Too bad Deborah Howell thought that she got rid of the evidence. Those search engine bots work faster than she could blink those comments out of existence. Just check out on how many of those commenters actually slung profanities at her at every step of the way. Just take a look. Talk about stretching the truth.

http://kokonutpundits.blogspot.com/2006/01/deborah-howell-failed-to-get-rid-of.html

To clarify on what you wrote, you can now find those mass-deleted comments that are now cached in Yahoo search (January 17 th- 18th comments) while Democratic Underground has the January 19th comments archived here, and WaPo Lies blog have the January 15th and 16th comments archived.

Thanks for the WaPo Lies missing earlier piece. We now have access to those comments that Deborah Howell tried to blink out of existence from January 15 - 19th.

Isn't the internet wonderful?
http://kokonutpundits.blogspot.com/2006/01/deborah-howell-failed-to-get-rid-of.html

Pop quiz. Name a democrat who received money from Abramoff. Not merely money from an casino that once was associated with Abramoff.

Also, if comments like "Howell should be fired" make you cry, how about right-wing columnist (and recently outted payola recipient) Michael Fument's comment about Cindy Sheehan - "Leave her there and maybe the crows will do the world a favor and eat her tongue out."

There's much more.

I don't even know who Michael Fument is. Is he a popular right wing blogger? I did find a "Michael Fumento" via google, but I'm not familiar with him either.

And comments about "Howell getting fired" don't make me cry ... or did you read my post?

I mean, you do read the posts, right rabit?

I believe that I labeled the "fired" comments "animated" and "aggressive political commenter criticism" in my update. Animated, tedious, sure, but certainly not profane, that I can see.

As for Dems receiving money from Abramoff vs. Abramoff's clients, I believe that this might be a relevant distinction, but not an exculpatory one for the Dems.*

* Note: this post was not remotely intended to comment on the Abramoff scandal itself, merely communication in the blogosphere.

Keep in mind when you read the thread that the craziest comments had mostly already been deleted.

Pop quiz. Name a democrat who received money from Abramoff.

Pop quiz. Name an illegal personal donation from Abramoff.

There aren't any. The scandal is over his lobbying activities.

I don't even know who Michael Fument is. Is he a popular right wing blogger?

He's a blogger and (former) nationally-syndicated columnist.

I mean, you do read the posts, right rabit?

Yes, I do.

From your post:

it's also not the cesspool that one regularly sees over at Kos or Democratic Underground

I don't read DU regularly, but I do read DailyKos and I'd like to see some evidence that it's a cesspool. (evidence? link?) I've yet to see a KOS poster suggest directing physical harm on a conservative. Nothing like the lynch-mob mentality that right-wing sites have toward liberals. (see previously-linked Wolcott article for examples)

I think there's a lesson in all of this that's important for both Dems and Repugs. It's time to stop and put down the party kool-aid when you find yourself calling a man names for saying your party's congresspeople shady dealings with a lobbyist.

It's just amazing to me that people can look at congress and be foolish enough to think their their guys aren't crooked like the other side's guys. Seriously, if people can't see that their members of congress are crooked, self-serving, double-dealing, and filthy just like the other party's bastards then they're at about "7 y/o girl" on the naivete scale.

There aren't any. The scandal is over his lobbying activities.

With an individual like Abramoff, what is the difference? None. What matters are the campaign contributions that Abramoff directed either as a lobbyist for these Indian casinos, or personal campaign contributions with money he earned from scamming these Indian casinos.

Democrats have received campaign money from Indian tribes before Abramoff was involved. That's irrelevant.

I've yet to see a KOS poster suggest directing physical harm on a conservative.

Well, you obviously haven't been looking very hard. A thread he linked just yesterday from the front page suggested beating up anyone who supported the war. And lets not forget the slashed tires, broken wrists, and shot-up offices during the last election. There's a whole book documenting deranged lefties.

But we can play topper all day. What's interesting about this vitriol is that it's directed against an independent newspaper, for what was a basically accurate statement.

With an individual like Abramoff, what is the difference? None.

Uh, one was legal, one was (allegedly) illegal. Small difference.

Democrats have received campaign money from Indian tribes before Abramoff was involved. That's irrelevant.

Your point being what? That's like saying "Well, sure, I robbed that bank. But I used to withdraw money from my savings account there all the time, so robbing it was irrelevant."

SeanH:

Well I've been trying to track down the history of corruption on the left and that side has certainly had it's share. I mean, look at this clown.

Well, you aked for a Kos link.

"...war profiteers should be taken out and shot."

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2006/1/16/133331/558

Well, you obviously haven't been looking very hard. A thread he linked just yesterday from the front page suggested beating up anyone who supported the war. And lets not forget the slashed tires, broken wrists, and shot-up offices during the last election. There's a whole book documenting deranged lefties.

Oh yes, the Malkin book - which I believe Bill here said he would post a review of. The big difference is that the unhinged on the left are ignored, but the inhinged on the right are given million-dollar book deals, regular pundit gigs, and influential positions in government.

Uh, one was legal, one was (allegedly) illegal. Small difference.

Which are the 'legal' campaign contributions? The money that Abramoff directed from Indian casinos to republican politicians he conspired with as a lobbyist, or the personal contributions that he earned as being a paid lobbyist who was also conspiring against the casinos.

Your point being what? That's like saying "Well, sure, I robbed that bank. But I used to withdraw money from my savings account there all the time, so robbing it was irrelevant."

So, receiving campaign contributions from Indian tribes who own casinos is robbing? Please explain.

Hey rabit -

I don't read DU regularly, but I do read DailyKos and I'd like to see some evidence that it's a cesspool. (evidence? link?) I've yet to see a KOS poster suggest directing physical harm on a conservative. Nothing like the lynch-mob mentality that right-wing sites have toward liberals. (see previously-linked Wolcott article for examples)

There's a link IN THE POST. I'll let you find it yourself. Here's a hint: it's in the FIRST SENTENCE.

And where have you seen advocating direct physical harm on a liberal on "the most popular right wing blogs?" These descriptive distinctions are essential to making any coherent, arguable point. I'm no fan of "wingnuts," but there is a certain brand of acerbic profanity one sees on left-wing blogs that is not common form on the right-wing blogs, and this difference has been acknowledged by left-wing luminaries like Drum and Yglesias, albeit euphemistically. The closest right-wing forums that have their own brand of vitriol in the ballpark are the worst FREEPER threads and the Eagle Forum, as far as I can tell. LGF can certainly be bad. But go compare Captain's Quarters to Kos, and tell me which is more civil. My laugh test will give you a verdict on your assessment.

"...war profiteers should be taken out and shot."

Actually, Harry S. Truman said basically the same thing.

And while I don't agree with the statement, I agree with the sentiment. War profiteering is treason, and there was a time when treason was punishable by death. People who stand to make a profit from war should not be the ones who decide to go to war, and many on the left see Bush and Cheney's connections to Carlyle and Halliburton as EXACTLY what Truman warned us about.

rabit,

Congratulations, you just did exactly what you were just criticizing someone for: espousing phyical harm. Except he was joking, and you aren't.

I don't know how many times I can explain:

personal contributions: perfectly legal.
lobbying contributions: under investigation.

So, receiving campaign contributions from Indian tribes who own casinos is robbing? Please explain

Receiving illegal contributions from anyone is like robbing a bank (illegal). Prior legal contributions are like withdrawing money from savings (legal).

War profiteering is treason, and there was a time when treason was punishable by death

Then I'm sure you'll be advocating the death penalty for the NSA leakers too.

Need your experience & opinion: Online political news survey! ($10 reward possible)

Hello!
My name is Daekyung (danny) Kim, a Ph.D. student studying journalism and mass communication in Southern Illinois University at Carbondale. I am emailing to ask you to do me a favor. I am now working on my dissertation whose topic is about online political news and want to gather information about how and why Internet users are using news Web sites for political information based on an online survey.

This online survey will approximately take 15-20 minutes to complete. After collecting the data, I will draw to pick up 50 respondents among those who complete this survey and each will be given $ 10 gift card.

Would you please spend some time to fill out this survey? http://www.surveymonkey.com/s.asp?u=594061481532
(please click on the address, OR if not working, copy it into the URL address)
Your experience will be very useful in understanding how politically interested online users are using online news and the consequent effect on traditional news media.

You can withdraw the survey at any time you want. All responses will be kept confidential and only be used for academic purposes. This survey has been reviewed and approved by the SIUC Human Subject Committee. So, there are no questions that may identify personal information.

Thank you very much in advance for your cooperation. Please email me back if you have further concerns or questions. Happy New Year!!

Congratulations, you just did exactly what you were just criticizing someone for: espousing phyical harm. Except he was joking, and you aren't.

Ummmm, I was born in the 70's and I don't think treason has carried a death sentence since the 50's.

personal contributions: perfectly legal.
lobbying contributions: under investigation.

Personal contributions? Here's a cure for your ignorance.

Receiving illegal contributions from anyone is like robbing a bank (illegal). Prior legal contributions are like withdrawing money from savings (legal).

The campaign contributions by themselves aren't illegal, are they? It's when viewed as a sum of all of it's parts that it becomes a crime. I'm afraid that I came to the realization that republicans tend to suffer from tunnel vision when it comes to ethics.

Then I'm sure you'll be advocating the death penalty for the NSA leakers too.

Oh, you mean the group of individuals, possibly including prominent republicans, who blew the cover on the Bush Administration's purely illegal and unconstitutional spying program? How does that constitute treason?

And where have you seen advocating direct physical harm on a liberal on "the most popular right wing blogs?"?

Shall we start at Atlas Shrugged:

"Someone ought to tlell those legal scholars not to worry.......it's smooth sailing once those Radical Islmonazis saw through their jugulars."

Wooohooo!

Thread from today, on Jimmy Carter in LGF:

#73: Ward Cleaver 1/20/2006 09:42AM PST

Die.Already.

#75: Nonnie 1/20/2006 09:43AM PST

Hell, how come that killer rabbit didn't do us all a favor and finish the job? :->

#104: Joel 1/20/2006 10:35AM PST

I would not shed a tear if Carter went to bed tonight and did not wake up.

I bet you can't find a single thread on DailyKos that contains as much vitriol as the one above.

And speaking of Malkin and the unhinged right, there's Mr. Malkin.

there is a certain brand of acerbic profanity one sees on left-wing blogs that is not common form on the right-wing blogs, and this difference has been acknowledged by left-wing luminaries like Drum and Yglesias, albeit euphemistically.

I must know more about this acerbic profanity that one sees on left-wing blogs that is not common form on right-wing blogs. I would be curious how to differentiate that with other forms of acerbic profanity such as "Die.Already."

But go compare Captain's Quarters to Kos, and tell me which is more civil.

Yeah sure, pick a blog that lacks a search function. Seriously, a fairer comparison is DailyKos vs. a right-wing blog with a comparable readership. (do any still exist?)

And while searching around, I found this bit of classy writing from National Review Online, which certainly counts as a popular blogging site.

• Chelsea is a Clinton. She bears the taint; and though not prosecutable in law, in custom and nature the taint cannot be ignored. All the great despotisms of the past — I'm not arguing for despotism as a principle, but they sure knew how to deal with potential trouble — recognized that the families of objectionable citizens were a continuing threat. In Stalin's penal code it was a crime to be the wife or child of an "enemy of the people". The Nazis used the same principle, which they called Sippenhaft, "clan liability". In Imperial China, enemies of the state were punished "to the ninth degree": that is, everyone in the offender's own generation would be killed, and everyone related via four generations up, to the great-great-grandparents, and four generations down, to the great-great-grandchildren, would also be killed.

I guess you'd call this satire, huh?

Congratulations Rabit. You've made Bill's point and Tall Dave's as well. If you can't see how, you can't see.

You would do well to covet political power less and appreciate the truth more. And, oh by the way, according to a poll posted at KOS about forty percent of his readers depise GWB more than OBL. Lord knows, George ain't perfect. (If the dems had run a candidate that hated America less and terrorism more they would have won, but that would have alienated the base wouldn't it?). But that's just crazy. You also conveniently forget the "Screw them" comment Kos dropped all over the bodies of dead Americans in Iraq. You also said you agreed with the comment that war profiteers should be executed..before you decided to claim something else a couple of comments later.
Listen, there is no doubt that there are vile conservatives, Pat Buchanon leaps to mind, though oddly, the left seems to agree with Pat alot these days. But by maintaing that the atmosphere at Kos is just and pristine you make youself look like a fool, and a liar as well. I say this as someone who bears you know ill will. Open your eyes and make some attempt to be consistent. People will laugh at you less.
And one last thing, had the Democrats run someone who hated America less and terrorism more in '04 I think they would have won. They certainly would have stood a chance at winning my vote, but that would have alienated the base wouldn't it? Of course they wouldn't have the dinstinction of being the party whose nominee posts at the Daily KOS either then, would they?

It's spelled rabid by the way, you could at least get that much right.

Rabit -

Shall we start at Atlas Shrugged:

"Someone ought to tlell those legal scholars not to worry.......it's smooth sailing once those Radical Islmonazis saw through their jugulars."

As far as I can tell from these non-contextual quotes, this is not "advocating." But before I can pass judgment, I'd need to read the whole thing. I googled both phrases and found nothing.

Thread from today, on Jimmy Carter in LGF:

Hmmm, let's see. I believe I specifically mentioned LGF as an equivalent nasty right wing comments section. For the last time, DO YOU READ THE POSTS?

I must know more about this acerbic profanity that one sees on left-wing blogs that is not common form on right-wing blogs. I would be curious how to differentiate that with other forms of acerbic profanity such as "Die.Already."

Your point is a strawman, as I already noted the site where you found "die already" as an exception. you keep ignoring crucial distinctions in my value judgments. For you not to even acknowledge, on its face, that left wing blogs at least use more PROFANITY - posters and commenters, when they express themselves - is bizarre. Most sane left-wingers acknowledge this, but they dont think it's a big deal. I think it's a component of a nastier breed of argumentation, that, overall, is more COMMON on popular left wing blogs. Apparently you don;t even notice it. This is odd.

Yeah sure, pick a blog that lacks a search function. Seriously, a fairer comparison is DailyKos vs. a right-wing blog with a comparable readership. (do any still exist?)

No. None comparable exist. I'm not sure what a search function has to do with anything, but I will say this: if you go to Captains Quarters, and scroll about 40% down the page, below "CQ Sponors" and right above "On My Desk," guess what? THERE IS A SEARCH FUNCTION.

WRONG AGAIN, rabit.

As far as National Review goes, no, it is not a blog, though the Corner is. That is a column you linked to. Which is interesting, because we are talking about BLOGS. And differences between the argumentation and form of blog COMMENTERS, OVERALL, not COLUMNISTS FOR RIGHT WING MAGAZINES.

Now, expanding our topic to Derbyshire, yes, he's trying to be satirical, and failing. Why? Because he's excused as their resident right wing curmudgeon, but someone that I personally find to be a royal jack-ass, legitimately homophobic, sexist and probably a bunch of other things.

But the individual example does not prove the rule we are trying to argue here, and frankly, we're done arguing. Why?

Because above, you've created strawmen by expanding the scope of the argument, you've made demonstrably false statements that I've had to call you on like 3 times now, you pull examples from a "right wing" blog that Ive already mentioned as an "as bad" exception while making my initial argument. You're sloppy. I don't have time nor patience to hold your hand.

Congratulations Rabit. You've made Bill's point and Tall Dave's as well. If you can't see how, you can't see.

I see very clearly, thanks.

rabit - Every blog has a search function. It's called Google. Just use the "site:" keyword to limit your searches like so.

Google does other neat stuff, like if you misspell a word it corrects you. "Did you mean: rabbit?"

As far as I can tell from these non-contextual quotes, this is not "advocating." But before I can pass judgment, I'd need to read the whole thing. I googled both phrases and found nothing.

You're right, here's your context.

Hmmm, let's see. I believe I SPECIFICALLY MENTIONED LGF as an equivalent nasty right wing comments section. For the last time, DO YOU READ THE POSTS?

So, what's the particular brand of "acerbic profanity" that is present on DailyKOS that isn't present on LGF?

For you not to even acknowledge, on its face, that left wing blogs at least use more PROFANITY - posters and commenters, when they express themselves - is bizarre.

Oh, you mean DailyKOS posters tend to use more nasty words? *gasp* I've never really noticed but maybe you, like many on the left, would too if you had no way of justifying in your mind why Americans are dying in Iraq nearly every day.  I guess it's easy for those of you who can justify it in your minds as bringing democracy for the Iraqi people or Saddam's secret underground torture chambers or WMDs or terrorism funding. I'm really angry that Osama bin Laden is not the one who's dead or captured, but hey, that's just me.

I'm not sure what a search function has to do with anything, but I will say this: if you go to Captains Quarters, and scroll about 40% down the page, below "CQ Sponors" and right above "On My Desk," guess what? THERE IS A SEARCH FUNCTION.

By god, you're right. They certainly keep it well hidden under all those ads. I was using Google's site-specific search feature to try to find threads referring to Sheehan or Michael Moore and was getting nowhere. :)

As far as National Review goes, no, it is not a blog, though the Corner is. That is a column you linked to. Which is interesting, because we are talking about BLOGS. And differences between the argumentation and form of blog COMMENTERS, OVERALL, not COLUMNISTS FOR RIGHT WING MAGAZINES.

Point taken, but you see what I'm saying here?  You have a paid columnist for an important, highly-read conservative magazine as National Review that somehow thinks it's satire to suggest the killing of a young woman who probably suffered a great deal already through no fault of her own.  This is the sort of nastiness that is typical from the right that you do not find the left engaging in.  And your disturbed about naughty words?

Now, expanding our topic to Derbyshire, yes, he's trying to be satirical, and failing. Why? Because he's excused as their resident right wing curmudgeon, but someone that I personally find to be a royal jack-ass, legitimately homophobic, sexist and probably a bunch of other things.

And here's my point. The right gives forum to people like Derbyshire, Ann Coulter, Rush Limbaugh and many, many others.  Many of whom, whether or not as satire, have proclaimed that certain Americans deserve to die based on their ideology, not on their actions. It's surprising, and especially now when we are at war with a real enemy.  In fact, the one common denominator in virtually every conservative blog discussion, even on CaptainsQuarters, seems to be an orgy of hatred against liberals.  I don't see the same thing against conservatives on KOS or on any of the prominent left-wing blogs.  In fact, I recently saw a lefty actually say a positive thing about former conservative republican representative Bob Barr, and wasn't even viciously attacked as a traitor.  

Because above, you've created strawmen by expanding the scope of the argument, you've made demonstrably false statements that I've had to call you on like 3 times now, you pull examples from a "right wing" blog that Ive already mentioned as an "as bad" exception while making my initial argument. You're sloppy and ineffective. I don't have time nor patience to hold your hand.

You're right!  When comparing the quality of discourse between the right and left blogosphere, it's not fair to include the right-wing blog sites like LGF, Wizbangblog, Freerepublic, National Review, or any of the other top conservative blogging sites.

Bet you've never even heard of Republicans for Humility.

rabit - Every blog has a search function. It's called Google. Just use the "site:" keyword to limit your searches like so.

Google does other neat stuff, like if you misspell a word it corrects you. "Did you mean: rabbit?"

Yup. I was leaving out the site: so that's probably why it wasn't working right. Thanks.

It's spelled rabid by the way, you could at least get that much right.

You are so funny, I laughed backwards.

You would do well to covet political power less and appreciate the truth more.

What does this mean?

And, oh by the way, according to a poll posted at KOS about forty percent of his readers depise GWB more than OBL.

Hmm, am I s'posed to take your word for that or are you going to give me a link to back that up?

If the dems had run a candidate that hated America less and terrorism more they would have won, but that would have alienated the base wouldn't it?

Do you really believe that John Kerry hates America? No, you don't. So don't repeat a lie you know is untrue. That's shameful and disrespectful to a man who served in armed combat. Unlike people like Bush, Cheney, Wolfowitz, Libby, or even Rumsfeld (though, I think he was a bit too old for Vietnam), who found excuses to NOT fight for this country when they were called upon. Actions speak louder than words and what does this say to you?

You also conveniently forget the "Screw them" comment Kos dropped all over the bodies of dead Americans in Iraq.

I do believe that was when Markos said something along the lines of not feeling sorry for the private military contractors being killed in Iraq. He was not referring to dead soldiers in Iraq.

You also said you agreed with the comment that war profiteers should be executed.

No I didn't. I said I agreed with the comments of Harry S. Truman that it's an act of treason. That fact that it at one point was a capital offense is just to point out the seriousness of the crime.

Pat Buchanon leaps to mind, though oddly, the left seems to agree with Pat alot these days.

That's probably because Pat Buchanan has been saying things a few people on the left can agree with. It's interesting how a lot of conservatives, once they leave politics, suddenly become more moderate. Makes you wonder where their real values lie.

ut by maintaing that the atmosphere at Kos is just and pristine you make youself look like a fool, and a liar as well.

Did I say it was pristine? Nope, but compared to the bulk of the right wing blogs, there is no comparison. Maybe this is why sites like KOS, Crooks and Liars, and Talking Points Memo are stomping their right-wing competition.

And one last thing, had the Democrats run someone who hated America less and terrorism more in '04 I think they would have won. They certainly would have stood a chance at winning my vote, but that would have alienated the base wouldn't it?

You repeat that Kerry hates America again. Admittedly, it took me a long time to like Kerry - I thought he looked a bit slimy when I first saw him (incidentally, which was an C-SPAN showing an old debate with John O'Neil on Dick Cavett's show) - but there is not a single shred of doubt in my mind that John Kerry would have been a better president. Or Al Gore, for that matter.

rabit,

I said:

"personal contributions: perfectly legal.
lobbying contributions: under investigation."

and you posted a link that had nothing to with that point, and said I was ignorant.

I think I see why your side is losing so many elections. You don't seem to understand basic logic.

The campaign contributions by themselves aren't illegal, are they? It's when viewed as a sum of all of it's parts that it becomes a crime. I'm afraid that I came to the realization that republicans tend to suffer from tunnel vision when it comes to ethics.

Uh, no, illegal lobbying contributions are illegal. Specific act, specific crime.

purely illegal and unconstitutional spying program?

Now you're just proving you're a moonbat. I bet Karl Rove is just drooling over having that debate in an election year. People like you are the GOP's best friend, and the more viciously you attack the more you discredit your own cause.

It's fun watching a rabid animal chew his foot off, in a disturbing kind of way.

LOL In fact your link actually proves you wrong:

"The agreement alleges that Abramoff bribed public officials...Also included: the hiring of congressional staffers and conspiring with them to lobby their former employers—including members of Congress—in violation of a one-year federal ban on such lobbying"

Specific acts, specific crimes.

More

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jack_Abramoff_lobbying_and_corruption_scandal

"The lobbyists are accused of orchestrating lobbying against their own clients in order to force them to pay for lobbying services.
...
In the course of the scheme, the lobbyists are accused of illegally giving gifts and making campaign donations to legislators in return for votes or support of legislation."

The article also specifically mentions a Democrat.

Are you saying there was no poll on the KOS website in which 41 percent of the respondants claimed they despised GWB more than OBL. Are you really saying that?
Did you miss the part of John Kerry's biography where he accused American soliders of war crimes? Did you miss the episode of Meet The Press where he accused American soldiers of "terrorizing" Iraqis? Did you miss the part of Kerry's biography where he met with people that were talking about assasinating U.S. Senators? Now, to Kerry's credit he quite that particular organization, but he never so far as we know, turned those people in. What's more he's never said he's sorry about it.
Right now, I can't figure out whether you are very deluded or very stupid. Either way, I'm obviously wasting my time talking with you.

Are you saying there was no poll on the KOS website in which 41 percent of the respondants claimed they despised GWB more than OBL. Are you really saying that?

I'm saying, give me a link. I'm not disputing it, it could be true, just give me a link.

Did you miss the part of John Kerry's biography where he accused American soliders of war crimes?

He did. Are you saying they didn't occur?

Did you miss the episode of Meet The Press where he accused American soldiers of "terrorizing" Iraqis?

And you think American soldiers bring flowers? What do you think happens in war?

Did you miss the part of Kerry's biography where he met with people that were talking about assasinating U.S. Senators?

Oh, this is indeed very interesting. Which meeting was that?

Now, to Kerry's credit he quite that particular organization, but he never so far as we know, turned those people in. What's more he's never said he's sorry about it.

And what organization? I'm really curious.

Right now, I can't figure out whether you are very deluded or very stupid. Either way, I'm obviously wasting my time talking with you.

Golly, you're not very much fun.

Its a delusion. The Democrats have abandoned all attempt to present a coherent platform on any issues, so all they have left is self-delusion that someone they are some odd form of political saints and Republicans are devils.

Truly a mental illness.

Check out www.usvetdsp.com/JF_Kerry.htm. Candidate Kerry was a memeber and officer in an organization called VVAW. Thomas Lipscomb reported in the New York Sun on the meeting In Kansas City where assasination of US Senators was debated. Kerry claimed he wasn't there. Gerald Nicosia in a book called "Home to War," says he was. So does another memeber of VVAW named Johyn Musgrave. So does John W, Hurley, also an officer in VVAW.
The poll is at www.dailykos.com/poll/1137742415_nANToluZ. You claim to read the Daily KOS I shouldn't have to find it for you, but I did.
And one of the big problems with Mr. Kerry's claims as to atrocities was that he was travelling with another memeber of VVAW named Al Hubbard at the time he made them. Mr. Hubbard claimed to have witnessed atrocties as well. Unfortuantely, Mr. Hubbard also claimed to be a wounded Air Force officer. He was neither. He was either delusional or lying. Something you should be able to identify with, Rabit.

Check out www.usvetdsp.com/JF_Kerry.htm. Candidate Kerry was a memeber and officer in an organization called VVAW. Thomas Lipscomb reported in the New York Sun on the meeting In Kansas City where assasination of US Senators was debated. Kerry claimed he wasn't there.

Interesting, and there's more here and the individual who suggested the plan. I s'pose you'll say he voted for it before he voted against it?

Whether Kerry was at the meeting doesn't matter. Kerry left this organization. Sorry, not enough evidence that Kerry hates America. I mean, didn't W's best buddy in the National Guard purchase an airport on behalf of one of Osama bin Laden's brothers?? Why, yes he did. Who wants Americans dead? Osama Bin Laden? Are you seeing a connection there? *knock* *knock*

Really, you can't love your country if you support a president who doesn't understand the importance of civil liberties and the constitution. Terrorism is not an excuse. Osama doesn't just hate Americans, but he hates the system - a system that WORKS when it is followed to the letter. When Bush subverts that system in the name of terrorism, he's indirectly doing Osama's bidding. I wrote this here in a comment over a year ago, and it's even more true today. If you don't get that, you're not patriotic enough.

And not capturing and killing Osama bin Laden is inexcusable.

The poll is at www.dailykos.com/poll/1137742415_nANToluZ. You claim to read the Daily KOS I shouldn't have to find it for you, but I did.

Hmmmm. Out of 393 KOSers,

46% (164) hate George Bush
58% (229) hate Osama bin Laden

Certainly seems to show that more KOSers hate Osama than George, but I think that once the deaths in Iraq climb to about the 3,000 mark, it'll probably be a very close race.

He was either delusional or lying. Something you should be able to identify with, Rabit.

No, I don't identify with delusional people at all - but they are always fun to debate with. :)

Its a delusion. The Democrats have abandoned all attempt to present a coherent platform on any issues, so all they have left is self-delusion that someone they are some odd form of political saints and Republicans are devils.

I have tremendous respect for some republicans like John McCain and Chuck Hagel. For the most part, though, the most opportunistic republicans that seem to rise to the top of their party repulse me.

and you posted a link that had nothing to with that point, and said I was ignorant.

Well I'm sorry if I hurt your feelings but I'm just trying to figure out what constitutes an individual 'legal' and an 'illegal' contribution to a political candidate. You seem to be saying it's illegal for politicians to receive campaign contributes from Indian tribes, period.

You state;

Receiving illegal contributions from anyone is like robbing a bank (illegal). Prior legal contributions are like withdrawing money from savings (legal).

What _exactly_ is an illegal campaign contribution and how does it differ _exactly_ from a legal one? You know, because campaign contributions have been legal for some time, even from Indian tribes involved in gambling casinos.

Now you're just proving you're a moonbat.

Now you're calling me names. How impolite.

I bet Karl Rove is just drooling over having that debate in an election year. People like you are the GOP's best friend, and the more viciously you attack the more you discredit your own cause.

I guess you would agree with Bush when he allegedly said about the Constitution that 'It's just a goddamned piece of paper.' Now who hates America?

Oh boy, I haven't seen this much looniness since I debated a scientologist.

It's fun watching a rabid animal chew his foot off, in a disturbing kind of way.

Interesting. Do you do that often? Well, you're in excellent republican company. James Dobson waxed poetic in his book 'Strong-Willed Child' about beating his pet dachsund.

And then there's republican Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, who admitted that as a young man, he would adopt cats at animal shelters, keep them around as pets for a few days, then kill them for medical experiments.

Such delightful people. I'm glad to be a democrat.

Rabit,

I say this as a person who bears you no ill will and actually feels some compassion for you. You've embarassed yourself enough.

I say this as a person who bears you no ill will and actually feels some compassion for you. You've embarassed yourself enough.

Well, thank you for your condescension but it really isn't necessary. I can't imagine why you would have much compassion for someone you don't know a thing about and, chances are, you'll never ever meet.

But I am sincere in saying that I really am curious about why people believe in the silly, vividly false crap that they believe. That is why I read and comment more often in right-wing blogs. I'd rather read criticism to my posts than the circle-jerk that typically goes on in most blogs on both political sides.

And it's kinda fun, too. Kinda like leading people out the rabbit hole. :)

Rabbit,

I feel comapssion for you because you are to obtuse to realize how silly your posts are. It's like watching a kid fail his driver's exam. Wikipedia's owner admits that the entries in the bloody thing aren't fact checked. He was even caught playing fast and loose with the truth on his own entry.
The "alleged" statement about the constitution is worse than flimsy. It's freaking nonexistent. I can only gather from your blather that your purpose is to insure the REpublicans havce a filibuster proof majority in the Senate come November. Becuase you certainly have done nothing to effectively support a Democratic posion or for that matter KOS. With friends like you he does not need enemies.
And no, I'm not going to do your research for you on Wikipedia. Google it.

Well I'm sorry if I hurt your feelings

LOL You didn't, you just embarassed yourself by calling me ignorant while posting something that has nothing to do with your point.

but I'm just trying to figure out what constitutes an individual 'legal' and an 'illegal' contribution to a political candidate.

Might I suggest referring to the link, instead of posting innumerable irrelevancies? It's pretty clear which contributions have been charged as crimes and which haven't, and why.

You seem to be saying it's illegal for politicians to receive campaign contributes from Indian tribes, period

You seem to be unable to read the link, or my posts. I didn't say anything remotely resembling that, but apparently you prefer to debate opponents of your own imagination.

It's fun watching a rabid animal chew his foot off, in a disturbing kind of way.

Interesting. Do you do that often?

That depends. How often are you going to post here?

LOL I see you've even pulled out the tired old "civil liberties are under attack!" meme again. How predictably amusing.

Tell me, besides not being able to enjoy unmonitored calls from Al Qaeda, which civil liberties are we giving up?

Did you miss the part of John Kerry's biography where he accused American soliders of war crimes?

He did. Are you saying they didn't occur?

Of course they didn't, that's why the accusations are so controversial. His claims were investigated and none of them had any merit. Some of the "witnesses" he dug up hadn't even been to Vietnam, and some later said they were ooached to lie by Kerry and his group. But Kerry got up there and said they were behaving like Ghenghis Khan, and that it was approved at all levels.

Do you really believe that John Kerry hates America?

Hate is probably too strong a word. Indifferent, maybe? He didn't love it enough to avoid make unsubstantiated charges against his fellow American veterans in order to launch his political career.

Such delightful people. I'm glad to be a democrat.

Yeah, you're on safe ground there with Ted "Chappaquiddick" Kennedy, John "Ghengis Khan" Kerry, and Robert "KKK"
Byrd.

I think you'll fit right in :)

Just for fun:

In Yesterday's Lies: Steve Pitkin and the Winter Soldiers, Scott Swett tells the story of a former VVAW member and participant in the Winter Soldier Investigation who has now filed an affidavit stating that John Kerry and others pressured him to give false testimony about American atrocities in Vietnam.

John Kerry's photograph hangs in the War Protestors Hall of the War Remnants Museum in Ho Chi Minh City -- an indication of the value the Vietnamese communists place on Kerry's support of their efforts during the Vietnam War.

I feel comapssion for you because you are to obtuse to realize how silly your posts are. It's like watching a kid fail his driver's exam.

I passed my driver's exam the first time I took it, but thanks for your concern.

Wikipedia's owner admits that the entries in the bloody thing aren't fact checked. He was even caught playing fast and loose with the truth on his own entry.

And the printed encyclopedias are more reliable? Here's a list of factual errors found in the Encyclopædia Britannica. Let's face it, NOTHING should be trusted as absolute truth. I don't even care if you believe anything I write. Do your own research. The difference with Wikipedia is that it is dynamic, it changes as new information (or misinformation) is found, and most importantly, it provides links to research things yourself.

I can only gather from your blather that your purpose is to insure the REpublicans havce a filibuster proof majority in the Senate come November. Becuase you certainly have done nothing to effectively support a Democratic posion or for that matter KOS. With friends like you he does not need enemies.
And no, I'm not going to do your research for you on Wikipedia. Google it.

Now you're just being silly. I really don't care to change your mind about anything. I'm more interested in how you people like you are so blindly partisan to not recognize the fact that if Bush was a democrat, you'd be screaming out of your skulls for impeachment right now.

5 years of costly Whitewater investigations on the Clintons lead to nothing, but an extra-marital affair. Bush presented false information to the public (Remember "The smoking gun could arrive in a mushroom cloud") to justify starting a war in Iraq, which a majority of the public now believe was not justified - and worse, is unwinnable.

Which one screwed up worse?

John Kerry's photograph hangs in the War Protestors Hall of the War Remnants Museum in Ho Chi Minh City -- an indication of the value the Vietnamese communists place on Kerry's support of their efforts during the Vietnam War.

I also heard that he lied about throwing his purple hearts over the White House fence. So what? Or that Osama videotape just before the election basically said 'Vote for Kerry' - Guess what, I don't let my enemies decide who I dislike. I base my opinions on people based on their actions and their statements.

Yeah, you're on safe ground there with Ted "Chappaquiddick" Kennedy, John "Ghengis Khan" Kerry, and Robert "KKK"
Byrd.

I think you'll fit right in :)

I don't care for Byrd and Kennedy, but how do you tie 'Genghis Khan' in with John Kerry? Did you ever put your life on the line in combat? Because if you didn't, you aren't really qualified to judge Kerry's patriotism.

Of course they didn't, that's why the accusations are so controversial. His claims were investigated and none of them had any merit. Some of the "witnesses" he dug up hadn't even been to Vietnam, and some later said they were ooached to lie by Kerry and his group. But Kerry got up there and said they were behaving like Ghenghis Khan, and that it was approved at all levels.

Oh, so you're saying that war atrocities didn't occur in Vietnam? Am I reading you clearly? Or just the ones that Kerry described? Because, as I understand it, atrocities are unavoidable in war.

But let's be specific. I will state with absolute certainty, but with absolutely no authority, that the claims of John O'Neil and the Swift Boat Veterans have already proven to be false.

Hate is probably too strong a word. Indifferent, maybe? He didn't love it enough to avoid make unsubstantiated charges against his fellow American veterans in order to launch his political career.

Indifferent?! Hmmmm, interesting.

LOL I see you've even pulled out the tired old "civil liberties are under attack!" meme again. How predictably amusing.

Tell me, besides not being able to enjoy unmonitored calls from Al Qaeda, which civil liberties are we giving up?

You're a conservative, right? You tell me!

Well, Benedict Arnold put his life on the line, too. I feel pretty safe in questioning his patriotism.

The very specific allegations Kerry made were investigated. Not one could be substantiated; this is well documented at wintersoldiers.com. That's the kind of thing you should really verify before you go on the floor of the Senate and accuse your country's soldiers of atrocities -- if you love your country and your fellow soldiers more than your nascent political career.

Tell me, besides not being able to enjoy unmonitored calls from Al Qaeda, which civil liberties are we giving up? You're a conservative, right? You tell me!

I'm really more of a libertarian, and so if I thought our civil liberties were being significantly affected I'd be the first one up in arms over it. I'm a lot more worried about Al Qaeda infringing on my right not to suffer grievous bodily harm.

Rabit,

If Karl Rove were here he would pay money to keep you talking, you realize that don't you?

I also heard that he lied about throwing his purple hearts over the White House fence. So what? Or that Osama videotape just before the election basically said 'Vote for Kerry' - Guess what, I don't let my enemies decide who I dislike. I base my opinions on people based on their actions and their statements.

So you like dishonest, fraudulent traitors?

The very specific allegations Kerry made were investigated. Not one could be substantiated; this is well documented at wintersoldiers.com.

Interesting. Where's the hell is the point-by-point debunking of Kerry's claims? Am I supposed to sift through thousands of pages of government documents and transcripts to find that myself? Is it buried somewhere deep in there somewhere? If Kerry and his comrades are lying about committing war atrocities, why can't they cross-reference it to the exact documents that prove they lied.

Here's my theory. Because they can't.

And why do I get completely different view of Jimmy Massey from wintersoldiers.com & mrs. malkin then I get when reading I an actual transcript of Massey facing his main critic, Ron Harris?

The answer is simple. Your side lies and they lie so much, they've lost any sense of the truth.

Where are Kerry's war atrocity claims debunked?

Rabit,
You are amazingly dishonest. The Swiftboat Vets accusations were not proven untrue. In fact, Kerry was forced to admit many of their refutations of his various bizarre claims about his own service. The Winter Soldier testimony that Kerry retailed has been shown to be untrue and fraudulent. There have been several books and articles by people who researched the actual background of the supposed witnesses to show that many were never in Vietnam and many were never even in the service at all.

Frauds. Seems to be a favorite of Kerry and you.

In fact, Kerry was forced to admit many of their refutations of his various bizarre claims about his own service.

Why can't you be specific and tell EXACTLY what those bizarre claims are? Is it because you don't know what they are, yet willingly repeat what you hear? You've obviously got a brain, use it. Find proven false claim that Kerry made about his war service RIGHT NOW.

Here's snopes.com on John Kerry's war service.

Frauds. Seems to be a favorite of Kerry and you.

Alright, then prove that you aren't a fraud and back up your statement.

Snopes has all the goods on Kerry, go read if you dare. Such as the photo in Ho Chi Minh City. And the Swift Boat Veterans. Great stuff.

Rabit,

If Karl Rove were here he would pay money to keep you talking, you realize that don't you?

Of course you don't believe that, else you wouldn't keep repeating the same thing trying to get me to stop replying. :)

Also, I don't think Karl Rove is into my type. He's far more into leather daddies like Jeff "Bulldog" Gannon and Armstrong "Sticky Fingers" Williams and I'm probably too young and good looking for his taste.

Wooops - Forgot the correct Jeff Gannon link. Enjoy. :)

Oh, and by the way, Robin Roberts. I just glanced at your blog.

And I quote:

• Monday, December 05,

  Evidently I'm not the only one astonished that Senator Kerry would call U.S. military terrorists.

Actual quote from Kerry:

• And there is no reason, Bob, that young American soldiers need to be going into the homes of Iraqis in the dead of night, terrorizing kids and children, you know, women,

So, use the term terrorize to describe a man who threatens to beat his wife and kids is clearly calling that man a terrorist, presumably of the islamicist type.

You lie.

Where's the hell is the point-by-point debunking of Kerry's claims?

Sheesh, they were done in the 1970s. The "soldiers" were interviewed, some of whom turned out never to have been in the armed forces, let alone Vietnam. I don't know that transcripts exist, it was 30 years ago, but none of the investigations bore fruit, and a signed affidavit attests Kerry encouraged them to lie.

Why can't you be specific and tell EXACTLY what those bizarre claims are? Find proven false claim that Kerry made about his war service RIGHT NOW.

Christmas in Cambodia, for starters. His campaign admitted the memory that he'd claimed was "seared, seared" into him never actually happened.

Where are Kerry's war atrocity claims debunked?

www.wintersoldier.com, as I already told you.

The answer is simple. Your side lies and they lie so much, they've lost any sense of the truth.

Project much?

Of course, if you had ANY interest in the truth, you'd simply admit Kerry exaggerated and fabricated much of what he claimed in order to further his political career.

Far from being a war hero, he did everything possible to avoid danger (Swift Boat patrol duty was considered cushy when he volunteered for it, and only later involved combat), and when inadvertently thrust into it did everything possible to get out of it (getting 3 PH for minor injuries, then using them as a technicality to get an xfer home).

Now, you can argue Bush wasn't a lot better, though he did face some danger as an F-102 pilot and did volunteer for combat duty. But Bush didn't claim to be a war hero, either.

And those truths are why "Unfit Fot Duty" sunk Kerry's campaign, and how his lies cost him the election.

Oh, and I note the Snopes page says very little about the substantive claims against Kerry. It also confirms some of my points, such as the fact Swift Boat duty was noncombat when Kerry volunteered for it.

Sheesh, they were done in the 1970s. The "soldiers" were interviewed, some of whom turned out never to have been in the armed forces, let alone Vietnam. I don't know that transcripts exist, it was 30 years ago, but none of the investigations bore fruit, and a signed affidavit attests Kerry encouraged them to lie.

Let me quote Wikipedia on the matter: "To date, no records of fraudulent participants or fraudulent testimony have been produced." Now, don't believe me, but the article has many specific details on the affadavit signed by Steve Pitkin, which you might find interesting.

And, from a movie review of Winter Soldiers in the San Francisco Guardian:

• "John Kerry is seen briefly toward the beginning of the movie, and his participation in the Winter Soldier investigation became a conservative lightning rod last year, particularly when Steve Pitkin – another participant, who comes across as the most camera-ready and TV-eager – launched accusations [via an affidavit] that Kerry and others had bullied him into saying he'd witnessed atrocities when he hadn't. Pitkin doesn't refer to any specific crimes in Winter Soldier, and it's worth noting that, oddly, none of the other 108 military participants have come forward with similar claims. In addition Pitkin was recently forced to recant some of his affidavit when [Scott] Camil filed one of his own noting that every statement Pitkin's affidavit made pertaining to Camil was false."

• "Such petty factual details matter very little these days, when Pitkin's about-face proliferates across the Internet, where a Bush apologist by the name of Scott Swett lords over a site called wintersoldier.com. Swett's site is happy to endlessly parse whatever minor falsehoods it can find, yet it remains interestingly mute – if not outright incorrect – when it comes to much of the actual content of Winter Soldier. You certainly won't find him responding to the fact that the movie contains photographic as well as verbal evidence, and the Purple Hearts, ribbons, presidential citations, and Crosses of Gallantry given to Camil alone matter little to him and others when they apply blanket "impostor" labels to the participants. Nothing could be easier than to blindly state that Winter Soldier is more a work of fiction than fact. It sure would help citizens of an ethically starved and immoral country that's repeating the outrage of Vietnam to sleep easier."

Christmas in Cambodia, for starters. His campaign admitted the memory that he'd claimed was "seared, seared" into him never actually happened.

He never was in Cambodia? Salon.com suggests quite convincingly there was, using specific details that people like you conveniently avoid. Read the article. It ends with this;

• But one thing is for sure: Lt. Kerry did not spend that Christmas Eve just lying around, dreaming of sugarplums and roasted chestnuts. He had plenty of time to cover the 40 miles from the Cambodian border to the safety of Sa Dec (he did command a swift boat, after all). More to the point, the evidence indicates he did cover those 40 miles: He was near (or in?) Cambodia in the morning, in Sa Dec that night.

Project much?

Hmmm...

Of course, if you had ANY interest in the truth, you'd simply admit Kerry exaggerated and fabricated much of what he claimed in order to further his political career.

You suggest me to simply accept something at face value? Is that what you do?

God, imagine if you found that everything you believed true about Kerry were false, that he is a war hero and that his testimony of experience in Vietnam were all true. Would you feel guilty? Do you have the integrity to admit it? I'm really curious. Because you should.

Far from being a war hero, he did everything possible to avoid danger (Swift Boat patrol duty was considered cushy when he volunteered for it, and only later involved combat), and when inadvertently thrust into it did everything possible to get out of it (getting 3 PH for minor injuries, then using them as a technicality to get an xfer home).

Oh really? Did you read the Snopes article on Kerry's service?

Now, you can argue Bush wasn't a lot better, though he did face some danger as an F-102 pilot and did volunteer for combat duty. But Bush didn't claim to be a war hero, either.

Bush was a pussy. He went AWOL and he didn't even have to worry about serving.

And those truths are why "Unfit Fot Duty" sunk Kerry's campaign, and how his lies cost him the election.

You're probably right.

Oh, and I note the Snopes page says very little about the substantive claims against Kerry. It also confirms some of my points, such as the fact Swift Boat duty was noncombat when Kerry volunteered for it.

That's because snopes.com only attacks one rumor at a time. Read the other ones. There are plenty, both positive and negative about Kerry.

Awesome site. debt consolidation

http://www.ringtones-dir.com/get/ ringtones site free. ringtones site, Free nokia ringtones here, Download ringtones FREE. From website .

I live in 37732 Las Vegas, Nevada. Have you been here before?

Too bad Deborah Howell thought that she got rid of the evidence. Those search engine bots work faster than she could blink those comments out of existence. Just check out on how many of those commenters actually slung profanities at her at every step of the way. Just take a look. Talk about stretching the truth.
I do not agree. Go to http://www.apartments.waw.pl

Divorce lawyer

Nice site

Just a student doing Homework on this subject xD

nxkqtpjyr voakql shtvwx drby wzicdxu vcdwhnbkq kwfmc