jallman said:Just like alcoholism and CHILD MOLESTATION...you're telling me in ohio, child molestation carries a penalty of probation?
reaganburch said:Apparently.... haven't you heard about the Judge Connor case? This guy raped 2 boys over a period of years, he confessed, the prosecutor wanted 10 years and the judge gave him probation.... because, he has a disease just like me, he said.... alcoholism...
easyt65 said:Actually, all I have ever done is discuss Clinton's Presidency. if he wants to have an affair, that is his problem. When he sells technology to the Chinese military that allows them to strike this country with their nukes, that is treason and is definitely not a personal issue! When he sexually harrasses women, commits numerous felonies, and betrays his oath of office by attempting to deny a citizen of her constitutional right, THAT is not a personal issue and has nothing to do with lewinski! When he refused to defend Americans after 4 seperate attacks by AQ, THAT is not a personal issue. When he illegally collected FBI filed on his opponents for his personal use, therby breaking the law, THAT was not a personal issue. It is only when I bring these issues up that Lewinski enters the dscussion and always by a Democrat!
Attacking Rush for his drug problem is delving into his personal problem/issue. I personally think Rush should have gotten some sort of jail time or penalty for his doctor shopping' and illegal perscription drug problem, though, as no one is above the law - Not him or the President of the U.S. as clinton thought himself to be. Still, the Democrats just drag him through the gutter with their politics of personal destruction. As I said, I never see much factual argument with WHAT he SAYS, only his drug problem!
KCConservative said:Has anyone seen the Helen Thomas thread? It was here a few days ago.
jallman said:yeah, we decided it was a trumped up bs spin thread so we decided to replace it with something more important like why a child molestor only got probation.
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/...text,1,7865839.story?page=4&coll=chi-news-hedQUESTION: I'd like to ask you, Mr. President -- your decision to invade Iraq has caused the deaths of thousands of Americans and Iraqis, wounds of Americans and Iraqis for a lifetime.
Every reason given, publicly at least, has turned out not to be true. My question is: Why did you really want to go to war? From the moment you stepped into the White House, your Cabinet officers, former Cabinet officers, intelligence people and so forth -- but what's your real reason? You have said it wasn't oil, the quest for oil. It hasn't been Israel or anything else. What was it?
BUSH: I think your premise, in all due respect to your question and to you as a lifelong journalist -- that I didn't want war. To assume I wanted war is just flat wrong, Helen, in all due respect. (1)
QUESTION: And ...
BUSH: Hold on for a second, please. Excuse me. Excuse me.
No president wants war. Everything you may have heard is that, but it's just simply not true.
My attitude about the defense of this country changed on September the 11th. When we got attacked, I vowed then and there to use every asset at my disposal to protect the American people.
Our foreign policy changed on that day. You know, we used to think we were secure because of oceans and previous diplomacy.(2) But we realized on September the 11th, 2001, that killers could destroy innocent life. (3)
And I'm never going to forget it. And I'm never going to forget the vow I made to the American people, that we will do everything in our power to protect our people.
Part of that meant to make sure that we didn't allow people to provide safe haven to an enemy, and that's why I went into Iraq. (4)
(CROSSTALK)
BUSH: Hold on for a second. Excuse me for a second, please. Excuse me for a second. They did. The Taliban provided safe haven for al-Qaida.
QUESTION: (OFF-MIKE)
BUSH: Helen, excuse me.
That's where -- Afghanistan provided safe haven for al-Qaida. That's where they trained, that's where they plotted, that's where they planned the attacks that killed thousands of innocent Americans.
I also saw a threat in Iraq. I was hoping to solve this problem diplomatically. That's why I went to the Security Council. That's why it was important to pass 1441, which was unanimously passed. (5)
And the world said, Disarm, disclose or face serious consequences. (6) And therefore, we worked with the world. We worked to make sure that Saddam Hussein heard the message of the world.
And when he chose to deny the inspectors, (7) when he chose not to disclose, (8) then I had the difficult decision to make to remove him. And we did. And the world is safer for it. (9)
Or put another way...hipsterdufus said:Neo-con rule #1 - When all else fails, blame it on Clinton.
Neo-con rule #2 - See above.
Gill said:Or put another way...
Dimocrat rule #1: Everything is Bush's fault
Dimocrat rule #2: See above.
I know you are but what am I? **************Pee Wee Herman
Hipster did the exact same thing.Captain America said:How original. :roll:
Thank you!!Captain America said:How original. :roll:
Gill said:Thank you!!
I enjoy pointing out the hypocrisy of the left.
mixedmedia said:Well, you should know that this is not uncommon.....child molesters/pedophiles get off with probation quite often. In my opinion, anyone who sexually abuses a child under the age of twelve should be kept from the public for life after a first offense, because, of course, I do not believe in the death penalty. Recidivism is VERY high with these crimes. Also, pedophilia (as opposed to situational child molesters) is an obssessive mental disorder that compels the person afflicted with it to commit more and more serious crimes.....often leading to the death of their victims. I feel differently about people who molest children over the age of twelve. Usually they are an entirely different sort of perpetrator and I think our justice systems, and our children, would be better served by differentiating between the two. Just my opinion.....as a mom.
Donkey1499 said:Your Donks smile upon you, mixedmedia.
mixedmedia said:Well, you should know that this is not uncommon.....child molesters/pedophiles get off with probation quite often. In my opinion, anyone who sexually abuses a child under the age of twelve should be kept from the public for life after a first offense, because, of course, I do not believe in the death penalty. Recidivism is VERY high with these crimes. Also, pedophilia (as opposed to situational child molesters) is an obssessive mental disorder that compels the person afflicted with it to commit more and more serious crimes.....often leading to the death of their victims. I feel differently about people who molest children over the age of twelve. Usually they are an entirely different sort of perpetrator and I think our justice systems, and our children, would be better served by differentiating between the two. Just my opinion.....as a mom.
mixedmedia said:Why, thanks donkey. Most unfortunately I have some experience with this sort of thing.
Donkey1499 said:I ask cnredd this all the time, but he never answers (maybe you could sweet talk him into giving me an answer!). Here it goes: Are your Donks loyal to you, mixedmedia? Would they give their lives to defend you from any harm? :mrgreen:
mixedmedia said:Well, I guess you weren't being nice after all? Whatever, donkey. I have no friggin' clue what you're talking about.
hipsterdufus said:It's amazing to me that the story of Bush's press conference is that a reporter actually asked Bubble Boy a real question. Rather than Bush's incoherent answer.
There were at least 9 distinct problems with Bush's answer to Helen's question. I'll bold and number them, then respond below.
Here's Helen Thomas' Question:
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/...text,1,7865839.story?page=4&coll=chi-news-hed
1. We've heard that claim from many former administration members including Paul O'Neil, Richard Clarke and Colin Powell
2. Our oceans protected us? I sincerely hope our administration isn't that stupid. Haven't you ever heard of planes? Or ICBMs?
3. I think we have known that killers destroy innocent life since the beginning of time. Hint: that's why we call them killers.
4. One day after saying he never linked Sadaam and 9/11 here Bush is again confusing the two. At least I hope he's confused. Safe haven to the enemy? That's Afghanistan, you know, where Bin Laden is.
5. 1441 didn't give us the authority to attack Iraq. Iraq accepted 1441 and allowed the weapon inspectors to return.
Later, in fact the UN said no to an unprovoked, pre-emptive strike. Kofi Annan called the invasion illegal. (An impeachable offense under current US law)
6. Iraq did disarm. We didn't find WMD. Internal Iraqi tapes were released this week that further verify that.
7. Saddam didn't deny the inspectors. We,the US, kicked them out.
8. Saddam did disclose.
9. That statement can't possibly be proven. Look at the 9/11 Commission's report card on the country's ability to be prepared for another attack. Lot's of D's and F's. Look at the Federal Government's continues lack of response to the Katrina disaster if you think we're prepared. Katrina just as easily could have been a loose nuke at a port or a chemical weapon.
http://thehill.com/thehill/export/TheHill/News/Frontpage/033006/thomas.htmlAfter grilling Bush, Helen Thomas gets thousands of flowers
By Albert Eisele
The roses kept coming - and coming - and coming - to the Hearst Newspapers office in downtown Washington on Thursday, until they filled a large conference room to overflowing.
By the time the Federal Express delivery was complete, there were 108 dozen roses, nearly 1,300 in every color. They were the result of an e-mail campaign to show support for Hearst columnist Helen Thomas after she grilled President Bush about his Iraq policy at last week's White House news conference.
The campaign was the brainchild of Clarity Sanderson, a 31-year-old Democratic activist from Sandy, Utah, a suburb of Salt Lake City, who was motivated by the sharp exchange between Thomas and Bush, and by an op-ed article Thomas wrote about the exchange in the Salt Lake Tribune.
mnpollock said:OMG, I can't believe this thread is still going. You people are debating FIENDS!
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?