• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Abramoff Starts to Sing

H

hipsterdufus

mi mi mi mi mi mi mi

"Any important Republican who comes out and says they didn't know me is almost certainly lying."

"Mr. Abramoff flatters himself," Mark Salter, McCain's administrative assistant, tells Margolick. "Senator McCain was unaware of his existence until he read initial press accounts of Abramoff's abuses, and had never laid eyes on him until he appeared before the committee."

Abramoff says, "As best I can remember, when I met with him, he didn't have his eyes shut. I'm surprised that Senator McCain has joined the chorus of amnesiacs."

http://www.vanityfair.com/pdf/pressroom/advance_Abramoff.pdf

Mehlman, Newt, Bush, and Conrad Burns also have some explaining to do.
Check out the nice pic of Jack and the exterminator! :sinking:
 

Stinger

DP Veteran
Joined
May 3, 2005
Messages
15,108
Reaction score
547
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
hipsterdufus said:
mi mi mi mi mi mi mi

WASHINGTON -- Disgraced lobbyist Jack Abramoff has advised friends that he has no derogatory information about former House Majority Leader Tom DeLay and is not implicating him as part of his plea bargain with federal prosecutors.
Abramoff's guilty plea on fraud, tax evasion and conspiracy charges requires him to provide evidence about members of Congress. That led to speculation that this would mean trouble for DeLay, who faces money laundering and conspiracy charges in Texas.

http://townhall.com/opinion/columns/robertnovak/2006/03/25/191300.html
 

XShipRider

Member
Joined
Oct 10, 2005
Messages
144
Reaction score
0
Location
Ohio
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Private
If the lyrics mention Dem's, will they stop the performance for being
off key?:mrgreen:
 
Last edited:

Stinger

DP Veteran
Joined
May 3, 2005
Messages
15,108
Reaction score
547
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
XShipRider said:
If the lyrics mention Dem's, will they stop the performance for being
off key?:mrgreen:

It is notable the Hip left our any of the Democrats who also recieved money through Abramhoff.
 

Stinger

DP Veteran
Joined
May 3, 2005
Messages
15,108
Reaction score
547
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
galenrox said:
Is that really all you've got left? I mean really, are you that defeated that all you can say is "Yeah, but they probably did it too!"

Oh I get it, you don't care that Democrats are also caught up in this.

lol, this is exactly why these parties are worthless. The republicans are campaigning on "Don't look at us, look at the democrats, they'll do something stupid." and the democrats are campaigning on the "Best party by default" slogan.

Well I haven't heard and Republicans saying that but I certainly have heard a lot of Democrats trying to claim that ONLY Republicans are involved and I also heard a lot of Democrats desperately pull the old "Is that really all you've got left? I mean really, are you that defeated that all you can say is "Yeah, but they probably did it too!"" when that fact is pointed out.

As far as I'm concerned I don't care what party they are in if they are guilty charge them but will point out both sides are involved not just one as the OP did.
 

jfuh

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 10, 2005
Messages
16,631
Reaction score
1,227
Location
Pacific Rim
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
Stinger said:
Oh I get it, you don't care that Democrats are also caught up in this.
What does it matter if the Dems are doing it? Does it then make it ok that the Repubs are corrupt? Read the arguments being made.

Stinger said:
Well I haven't heard and Republicans saying that but I certainly have heard a lot of Democrats trying to claim that ONLY Republicans are involved and I also heard a lot of Democrats desperately pull the old "Is that really all you've got left? I mean really, are you that defeated that all you can say is "Yeah, but they probably did it too!"" when that fact is pointed out.
I think that pretty much makes clear of how you turn a blind eye to republican politics. The only person I see making the "Yeah, but they probably did it too!" argument is you stinger. You're practically copying Galenrox's argument against you back at him. You think you're :duel but in reality you're just :sword:
 

Stinger

DP Veteran
Joined
May 3, 2005
Messages
15,108
Reaction score
547
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
jfuh said:
What does it matter if the Dems are doing it? Does it then make it ok that the Repubs are corrupt? Read the arguments being made.

It should be ignored that they are?

My
As far as I'm concerned I don't care what party they are in if they are guilty charge them but will point out both sides are involved not just one as the OP did.

I think that pretty much makes clear of how you turn a blind eye to republican politics.

I think you don't read very well.

The only person I see making the "Yeah, but they probably did it too!" argument is you stinger. You're practically copying Galenrox's argument against you back at him. You think you're but in reality you're just

Sure the arguement can be made both ways. Why do you want to ignore the fact that both parties are involved? Why do you think only naming Republicans as the OP somehow makes them the only ones involved?
 

jfuh

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 10, 2005
Messages
16,631
Reaction score
1,227
Location
Pacific Rim
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
Stinger said:
It should be ignored that they are?
Did you read that from a statment I made or are you assuming? Cause you should've learnt by now not to assume someone's opinion.

Stinger said:
Sure the arguement can be made both ways. Why do you want to ignore the fact that both parties are involved?
Again, don't assume unless you've actuall read my making such a statment.

Stinger said:
Why do you think only naming Republicans as the OP somehow makes them the only ones involved?
Somehow makes? No, the Op Ed had showed how corrupt repubs were trying to distance themselves from abramoff and naming abramoff the corrupt cancer yet very much had Abramoff written all over thier faces. I remind you that it is the GOP riding on the election sound bite of the party of integrity that makes this so ironic.

Now just so that you don't falsely assume any more about my stance on this topic, I've long maintained that any governmental official involved with corruption should be tried for treason.
 

Stinger

DP Veteran
Joined
May 3, 2005
Messages
15,108
Reaction score
547
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
Originally Posted by Stinger
It should be ignored that they are?


jfuh said:
Did you read that from a statment I made or are you assuming? Cause you should've learnt by now not to assume someone's opinion.

Let's see the OP states Abramhoff is singing and only list Republicans in danger. I mention that there are also Democrats and you reply

What does it matter if the Dems are doing it?

Well then what does it matter that Repulbicans are doing it then? And I asked you should we just ignore that Democrats are involve too and you take offense to this mear mention of the facts. And yes I read that from your statement.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Stinger
Sure the arguement can be made both ways. Why do you want to ignore the fact that both parties are involved?


Again, don't assume unless you've actuall read my making such a statment.

Well if you are going to get bent our of shape at the mere mention that Democrats are involved I don't think it's assuming that you want it ignored. Else why would you get upset about it?

Somehow makes? No, the Op Ed had showed how corrupt repubs were trying to distance themselves

As opposed to the Dems running around screaming "It's not us, it's not us" when they were recieving money from his clients too? What a laugh.

Now just so that you don't falsely assume any more about my stance on this topic, I've long maintained that any governmental official involved with corruption should be tried for treason.

But you get upset when it is mentioned that there are Dems involved. And let's not forget who did assume even after it being stated outright.

My Quote:
As far as I'm concerned I don't care what party they are in if they are guilty charge them but will point out both sides are involved not just one as the OP did.

Quote:
I think that pretty much makes clear of how you turn a blind eye to republican politics.

I think you don't read very well.
 

jfuh

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 10, 2005
Messages
16,631
Reaction score
1,227
Location
Pacific Rim
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
Stinger said:
Well then what does it matter that Repulbicans are doing it then? And I asked you should we just ignore that Democrats are involve too and you take offense to this mear mention of the facts. And yes I read that from your statement.
I can only answer by asking you, why did you edit out the immediately proceeding sentence? Two wrongs don't make a right.


Stinger said:
Sure the arguement can be made both ways. Why do you want to ignore the fact that both parties are involved?
I'm not ignoring that both parties are doing it. However two facts
1) Abramoff was by far a Republican lobbiest
2) Republicans are singing the song of honor and dignity when they are anything but.

Stinger said:
Well if you are going to get bent our of shape at the mere mention that Democrats are involved I don't think it's assuming that you want it ignored. Else why would you get upset about it?
It might surprise you that I could care less about the dems. Both parties are corrupt. However it is undeniable that one by one the republicans are getting indicted from the top down. Also I dispise of those whom assume of me when they know not what I think.

Stinger said:
As opposed to the Dems running around screaming "It's not us, it's not us" when they were recieving money from his clients too? What a laugh.
With regards to Abramoff? Well, it isn't the dems. The majority are Repubs, and even so, the Repubs are hiding about saying, I never met the man, I don't know who he is. Of course only later we find several of thier cheery photos.

Stinger said:
But you get upset when it is mentioned that there are Dems involved. And let's not forget who did assume even after it being stated outright.

As far as I'm concerned I don't care what party they are in if they are guilty charge them but will point out both sides are involved not just one as the OP did
I think that pretty much makes clear of how you turn a blind eye to republican politics
Stinger said:
I think you don't read very well.
Hardly. Let's start from the top. The article was about how the republicans are hiding about denying knowledge of Abramoff and then Abramoff comes out with evidence showing who was invovled and how much they were involved with his "lobbying".
Let's view the very first response you post in this thread:
Stinger said:
WASHINGTON -- Disgraced lobbyist Jack Abramoff has advised friends that he has no derogatory information about former House Majority Leader Tom DeLay and is not implicating him as part of his plea bargain with federal prosecutors.
Abramoff's guilty plea on fraud, tax evasion and conspiracy charges requires him to provide evidence about members of Congress. That led to speculation that this would mean trouble for DeLay, who faces money laundering and conspiracy charges in Texas.

http://townhall.com/opinion/columns/...25/191300.html
Protecting your fellow republicans immediately.
Post two by you
Stinger said:
It is notable the Hip left our any of the Democrats who also recieved money through Abramhoff.

So without the slightes acknowledgement of how corrupt the republicans are, you immediately and only point the finger at the fact that some democrats are also involved.
As Galenrox put it so eloquantly:
Is that really all you've got left? I mean really, are you that defeated that all you can say is "Yeah, but they probably did it too!"

Again, two wrongs do not make a right. So what if the dems did it? Does it by any means justify the corruption of the republicans?

So in your response to Galenrox, instead of admitting that the Repubs are indeed corrupt you post this
Stinger said:
Oh I get it, you don't care that Democrats are also caught up in this.

So, simply put your argument up to this point has been this.

Look at the dems, look at the dems, they're doing it too!

Now perhaps you skipped over this bit in my response to you in post #9.
jfuh said:
Now just so that you don't falsely assume any more about my stance on this topic, I've long maintained that any governmental official involved with corruption should be tried for treason.

Any more false accusations about me now?
 

Stinger

DP Veteran
Joined
May 3, 2005
Messages
15,108
Reaction score
547
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
jfuh said:
I can only answer by asking you, why did you edit out the immediately proceeding sentence? Two wrongs don't make a right.

I posted my full statement with nothing edited, why do you dodge?


I'm not ignoring that both parties are doing it.

I'm not eitherm, the OP did, I pointed it out, you get upset. Seems to me you WANT to ignore both parties are doing and are doing your best to quash and mention that the Dems are doing too.


However two facts
1) Abramoff was by far a Republican lobbiest

That's not a fact, he doesn't work for the Republican party or any of it's affiliates. He is a voter who votes Republican perhaps, he raises money for Republicans and he may even be registered as one, but to affiliate him in any offical manner is bogus. So that being said as far as being a LOBBIST he is an opportunist and works both sides, a fact you want to ignore.

2) Republicans are singing the song of honor and dignity when they are anything but.

No more or less than Dems.

It might surprise you that I could care less about the dems.

Absolutely the way you jumped to thier defense and objected to the mere mention that they too are tying to Abramhoff and lobbying issues.

Both parties are corrupt.

There is corruption in each party, but :shootif you mention that little fact.

However it is undeniable that one by one the republicans are getting indicted from the top down.

Sure it deniable, no more so than Democrats with Jefferson and Conyers both facing indictment.

Also I dispise of those whom assume of me when they know not what I think.

I know what you say. Do you say what you think?


With regards to Abramoff? Well, it isn't the dems. The majority are Repubs, and even so,

Not by much when it comes to the illegal Indian money.

the Repubs are hiding about saying, I never met the man, I don't know who he is. Of course only later we find several of thier cheery photos.

No more of less than the Dems, have you seen Reid uttering his phoney denials?



Hardly. Let's start from the top. The article was about how the republicans are hiding about denying knowledge of Abramoff and then Abramoff comes out with evidence showing who was invovled and how much they were involved with his "lobbying".

Let's view the very first response you post in this thread:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Stinger
WASHINGTON -- Disgraced lobbyist Jack Abramoff has advised friends that he has no derogatory information about former House Majority Leader Tom DeLay and is not implicating him as part of his plea bargain with federal prosecutors.
Abramoff's guilty plea on fraud, tax evasion and conspiracy charges requires him to provide evidence about members of Congress. That led to speculation that this would mean trouble for DeLay, who faces money laundering and conspiracy charges in Texas.

http://townhall.com/opinion/columns/...25/191300.html



Protecting your fellow republicans immediately.

First I'm not a Republican and second I have no power to protect Delay but it looks like the primary accused by the Democrats may not have anything to do with anything illegal. That's called a salient point.


Post two by you

Originally Posted by Stinger
It is notable the Hip left our any of the Democrats who also recieved money through Abramhoff.

Yes it was another salient point.


So without the slightes acknowledgement of how corrupt the republicans are, you immediately and only point the finger at the fact that some democrats are also involved.

Did I deny what the OP had posted? No. I added to the list no need to point another finger.


Again, two wrongs do not make a right.

Correct it is doubly wrong and better that we face just how bad it is by not ignoring the fact that both parties are involved and not single out the one as the OP did and you seem intent on.

So what if the dems did it?

So what if the Republicans did it? It's just as serious for the Democrats and it is for the Republicans is it not? Should we only be concerned about Republicans?

So in your response to Galenrox, instead of admitting that the Repubs are indeed corrupt you post this

Since I never denied I had nothing to admit, I agreed by default. YOU are the one trying to limit discussion to one side not me.

So, simply put your argument up to this point has been this.

Look at the dems, look at the dems, they're doing it too!

I tell you what I'll make my arguement and you make yours.

Now perhaps you skipped over this bit in my response to you in post #9.

Originally Posted by jfuh
Now just so that you don't falsely assume any more about my stance on this topic, I've long maintained that any governmental official involved with corruption should be tried for treason.


But you just don't want mention of the Democrat side of the story.
 
H

hipsterdufus

Stinger said:
It is notable the Hip left our any of the Democrats who also recieved money through Abramhoff.

I know of zero Democrats that recieved money directly from Abramoff. Who specifically are you referring to?

There is a huge distinction between Abramoff giving money to, and raising money for, Republicans, like the $100,000 that Abramoff sent to Bush's 2004 campaign, and some of Abramoff's clients, making contributions to Democrats.

For example Harry Reid received legal contributions from the Coushatta Indian tribe. The Coushetta also hired Jack Abramoff. Abramoff and friends ripped the Coushetta off. How does this make Reid guilty of anything?
 

Stinger

DP Veteran
Joined
May 3, 2005
Messages
15,108
Reaction score
547
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
hipsterdufus said:
I know of zero Democrats that recieved money directly from Abramoff. Who specifically are you referring to?
Money given directly by Abramhoff is not subject to investigation nor accusation. That's a smoke screen. It's the lobbying money from his clients where the problem is.


There is a huge distinction between Abramoff giving money to, and raising money for, Republicans, like the $100,000 that Abramoff sent to Bush's 2004 campaign, and some of Abramoff's clients, making contributions to Democrats.
Yep, the former was perfectly legal the latter is where there are legal problems for some Republicans AND Democrats. But then you left the Democrats out of your first post for some reason.

For example Harry Reid received legal contributions from the Coushatta Indian tribe. The Coushetta also hired Jack Abramoff. Abramoff and friends ripped the Coushetta off. How does this make Reid guilty of anything?
He recieved money through Abramhoff from the Coushatta's just as some Republicans.

And he recieved other money

sourceAP.gif
Updated: 10:58 p.m. ET Feb. 9, 2006

WASHINGTON - Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid wrote at least four letters helpful to Indian tribes represented by Jack Abramoff, and the senator’s staff regularly had contact with the disgraced lobbyist’s team about legislation affecting other clients.
The activities — detailed in billing records and correspondence obtained by The Associated Press — are far more extensive than previously disclosed. They occurred over three years as Reid collected nearly $68,000 in donations from Abramoff’s firm, lobbying partners and clients.
Reid’s office acknowledged Thursday having “routine contacts” with Abramoff’s lobbying partners and intervening on some government matters — such as blocking some tribal casinos — in ways Abramoff’s clients might have deemed helpful.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11261035/from/RSS/



How guilty is he? At this point no more nor less than any Republican names that have been tossed about.
 
Last edited:

jfuh

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 10, 2005
Messages
16,631
Reaction score
1,227
Location
Pacific Rim
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
Stinger said:
I posted my full statement with nothing edited, why do you dodge?
That is a complete lie. You may have posted your full statment, but you edited out my statement. Thus the lie and dodge. Now admit you edited my statement.

Stinger said:
I'm not either, the OP did, I pointed it out, you get upset. Seems to me you WANT to ignore both parties are doing and are doing your best to quash and mention that the Dems are doing too.
Again, dishonesty.

Stinger said:
That's not a fact, he doesn't work for the Republican party or any of it's affiliates. He is a voter who votes Republican perhaps, he raises money for Republicans and he may even be registered as one, but to affiliate him in any offical manner is bogus. So that being said as far as being a LOBBIST he is an opportunist and works both sides, a fact you want to ignore.
:bs Perhaps you would like to look at the charges that he has pled guilty to. As well as the names he's named.

Stinger said:
Absolutely the way you jumped to thier defense and objected to the mere mention that they too are tying to Abramhoff and lobbying issues.
I jumped? really? wow, cameras are everywhere these days.:roll: Why the denial of your own dishonesty. I responded because you were dodging the issue and being dishonest about it.

Stinger said:
Sure it deniable, no more so than Democrats with Jefferson and Conyers both facing indictment.
Perhaps you'd like to list the republicans that are being indicted one by one as well? So that's 2 for the dems, ok since you claim to be fair, how about listing the republican side as well?

Stinger said:
I know what you say. Do you say what you think?
Lame. Really lame.

Stinger said:
No more of less than the Dems, have you seen Reid uttering his phoney denials?
Again, this constant look at the dems, look at the dems. Please, just stop it will you?

Stinger said:
First I'm not a Republican
Sorry then; Conservative, better?

Stinger said:
and second I have no power to protect Delay but it looks like the primary accused by the Democrats may not have anything to do with anything illegal. That's called a salient point.
Stinger said:
Originally Posted by Stinger
It is notable the Hip left our any of the Democrats who also recieved money through Abramhoff.

Yes it was another salient point.
Salient point? Oh, in what way and then to what relevance to the thread are these "salient points"?

Stinger said:
Did I deny what the OP had posted? No. I added to the list no need to point another finger.
You neither denied nor acknowledged.

Stinger said:
Correct it is doubly wrong and better that we face just how bad it is by not ignoring the fact that both parties are involved and not single out the one as the OP did and you seem intent on.

Stinger said:
But you just don't want mention of the Democrat side of the story.
I have no problem with shining a light to point out corrupt officials. Which is why, if you look at other related threads I've posted, I dispise of them both. However, it seems you can't stand mention of the republican's being corrupt
 

Stinger

DP Veteran
Joined
May 3, 2005
Messages
15,108
Reaction score
547
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
jfuh said:
That is a complete lie. You may have posted your full statment, but you edited out my statement. Thus the lie and dodge. Now admit you edited my statement.

I was only concerned with my statement to remind you. And I have no more interest in your petty personal arguement on petty matters. You don't like it when it is mentioned Democrats are also involved in the Abramhoff scandal, oh well. I don't really care.
 

jfuh

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 10, 2005
Messages
16,631
Reaction score
1,227
Location
Pacific Rim
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
Stinger said:
I was only concerned with my statement to remind you. And I have no more interest in your petty personal arguement on petty matters. You don't like it when it is mentioned Democrats are also involved in the Abramhoff scandal, oh well. I don't really care.
Whatever floats your boat stinger.
 

aps

Passionate
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 25, 2005
Messages
15,675
Reaction score
2,979
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Liberal
Boy-o-boy will he be starting to sing. In today's Washington Post, it has the following article on the front page:

Abramoff Is Sentenced For Casino Boat Fraud

By Peter Whoriskey and William Branigin
Washington Post Staff Writers
Thursday, March 30, 2006; A01

MIAMI, March 29 -- Jack Abramoff, the once-powerful Washington lobbyist whose downfall has propelled a far-reaching congressional corruption investigation, was sentenced Wednesday to five years and 10 months in prison for his role in the fraudulent purchase of a fleet of casino cruise boats.

U.S. District Judge Paul C. Huck sentenced Abramoff, 47, and his former partner Adam Kidan, 41, to the shortest possible prison terms under sentencing guidelines after prosecutors affirmed that both men have been aiding the ongoing investigations and had expressed remorse. Abramoff's attorneys said he has reviewed "thousands of documents" in the inquiry, which could reach members of Congress, congressional staff members and employees of federal agencies, including the Interior Department.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/03/29/AR2006032900387.html

So maybe this explains to us why Gail Norton resigned? Boy, I would love to see her implicated in this. :lol:
 

jfuh

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 10, 2005
Messages
16,631
Reaction score
1,227
Location
Pacific Rim
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
aps said:
Boy-o-boy will he be starting to sing. In today's Washington Post, it has the following article on the front page:

So maybe this explains to us why Gail Norton resigned? Boy, I would love to see her implicated in this. :lol:
Maybe, not to mention Bush's former Chief of Staff.
 
Joined
Nov 9, 2005
Messages
2,669
Reaction score
0
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
jfuh said:
Maybe, not to mention Bush's former Chief of Staff.
Lame opinion. And remember, it is your opinion I called lame, not you.

There is nothing to support the claim that Andy Card resigned due to any impropriety. You call people liars all day long and then you throw out a completely false accusation like this.
 

jfuh

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 10, 2005
Messages
16,631
Reaction score
1,227
Location
Pacific Rim
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
KCConservative said:
Lame opinion. There is nothing to support the claim that Andy Card resigned due to any impropriety. You call people liars all day long and then you throw out a completely false accusation like this.
Thus the word MAYBE, learn how to read.
 
Joined
Nov 9, 2005
Messages
2,669
Reaction score
0
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
You said "maybe" in response to aps Gail Norton comment. Nice try.

jfuh said:
learn how to read.
Not that you're flaming or anything. I know how you hate that.
 
Last edited:

aps

Passionate
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 25, 2005
Messages
15,675
Reaction score
2,979
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Liberal
KCConservative said:
You said "maybe" in response to aps Gail Norton comment. Nice try.

Not that you're flaming or anything. I know how you hate that.

Come on, you two. Kiss and make up.

I think Gail Norton will be implicated. I don't think Andy Card is even remotely in trouble. jfuh, what makes you think that?
 
Joined
Nov 9, 2005
Messages
2,669
Reaction score
0
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
aps said:
Come on, you two. Kiss and make up.

I think Gail Norton will be implicated. I don't think Andy Card is even remotely in trouble. jfuh, what makes you think that?
There has been nothing to make him think that. Just a rumor bomb.
 

jfuh

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 10, 2005
Messages
16,631
Reaction score
1,227
Location
Pacific Rim
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
aps said:
Come on, you two. Kiss and make up.

I think Gail Norton will be implicated. I don't think Andy Card is even remotely in trouble. jfuh, what makes you think that?
Wishful thinking.
 

aps

Passionate
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 25, 2005
Messages
15,675
Reaction score
2,979
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Liberal
jfuh said:
Wishful thinking.

LOL At least you're honest. :lol: Don't worry, jfuh, what goes around, comes around.
 
Top Bottom