specifically what they have in common. Go ahead. Make your case. But don't just say it and presume it's true. Tell me how they are the same. The two cases are ENTIRELY DIFFERENT.

But mark my words, Libby won't spend a day in jail.
I would hope not, hopefully he won't have to spend time in jail waiting for the appeal, and the conviction will be overturned since it's ridiculous.

I'm sure part of the deal for playing the scape-goat for BuSh, Rove and Cheney was a promise to pardon him days before he would go to jail, or before BuSh leaves office, which ever occurs first. Meanwhile Libby's trial has been an effective smokescreen to divert attention away from the real crime.
And what was the "real crime." If a "real crime" had been committed, then why wasn't IT prosecuted?

Libby hasn't sacrificed his reputation one iota from all this. After being part of the BuSh administration, the only way for his reputation to go is UP.
Well, around those horribly hypocritical elitist, closet socialist, American-hating, Democrat circles that infest and run D.C., you'd be right.
 
Ann Coulter:
Democrats have apparently become a protected class in America, immune from criminal prosecution no matter what they do.

U point to this as false? It is a conclusion she is drawing from the facts she is siting (hence the word "apparently"). If u were going to fault her for lying it would be in the facts she presented. To attack the conclusion you would have to attack her LOGIC in drawing from said facts. Instead u attack it as a lie?! Is her conclusion not really her conclusion? Where is the lie here? Besides, the Clinton Impeachment hearings were 1998? 1999? The point is, it has been a while since then, and the possibility that the democrats could have become this "protected class" after the Clinton Impeachment negates u being able to logically use that as a counterpoint.
I understand u r trying to go the "double standard" route here, in pointing out the Clinton mess. There are differences between the two that nullify that angle:

Clinton was an elected offical and, in the lying case was "tried" by Congress (and will all know what strong backbones they have). The standards in his case were for impeachment (much lower then those in a criminal or civil case). He lied (by his own admission) in the paula jones criminal case, in which an actual crime was commited or allegedly commited.

In the Scooter Libby instance, he was an unelected official being tried in a criminal case. He was being tried in a case for a non-crime; so basically he was entraped. The whole reason of a pardon in the consitution is to prevent abuses in the justice system like this. As far as I know, there has never been a more clear cut case for a pardon in America's history.
 
Ann Coulter:
Democrats have apparently become a protected class in America, immune from criminal prosecution no matter what they do.

U point to this as false? It is a conclusion she is drawing from the facts she is siting (hence the word "apparently"). If u were going to fault her for lying it would be in the facts she presented. To attack the conclusion you would have to attack her LOGIC in drawing from said facts. Instead u attack it as a lie?! Is her conclusion not really her conclusion? Where is the lie here? Besides, the Clinton Impeachment hearings were 1998? 1999? The point is, it has been a while since then, and the possibility that the democrats could have become this "protected class" after the Clinton Impeachment negates u being able to logically use that as a counterpoint.
I understand u r trying to go the "double standard" route here, in pointing out the Clinton mess. There are differences between the two that nullify that angle:

Clinton was an elected offical and, in the lying case was "tried" by Congress (and will all know what strong backbones they have). The standards in his case were for impeachment (much lower then those in a criminal or civil case). He lied (by his own admission) in the paula jones criminal case, in which an actual crime was commited or allegedly commited.

In the Scooter Libby instance, he was an unelected official being tried in a criminal case. He was being tried in a case for a non-crime; so basically he was entraped. The whole reason of a pardon in the consitution is to prevent abuses in the justice system like this. As far as I know, there has never been a more clear cut case for a pardon in America's history.

Excellent post, Shag, especially the part where you expose Johnny's ignorance in the difference between a lie and a logical flaw.
 
Ann Coulter:
Democrats have apparently become a protected class in America, immune from criminal prosecution no matter what they do.

U point to this as false? It is a conclusion she is drawing from the facts she is siting (hence the word "apparently"). If u were going to fault her for lying it would be in the facts she presented. To attack the conclusion you would have to attack her LOGIC in drawing from said facts.

The "flaw" in her logic is that she has convieniently omitted Citing democrats that have been "convicted" in order to make her case. As you RWWs (including Ann Cun-tier, KMA Calabrio, you are silent when your buddies do the same) are so quick to point out, there have been plenty of democrats convicted of crimes, so her WILLING omission of ALL the facts in order to draw her FALSE conclusion amounts to a LIE. It's not my fault you fall for this twisted logic of using biased "facts" so often used by the RWWs.

Although she DOES make a point that is seems lately that there have been NUMEROUS more crimes committed by rePUBElicans than by democrats. Therefore that certainly supports the GOP's well-earned label of creating this "culture of corruption" in DC.

*owned*
 
The "flaw" in her logic is that she has convieniently omitted Citing democrats that have been "convicted" in order to make her case. As you RWWs (including Ann Cun-tier, KMA Calabrio, you are silent when your buddies do the same) are so quick to point out, there have been plenty of democrats convicted of crimes, so her WILLING omission of ALL the facts in order to draw her FALSE conclusion amounts to a LIE. It's not my fault you fall for this twisted logic of using biased "facts" so often used by the RWWs.

Although she DOES make a point that is seems lately that there have been NUMEROUS more crimes committed by rePUBElicans than by democrats. Therefore that certainly supports the GOP's well-earned label of creating this "culture of corruption" in DC.

*owned*
Ahmadinevulgarjohnny,

Your statement is false. Coulter makes the point that Democrats commit more heinous and more frequent crimes than Republicans, but rarely get charged with them.

Go back and read your own(ed) post. You totally contradict yourself. Self-editing is the key to avoid looking like an idiot. Pity you never learned how.

Isn't it time to replace the keys on your keyboard again, from all the angry pounding?
 
It seems the basic problem is the Republicans are a bunch of paper tigers.

Where are the voices of the Republicans when the Democrats, liberals, or deviants they champion are caught with their hands in the cookie jar?

The Republicans are a strangely inept bunch with beating their drum and they are a bunch of damn fools for keeping these demos in republican clothing in the party once they out themselves.
 
It seems the basic problem is the Republicans are a bunch of paper tigers.

Where are the voices of the Republicans when the Democrats, liberals, or deviants they champion are caught with their hands in the cookie jar?

The Republicans are a strangely inept bunch with beating their drum and they are a bunch of damn fools for keeping these demos in republican clothing in the party once they out themselves.

Um...are you forgetting that the DriveBy Media grants free press to the Democrats while stifling the voices of the Republicans?
 
The "flaw" in her logic is that she has convieniently omitted Citing democrats that have been "convicted" in order to make her case.

Name 'em! As Fossten said the point she made is that dems do a lot more and a lot worse then republicans but don't get charged with it. It is easy to say she is "missing facts" without citing them yourself. Name these democrats that have had to face jail time after being convicted on somthing, relevant to this discussion. The FACT is u won't find any. The problem for republicans is; the Washington D.C. culture, the lack of a political spine on the part of republican politicians (as opposed to dems who r politically ruthless) and the fact that the mainstream media stiffles any accusations against dems (as much as they can) and serves as an echo chamber for any accusation against conservatives, and since in this arena "perception is reality" the accusations against conservatives become "fact" reguardless of the truth (like Hitler's "big lie" approach).
 
While that may be true it is not the only means to get heard.

I agree with that statement in general, but in today's media the Republicans are starting off with one hand tied behind their backs. Maybe they do feel like it's a waste of time to try, and that's on them. But the DBM doesn't give them a prayer.
 
Since Shag alluded to this article earlier, let's try an experiment. I would like one of you Ann worshipers to quote the original article and highlight or pull out all the FACTS in it. Not opinion, facts. And don't waste my time by just bolding the entire article. I want to know what you guys consider to be objective facts or if you even know what the word means.
 

Members online

No members online now.
Back
Top