My friends, that’s not change we can believe in.
Despite what appears to be a middle-class lifestyle, the couple has written $61,600 in checks to John McCain’s presidential campaign and the Republican National Committee, most of it within days of McCain’s decision to endorse offshore oil drilling.
At a June fundraiser, the Rocchios joined top executives at Hess Corp. — Chairman and Chief Executive Officer John Hess, his wife, Susan, his mother, Norma Hess, and six other officials in giving a total of $313,500 to a joint McCain-RNC fundraising committee, Federal Election Commission records show.
The donations, first traced by Campaign Money Watch last week, were part of $1.2 million in oil industry contributions to McCain’s Victory ‘08 Committee, 73 percent coming after McCain reversed his long-held opposition to offshore oil drilling. The non-partisan watchdog group said oil executives and their spouses from Colorado, Mississippi, Louisiana, California, Indiana, New Jersey and Florida also donated.
No, it’s not.
You want Change We Can Believe In?
Call Tony Rezko.
Now that’s a chunk of “change” that stretches credibility.
Nope, I don’t believe it.
What’s so suspicious about this? The Party of the Extremely Wealthy Bastards pulls this krap all the time.
I’m sure Michelle Malkin will be up there checking to see what their counter tops are made of any minute now.
Yep.
Why would Malkin care how this couple spends their money as long as they’re not demanding our tax money to help pay their bills?
Of course, as a leftist you can’t understand the difference.
Why would Malkin care how this couple spends their money as long as they’re not demanding our tax money to help pay their bills?
Why? Because it looks a lot more like a violation of federal law than just “spending their money.”
Of course, as a Republican, you can’t understand the difference.
Nothing to see here folks. Move along now. This is just a very efficient part of McCain’s campaign finance reform.
1) Let me know when it actually is a violation.
2) The point in Pollak’s comparison was obviously that they shouldn’t be able to afford it (which is ridiculous), NOT that it was illegal.
“1) Let me know when it actually is a violation.”
I’m sure the GOP infected Department of Justice will be vigorously investigating this.
I’m sure the GOP infected Department of Justice will be vigorously investigating this.
Actually, any investigation would have to first be conducted by the FEC.
“The point in Pollak’s comparison was obviously that they shouldn’t be able to afford it (which is ridiculous), NOT that it was illegal.”
I’d like to see you spring this argument on Michelle Malkin the next time she demands an investigation into the countertops of some poor family receiving any kind of public assistance.
“Let me know when it actually is a violation.”
I trust you will apply this standard to allegations of Obama receiving some kind of ill-defined but somehow vaguely nefarious support from Tony Rezko, etc. etc. ad infinitum.
Nice to know what the Democrat party considers to be “vaguely nefarious”
A federal jury today convicted political fundraiser Antoin Rezko, a longtime backer of Sen. Barack Obama, of influence peddling in the high councils of Illinois state government.
As long as I can consider the activities of republicans as “vaguely nefarious” when they are convicted of a federal felony…well, alrighty then!
Me: “I’m sure the GOP infected Department of Justice will be vigorously investigating this.”
Jay: “Actually, any investigation would have to first be conducted by the FEC.”
How infested with GOP are the FEC?
Oh, and to quite the outraged cries of the terminally indignent, here’s the link
http://blog.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2008/06/04/rezko_convicted_of_influence_p.html
AGAIN (since I already addressed this), there’s an obvious difference between people spending their own money and people demanding taxpayer money to pay their bills after buying luxuries. Leftists never seem to get the difference.
Hey cool: CSS doesn’t know any basics about the FEC!
How infested with GOP are the FEC?
The FEC is ‘infested’ with 3 Democrats and 3 Republicans. The makeup always has to be split 3-3.
duh – and Barack Obama’s proven illegal actions wrt Rezko were what now?
Yes, the FEC is evenly balanced between Democrats interested in making sure elections are fair and open, and Republicans similar in mindset to serial villain Hans von Spakovsky, who want to use it to implent nifty poor and minority voter supression mechanisms like caging, which he has been known to favor in the past.
(I consider one of the few successes of the current Congress to be keeping this particular vile cobag off of the FEC, despite President Pissypants whining and stamping his feet…)
“The FEC is ‘infested’ with 3 Democrats and 3 Republicans. The makeup always has to be split 3-3.”
Way to miss the point. Would you like to explain it to you in smaller words?
Way to miss the point.
What point? I’m sorry, perhaps you do have to explain it to me because I couldn’t glean what it was you were trying to convey with this pearl of wisdom:
“How infested with GOP are the FEC?”
Can’t admit that you made a mistake with your Dept of Justice comment can you?
duh – and Barack Obama’s proven illegal actions wrt Rezko were what now?
Exactly the same as McCain’s illegal action in respect to these individuals Rheinhard.
Why not pester Oliver about it, he is the one who seems to think he is making a cogent point!
Like the FEC has any teeth anyway. When the FEC sent McCain a letter informing him he was enrolled in public financing and that he couldn’t declare himself withdrawn, McCain simply responded ‘that’s their opinion’ and then ignored them.
His own law, too.
The point is this: the relative noise being made about mcCain’s certainly shady looking flip flop on drilling after receiving hundreds of thousands of dollars in campaign contributions from Hess executives has not received anywhere NEAR the amount of air time Rezko has. Until the Dems start doing 24/7 ads about McCain’s shady connections and possible subservience to the Hess CEO, the scales are nowhere near balanced.
And this charge has a lot more merit, I think – what exactly do you think Rezko would want from a “tainted” Obama in way of payback? Some more building permits? As opposed to big Oil, which could demands anything from millions in tax breaks denying needed funds to the national treasury in TIME OF WAR, or maybe exemption from requirements to clean up toxic oil spills in sensitive natural areas?
Oh, and hey! Speak of the Devil, looks like good old Herr von Spakovsky is getting his sorry ass subpoenaed today!
“What point? I’m sorry, perhaps you do have to explain it to me because…”
Because you are a moron. I know.
JWG said, “Let me know when it actually is a violation.”
I’m pointing out that he is basically saying you can’t call foul until the Bush administration decides to prosecute one of their own. This is clearly bullshit. The Department of Justice admitted they have been using partisan affiliation in hiring, which is a crime. Yet no one is being punished there. In fact, the DoJ hasn’t enforced subpoena issued by congress against Republicans, which is further evidence to my point.
That point again…
You can’t claim there’s no violation just because the Bush administration hasn’t gone after one of their own.
“duh – and Barack Obama’s proven illegal actions wrt Rezko were what now?”
Duh: “Exactly the same as McCain’s illegal action in respect to these individuals Rheinhard.”
Way to dodge the question. How about this, can you even explain why Rezko did that could taint Obama?
I can do the same with McCain. If Hess executives said to this couple, “Donate money to McCain / RNC and we will pay you back.” then they broke the law.
Now it is your turn.
The FEC is ‘infested’ with 3 Democrats and 3 Republicans. The makeup always has to be split 3-3.
Last I heard, there was a (dem)seat open and no intention of filling it before the election. One reason why there’s been no movement on McCain’s “I’ll take that public financing now. No I won’t” shenanigans.
Because you are a moron. I know.
No, because I don’t understand cryptic asshat bullshit like:
“How infested with GOP are the FEC?”
Only a moron would be able to understand that.
You can’t claim there’s no violation just because the Bush administration hasn’t gone after one of their own.
Oh but it’s perfectly ok to claim it is a violation just because it “looks like one”?
What kind of crazy fucking bizarro world do you inhabit anyway?
“Only a moron would be able to understand that.”
No, considering the parallelism, it’s pretty clear.
“Oh but it’s perfectly ok to claim it is a violation just because it ‘looks like one’?”
Wow. You really are illiterate.
Quaker in a Basement said it looked like a violation, not that is was a violation.
JWG wants to ignore it until it is proven.
If you ignore everything until it is proven, nothing will get proven.
Get it? Please tell me you get it.
As I pointed out earlier, McCain is blatantly breaking his own campaign financing laws. When called on it by the FEC, McCain basically told them they were powerless and continued to break the law. So FEC what?
Incidently, if McCain spends any of that suspicious money before the convention, he will be doing so illegally.
JWG wants to ignore it until it is proven.
That’s funny. Where did he say he wanted “to ignore it?” EXACTLY where did he say that? And besides, now you’re claiming he said something else. Before you said:
You can’t claim there’s no violation just because the Bush administration hasn’t gone after one of their own.
Of course, JWG never said that either.
He said:
Let me know when it actually is a violation.
So let’s see we’ve learned here today. Mork from Ork and Tom Cruise from Xenu better be paying attention because now CS and his Bizarro World brand of logic tell us:
1. It’s ok to say that it “looks like a violation.”
2. It’s not ok to say respond, “Let me know when it is a violation” because:
A. The Justice Dept and FEC are “infested” with the GOP
B. That just means you want to ignore it.
3. Saying that equates to saying “there was no violation.”
Everybody got that in their notebooks?
You missed #4, Jay:
4. The three Republicans on the FEC are infecting the commission while the three Democrats are not.
Brought to you by Certifiably Stupid Strowbridge
Gravypan,
you are missing a little something too. Since 30 April 2007 the FEC seat formerly held be Dem commissioner Ellen Weintraub has been empty, (her term ended) even though the FEC web site still lists her as a commissioner. So it would seem that the Commission is infested with GOP, 3 to 2. I guess April 2007 was too close to the election for Bush to appoint someone for the seat.
Buma, that’s nonsense. The FEC vacancies were filled at the end of June. The nominations were all there. It was partisan bickering in the Senate that kept it in limbo for several months.
Me: “JWG wants to ignore it until it is proven.”
Jay: “That’s funny. Where did he say he wanted “to ignore it?” EXACTLY where did he say that?”
When he said… “Let me know when it actually is a violation.”
Anyone who is literate can figure out what he meant. Anyone who understands nuance in language can figure it out. I have serious doubts you qualify for the former, and I know you don’t for the latter.
“1. It’s ok to say that it ‘looks like a violation.’”
Cause it does look like a violation. Or do you think these two, who are renting an apartment and live in a CD with an average income of $58,000, could afford to give away nearly $60,0000 in campaign donations after giving away $0 in all other elections combined.
You see, you are falling for the ‘A bailout is a bailout’ fallacy. You must look at each instance individually and judge them according to the facts and you can’t say, ‘Both people said something similar about the same thing, so they are either both right or they are both wrong.’
“Buma, that’s nonsense. The FEC vacancies were filled at the end of June. The nominations were all there. It was partisan bickering in the Senate that kept it in limbo for several months.”
Partisan bickering? Bush demanded on an all or nothing vote, and at least one of the nominees was clearly unacceptable. But because the Democrats didn’t bow down to the Retard-on-Chief, you are blaming partisan bickering.
You are blinded by ideology.
I know two different people working in my school system who live very modestly but are wealthy from trust funds. They choose to work because they like it. They have no desire to show off their wealth. Just because someone lives a middle-class lifestyle doesn’t mean they don’t have money.
Once again, we have leftists who complain when someone spends their own money, but demand that others with known assets be given tax money to pay for health care.
Anyone who is literate can figure out what he meant.
No, actually it would take a mind reader.
I take from his comment that something is not a violation……until it is actually shown to be a violation.
Or do you think these two, who are renting an apartment and live in a CD with an average income of $58,000, could afford to give away nearly $60,0000 in campaign donations after giving away $0 in all other elections combined.
Oh I get it. So then you have no problem with government forfeiture laws. Ones where people can be stopped on the road, have a large quantity of cash and have it confiscated simply because what they’re driving and wearing wouldn’t lend itself to them having a few thousand dollars in cash.
It’s wonderful to know that you stand so diligently behind due process. They never donated before and they don’t seem to have a lot of money so they MUST have broken the law!
Man, you are a J-A-C-K-A-S-S.
You must look at each instance individually and judge them according to the facts
Right, and you’re reaching a conclusion based on one story that these people broke the law. That’s pathetic. It truly is.
Partisan bickering? Bush demanded on an all or nothing vote
Oh please! It was Democrats who demanded all or nothing. Democrats blocked consideration of ANY replacements because of their objections to one nominee.
You’re blinded by stupidity.
Just because someone lives a middle-class lifestyle doesn’t mean they don’t have money.
Be that as it may, I thought the limit was $2800 per person or something. How do they legally get to donate $61,000?
Answer now, um, humans.
The individual donations were of the legal limit to McCain’s campaign. The bulk of the money was donated to the RNC which doesn’t have such limits.
Ah. I see.
Hell, at least the people actually donated the money to the campaign in question. The post after this one can’t even get that right.
Me: “Anyone who is literate can figure out what he meant.”
Jay: “No, actually it would take a mind reader.”
Nope. You just are a moron and expect everyone else to be one as well.
Jay: “Man, you are a J-A-C-K-A-S-S.”
And you are a lying sack of shit. I never said anything that comes close to what you accused me of, but you are a fucking retard, so you wouldn’t know that.
If you don’t think a couple donating more than the average yearly income for their CD isn’t worth investigating, especially with the connections here, then you are a fucking ‘tard.
Me: “You must look at each instance individually and judge them according to the facts”
Jay: “Right, and you’re reaching a conclusion based on one story that these people broke the law. That’s pathetic. It truly is.”
And again you prove you are a fucking liar.
“Oh please! It was Democrats who demanded all or nothing. Democrats blocked consideration of ANY replacements because of their objections to one nominee.”
I would love to see your source on that.
“The individual donations were of the legal limit to McCain’s campaign. The bulk of the money was donated to the RNC which doesn’t have such limits.”
That’s not true. There are limits to the national committees. They are higher than to individuals, but there are limits.
Contribution Limits:
http://www.fec.gov/pages/brochures/contriblimits.shtml
If you don’t think a couple donating more than the average yearly income for their CD isn’t worth investigating, especially with the connections here, then you are a fucking ‘tard.
Well nobody said it shouldn’t be investigated. You’re moving the goalposts again. It’s something you do often when you get cornered and know you’ve been caught knee deep in your own bullshit.
And again you prove you are a fucking liar.
No I’m not. Let’s go right to your words:
Or do you think these two, who are renting an apartment and live in a CD with an average income of $58,000, could afford to give away nearly $60,0000 in campaign donations after giving away $0 in all other elections combined.
There you have it. You have no information other than what was written in this ONE story. You have no clue as to what they have in savings, investments or anything else. Yet here you are declaring them guilty for no other reason than their donations were made to John McCain. Proving you are nothing but a hack.
I would love to see your source on that.
Right here:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/06/24/AR2008062401328.html
Democrats blocked consideration of any replacements over objections to one of President Bush’s choices, former Justice Department official Hans von Spakovsky, whom they accused of politicizing cases of voting rights.
Now, is that clear enough or is black going to turn to white again with you coming up with some asshat reason that this doesn’t count?
There are limits to the national committees. They are higher than to individuals, but there are limits.
Yes, I know that. I didn’t say there weren’t limits. I said donations to the RNC don’t have the same limits as those made directly to a candidate.
“Well nobody said it shouldn’t be investigated.”
No, JWG said he was going to ignore it till it was proven. Gee, if that’s everyone’s attitude, then it will never be investigate. This is not going to be touched unless people express outrage.
“Yet here you are declaring them guilty…”
And you are a fucking liar. I never said they were guilty. I said they looked like they were in violation. By the way, even if we had 100% proof, I don’t think they would be guilty. The lady’s boss would be guilty, but I’m not sure they would be.
Me: “I would love to see your source on that.”
Jay: “Right here…”
Strange… But they have it wrong.
thehill.com/leading-the-news/reid-presses-bush-to-help-end-fec-standoff-2008-05-12.html
“The first is to convince Senate Republican leaders to adopt the White House’s position that the Senate proceed to voting on each of these nominations individually.”
So it was the GOP in the Senate, and not the White House.
Me: There are limits to the national committees. They are higher than to individuals, but there are limits.
Jay: Yes, I know that. I didn’t say there weren’t limits. I said donations to the RNC don’t have the same limits as those made directly to a candidate.
Actually, you said, “The individual donations were of the legal limit to McCain’s campaign. The bulk of the money was donated to the RNC which doesn’t have such limits.”
“Doesn’t have such limits.” is not the same as “Doesn’t have the same limits.”
No, JWG said he was going to ignore it till it was proven.
No, that’s not what he said. And I don’t care what you think your crystal ball powers tell you, it’s not what he said. It’s a lie.
I never said they were guilty. I said they looked like they were in violation.
Oh…So you never said they were guilty, you just said they LOOKED LIKE they were guilty. I’m glad that’s such a big distinction to you.
Strange… But they have it wrong.</i
No, they didn’t. Filling FEC vacancies is usually a quick process. When there’s more that one, there’s usually just a quick up and down vote on the entire group and that’s it. Democrats, deciding they wanted to pick a fight, decided that smearing Hans von Spakovsky was the way to go. They were the ones who decided against past practices and said “Either withdraw von Spakovsky or there will be no vote.”
“Doesn’t have such limits.” is not the same as “Doesn’t have the same limits.”
Such: Of the kind. To the degree. To the extent.
I know what the hell I was talking about.
Amazing. I write a sentence that is pretty fucking clear and you say it means something totally different, but JWG writes, “Let me know when it is a violation” and you take from that he said, “I want to ignore it.”
Stunning.
Me: “No, JWG said he was going to ignore it till it was proven.”
Jay: “No, that’s not what he said. And I don’t care what you think your crystal ball powers tell you, it’s not what he said. It’s a lie.”
Me: “I never said they were guilty. I said they looked like they were in violation.”
Jay: “Oh…So you never said they were guilty, you just said they LOOKED LIKE they were guilty. I’m glad that’s such a big distinction to you.”
…. Hmmmm….
So I said they looked like they were in violation, and you said I said they were guilty. And you were not a lying.
JGW says, “Let me know when it actually is a violation.” and I say he’s going to ignore it. And that is a lie.
Is English your second language?
Me: “Strange… But they have it wrong.”
Jay: “No, they didn’t.”
Yes. Your source implied that the Democrats refused to vote on any of them individually because of one guy. This is not true. The GOP wanted one vote for the group, which included someone the Democrats felt was unfit for the job.
Jay: “Democrats, deciding they wanted to pick a fight…”
That’s there fucking job, idiot.
Jay: “…decided that smearing Hans von Spakovsky was the way to go.”
What smears? I assume by your statement that you actually know what the smears are and you are not merely puppeting right-wing talking points. So tell me what smears the Democrats used.
Me: “‘Doesn’t have such limits.’ is not the same as ‘Doesn’t have the same limits.’”
Jay: “Such: Of the kind. To the degree. To the extent.”
… ESL? Seriously.
Your first definition completely agrees with me. The other two only make sense if you added more context your statement. For instance, ‘…doesn’t have such strict limits.’ After all, they have the same kind of limits.
I got it!
‘Such’ is an adjective, at least it is in the way we were using it. You used it to describe the limits. I’m saying you should have used it to describe the size of the limits, not the limits in general. Otherwise you are comparing the nature of the limits.
So I said they looked like they were in violation, and you said I said they were guilty. And you were not a lying.
No I was not “a lying.” It’s amazing how “It looks like they’re guilty” and “They’re guilty” are two totally separate things.
Question: Do you think they’re guilty, yes or no? It’s a VERY SIMPLE YES OR NO QUESTION.
And if so, why?
JGW says, “Let me know when it actually is a violation.” and I say he’s going to ignore it. And that is a lie.
Yes you fucking stupid jackass because “Let me know when it is actually a violation” does not mean, “Just ignore it.”
You get that “ignore” shit from a COMPLETELY DIFFERENT statement, yet below you’re arguing that my use of the word ’such’ makes my statement completely different. You’re fucking unbelievable.
Yes. Your source implied that the Democrats refused to vote on any of them individually because of one guy. This is not true. The GOP wanted one vote for the group, which included someone the Democrats felt was unfit for the job.
And as I said, voting for FEC confirmations in blocs is something that the Senate has done for a long time.
That’s there fucking job, idiot.
No, that’s not the fucking job jackass.
Your first definition completely agrees with me. The other two only make sense if you added more context your statement. For instance, ‘…doesn’t have such strict limits.’ After all, they have the same kind of limits.
I don’t have to add more context to the statement because people with brains can understand what I was saying. If I had written, “Donating to the RNC doesn’t have any limits” then you would be right. But by saying, “The bulk of the money was donated to the RNC which doesn’t have such limits” simply means that limits don’t fall under the same constraints as individuals.
After all, they have the same kind of limits.
How can they have the same kind of limits? The maximum that can be donated to a candidate in a calendar year is $2300. The max to the party is $28500.
‘Such’ is an adjective, at least it is in the way we were using it. You used it to describe the limits. I’m saying you should have used it to describe the size of the limits, not the limits in general.
And that is what I did. Remember, here is what Duros said:
Be that as it may, I thought the limit was $2800 per person or something. How do they legally get to donate $61,000?
I responded:
The individual donations were of the legal limit to McCain’s campaign. The bulk of the money was donated to the RNC which doesn’t have such limits.
There you have it. In other words: Donations to the party are not limited to the extent that they are to the individual candidates.
You misunderstood why I wrote. Is it EVER possible for you to admit that you’re wrong? EVER? Or will you keep arguing for the sake of arguing?
Jay: “No I was not ‘a lying.’ It’s amazing how ‘It looks like they’re guilty’ and ‘They’re guilty’ are two totally separate things.”
They are if you actually understand how the system works.
Question: Do you think they’re guilty, yes or no? It’s a VERY SIMPLE YES OR NO QUESTION.”
Guilt is determined by the courts. Appearance is determined by the limited evidence available.
“Yes you fucking stupid jackass because…”
… English? Do you speak English.
“You get that “ignore” shit from a COMPLETELY DIFFERENT statement”
… What other statement? I am interested in seeing where this line of attack leads.
“And as I said, voting for FEC confirmations in blocs is something that the Senate has done for a long time.”
Again I ask, do you speak English. Your use of the language is imprecise, at best.
By the way, you said…
“Oh please! It was Democrats who demanded all or nothing. Democrats blocked consideration of ANY replacements because of their objections to one nominee.”
So you were wrong. The evidence clearly shows it was the GOP who demanded all or nothing. You. Were. Wrong.
“How can they have the same kind of limits?”
It’s a simple dollar figure.
“The maximum that can be donated to a candidate in a calendar year is $2300.”
Actually, it’s per election cycle, not calendar year. (You could be maxed out now, and donate again after the convention.) Although this has little to do with the nature of the debate right now.
“There you have it. In other words: Donations to the party are not limited to the extent….”
Ahhhh-stop right there. You didn’t originally say extent. If you had said extent, we wouldn’t be having this debate.
“You misunderstood why I wrote. Is it EVER possible for you to admit that you’re wrong? EVER? Or will you keep arguing for the sake of arguing?”
Two points…
1.) Are you claiming I’ve never admitted a mistake? Are you sure you want to go on record about that?
2.) What did you think SpiderJ said when you responded with ‘That’s what per 100,000 means’? (I’m sure I’ll be explaining that comment next time, but I’m giving you the benefit of the doubt for now.)
By the way, Jay, what smears? You claimed the Democrats smeared Hans von Spakovsky, so what were these smears? Or should I add this to the list of questions you ran away from? And you can’t lie and say you left because the debate was ‘reduced to trying to get the final word’ because you responded to my post, you just ignored the questions.
Lastly…
Me: “That’s there fucking job, idiot.”
Jay: “No, that’s not the fucking job jackass.”
What is the job of congress? I would love to hear your educated opinion on this. What is their job, and how can it not include judging whether certain nominees are right for the job they have been nominated for?
So you were wrong. The evidence clearly shows it was the GOP who demanded all or nothing. You. Were. Wrong.
Wrong wrong wrong. The Democrats blocked consideration of the vote for all the candidates. They wanted a one by one vote and why? This way they could tilt the FEC in favor of Democrats. It was an underhanded tactic and election year political nonsense, nothing more.
You didn’t originally say extent. If you had said extent, we wouldn’t be having this debate.
Yes, I DID SAY “TO THE EXTENT” when I said SUCH which means “TO THE EXTENT”
And you have the audacity to talk about my English skills?
Are you claiming I’ve never admitted a mistake? Are you sure you want to go on record about that?
If you’ve ever said, “I was wrong” in these comments, I’ve never seen it.
You’re wrong here and you won’t admit it. Hell, you don’t even have to say, “I was wrong.” All you need to do is say, “I wasn’t sure what you were saying Jay. Now I do.”
By the way, Jay, what smears?
He was attacked and tarred as a person that was “hostile” to “voting rights” because of his views in the Texas redistricting controversy and because of his support of Georgia’s voter ID law, both of which were validated by Supreme Court decisions.
What is their job, and how can it not include judging whether certain nominees are right for the job they have been nominated for?
Their job is to determine whether or not a nomination is qualified for the position and make their determination based on that and whether or not he would execute his or duties in accordance with the law. von Spakovsky’s viewpoints while at the civil rights division of the Justice Department are in no way relevant to whether or not he could enforce election laws. He was qualified for the job. The Democrats were doing nothing but playing election year politics.
Guilt is determined by the courts. Appearance is determined by the limited evidence available.
I didn’t ask you to ‘determine’ their guilt. I asked you:
“Do you think they’re guilty?”
Yes or no?
Me: “Guilt is determined by the courts. Appearance is determined by the limited evidence available.”
Jay: “I didn’t ask you to ‘determine’ their guilt. I asked you:
‘Do you think they’re guilty?’”
Wow. Just when I thought you could not get dumber.
Guilt is determined by the courts. Until they are tried, they are innocent.
Got it?
Fucking retard.
Me: “So you were wrong. The evidence clearly shows it was the GOP who demanded all or nothing. You. Were. Wrong.”
Jay: “Wrong wrong wrong.”
You said… “Oh please! It was Democrats who demanded all or nothing.”
This is wrong.
Why the fuck should I give a damn about what else you have to say on the subject, when you got this part wrong? Your credibility is zero.
“And you have the audacity to talk about my English skills?”
Yeah, cause your language skills suck. You accused me of calling these two guilty three times in this thread alone, which can only be the result of poor language skills, or a deficiency in honesty.
Which is it?
“If you’ve ever said, “I was wrong” in these comments, I’ve never seen it.”
By, ‘in these comments’ do you mean in this thread, or on this site?
“He was attacked and tarred as a person that was “hostile” to “voting rights” because of his views in the Texas redistricting controversy and because of his support of Georgia’s voter ID law, both of which were validated by Supreme Court decisions.”
And the supreme court decided to interfere with a state recount while saying at the same time that there decision was not setting a president. Hmmm… not exactly trustworthy in these cases.
By the way, what happened to attacking the Supreme Court as being filled with activists?
Additionally, Spakovsky was linked to the attorney scandal as well. Since the GOP has already admitted to breaking the law in that department, perhaps people even indirectly involved shouldn’t be given government positions anymore.
“Their job is to determine whether or not a nomination is qualified for the position and make their determination based on that and whether or not he would execute his or duties in accordance with the law.”
And they did. They felt he wasn’t fit and refused to vote for him. They felt that since he wasn’t vigorously defending civil rights with regards to voting before, he wouldn’t protect voting rights as part of the FEC.
Guilt is determined by the courts. Until they are tried, they are innocent.
You should be studied in Vienna by a team of psychiatrists because you’re unlike anything I have ever seen.
Once again, I am not asking you to determine their guilt. This is not a court. It’s a fucking comment section of a blog. You have no problem saying that it “appears” they are guilty, yet you’re too chickenshit to answer the question as to whether or not you think they’re guilty.
I wonder why that is.
You accused me of calling these two guilty three times in this thread alone, which can only be the result of poor language skills, or a deficiency in honesty.
And I have asked you to clarify that twice now. You’re saying they “appear” to be guilty, but when I ask you if you THINK they are guilty, you come back at me with the chickenshit, “Guilt is determined by the courts.”
And the supreme court decided to interfere with a state recount while saying at the same time that there decision was not setting a president. Hmmm… not exactly trustworthy in these cases.
Bush v. Gore has nothing to do with the two cases that I cited. That’s a complete strawman.
By the way, what happened to attacking the Supreme Court as being filled with activists?
Not sure what you mean here.
Additionally, Spakovsky was linked to the attorney scandal as well.
I call bullshit. Prove it.