dweeb

Gingrich says war on terror 'phony' Former speaker says energy independence is key By BOB DEANS The Atlanta Journal-Constitution Published on: 08/03/07 Washington — Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich said Thursday the Bush administration is waging a "phony war" on terrorism, warning that the country is losing ground against the kind of Islamic radicals who attacked the country on Sept. 11, 2001. A more effective approach, said Gingrich, would begin with a national energy strategy aimed at weaning the country from its reliance on imported oil and some of the regimes that petro-dollars support. "None of you should believe we are winning this war. There is no evidence that we are winning this war," the ex-Georgian told a group of about 300 students attending a conference for collegiate conservatives. Gingrich, who led the so-called Republican Revolution that won the GOP control of both houses of Congress in 1994 midterm elections, said more must be done to marshal national resources to combat Islamic militants at home and abroad and to prepare the country for future attack. He was unstinting in his criticism of his fellow Republicans, in the White House and on Capitol Hill. "We were in charge for six years," he said, referring to the period between 2001 and early 2007, when the GOP controlled the White House and both houses of Congress. "I don't think you can look and say that was a great success." .... "I believe we need to find leaders who are prepared to tell the truth ... about the failures of the performance of Republicans ... failed bureaucracies ... about how dangerous the world is," he said when asked what kind of Republican he would back for president. http://www.ajc.com/news/content/news/stories/2007/08/03/newt0803.html

More logical fallacies courtesy of Billvon. Has it occurred to you that this is basically a non-issue, that one (or maybe few) little lefties are pushing to create a dustup? I quoting you to get on record that you think there is nothing wrong with child molestation. You should work on your reading comprehension. Sorry, chief, but you're the one who thinks that child molestation is a "non-issue". Do you have children? If so, perhaps the North Carolina Child Protective Services would be interested in your point of view. I'm sure they'll think that child molestation is a "non-issue" as well.

Great family values they have there.

More logical fallacies courtesy of Billvon. Has it occurred to you that this is basically a non-issue, that one (or maybe few) little lefties are pushing to create a dustup? I quoting you to get on record that you think there is nothing wrong with child molestation.

This is just the Republicans finally admitting that Gore was right and that they should have listened.

Nice PA... now, take a look at the proven "lean to the left" of the national media - that is definitely a factor in your "proven list"... Your perception of a 'liberal media' clouds your ability to see the truth. [url=http://www.armchairsubversive.org/]Here's[/url] the link for the source of the list. If you click on the names of each of these fine, upstanding Republicans, you'll get a link to the articles from around the world that expose them for the pedophiles that they are. Why are you such a staunch defender of pedophiles?

These letters are going to show which Republicans begged to have Scooter's sentence mitigated rather than him being punished according to the law. Cool - does that mean that people can write in and get Sandy Burgler re-tried for stealing classified documents, too? Why are Republicans so hell-bent on destroying the constitution? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double_jeopardy

I have a problem with those who call themselves 'Christian' yet don't follow the words of their bible. I have a problem with those who want creationism taught in schools and evolution removed. Other than those, I don't really care what they think or what they believe in. So you're indifferent on the gay marriage, abortion, prayer in school, or separation of church and state? Gay marriage? Why not? Why should straights be the only ones who suffer? Abortion? I don't have a uterus, so I don't have a dog in that fight. Prayer in school? Well, the Supreme Court already shot that down. Separation of Church & State? That was written into the constitution. You may have been around back then but I wasn't born yet. Care to divulge what your views are on these?

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=1322671659854901905

These letters are going to show which Republicans begged to have Scooter's sentence mitigated rather than him being punished according to the law. How does going to bat for Libby prove they value the GOP over national security? Was Libby convicted of breaking national security laws? If you don't know what the CIA leak case was about, maybe you should check with those ultra-liberals at Christian Science Monitor. They've done a great job explaining it in easy-to-understand terms. http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/1028/p03s01-uspo.html

These letters are going to show which Republicans begged to have Scooter's sentence mitigated rather than him being punished according to the law.

I have a problem with those who call themselves 'Christian' yet don't follow the words of their bible. I have a problem with those who want creationism taught in schools and evolution removed. Other than those, I don't really care what they think or what they believe in.

Looks like we may be finding out soon.

Noted.

WASHINGTON - Confronted with strong opposition to his Iraq policies, President George W. Bush decides to interpret public opinion his own way. Actually, he says, people agree with him. Democrats view the November elections that gave them control of Congress as a mandate to bring U.S. troops home from Iraq. They are backed by evidence; election exit poll surveys by The Associated Press and television networks found 55 percent saying the U.S. should withdraw some or all of its troops from Iraq. Bush says Democrats have it all wrong: the public does not want the troops pulled out - they want to give the military more support in its mission. "Last November, the American people said they were frustrated and wanted a change in our strategy in Iraq," he said April 24, ahead of a veto showdown with congressional Democrats over their desire to legislation a troop withdrawal timeline. "I listened. Today, General David Petraeus is carrying out a strategy that is dramatically different from our previous course." http://www.military.com/NewsContent/0,13319,137382,00.html?ESRC=army-a.nl What the fuck?

You are wrong. He has done nothing to support "the number of Democrats who prey on children are far, far fewer than the number of Republicans that do so", any more than claiming today's above average high confirms Global Warming. And you've done absolutely nothing to even attempt to refute it. Like I said yesterday, you are more than welcome to research all of the instances of child molestation by Democrats and post your findings. Someone above you did it and found 4. The list I posted has over 60. Do you understand basic math or don't they teach that in school in North Carolina? And to show you that this isn't a partisan issue, here's a lovely article that shows even the conservatives are getting sick and tired of the Republicans' bullshit. http://rawstory.com/news/2007/Conservative_blog_declares_war_on_Republicans_0514.html

Selective vision, I'm sure. Then by all means, be my guest and show me where all of the Democrat child molesters are hiding. http://www.google.com I don't have a dubious claim to support. Not my burden. Common sense suggests that there is nothing that different about the two party philosophies to explain a greater tendency towards pedophilia in one. BTW, if one really felt a need to engage with you on this, they'd start by confirming your list. Your statement that these events are all factual does not make them so. The facts are there for you to try to refute. Good luck with that. :rolleyes:

Rep. Fred Richmond (D-N.Y.) In April 1978, Richmond was arrested in Washington for soliciting sex from a 16-year-old boy. Richmond apologized for his actions, conceding he "made bad judgments involving my private life." In spite of a Democratic primary opponent's attempts to cash in on the headlines, Richmond easily won renomination and reelection. But his career came to an end four years later when, after pleading guilty to possession of marijuana and tax evasion – and amid allegations that he had his staff procure cocaine for him – he resigned his seat. Sen. Brock Adams (D-Wash.) On Sept. 27, 1988, Seattle newspapers reported that Kari Tupper, the daughter of Adams's longtime friends, filed a complaint against the Washington Democrat in July of 1987, charging sexual assault. She claimed she went to Adams's house in March 1987 to get him to end a pattern of harassment, but that he drugged her and assaulted her. Adams denied any sexual assault, saying they only talked about her employment opportunities. Adams continued raising campaign funds and declared for a second term in February of 1992. But two weeks later the Seattle Times reported that eight other women were accusing Adams of sexual molestation over the past 20 years, describing a history of drugging and subsequent rape. Later that day, while still proclaiming his innocence, Adams ended his campaign. Rep. Gus Savage (D-Ill.) The Washington Post reported on July 19, 1989, that Savage had fondled a Peace Corps volunteer while on an official visit to Zaire. Savage called the story a lie and blamed it on his political enemies and a racist media. (Savage is black.) In January 1990, the House ethics committee decided that the events did occur, but decided against any disciplinary action because Savage wrote a letter to the woman saying he "never intended to offend" her. Savage was reelected in 1990, but finally ousted in the 1992 primary by Mel Reynolds. Rep. Mel Reynolds (D-Ill.) Freshman Reynolds was indicted on Aug. 19, 1994, on charges of having sex with a 16-year-old campaign worker and then pressuring her to lie about it. Reynolds, who is black, denied the charges and said the investigation was racially motivated. The GOP belatedly put up a write-in candidate for November, but Reynolds dispatched him in the overwhelmingly Democratic district with little effort. Reynolds was convicted on Aug. 22, 1995 of 12 counts of sexual assault, obstruction of justice and solicitation of child pornography, was sentenced to five years in prison, and resigned his seat on October 1. This is just in Congress between 1978 and 1994. There are some Republicans in there, too, but I left them out because you asked us to find Democrats. Somehow, I think things like sex crimes, bribery, etc., transcend party lines. Thank you for finding these. I agree that crimes transcend party lines, but it seems that there are a hell of a lot more Republicans with their hands in Tina's cookie than Democrats. And for these four? Like the brethren across the aisle, I say they get thrown away for life. There is absolutely no acceptable reason why a child molester should get away with it. Regardless of party affiliation.

Selective vision, I'm sure. Then by all means, be my guest and show me where all of the Democrat child molesters are hiding. http://www.google.com

I would certainly welcome any Republican to do the research and compile a list similar to this. There will be some. However, the number of Democrats who prey on children are far, far fewer than the number of Republicans that do so. What is it about Republicanism that creates this mindset that it's OK to violate children? You might find a slight deviation in the rate - it seems like uptight religious guys are doing this more than anyone else. But I doubt you'd get past 52-48 on the breakdown. Then why is it so difficult to find evidence of child molestation by Democrats in the kind of numbers you do for Republicans? Try it yourself. Google to your heart's content. If you find anything, I'd be very happy to read it. Good luck.

The BSE Rapid test has been in use for 3 years. It doesn't take a pathologist and the speed of the test results comes back much quicker. http://newsinfo.colostate.edu/index.asp?page=news_item_display&news_item_id=694639623 And for me personally, I stopped eating beef (for the most part) in 2002. I just don't understand why Bush's approach is to insist that there isn't a problem when nobody knows that as fact. Is this yet another payback to the American Meat Industry for their years of financial support?

Will one of you Bush supporters please explain why this is a good thing? Thanks in advance.

I call BULLSHIT! Got anything other than a list of mostly local level politicians to back up your claim? I don't have to prove what you're trying to claim. It's your claim that remains unproven. The list I provided has been fully researched and is backed by FACT. But your argument makes me wonder: why are you supportive of pedophilia?

Unfortunately, I work far too much.

I call BULLSHIT! Got anything other than a list of mostly local level politicians to back up your claim? I don't have to prove what you're trying to claim. You're more than welcome to do the research and come up with a list of your very own. Don't like what your Party represents? Then do something to change it!