Sunday, March 18, 2007

Release The Hounds!

"Among a people generally corrupt, liberty cannot long exist." ~ Edmund Burke




Over on Lone Rangers blog, he has posted an interesting story about Washington DC "Madam", Deborah Jeanne Palfrey, who has indicated she may sell her client list to the news media to pay her legal expenses. The judge has ruled that she will not be allowed to do that.

Besides the possibility that the reason he has ruled thus, could be because he himself, or some of his closest colleagues may be on the list, there are other potentially embarrassing possibilities as well.

I made a portion of this point over in his comments section.

If Ms. Palfrey's list becomes public, and we all know it will, eventually, I hereby make some predictions:

First, there will be many more Democrat politicians on the list than Republicans, a point that Lone Ranger made himself.

But the press will conveniently forget that fact, opting to focus on the perceived corruption of the Republican politicians on the list. They will misrepresent the facts although, in cases such as this, misrepresentation is unnecessary. Just being on the list is indictment enough.

Next will be the inevitable investigations and hearings that will go on for months, probably years, into just how hypocritical and corrupt the Republican party is, and the Lib bloggers will be in seventh heaven, chortling with glee over the perception that they have at last been vindicated, and that there now exists proof positive of true Republican perversion.

During all this, a few Republican politicians will proffer their resignations in disgrace, releasing statements to the press that they are resigning for the "good of the party".

Many Republicans will be indicted, tried, and in some extreme cases, actually jailed.

There is a possibility that some Republicans will try unsuccessfully to hold on to their seats. Those are the Republicans that consistently side with their Democrat colleagues.

On the Democratic side, little will be reported on, and those that are named will be excused for any and all misconduct on the grounds that they have done nothing illegal, or at least, nothing that amounts to anything more than a misdemeanor.

Liberal bloggers will grudgingly address the issue, and then downplay it, saying things like, "Since when is sex between two consenting adults a crime?" or "Oh yeah, The senator is a criminal because he gets a blowjob!" snarlingly dismissing the fact that what their heroes have done is commit adultery and, in some cases, all manner of perversions up to and possibly including illegal sex practices such as bestiality, etc.

After perfunctory investigations into "alleged" impropriety and malfeasance of the Democratic politicians who are included on the list, the "alleged perpetrators" will be exonerated, or perhaps given the proverbial slap on the wrist, and upon re-entering the House and Senate chambers, receive a standing ovation from their Democrat colleagues.

Whereupon, they will proceed in prosecuting the Republican politicians on the list with religious fervor and sanctimonious tongue-clicking.

And they will remain in office to continue their righteous campaign against the dreaded Republican "Culture of Corruption."

All of this will lead to the press alluding to a serious turning point in the history of this great nation, and the usual call for the impeachment of President Bush, because, as everyone knows, any Republican who has any smirch on his record, is a reflection on the integrity of the President himself, regardless of how tenuous the connection may be.

Years afterwards, Liberal and Conservative bloggers will repeatedly reference this scandal to illustrate their opinions that the other side is corrupt, the difference being that Liberals will point to the fact that none of their heroes were imprisoned, and the Conservatives will point to the fact that Democrats got off light.

Mark my words. Bookmark this site. It is unlikely that these predictions will turn out to be wrong.

Unless, of course, Ms Palfrey mysteriously winds up dead, and the records lost or burned.

103 comments:

mudkitty said...

Interesting...what makes you think that there will be more dems in her black book, than repugs? How in the world could you possibly know that? (Will you retract and apologize when that turns out not to be the case? I doubt it.)

In virtually every sociological study of prostitution that there is, it turns out that most johns, from nearly all walks of life, identify as Christian and Republican.

And as we all know, in 99% of all prostitution prosecutions, the johns get off scott-free.

When have you ever heard of a madam's black book being published? Never. Still waiting for Fleiss' black book, still waiting for Madam Alex's black book...

Mark said...

Well, Mudkitty, time will tell, won't it?

As Lone Ranger says, "If it's true that Deborah Palfrey gave her phone records to a media outlet, it could be a scythe that cuts down far more Democrats than Republicans, simply because liberals are more prone to such hi-jinks than conservatives."

We'll just have to wait and see.

Dan Trabue said...

"It is unlikely that these predictions will turn out to be wrong."

I'm not a gambling man, and I'd be a fool to bet on the integrity of any politician, but I'll give $10 to the charity of your choice if you're right if you'll match it if you're wrong.

Gayle said...

I agree with you Mark; all you have done here is echo the strategy used by the Democrats in the past.

I don't know though, whether there will be more Dems in the book than Republicans, but I do suspect there will be, simply because of their liberal attitude, although I'm sure there are probably many Republicans in that black book too. I was going to say "little black book" but with it weighing in at 45 pounds it can hardly be called "little!"

Mudkitty may be right; that book may never be made public.

Dan Trabue said...

"simply because liberals are more prone to such hi-jinks than conservatives."

This is a lie disproved by history and reality. I attend a church full of what you'd call liberals and we have fewer than the norm divorces, very sound marriages and our members have the highest moral fiber.

Again, Mark, I'd ask: On what basis do you print claims such as this one (made first by Lone Ranger)? On your gut feeling? Hunches?

Do you understand that most of your fellow citizens are not willing to accept your "best guess" and would rather rely upon actual evidence found in the real world (not in disreputable rags that love to spread rumor and pass it off as reality)?

These sorts of unfounded statements would really be offensive if they weren't so laughable.

Jimmy Swaggart
Jim Bakker
Newt Gingrich
Ronald Reagan
Henry Hyde
Rush Limbaugh
Bob Barr
Michael Deaver
John Warner
Strom Thurmond
Bob Packwood
Bob Livingston
Neil Bush
Dan Crane
Bill O'Reilly
Paul Crouch
Mark Foley
Rudy Giuliani....

Abouna said...

If yours and Lone Rangers' predictions turn out true, it will be just par for the course for the Dems.

I have been saying for years that the Democrats are the most corrupt and might I add immoral (Iknow that there are many out there who will jump all over me for that statement, but it is true) Just look at the types of things they support.

And even though it is reapeating myself, one need only look at the record to see that the Lone Ranger and Mark are speaking the truth:

All those on the Reupublic side, that are even accused of committing a crime or serious indiscretion, have resigned from office, admitted their guilt and have NOT been re-elected to office.

Democrats on the other hand: William Jefferson found with a stash of "cold hard" cash in his freezer, money from bribes, still in office. Alcee Hastings, former Federal Court Judge impeached for bribe taking, elected to house over and over again. Barney Frank, pervert and child molester, elected to house over and over again. I could go on, but you get the picture.

Dan Trabue said...

...You don't really want to start comparing infidelities, alleged infidelities and pecadilloes, do you?

Joe Scarborough
Mark Pazuhanich
Arnold Schwarzenegger
Keith Westmoreland
Dick Armey
Doug Dean
Peter Dibble
Bill Bennett
Andrew Buhr
Charles Canady
Keola Childs
Ted Bundy - Republican
Eric Rudolph?
The Unabomber?
Jim Bunn
Bob Dornan
(And, if we're not excluding rumor and innuendo):
George H.W. Bush
George W. Bush
Jeb Bush
John Bolton
Tom Delay
Bob Dole

Again, I'd ask, on what basis should we believe you're unfounded accusation that Dems are more corrupt than Republicans?

mudkitty said...

Actually, time wont tell, because Madam's black books never get released. Mark my words.

mom2 said...

Dan will take the word of the liberal media on all those names listed BECAUSE they are Republicans. Then, he will get on every web site and proclaim the innocence of his Democrat rogues and demand evidence and tell anyone that dares suggest such stories to be true, while telling them they are bearing false witness. Then, he will tell us what good deeds those on his team have done and lastly amen himself. Oh, I forgot to mention that he will say that he will condemn the Democrats as fast as he will the Republicans (if) it is proven (beyond all doubt) (to him).
It gets comical how predictable he is.

Dan Trabue said...

Again, the accusation was made:

"I have been saying for years that the Democrats are the most corrupt and might I add immoral (Iknow that there are many out there who will jump all over me for that statement, but it is true)"

Based on what? I continue to ask. At least this fella had an attempted (but still unsupported) answer. He said:

"Just look at the types of things they support."

Okay, let's look. Liberals are typically champions of the poor. Ooh, that's scandalous.

They want to encourage personal responsibility and discourage pollution. That sounds okay to me.

Most of my "liberal" friends are opposed to abortion, but they are also opposed to Big Brother gov't interventionism and want medical decisions left to families. It's a dicey topic there, but that at least used to be a conservative value (opposing big gov't intrusions).

Liberals are opposed to war and especially invasions that undermine our security efforts. That's all right with this Christian.

What exactly are you suggesting is so scandalous that "liberals" are in favor of?

Again, I ask, on what basis ought we accept these wild and unfounded accusations that Dems/Libs are somehow corrupt?

This church-going deacon, sunday school teacher, tea-totalin family man wants to know.

Dan Trabue said...

AND speaking of unfounded accusations, I notice that abouna accused Frank of being a "pervert and child molester." Some basis for this?

Again, this is not, not, NOT to defend the Dems, who are politicians in a corrupt system and therefore wont to be corrupt. Understand this: The Dems quite often have proven themselves to be corrupt and beholden to special interests.

The point is and the reason I continue to harp on this is because these one-sided partisan accusations with no basis in reality are damaging to our country and ignoring the real problem that you and I have in common: a corrupt system.

If you truly want to stand opposed to corruption, both "sides" should quit defending one party as the party of saints and making baseless accusations against the other party and, instead, join together to work for positive reform of a broken and failing system.

ELAshley said...

A partial list of democrats caught up in various scandals...

William Jefferson Clinton- Impeached by the House of Representatives over allegations of perjury and obstruction of justice, but acquitted by the Senate. Scandals include Whitewater - Travelgate Gennifer Flowersgate - Filegate - Vince Fostergate - Whitewater Billing Recordsgate - Paula Jonesgate- Lincoln Bedroomgate - Donations from Convicted Drug and Weapons Dealersgate - Lippogate - Chinagate - The Lewinsky Affair - Perjury and Jobs for Lewinskygate - Kathleen Willeygate - Web Hubbell Prison Phone Callgate - Selling Military Technology to the Chinesegate - Jaunita Broaddrick Gate - Lootergate - Pardongate

Edward Moore Kennedy - Democrat - U. S. Senator from Massachusetts. Pleaded guilty to leaving the scene of an accident, after his car plunged off a bridge on Chappaquiddick Island killing passenger Mary Jo Kopechne.

Barney Frank - Democrat - U.S. Representative from Massachusetts from 1981 to present. Admitted to having paid Stephen L. Gobie, a male prostitute, for sex and subsequently hiring Gobie as his personal assistant. Gobie used the congressman's Washington apartment for prostitution. A move to expel Frank from the House of Representatives failed and a motion to censure him failed.

DNC - The Federal Election Commission imposed $719,000 in fines against participants in the 1996 Democratic Party fundraising scandals involving contributions from China, Korea and other foreign sources. The Federal Election Commission said it decided to drop cases against contributors of more than $3 million in illegal DNC contributions because the respondents left the country or the corporations are defunct.

Sandy Berger - Democrat - National Security Advisor during the Clinton Administration. Berger became the focus of a criminal investigation after removing highly classified terrorism documents and handwritten notes from the National Archives during preparations for the Sept. 11 commission hearings.

Robert Torricelli - Democrat - Withdrew from the 2002 Senate race with less than 30 days before the election because of controversy over personal gifts he took from a major campaign donor and questions about campaign donations from 1996.

James McGreevey - Democrat - New Jersey Governor . Admitted to having a gay affair. Resigned after allegations of sexual harassment, rumors of being blackmailed on top of fundraising investigations and indictments.

Jesse Jackson - Democrat - Democratic candidate for President. Admitted to having an extramarital affair and fathering a illegitimate child.

Gary Condit - Democrat - US Democratic Congressman from California. Condit had an affair with an intern. Condit, covered up the affair and lied to police after she went missing. No charges were ever filed against Condit. Her remains were discovered in a Washington DC park..

Sowande Ajumoke Omokunde - Democrat - the son of newly elected U.S. Rep. Gwen Moore, was booked on charges of criminal damage to property for allegedly slashing tires on 20 vans and cars rented by the Republican Party for use in Election Day voter turnout efforts.

Daniel David Rostenkowski - Democrat - U.S. Representative from Illinois from 1959 to 1995. Indicted on 17 felony charges- pleaded guilty to two counts of misuse of public funds and sentenced to seventeen months in federal prison.

Melvin Jay Reynolds - Democrat - U.S. Representative from Illinois from 1993 to 1995. Convicted on sexual misconduct and obstruction of justice charges and sentenced to five years in prison.

Charles Coles Diggs, Jr. - Democrat - U.S. Representative from Michigan from 1955 to 1980. Convicted on eleven counts of mail fraud and filing false payroll forms- sentenced to three years in prison.

George Rogers - Democrat - Massachusetts State House of Representatives from 1965 to 1970. M000ember of Massachusetts State Senate from 1975 to 1978. Convicted of bribery in 1978 and sentenced to two years in prison.

Don Siegelman - Democrat Governor of Alabama - indicted in a bid-rigging scheme involving a maternity-care program. The charges accused Siegelman and his former chief of staff of helping Tuscaloosa physician Phillip Bobo rig bids. Siegelman was accused of moving $550,000 from the state education budget to the State Fire College in Tuscaloosa so Bobo could use the money to pay off a competitor for a state contract for maternity care.

John Murtha, Jr. - Democrat - U.S. Representative from Pennsylvania. Implicated in the Abscam sting, in which FBI agents impersonating Arab businessmen offered bribes to political figures; Murtha was cited as an unindicted co-conspirator

Gerry Eastman Studds - Democrat - U.S. Representative from Massachusetts from 1973 to 1997. The first openly gay member of Congress. Censured by the House of Representatives for having sexual relations with a teenage House page.

James C. Green - Democrat - North Carolina State House of Representatives from 1961 to 1977. Charged with accepting a bribe from an undercover FBI agent, but was acquitted. Convicted of tax evasion in 1997.

Frederick Richmond - Democrat - U.S. Representative from New York from 1975 to 1982. Arrested in Washington, D.C., in 1978 for soliciting sex from a minor and from an undercover police officer - pleaded guilty to a misdemeanor. Also - charged with tax evasion, marijuana possession, and improper payments to a federal employee - pleaded guilty.

Raymond Lederer - Democrat - U.S. Representative from Pennsylvania from 1977 to 1981. Implicated in the Abscam sting - convicted of bribery and sentenced to three years in prison and fined $20,000.

Harrison Arlington Williams, Jr. - Democrat - U.S. Senator from New Jersey from 1959 to 1970. Implicated in the Abscam sting. Allegedly accepted an 18% interest in a titanium mine. Convicted of nine counts of bribery, conspiracy, receiving an unlawful gratuity, conflict of interest, and interstate travel in aid of racketeering. Sentenced to three years in prison and fined $50,000.

Frank Thompson, Jr. - Democrat - U.S. Representative from New Jersey from 1955 to 1980. Implicated in the Abscam sting, convicted on bribery and conspiracy charges. Sentenced to three years in prison

Michael Joseph Myers - Democrat - U.S. Representative from Pennsylvania from 1976 to 1980. Implicated in the Abscam sting - convicted of bribery and conspiracy; sentenced to three years in prison and fined $20,000; expelled from the House of Representatives on October 2, 1980.

John Michael Murphy - Democrat - U.S. Representative from New York from 1963 to 1981. Implicated in the Abscam sting. Convicted of conspiracy, conflict of interest, and accepting an illegal gratuity. Sentenced to three years in prison and fined $20,000.

John Wilson Jenrette, Jr - Democrat - U.S. Representative from South Carolina from 1975 to 1980. Implicated in the Abscam sting. Convicted on bribery and conspiracy charges and sentenced to prison

Neil Goldschmidt - Democrat - Oregon governor. Admitted to having an illegal sexual relationship with a 14-year-old teenager while he was serving as Mayor of Portland.

Alcee Lamar Hastings - Democrat - U.S. Representative from Florida. Impeached and removed from office as federal judge in 1989 over bribery charges.

Marion Barry - Democrat - mayor of Washington, D.C., from 1979 to 1991 and again from 1995 to 1999. Convicted of cocaine possession after being caught on videotape smoking crack cocaine. Sentenced to six months in prison.

Mario Biaggi - Democrat - U.S. Representative from New York from 1969 to 1988. Indicted on federal charges that he had accepted bribes in return for influence on federal contracts.Convicted of obstructing justice and accepting illegal gratuities. Tried in 1988 on federal racketeering charges and convicted on 15 felony counts.

Lee Alexander - Democrat - Mayor of Syracuse, N.Y. from 1970 to 1985. Was indicted over a $1.5 million kickback scandal. Pleaded guilty to racketeering and tax evasion charges. Served six years in prison.

Bill Campbell - Democrat - Mayor of Atlanta. Indicted and charged with fraud over claims he accepted improper payments from contractors seeking city contracts.

Frank Ballance - Democrat - Congressman North Carolina. Pleaded guilty to one charge of conspiracy to commit mail fraud and money laundering related to mishandling of money by his charitable foundation.

Hazel O'Leary - Democrat - Secretary of Energy during the Clinton Administration - O'leary took trips all over the world as Secretary with as many 50 staff members and at times rented a plane, which was used by Madonna during her concert tours.

Lafayette Thomas - Democrat - Candidate for Tennessee State House of Representatives in 1954. Sheriff of Davidson County, from 1972 to 1990. Indicted in federal court on 54 counts of abusing his power as sheriff. Pleaded guilty to theft and mail fraud; sentenced to five years in prison.

Mary Rose Oakar - Democrat - U.S. Representative from Ohio from 1977 to 1993. Pleaded guilty to two misdemeanor charges of funneling $16,000 through fake donors.

David Giles - Democrat - candidate for U.S. Representative from Washington in 1986 and 1990. Convicted in June 2000 of child rape.

Gary Siplin - Democrat state senator, Florida- found guilty of third-degree grand theft of $5,000 or more, a felony, and using services of employees for his candidacy.

Edward Mezvinsky - Democrat - U.S. Representative from Iowa from 1973 to 1977. Indicted on 56 federal fraud charges.

Lena Swanson - Democrat - Member of Washington State Senate in 1997. Pleaded guilty to charges of soliciting unlawful payments from veterans and former prisoners of war.

Abraham J. Hirschfeld - Democrat - candidate in Democratic primary for U.S. Senator from New York in 1974 and 1976. Offered Paula Jones $1 million to drop her sexual harassment lawsuit against President Bill Clinton. Convicted in 2000 of trying to hire a hit man to kill his business partner.

Henry Cisneros - Democrat - U.S. Secretary of Housing and Urban Development from 1993 to 1997. Pleaded guilty to a misdemeanor charge of lying to the FBI.

James A. Traficant Jr. - Democrat - Member of House of Representatives from Ohio. Expelled from Congress after being convicted of corruption charges. Sentenced today to eight years in prison for accepting bribes and kickbacks.

John Doug Hays - Democrat - member of Kentucky State Senate from 1980 to 1982 Found guilty of mail fraud for submitting false campaign reports stemming from an unsuccessful run for judge. He was sentenced to six months in prison to be followed by six months of home confinement and three years of probation.

Henry J. Cianfrani - Democrat - Pennsylvania State Senate from 1967 to 1976. Convicted on federal charges of racketeering and mail fraud for padding his Senate payroll. Sentenced to five years in federal prison.

David Hall - Democrat - Governor of Oklahoma from 1971 to 1975. Indicted on extortion and conspiracy charges. Convicted and sentenced to three years in prison.

John A. Celona - Democrat - A former state senator was charged with the three counts of mail fraud. Federal prosecutors accused him of defrauding the state and collecting hundreds of thousands of dollars from CVS Corp. and others while serving in the legislature. Celona has agreed to plead guilty to taking money from the CVS pharmacy chain and other companies that had interest in legislation. Under the deal, Celona agreed to cooperate with investigators. He faces up to five years in federal prison on each of the three counts and a $250,000 fine

Allan Turner Howe - Democrat - U.S. Representative from Utah from 1975 to 1977. Arrested for soliciting a policewoman posing as a prostitute.

Jerry Cosentino - Democrat - Illinois State Treasurer. Pleaded guilty to bank fraud - fined $5,000 and sentenced to nine months home confinement.

Joseph Waggonner Jr. - Democrat - U.S. Representative from Louisiana from 1961 to 19 79. Arrested in Washington, D.C. for soliciting a policewoman posing as a prostitute

Albert G. Bustamante - Democrat - U.S. Representative from Texas from 1985 to 1993. Convicted in 1993 on racketeering and bribery charges and sentenced to prison.

Lawrence Jack Smith - Democrat - U.S. Representative from Florida from 1983 to 1993. Sentenced to three months in federal prison for tax evasion.

David Lee Walters - Democrat - Governor of Oklahoma from 1991 to 1995. Pleaded guilty to a misdemeanor election law violation.

James Guy Tucker, Jr. - Democrat - Governor of Arkansas from 1992 to 1996. Resigned in July 1996 after conviction on federal fraud charges as part of the Whitewater investigation.

Walter Rayford Tucker - Democrat - Mayor of Compton, California from 1991 to 1992; U.S. Representative from California from 1993 to 1995. Sentenced to 27 months in prison for extortion and tax evasion.

William McCuen - Democrat - Secretary of State of Arkansas from 1985 to 1995. Admitted accepting kickbacks from two supporters he gave jobs, and not paying taxes on the money. Admitted to conspiring with a political consultant to split $53,560 embezzled from the state in a sham transaction. He was indicted on corruption charges. Pleaded guilty to felony counts tax evasion and accepting a kickback. Sentenced to 17 years in prison.

Walter Fauntroy - Democrat - Delegate to U.S. Congress from the District of Columbia from 1971 to 1991. Charged in federal court with making false statements on financial disclosure forms. Pleaded guilty to one felony count and sentenced to probation.

Carroll Hubbard, Jr. - Democrat - Kentucky State Senate from 1968 to 1975 and U.S. Representative from Kentucky from 1975 to 1993. Pleaded guilty to conspiring to defraud the Federal Elections Commission and to theft of government property; sentenced to three years in prison.

Joseph Kolter - Democrat - member of Pennsylvania State House of Representatives from 1969 to 1982 and U.S. Representative from Pennsylvania from 1983 to 1993. Indicted by a Federal grand jury on five felony charges of embezzlement at the U.S. House post office. Pleaded guilty.

Webster Hubbell - Democrat - Chief Justice of Arkansas State Supreme Court in 1983. Pleaded guilty to federal mail fraud and tax evasion charges - sentenced to 21 months in prison.

Nicholas Mavroules - Democrat - U.S. Representative from Massachusetts from 1979 to 1993. Pleaded guilty to charges of tax fraud and accepting gratuities while in office.

Carl Christopher Perkins - Democrat - Kentucky State House of Representatives from 1981 to 1984 and U.S. Representative from Kentucky from 1985 to 1993. Pleaded guilty to bank fraud in connection with the House banking scandal. Perkins wrote overdrafts totaling about $300,000. Pleaded guilty to charges of filing false statements with the Federal Election Commission and false financial disclosure reports. Sentenced to 21 months in prison.

Richard Hanna - Democrat - U.S. Representative from California from 1963 to 1974. Received payments of about $200,000 from a Korean businessman in what became known as the "Koreagate" influence buying scandal. Pleaded guilty and sentenced to federal prison.

Angelo Errichetti - Democrat - New Jersey State Senator was sentenced to six years in prison and fined $40,000 for his involvement in Abscam.

Daniel Baugh Brewster - Democrat - U.S. Senator from Maryland. Indicted on charges of accepting illegal gratuity while in Senate.

Thomas Joseph Dodd - Democrat - U.S. Senator from Connecticut. Censured by the Senate for financial improprieties, having diverted $116,000 in campaign and testimonial funds to his own use

Edward Fretwell Prichard, Jr. - Democrat - Delegate to Democratic National Convention from Kentucky. Convicted of vote fraud in federal court in connection with ballot-box stuffing. Served five months in prison.

Jerry Springer - Democrat - Resigned from Cincinnati City Council in 1974 after admitting to paying a prostitute with a personal check, which was found in a police raid on a massage parlor.

Guy Hamilton Jones, Sr. - Democrat -Arkansas State Senate. Convicted on federal tax charges and expelled from the Arkansas Senate.

Daniel Flood - Democrat - U.S. Representative from Pennsylvania from 1945 to 1947, 1949 to 1953 and 1955 to 1980. Pleaded guilty to a conspiracy charge involving payoffs and sentenced to probation.

Otto Kerner, Jr - Democrat - Governor of Illinois from 1961 to 1968. While serving as Governor, he and another official made a gain of over $300,000 in a stock deal. Convicted on 17 counts of bribery, conspiracy, perjury, and related charges. Sentenced to three years in federal prison and fined $50,000.

George Crockett, Jr. - Democrat - U.S. Representative from Michigan. Served four months in federal prison for contempt of court following his defense of a Communist leader on trial for advocating the overthrow of the government.

Cornelius Edward Gallagher - Democrat - U.S. Representative from New Jersey from 1959 to 1973. Indicted on federal charges of income tax evasion, conspiracy, and perjury

Mark B. Jimenez - Democrat fundraiser - sentenced to 27 months in prison on charges of tax evasion and conspiracy to defraud the United States and commit election financing offenses.

Bobby Lee Rush - Democrat - U.S. Representative from Illinois. As a Black Panther, spent six months in prison on a weapons charge.

Bolley ''Bo'' Johnson - Democrat - Former Florida House Speaker - received a two-year term for tax evasion.

oger L. Green - Democrat - Brooklyn Democrat Assemblyman. Pleaded guilty to a misdemeanor for accepting travel reimbursement for trips he did not pay for and was sentenced to fines and probation.

Gloria Davis - Democrat - Bronx assemblywoman. Pleaded guilty to second-degree bribe-taking.


Do you really want to get into a pissing contest Dan?

Mark said...

Wow, Eric, you wrote a book! But most of those resulted in convictions, which really supports the argument that Democrats don't necessarily get a pass in a scandal.

Come up with lists of the crimes committed by Dems that were swept under the rug, and then compare them with the number of Republicans who were actiually convicted of lesser crimes. Then you will have made my point.

Lone Ranger said...

Why would there be more Dems than Repubs on the list? Why do prostitutes flock to a city that's holding a Democratic convention and complain that Republicans bring their families along? Who is trying to push those pesky 10 Commandments out of the public venue? Are the Kennedys Democrats or Republicans?

Dan Trabue said...

I count about 80 names on that list. I have provided a similar list (One that could have been quite longer. I was sticking to names that I was at least a little familiar with).

I have said that the Dems have problems with corruption and that the Republicans do as well. I believe that Republicans probably have more convictions as one standard of measure.

I haven't read your list but I think a pissing contest is only going to prove that there is too much corruption in both parties, which has been MY contention.

Is that what you're now saying, or are you saying that somehow your list of Dems who've been naughty is valid but the list of Republicans who've been naughty is NOT valid?

Again, I'd suggest that we all ought to be working together to reduce the corruption inherent in our system. Join me?

Dan Trabue said...

For a more complete list of Republican convictions, pedophiles, adulterers and perverts, check out:

here

here

here

Just so you know that I stopped at ~40-ish just out of saving space.

ELAshley said...

Your 'Contention', Dan, has been 'There is more corruption in the Republican Party'

mom2 said...

Not that Dan would defend Democrats more than Republicans, but he sure would try. If someone can come up with some more Democrats on the list, the poor guy will be up all night hunting and searching. Pity the guy and let him think he has won.
Doesn't matter what is said, Dan will never change his mind anyway.

Jim said...

elashy, regarding item #1, nice list of "scandals", but did you ever notice that other than the perjury trap that Starr and Tripp set up to catch Clinton, absolutely NONE of them ever went anywhere even though REPUBLIC investigators including Ken Starr spent over $30 Million dollars?

Why? Because they weren't scandals. They were made up by Clinton enemies.

Before you tell me that I'm conjuring up a "vast right-wing conspiracy", ask yourself why none of the charges ever went anywhere even though they were investigated ad nauseum by a Republic-controlled House, a Republic-controlled Senate, and a Republic hack by the name of Ken Starr. Oh, and don't forget the "liberal media" like Newsweek and Michael Isikoff.

No evidence, no indictments, no convictions, no cases, no scandals.

Marshall Art said...

"Liberals are typically champions of the poor."

So they like to say. Yet lib sponsored welfare and social programs have created a sense of entitlement and removed the sense of individuality in those that have come to depend on those programs. Conservatives, on the other hand, typically understand and seek to encourage the God-given abilities inherent in every human being while supporting the types of programs, mostly private or faith-based, that are safety nets for the truly needy. Conservatives have been shown by a recent book on the subject of charity, to be more willing to dig deep. Libs, not so much.

"They want to encourage personal responsibility..."

In what freakin' universe??!! Provide proof, please! As mentioned above, their support of every welfare program has lead to just the opposite.

"Most of my "liberal" friends are opposed to abortion..."

If they believe a fertilized egg is a person, they would understand that "government intervention" in this case is equal to penalties for murder. How can anyone who understands reproduction oppose the government seeking to protect the Constitutional right to life for all people, regardless the stage of development they are at? About 99% of all abortions are breeches of personal responsibility.

"Liberals are opposed to war and especially invasions that undermine our security efforts."

Liberals are opposed to fighting for anything, including their own liberty under a false sense of moral superiority. They are willing to risk their own families rather than chance their public facade of peacefulness be exposed. They pretend they are for peace, but care little for the lack thereof that raged on before our intervention, nor for the violence that will ensue upon our departure. They fool themselves into believing that peace can be achieved without war, when war or the threat of it has bought and secured the peace for all of history.

As to what "scandalous" things libs support, how about pornography under a twisted interpretation of the Right to Free Speech, which was intended for disagreeing with government policies. The ACLU, a noted far left organization heavily supported by libs in general, have fought for all sorts of pornographic films and publications of all sorts, as well as where they can be sold, by whom, and who can possess what. The left supports the gay agenda, which Scripture considers sinful and as such forbidden behavior. Libs generally support sex education in schools of a type that goes beyond biology and seeks to do so for younger and younger students.

But I would have to say that I wouldn't be surprised to find fewer Democratic politicians in that whore's book. Libs don't consider sex in the same way conservatives do. They can swap partners all day long without guilt or notions of impropriety to dissuade them. Why would they go to whores? They feel the urge, there's a lib who'll help them out. A conservative gets the urge, they'll pay for it in an attempt to remain discreet. Both succomb to the same temptation, but only the con will feel guilty for doing so. Generally speaking.

Dan Trabue said...

Dan stated earlier:
"They want to encourage personal responsibility..."

To which Marshall respond:

"In what freakin' universe??!! Provide proof, please!"

Is not wanting folk to pollute a desire to see personal responsibility? To be more accurate, I should have indicated that liberals want to see personal and corporate (in the sense of "all of us," not "corporations" - although corporations would be included in "all of us") or societal responsibility.

Liberals want to see a world where people take responsibility for their own toxins and garbage instead of dumping it in the air, ground and water. Were you unaware of this? What proof do you need or do you get my point?

Marshall went on to say:
"Liberals are opposed to fighting for anything, including their own liberty under a false sense of moral superiority."

Can you provide proof of this? Why do you think we were out there fighting for civil rights in the 50 and 60s? Why do you think we opposed the unjust Vietnam War? Why do you think that we worked so hard - some of us putting our lives on the line - to stop the Contra terrorists in the 80s? Why do you think we're fighting this president?

We do indeed fight for what we believe.

Or by "fight" did you mean that we aren't keen on dropping bombs on cities? In that case, you're right. But there's more than one way to fight.

But you're an adult, I assume. Surely you know this.

I know of no "liberals" who support pornography. In fact, the only folk I know who go around purchasing Playboy type stuff are the more conservative good ol' boys. Not to say that some "liberals" don't dabble in porn, just that I don't know of any.

Or, by "support" do you mean that there are some liberals who view it as a free speech thing? That's certainly true - some do, others don't. Most liberals I know view porn as a violence against women issue.

But there would be no porn put out there if there weren't a market for it. And who do you suppose is buying it?

Marshall, your arguments are not supported by reality. You haven't really pointed to anything scandalous that liberals support any more than conservatives.

Trader Rick said...

SO WHAT'S UP WITH THE FOXHOUNDS?

Mark said...

Rick, it is an example of how my dysfunctional brain works. I envision the feeding frenzy of the press and the Democrats when Ms. Palfrey's client book gets released to the press. I picture them as a bunch of hounds persuing their prey. Perhaps a picture of sharks attacking would have been more appropriate, but I generally equate them with lawyers.

And, the title of this post is "Release the Hounds".

Mark said...

A couple of commenters have said they don't think the contents of the book would not be released, based on the fact that Heidi Fleiss' book wasn't released.

Well, I submit that Heidi's client list wouldn't be as scandalous as Ms Palfreys. Her's contained names of Hollywood celebrities, who are expected to behave immorally. Palfrey's may contain names of Politicians who should be expected to behave morally.

Mark said...

Mom2, You said, "Doesn't matter what is said, Dan will never change his mind anyway."

Yes, I noticed that Liberals are unconvincible long ago. That is why I changed the original title of this blog to "Casting Pearls Before Swine" in the first place.

Not that Dan is a swine. He is not. It is a metaphor.

Now, there are a few other Liberal commentators that leave their droppings here, that I might consider swine, but not Dan.

I believe Dan is sincere. Sincerely wrong, but sincere, nevertheless.

I think of Dan as someone I wouldn't mind sitting in a bar sharing a drink with. If I drank. If Dan drank.

Marshall Art said...

From what I understand, America's greenhouse gas emissions have decreased since the Kyoto accords without being a signer of the agreement. Something like a 15% reduction. Whereas most of the signing countries have increased or shown no decrease. So responsibility is being taken on all fronts of that war. It's mistaken to believe only libs get the idea there. But again, it's a fight that shows little responsibility since there are far more immediate and more threatening dangers in the world for which libs have lacked the resolve. I'm not impressed with libs fighting an "enemy" that won't fight back, such as the government of the United States of America. It is also arrogant to assume that only libs were involved in civil rights activity. But all in all, I find it humorous when libs speak of putting up a fight against that which will cause no real harm. And their opinion on what constitutes a "moral" war is also the stuff of comedy. And when and how did libs "put their lives on the line" in fighting contra rebels? Let me get some popcorn for this one.

"Why do you think we're fighting this president?"

Well that's the $64,000 question, isn't it? I'm guessing it's because you're wacky moonbats with a twisted sense of right and wrong and a serious case of Bush Derangement Syndrome. There's no real logic to it.

And yes, the porn issue is, as I've stated, a goofy free speech issue for the libs, who have twisted the meaning of free speech to include pornography, foul language over the broadcast airwaves, and obscene crap in school reading lists. This is fully supported by the liberal population. As to those who purchase such things, that's another issue and temptation crosses all demographic lines. But it's the libs who believe that this temptation is beyond government controls, that it somehow enhances society to allow it to proliferate under free speech protections.

"You haven't really pointed to anything scandalous that liberals support any more than conservatives."

Nonsense. Your denial doesn't refute the argument. But it does support my contention that libs have redefined words like "scandalous" to deflect criticism of their behavior. From that we've seen porn develop into a billion dollar industry in the USA alone, abortion has claimed the lives of around 40,000 innocent children, STD's have spread to infect younger people, and homosexual behavior has become something that for libs stirs feelings of courage and honor, and a strange comparison to the oppression of blacks and women. All are scandalous to THIS Christian.

Mark said...

I like Kool-Aid. But I am only allowed to drink the sugar-free kind, and it isn't very tasty, so I drink Diet Mountain Dew.

I wish people wouldn't refer to people with opposing views as kool aid drinkers. It disparages kids, who drink kool aid.

I understand the metaphor, I just wish people would come up with a better one.

Dan Trabue said...

"And when and how did libs "put their lives on the line" in fighting contra rebels?"

It's off topic, so just briefly, many of my friends and many others from the US went down to Nicaragua and went to the villages where the terrorists were attacking. They went there to be witnesses for peace. And the terrorism stopped in the villages where they were located.

You see, nonviolent direct action is all about creative peacemaking. You analyze the situation, uncover what the offending party's self interests are and find a way to affect change based on their own self-interest.

That's why NVDA works pretty well (much better than war-as-solution). It's based in reality and human nature and effecting change.

In the contra's case, they were receiving funding (illegally) from the US. The Witness for Peace program analyzed that situation and realized that, while the contra terrorists may not have cared a whit about any peacemakers, it was not in their own best interests to jeopardize their US supporters.

And it worked. By putting their lives on the line, US and other progressives faced down terrorists and stopped them without engaging in bloody and less productive war-making.

Is that not the utmost in morality and bravery?

History. It's great fun to learn about.

As to your non-allegations about porn, show me something that shows somehow that "liberals" support porn more than "conservatives."

The facts are, liberals and conservatives are both generally acting out of concern for morality and integrity. We sometimes disagree about how to accomplish this, but there are no monsters here. Just folk trying to do the right thing. Usually.

Now, certainly, sometimes people who think they're doing the right thing take truly horrible actions (selling WMDs illegally to Iranians - while we're also selling WMDs to Saddam in Iraq - so that they can illegally take the profits from that and give it to terrorists in Nicaragua! All the while, doing so proudly in the name of our country thinking it's justified; or another example - flying a plane into a building to strike a blow against a Great Satan).

So, we must be careful which actions we advocate and weigh them against ethical and moral standards.

Nonetheless, to try to suggest that "liberals" are somehow typically more corrupt than "conservatives" is just a lesson in ignorance of human nature.

mudkitty said...

Hollywood celebrities are expected to behave immorally? By whom? Rightwingnuts? Please.

Leave the criminality to the rightwingers...and the morality to the celebrities, who are only celebrities because people with bad taste like American Idol.

"Un-convince-able?" As if any of you wingnuts ARE convince-able? Pot calling kettle black!

*****

Marshall's sexual fantasies about liberals sex lives are, in and of themselves, perverse on his part. Otherwise, you have to ask him why he speaks with such pseudo-authority.

*****

As for the pissing match, you republicans win the corruption contest hands down! Throughout history. If you want to go tit for tat, for every dem you list, if you don't also list 3 republicans, you are lying, simply by omission.

mudkitty said...

Oh, and by the way, what I consider immoral is to equate a fertilized egg with a "person."

Mark said...

Mudkitty, "Hollywood celebrities are expected to behave immorally? By whom? Rightwingnuts?"

How many Hollywood celebrities have remained faithful to one spouse for more than 10 years? 5 years? 2 years? What percentage of Hollywood marriages end in charges of infidelity and divorce compared to the American average?

You like to look things up, and you have pointed out immorality in Republican Presidential candidates, so you should have a pretty good handle on what immorality is. Look it up! There's an assignment for you!

D.Daddio Al-Ozarka said...

Dan - "Liberals want to see a world where people take responsibility for their own toxins and garbage instead of dumping it in the air, ground and water. Were you unaware of this? What proof do you need or do you get my point?"

Worship the earth...let the people be corrupt...what the hey!

D.Daddio Al-Ozarka said...

Sing along with me, everyone!
"Dan's church is better than my church
Dan's church is better than mine
We're just sinners, they're the real winners
Yeah -
Dan's church is better than mine!"

Dan Trabue said...

Nice song, Daddio. I'll see if we can't sing that on earth day as we hold hands and circle around the tree.

But do you really equate NOT pouring toxins on the earth with worshiping it?

I'm glad I don't live next door to you!

Dan Trabue said...

Seriously, stop in at my church any time you're near Louisville and you'll join in the song, too...

mudkitty said...

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/horsesmouth/2007/03/joe_klein_candi.php

Hello folks. Wake up. WWJD?

mudkitty said...

I just love it how daddyo wants to tell other people how they think.

ELAshley said...

Talking Points Memo!!!

And you people bich about Fox and World Net Daily!!???

LOLOLOL!!!!!!!!

Hypocrites! Sad, pathetically deluded hypocrites!

mudkitty said...

Kill the messenger.

Marshall Art said...

"And the terrorism stopped in the villages where they were located."

Maybe that was due to the fact that they weren't the terrorists you made them out to be. I happen to believe, as Reagan did, that it wasn't the contras who were the bad guys in that incident. So it's not surprising to learn that your little friends were once again standing up to those who would do them no harm. Now had they decided to stand up to the Sandinista government, which had become quite Marxist and oppressive, as I understand it, they might have encountered some real danger. So stories of what the contras did or didn't do according to the regime at the time are hardly credible. So it may be that they didn't harm you because they wouldn't have anyway, they not being the bad guys. Your "NVDA" was a fantasy. What they wanted was for the Sandinista government to be thrown out on their ears. Did you help deliver that for them? What nonsense. What fantasy. It's as goofy as Sheehan thinking she's a fighter by "standing" up to Bush, as if he'd launch a military strike on her! You friends with her?

It is also my understanding that the arms sales to Iran were to those we hoped would depose the mullahs making all the trouble. Not the best plan, but then, good plans for dealing with the real threats are not the forte of the left, so who are you guys to judge?

Your bloviating about what is and isn't moral in the realm of foreign policy is hardly a standard by which we should operate, considering you saw the contras as terrorists, and supported the communist Sandinistas. Talk about stinkin' thinkin', Stew.

"...show me something that shows somehow that "liberals" support porn more than "conservatives."

I did. Go to stoptheACLU.com for more details. The ACLU ain't no conservative club. I also listed other immoral policies that are supported by libs. Aren't you reading the whole post? I'm reading yours, hard as that is.

The fact is, there is a chasm of a difference between lib Christians and conservative Christians just as there is politically. Lib Christians have the same trouble with interpreting Scripture as does the secular lib with the Constitution. They tend to the "God is still speaking" means that He's changing the rules, when it means He's still saying what He's always said. A lib says "thou shalt not kill" while a conservative understands that it says "thou shalt not murder" and we know the difference between the two. Frankly, I don't buy any line of yours that begins with "most libs I know". I can't know for sure of course, but it conveniently shows up whenever incidents of typical lib behavior are mentioned. But assuming that your lib friends are an anomoly, it doesn't negate the truth of what libs typically support and why they vote for whom they do.

Now for my other pal...

Marshall Art said...

Mudkitty,

First off, do you have even one link for any sociological study of prostitution that supports you contention regarding Christians or Republicans? "Most Christians I know" don't patronize whores.

"Marshall's sexual fantasies about liberals sex lives are, in and of themselves, perverse on his part. Otherwise, you have to ask him why he speaks with such pseudo-authority."

Look who's talking (see first paragraph). They are hardly fantasies of mine. Look Sweetheart, to claim that libs don't indulge themselves with far more abandon than conservatives is the true fantasy. In fact, it's an out and out lie of the first order. Who the hell else has been at the forefront of the sexual revolution of the 50's and 60's? Roman Catholics? Are you freakin' kiddin' me? As everyone struggles and sometimes succombs to temptation, it's been the libs who have pushed to remove all sexual behavior from the realm of forbidden acts, or acts for which people of discipline, honor and self-control delay until marriage. This is as true as the sky is blue. It's been the libs who have twisted and perverted the whole notion of morality as evidenced by this statement: "... what I consider immoral is to equate a fertilized egg with a "person." Only a lib would be so confused morally and ethically as to judge one as a non-person due to one's age, size or stage of physical development, and not see that its the same as judging one by one's skin color.

Dan Trabue said...

Let me hazard a guess as to why NO ONE has answered the question: ON WHAT BASIS should we accept the notion that Dems are significantly more corrupt than Republicans - the only reasonable position is to do so based upon evidence and evidence shows clearly that there is corruption on both sides and the evidence would seem to suggest that, IF one party were more corrupt, then it would seem that the Republicans hold that position.

Of course, that conclusion doesn't support the premise being promoted here - that is, "It's not even close - Dems are significantly more corrupt. We can know this because we conservatives think this to be true."

But y'all are all aware that you can't legitimately promote your best guess as a reasonable way of making decisions.

And so, it is safer to remain quiet and just use this space to rant, not reason.

Which is fine. We all want to rant sometimes.

Just know that when someone makes allegations not supported by facts, that there will be those who call you on your rant.

Dan Trabue said...

Marshall helps to support my point that you are just ranting and not relying upon real world evidence by saying:
"I happen to believe, as Reagan did, that it wasn't the contras who were the bad guys in that incident."

And you believe this BASED ON WHAT?

You believe it probably because that's what you've been told to believe by those who were supporting terrorism, but how credible is that?!

The reality is - as anyone who is aware of what was happening in Nicaragua - that contras would come to villages and kill innocent people, rape the women, beat others and leave. This has been documented. This wasn't even a civil war, the contras were terrorists, pure and simple.

They were led largely by the remnants of the Somoza regime that was universally recognized as corrupt and oppressive.

"It is also my understanding that the arms sales to Iran were..."

Does it matter WHAT they "thought"? The fact is that those arms were sold in defiance of US law! As was sending military support to the contras!

DO you people have no shame?! What does it take for you to be outraged at evil, to even acknowledge evil as evil?

I suspect that it's just a matter that you have your heroes (Reagan, for instance) and rather than look at the facts that show your hero to be corrupt, you have to change reality so as not to make your conscience tremble.

Lord have mercy on us all.

As to my "supporting the Sandinistas" - I never said that. They had their troubles (nowhere near a comparison to the terrorists that the contras were, but they had problems). What I DO support is liberty and democracy.

The people of Nicaragua, led by the Sandinistas, overthrew the horribly corrupt and oppressive Somoza regime. They ELECTED the Sandinista gov't. THAT was their decision.

We aren't God that we can pick and choose which gov'ts we want. How arrogant!

Really Marshall, read history. Read something besides your own talking points. Visit nicaragua and ask the people - who JUST ELECTED the sandinistas again to power.

And if you prefer to cling to illusions that support your heroes rather than truth, then shame on you.

And don't you dare write back and say, "Oh yeah, well you're wrong. I know because...well I just know."

If you respond, be prepared to answer the question, BASED ON WHAT.

Mark said...

Dan, it is the libs that promote legalizing prostitution. It is the Libs that promote de-criminalizing marijuauna. It is the Libs that promote legalizing gay marriage, and whatever you have to say about the latter, I and many of like minded Christian Conservatives see homosexuality as perversion.

Personally, I don't care if two gay people marry, as long as they take their vows seriously and don't spread whatever they have (diseases) to heterosexuals while attempting to procreate and produce more perverts.

It is the Libs that promote lowering the age of consent to 12. It is the Libs that promote the legalizing consensual sex relations between adult men and underage boys (see NAMBLA's website).

Now, before you jump all over me for those statements, keep in mind that I don't refer to ALL Libs when I say this. But the "causes" I mention are far and above promoted by mainly Libs, and you know it.

Mark said...

To all commenters:

I made these predictions based on how Republicans and democrats have responded to charges of scandal in the past. They are MY predictions.

Feel free to offer your own predictions.

In time, we will see who is closest to accurate.

Mark said...

Oh, and if you care to challenge my assertions about promoting lowering the age of consent to 12, and legalizing prostitution, see Ruth Bader Ginzburg. (not generally thought of as Conservative) As to legalizing Marijuana, google those words and look at the various organizations who promote that. They are Libs.

Dan Trabue said...

Mark, would you say that it is fair to say that, because the people who promote the KKK are conservatives, that it would be fair to paint all conservatives with that brush? After all - NO liberals support the KKK, so it must be a conservative thing, right?

Wrong.

As to the issues you associated with liberals, some of those are liberal positions (although, I know many conservative libertarians who would support all of the ideals you mentioned). But how does that suggest that liberals are immoral?

Don't you realize that Conservative Libertarians and others who support legalized prostitution and marijuana out of great love of liberty and out of hatred for Big Brother-type gov't? Who think the best way to deal with these troubling issues is to decriminalize them?

It's not that the majority of those - liberal or conservative - who'd support those laws are immoral hedonists. It's a matter of what's the best way to deal with a legitimate problem. Is there no room for discussion with your type of American - either we agree with you or we're immoral? Or, can we discuss these matters without demonizing one another?

Mark said...

Oh, and Jocelyn Elder. Remember her saying if we are going to teach kids what to do in the front seat, we should teach them what to do in the back seat?

She's a lib, too.

Mark said...

Uh Dan, the KKK is supported by Libs. Glad you reminded me. Which political party does Robert Byrd belong to?

Mark said...

Can't argue anymore. Have to go to work now.

Dan, do you realize you spend more time writing comments on my blog than I do? Where do you find the time?

Dan Trabue said...

Well, the last couple of days, I've been at a conference where I have some downtime...

Idle hands are the devil's workshop.

Dan Trabue said...

I'm going to take a final crack at this reasoning, thing, here.

Marshall argued that the contras weren't terrorists.

I argued they were.

I argued thusly because I've been to Nicaragua, I've talked to the people there (one little old lady said to me, "Things weren't perfect, but we had education, we had food and water. Life was good. I want to know: Who gave this man, Reagan, permission to come in and ruin our lives?").

I've seen the signs all around Managua and in the villages north of Managua, still up supporting the Sandinistas (this, years after they had been chased away at the end of a rifle - which is how the Nicaraguans described what the US did, not my description). I've talked to the people in catholic communities. I've even talked to some of the former contras.

Additionally, I have many friends who have been to Nicaragua. Some during the Contra war. I have friends who lived in Nicaragua.

And, of course, I've read pretty extensively about Nicaragua. All of that info has supported the notions that:
1. The contras terrorized the people of Nica. For the most part, it wasn't a matter of soldiers fighting soldiers in a civil war. It was terroristic attacks upon villages.
2. The Sandinistan gov't was a hugely popular gov't with the people. They had enemies, of course, and they had problems. But there is no credible evidence that they weren't a popularly and rightly elected gov't.
3. The US (the Reagan administration) - legally at first, but then ILLEGALLY once Congress forbade sending support to terrorists - supported the Contras in an effort to overthrow a legally elected gov't.

Given ALL of this, I'd like to know: ON WHAT BASIS should I ignore that evidence, Marshall, and accept your word that all of that is wrong?

And even though the Nica thing is off-topic, Mark, I ask this because it gets to the heart of our differences. You seem to be asking me to accept statements that I find morally reprehensible and you're not offering any reasons why I should.

Again, if this is just some old farts ranting and you (collectively) don't want to have any credibility, rant on. But to act as if your position is morally defensible and mine is not is just outrageous and I will oppose that sort of demonization.

Marshall Art said...

Dan,

I googled "contra rebels" before I responded and avoided sites I considered lib, con or otherwise unreliable. It was a bried overview and didn't mention anything that supports your contention for terrorism on the part of the contras. I admit I've heard these claims. Suspiciously and a bit hypocritically, you rag me for just restating the views of my "heroes", without having offered any solid support for YOUR position. So we go back to the same old conundrum of libs dismissing rightwing sources and viewpoints, and cons doing the same to libs.

Also, your defense that "not all libs" support the issues we've listed is lame. If the number of libs who do is so small, we wouldn't even be discussing these issues because they wouldn't be allowed. Facts are facts regarding what is supported by libs and what is supported by cons. When you look at original intent of Constitutional positions, how can supporting porn fall under free speech rights when those rights were to protect political dissension? The Constitutional prohibitions on federal activity was not meant to allow bad behavior whether done publicly or privately, but to keep the feds from oppressing those who disagree with them. It has always been those we now call liberals who have perverted the intent to enable the bad behavior as if whatever one enjoys, one should have a Constitutionally protected right to. I challenge you to show me how I'm wrong in my assertion. Let's see how you support YOUR position.

mom2 said...

Dan, your friend eleuthores gave you the straight on the contra situation and as always, you put aside all facts that go against what YOU want to believe. Then another thing you bragged about was that you WERE a Reagan Republican (which is highly suspect), so some of us have been reading your posts (which are all over the place) long enough to know what a twisted up logic you have and how you pretend innocence when called on your hypocrisy.
Marshall told it exactly right about you.

ELAshley said...

"Of course, that conclusion doesn't support the premise being promoted here - that is, "It's not even close - Dems are significantly more corrupt. We can know this because we conservatives think this to be true."

But y'all are all aware that you can't legitimately promote your best guess as a reasonable way of making decisions.

And so, it is safer to remain quiet and just use this space to rant, not reason
."


Thanks for shooting your arguments out of the sky, Dan. It saves us the effort.

Abouna said...

Dan Trabue: Dems support the Poor, yes by takling money from those who have earned it and giving it away to those who haven't. That is Socialism (Income redistribution) Jesus Christ said that we should help the poor, but that help should come from the heart of the giver, not through coercion from a repressive government. Encourage personal responsibility? What a crock. They want to control our lives from cradle to grave! Prevent pollution? That's a laugh, they want everyone else to cut back, stop driving, you name it, but don't dare ask them to do the same thing while they jet around in their private planes and scoot around in their gas guzzeling SUVs, and don't dare try to put windmills or nuclear plants in their neck of the woods. It is ok to put them in everybody else's back yard but not theirs.

Most of your Liberal friends are against abortion! that's rich. The liberals are the champions for allowing women to murder their unborn children!

As For Barney Frank, send me an email and I will be more than happy to send you the basis for my statements.

It is liberals that have supported legalizing drugs, it is the liberals who have supported homosexual rights and pushing for the legalization for same-sex marriages. And before you start, it doesn't make a damn bit of difference how wonderful homosexuals are, it doesn't make homosexuality right, moral or natural, and Jesus never condoned it, and you as a church-going deacon, sunday school teacher, tea-totalin family man should know that.

I could go on, but I just don't have the time. I will agree with you that both parties are filled with corruption and we need to fight against it, but as long as our politicians of both parties are being controled by the same powerful interest groups, we are hitting our heads against a brick wall. We the people must take back our country and our government from Big Business, Big Banks, Special interest groups with deep pockets. If we don't we are going to be sold out to the higest bidder, and we WILL lose our RIGHTS, OUR FREEDOMS and our National Sovereignty.

Mike's America said...

Mark: How lucky you are to have two certifiable moonbats, Kitty Litter and Trabue the socialist appeaser to liven things up.

As for the topic here, I think your last sentence sums up the likely outcome:

"Ms Palfrey mysteriously winds up dead, and the records lost or burned. "

There's no way the Dems will let that list get out.

Marshall Art said...

Dan,

I have not been to Nicaragua. Nor have I been to Cuba or Iraq or Iran or Saudi Arabia. What odds would you give me that I'd find in those places supporters for their government? I probably wouldn't have to try hard. Last I heard, in the last election, Sadam won by a landslide. AS I recall, Hitler drew good numbers as well. Idi Amin, too. Am I making my point? Personally, I'd wager that Reagan had better info and perspective on the situation in Nicaragua than did you or your friends. And keep in mind that clerical garb doesn't guaruntee courage or honesty. And you know, there are some Iraqis that are calling our troops terrorists. Some Democrats as well. This whole off topic discussion is a matter of perspective. WE are both looking at that situation and seeing different things, or rather interpreting differently the things we see. I can concede the possibility that Reagan could have been wrong about the situation. It seems you won't conced the possibility that your side is wrong. But I don't know of any proof that Reagan was anything but an honorable man, and more on the ball than some like to believe, so I will continue to side with him until I see better arguments than you've offered. Fair enough?

On the actual topic, I feeling rather good about the fact that we've made our case better than you've made yours.

Corruption on both sides? No doubt. Who's worse? Convictions alone don't tell the tale. But when the word "moral" is used, I think the answer is clear. You can say that there are some libs who vote in favor of certain positions out of deference to free speech concerns, but it's not logical that anyone who sees porn as wickedness or immoral would believe that it should be protected as free speech, particularly when it is so far removed from the original intention of the amendment. And since porn clearly corrupts, those who vote to preserve the right to produce, sell and own it are, by their votes, complicit in that corruption, no matter what reasons they posit for the vote.

Dan Trabue said...

Marshall suggested that I offer up some proof that the Contras were terrorists. I hadn't because I thought it was fairly obviously so, but then I forget that people tend not to remember history.

Human Rights Watch (at the time called Americas Watch) and Amnesty International both verified attacks against civilians.

http://www.hrw.org/reports/1989/WR89/Nicaragu.htm

Witness for Peace - a Christian organization that began because of the Contra atrocity - has documented such actions.

And, again, my friends who were there and their Nicaraguan friends and acquaintences verified it firsthand.

As have others:

http://www.fas.org/irp/offdocs/walsh/execsum.htm

http://www.hartford-hwp.com/archives/45/275.html

I could go on, but there's at least some. No doubt, the sources will be too "liberal" for you ("Liberal" in this case, meaning "opposed to terrorism...")

So, again - on what basis should I ignore the firsthand evidence of my friends, what I have heard from the Nicaraguan people myself, established Human Rights organizations, the Catholic Church, other Christian organizations that were there, the US Congress (you DID read about how we came to end the support we gave to Contras when intelligence reports were given to Congress documenting Contra atrocities?)...on what basis should I ignore all of this reality?

Again, I'll remind you that we illegally sold weapons to Iran in order to illegally support the contras - does that not trouble you?

I understand that it's easier to do as mom2 (if she IS a mom, which is highly suspect) has done and just suggest that it's "all lies! I can't hear you! lalalalalala!!" but the truth is what it is.

Which gets to the heart of this discussion - so-called liberals are not hedonistic monsters any more than so-called conservatives are fascist pigs. In reality, we all have a range of influences on our opinions.

Myself, I'm opposed to big gov't interventionism, terrorism and support liberty and democracy and that is why I was appalled by the Iran Contra mess. Does that make me a liberal? A conservative?

Or, does it make me just another american, trying to be responsible and sort out the facts as best I can? Like 95% of those we might want to call "liberal" or "conservative"?

Dan Trabue said...

Now, when Abouna says:

"We the people must take back our country and our government from Big Business, Big Banks, Special interest groups with deep pockets. If we don't we are going to be sold out to the higest bidder, and we WILL lose our RIGHTS, OUR FREEDOMS and our National Sovereignty."

On THIS, he is on the right track and on THIS, we the people should be united, INSTEAD of suggesting with no basis that one group of our fellow citizens is somehow more corrupt than another group.

On that, and on working to make our own lives as wholesome and free from pollution of all strains - because the less wholesome (heathy, holistic) and the more polluted we are, the more complicit we are likely to be in the undoing of America.

D.Daddio Al-Ozarka said...

"I just love it how daddyo wants to tell other people how they think."

No...you got it wrong, kitten.

YOU folks make it quite clear what you think...I just expose you for the frauds you most certainly are.

D.Daddio Al-Ozarka said...

So...Dan...while you're worshipping nature...singing while hand in hand around your god...you'll be lying to yourselves.

Mark said...

Thank you, Mike, for sticking to the topic.

I think Dan is sincere about what he believes. There are some things about which I vehemently disagree with him, but as long as Dan remains respectful with his comments and doesn't resort to ad hominen attacks, he is always welcome here.

That said, he isn't always as respectful to me on other's blogs. That's ok. Their blogs, their rules.

While I am gratified to see this many comments here, I would still be interersted in knowing what predictions others might share on this subject.

ELAshley said...

""Liberal" in this case, meaning "opposed to terrorism...""

How utterly rich! Opposed to terrorism but completely spineless in in their willingness to fight it.

LOL!

ELAshley said...

DAN! Suggesting Mom2 isn't even a mom!? That's pretty low! What would make you say such a thing, since I personally know she is indeed a mom!?

ELAshley said...

As for predictions... I don't expect the list to be released or leaked, but I do expect the Madam in question to write a tell-all politically embarrassing book that will rake in millions.

Dan Trabue said...

"Suggesting Mom2 isn't even a mom!? That's pretty low! What would make you say such a thing, since I personally know she is indeed a mom!?"

That was a joke in reference to HER comment: "Then another thing you bragged about was that you WERE a Reagan Republican (which is highly suspect)..."

This is part of the problem with many of those who identify themselves as conservatives: They're not content to say, "Well, here's what I think..." they too often feel compelled to say, "and here's what YOU think, too! Never mind that you haven't said so or say that you DON'T think it. Trust me, you do."

In this case, my thinking that I was registered as a Republican and supported Reagan is highly suspect and likely just not true.

Please.

But then, Eric knows all about this as he likes to tell me what I and other so-called liberals think, too. He just did it in his statement:

"Opposed to terrorism but completely spineless in in their willingness to fight it."

Eric, YOU go face down terrorists unarmed in an unprotected village in Nicaragua and come back to talk to me about spineless.

And you wonder why no one likes so-called conservatives?

Dan Trabue said...

Mark, I shared my prediction and was even willing to make it interesting by saying I'd pay $10 to your favorite charity if it turned out you were right.

No one took me up on that bet, I noticed.

Mark said...

Yes, Dan, you did offer to bet, but you didn't make your predictions. You only challenged mine.

I'll give you a chance to retract the offer, though. So far, as long as I've been blogging, every prediction I've ever made have been accurate. That is, in the situations that have come to a conclusion, anyway.

I can't claim accuracy on my prediction, if the terrorists win the war, they will behead their Liberal supporters in America first. It hasn't happened yet, but if the Democrats have their way, it might.

ELAshley said...

Oh, please! As if living off the benevolence of poor villagers somehow earns you a red badge of courage, and a superior opinion to everyone else here! See if you can get that chest puffed out a little more Dan, you may be able to pull off the perfect 'Red-Breasted Robin' for halloween this year.

Dan Trabue said...

Abouna partially erroneously claimed:
"It is liberals that have supported legalizing drugs, it is the liberals who have supported homosexual rights and pushing for the legalization for same-sex marriages."

Actually, some liberals and most libertarians (who are typically conservative), to be accurate. Which is what I said.

Abouna went on to erroneously state:
And before you start, it doesn't make a damn bit of difference how wonderful homosexuals are, it doesn't make homosexuality right, moral or natural, and Jesus never condoned it, and you as a church-going deacon, sunday school teacher, tea-totalin family man should know that."

Actually, Jesus never spoke about homosexuality at all - to condemn it or to condone it. And if you were familiar with the Bible, you'd know that. The Bible itself never condemns gay marriage, although there are a literal handful of places where people find some support to say that being homosexual is wrong, but it is not as clear as most people think it is, and I don't think when studied, the Bible comes down to that conclusion that some people reach based on those handful of verses.

But that's another topic.

Dan Trabue said...

"See if you can get that chest puffed out a little more Dan, you may be able to pull off the perfect 'Red-Breasted Robin' for halloween this year."

I see, so for me to tease mom2 back because she suggested I was lying is wrong. But for her to suggest I'm lying is okay?

Eric, you'll have to give me a list of your rules so I'll know how to live. Or is it two separate lists - one for people you disagree with and one for people you agree with?

As to pride and chest-puffing, not me. I wasn't there back in the day when the Contras were raiding villages and killing people. But I have friends who were and I am pretty proud of them for their courage.

No, back in the 80s, as you recall, I was a Reagan fan.

Oh! that's right! I wasn't a Reagan fan. I can know because mom2 said so.

Mark said...

Sorry, Dan, but I can't let that one go.

How do you know Jesus never said anything about homosexuality? Were you personally present to hear and bear witness to every word that enamated from betwixt His lips?

The fact is, Jesus' disciple John, ended His Gospel with the statement that Jesus said many more things, so many in fact, that he supposed that all the books in the (known) world could not contain them all.

He very well could have said a great many things about homosexuality, and probably did.

Remember, we don't know for sure that Jesus didn't condemn beastiality and child molesting, either, but common sense tells us that they are wrong.

Or, wait a minute.

Using Dan's logic, since Jesus didn't say those things are wrong, maybe we shopuld go out and have sex with underage animals, too! After all, Jesus didn't say it was wrong, did He?

Gayle said...

Wow Mark! I just read this entire comment thread... don't ask me why as I'm extremely pressed for time.

Mudkitty's and Dan's minds will never be changed unless terrorists come for them and if that time comes I suspect they'll see things in an entirely new light.

I'm not going into whether liberals are more liberal regarding social values or not; it's a moot point. They wouldn't be referred to as "liberals" if they weren't, so - sticking to the topic of your post - I still believe the book will not ever be published but agree with Elashley's prediction that she will probably write a book and make millions... if she doesn't wind up dead.

Dan Trabue said...

"How do you know Jesus never said anything about homosexuality?"

You are correct in that Jesus said a great deal that's not recorded. I believe we were talking about what Jesus said in the context of the Bible where Jesus' words are recorded.

It's entirely possible, of course, that Jesus said, "back off dudes, let gay folk be married. That's the way God created them and God knows what's what!"

But we don't know that so I didn't claim that, did I? Nor do you know that Jesus would have condemned gay marriages. Because the Bible never records him saying anything about homosexuality.

Is that better-phrased?

Dan Trabue said...

Gayle said:

"Mudkitty's and Dan's minds will never be changed"

Well, I've demonstrated several areas where I've changed my mind. I used to be a Republican (or not, depending on if I'm right about what I did or if mom2 knows better than I do) and now I'm more of a Green Party dude.

I used to support Reagan, now I think his is amongst our worst, most corrupt administrations ever.

I used to be vehementally opposed to gay marriage but now I've taken part in gay marriages in my church.

Praise the Lord! I can be taught!

When was the last time you (anyone) changed your mind?

mom2 said...

I predict that we will know whether there are some influential Democrats on the list, by the way it gets treated by the media. Democrats get back page coverage, if at all, while Republicans get glaring front page daily, weekly, monthly, yearly coverage.
Dan, If you think you will goad me into telling you anything personal, think again. I am a proud mother and grandmother and I thank God for the privilege.

Mark said...

It is not likely possible that Jesus ever said God made them that way.

God told Adam and Eve, "Be fruitful and multiply". If he had created them gay, they couldn't have done what He commanded. It is not natural to be homosexual. There is no logic in being gay.

Mark said...

Yoiu know, Dan, by the same logic you use to defend homosexuality, I can prove you don't exist.

Mark said...

It is good that you can be taught. Why don't you use that capability and allow yourself to be educated right?

Dan Trabue said...

"As if living off the benevolence of poor villagers somehow earns you a red badge of courage, and a superior opinion to everyone else here!"

No, not at all. But it does mean that I have first hand information.

You?

And when folk went/go to Nicaragua in the Witness for Peace program, we pay our way, we don't live off the poor villagers.

ELAshley said...

there is nothing vague, unclear or even remotely erroneous about Jude 1:7

mom2 said...

Dan, I have evidence that I am a mother. You show no evidence of ever being a Reagan conservative. As liberal as you are, is what makes it hard to believe.
You also can produce no proof that God made homosexuals. The Bible tells us that he made a male and a female and blessed them and told them to be fruitful and multiply. Do you know of any homosexual couple that have reproduced without intervention?

Marie's Two Cents said...

There may be quite a surprize in this list and there may very well be ALOT High Ranking Democrats on this list that the Press and the Liberal Bloggers cant possibly Whitewash or coverup or hide on page 16 of the New York Times!!

Sometimes you just cant hide this stuff ie: Little Blue Dresses, Cigars, Interns etc...

And Republican bloggers will HAMMER this point relentlessly I know I will.

I am not to sure the Dems will get away with sweeping this under the carpet this time!

Pamela Reece said...

Interesting post, Mark. Personally, I don't care much if the folks (who may not be just men) are from either side. What bothers me is the legal side of this issue that you touched upon. If a felon is not allowed to profit from his/her writings, paintings, etc., this should be upheld while the suspect is on trial. She claims to need to 'funds' to pay for her attorney fees. Tough crap if all of her financial assets were frozen! If she can't afford an attorney, use a public defender like 80% of accused criminals do. That's what America is about; the right to an attorney.

As to who is in the dirty little book? They all know who they are and they're all shaking in their designer shoes.

mudkitty said...

You're not seriously saying that gay people can't procreate?

Seriously? I mean, you can't be that naive? That's not to mention bi-sexuality...

Please tell me you're not that naive?

Mark said...

No, Mudkitty. Gay people can re-produce, which is further proof that God didn't create them homosexual.

If He created them to be gay, there would be no need for them to produce sperm or eggs. Therefore they wouldn't be able to reproduce if they were intentionally created that way.

God doesn't create anything that doesn't have a pourpose. What would be the purpose behind creating the means to procreate without intending them to use it?

You see? This whole argument can be settled by using the sense God gave us.

mom2 said...

Don't accuse of such dumbness, while you evade the issue......2 homosexuals will not reproduce without intervention. Typical liberal twisting. When cornered, change the subject or some other obnoxious tactic.
Besides, according to the argument from your side, homosexuals are born that way....so why are they having sex with heterosexual if the homo way is natural to them?

Marshall Art said...

I like the "Jesus never said anything about..." angle. But if one is a Christian, one understands that Christ is God. The Bible certainly claims He was there at the beginning. But since He is God, He certainly said something against homosexuality in the Bible when He said, "Thou shalt not lie with a man as thou wouldst a woman..." or words to that effect. You know the tract. Those handful of spots where it is discussed has often been muddied by, pardon the expression, liberal Christians, who have butchered the original language in order to give them the permission to proceed as they wish. Objective scholars have always supported the notion that there is only one form of sexual activity sanctioned in Scripture, and that would be sex between a man and his (female)wife. What sex he had with her before marriage is equally forbidden as homosexuality, beastiality, incest, etc, etc, etc.

Another thing to consider is that the Jewish people understood the Mosaic law to forbid such practice and thus, gay behavior was practically unheard of within the Jewish community, while it went on all around them. So for Christ to speak against that which wasn't even being done wouldn't make much sense, and it would make even less sense to comment about it in Scripture.

But anyhow, I predict we'll hear of the contents of the madam's book one way or another. There wil be way too many leaks for any Dutchboy to plug.

Abouna said...

Dan Trabue: You are right, Jesus never spoke for or against homosexuality, but for you to make the statement that the verses in the Bible that do speak about homosexuality are unclear is a crock.

How much clearer can it be in Leviticus when it says: "If an man lies with a man as with a woman, it is an abomination in the sight of God" or when St. Paul says: Netither liars, theives, adulterers, nor sodomites will enter into heaven".

And in every mention of marriage in the Bible is in the context of a man and a women. So I don't know what kind of Bible you have been reading. I know Scripture, because in my days in the monastery we studied both the Old and the New Testaments in their original languages, and I can assure you that homosexuality in all forms is very plainly condemned in both the Old and New Testaments. And for those homos who call themselves Christian and try to tell people that God destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah because they didn’t show hospitality, you are either flat out liars and deceivers or you are living in a dream world.

Dan Trabue said...

"I have evidence that I am a mother. You show no evidence of ever being a Reagan conservative."

mom2, I have no doubt that you are a mother. You have said so, why would I think otherwise. Similarly, I have told you that I was raised in a traditional Baptist Church and grew up conservative.

Why would you doubt it? Why would you suspect that I'm lying?

This is part of what I'm getting at - many of y'all seem to think that if you think it, it must be true.

You think, "As liberal as you are, is what makes it hard to believe," therefore, I must never have been a conservative or a Republican.

But surely you realize that people grow, change, learn?

Perhaps the problem is, you think if I were TRULY raised in the "right" ways, that it's not possible to "turn bad" in your opinion. But that's still part of the so-called conservative problem.

You think I've "turned bad," when in fact, I've turned out the way I have exactly because of what the Bible says, of what my traditional sunday school teachers taught me.

I love God, family, America, morality and yes, Mom and apple pie. But it's impossible for some to think that such a person exists. You either agree with them or you're a hedonist who rejoices in their sinful nature.

But that is just not the reality.

Mark said...

TO ALL COMMENTERS:

The issue of God's view of homosexuality is a topic that I've hosted on this blog before. It is not, however, the focus of my subject in this post. If you all want to continue the discussion on homosexuality, feel free to continue it over on My other blog.
.

Marshall Art said...

Mark,

It's difficult not to digress. But on the subject of homosexuality, the fact that this issue gleans most of its support fromt he left is related to the topic at hand. As indicated, the corruption of Scripture to allow for certain behaviors is not a practice of the typical conservative. The fact that most of the support is found in Democratic candidates who are voted for by Democratic/liberal voters indicates a corrupted sense of morality. It seems to me that this is evidence of immorality and corruption on the part of the left.

Even the terms "corruption" and "immoral" are themselves corrupted by the left. They apply it to anything with which they disagree. Case in point: "Two people expressing love isn't obscene, WAR is obscene!"

Also, Dan's description of the Reagan administration as being corrupt because he went against the wishes of a Democratic Congress. Reagan viewed the Sandinista government as the bad guys. To have done nothing when one has the means to help is immoral. Thus, though his actions may have been illegal in the strictest sense of the word, they were not necessarily immoral or corrupt based on intent. Legal and moral are two very different things and not always inline with each other.

Is it moral to disarm the public and leave them defenseless against criminal activity, leaving only insufficient numbers of police to protect them? To some, I guess, it is. To me, not at all. Yet, to carry a gun in Illinois is illegal, even in areas known for high levels of violent crime.

So again, in a discussion on which side is more corrupt or immoral, convictions in court can't be the only measure. One has to first determine that which constitutes morality or corruption and then judge each incident accordingly. Mark Foley being pressured to resign over tacky messages to minors is indeed the result of Foley's immorality and personal corruption. To see him removed is the moral move to have made. Gary Studds refusal to step down after engaging in actual immoral sexual activity with a minor male, and then to be applauded after retaining his position...how is that not a sign of liberal immorality and corruption? This guy did what the other only hoped to do and yet he retained full support of his political peers. To ignore such examples is itself immoral and corrupt.

Mark said...

Art, I agree. You stuck to the topic. I was referring to the argument on whether the definition of Homnosexuality is perversion. That can be taken over to my other blog where it is more seminal to the post.

Dan Trabue said...

You're inching your way towards 100 comments, Mark.

doing my part to help...

mudkitty said...

It's naive to think that gays can't copulate with heteros, but why should they if they don't want to and they don't practice your religion?

Not to mention, you completely and conveniently ignored the issue of bisexuality. Remember, not everyone has to practice your religion.

mudkitty said...

It's not an issue of homosexuality, it's an issue of religious freedom.

mom2 said...

mudkitty, You can't have it both ways. Either a homosexual was born the way he is (your idea) or it is a chosen behavior. If he was born a homo then according to the liberals, he can't help himself and it would be unnatural to be with a hetero. The trouble with your "religion" is there are just too many ways to everything and that's why you are so mixed up.

D.Daddio Al-Ozarka said...

I like these long (cough, cough) debates.

Dan gets to fully expose himself in all his own self-fulfilling glory to we of low leftist character when he get's involved in running debate.

It's pitiful in a way.

Dan Trabue said...

Daddio, you're going to have to quit sweet-talkin' me, too. Mom2 will get jealous...

mom2 said...

Dan, You have wayyyyyyy too much confidence in your drawing power.

mudkitty said...

100 comments!

Now that's a number I like.

Pamela Reece said...

Wow, I didn't think my one tiny comment of (who may not be just men) would spark such a debate! Mark, I hope you know, I wasn't trying to get off topic. Seems their are individuals who are just a bit over-reactive? At any rate, it was a great post and a great thread. Just goes to show how many good thinkers there are out there.