OT The Dimocrat Culture of Corruption continues...

[url]http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2007/01/31/BAGM3NSFGQ7.DTL[/url]

Ah to be a godless dimocrat....

Blow jobs and affairs are fine if you are married...

--


Scott in Florida

In article <i3Hwh.1770$B25.694@news01.roc.ny>,
"JoeSpareBedroom" <dishborealis@yahoo.com> wrote:
[color=blue]
> Go play with your colostomy bag.
>
>
>
> Scooter Libby - Indicted - Trial Set To Begin January 15, 2007
> Scooter Libby was indicted for Obstruction of Justice, Perjury, and Making
> False Statements on October 28th, 2005.
>
> The parties are currently in pretrial litigation. In a June 2nd order U.S.
> District Judge Reggie B. Walton limited the scope of the trial, ruling that
> the only question before the jury will be whether or not Libby committed
> perjury and obstruction of justice, eschewing such peripheral matters as
> Ambassador Joe Wilson's trip to Niger, his wife's affiliation with the CIA,
> the propriety of the Iraq war, etc.
>
> Libby is set to go on trial January 15th, 2007 - that's when jury selection
> will begin. The trial will begin immediately after jury selection.
>
> Libby faces a possible sentence of between two and five years imprisonment.[/color]


Silly for the government to be spending all that money for this.
--

"dbu" <nspam@nojoke.com> wrote in message
news:nspam-9C9E33.08214502022007@comcast.dca.giganews.com...[color=blue]
> In article <i3Hwh.1770$B25.694@news01.roc.ny>,
> "JoeSpareBedroom" <dishborealis@yahoo.com> wrote:
>[color=green]
>> Go play with your colostomy bag.
>>
>>
>>
>> Scooter Libby - Indicted - Trial Set To Begin January 15, 2007
>> Scooter Libby was indicted for Obstruction of Justice, Perjury, and
>> Making
>> False Statements on October 28th, 2005.
>>
>> The parties are currently in pretrial litigation. In a June 2nd order
>> U.S.
>> District Judge Reggie B. Walton limited the scope of the trial, ruling
>> that
>> the only question before the jury will be whether or not Libby committed
>> perjury and obstruction of justice, eschewing such peripheral matters as
>> Ambassador Joe Wilson's trip to Niger, his wife's affiliation with the
>> CIA,
>> the propriety of the Iraq war, etc.
>>
>> Libby is set to go on trial January 15th, 2007 - that's when jury
>> selection
>> will begin. The trial will begin immediately after jury selection.
>>
>> Libby faces a possible sentence of between two and five years
>> imprisonment.[/color]
>
>
> Silly for the government to be spending all that money for this.
> --
>[/color]


Messing with CIA secrets. He should get the gas chamber.

Have another drink joe, it's friday.


In article <i3Hwh.1770$B25.694@news01.roc.ny>,
"JoeSpareBedroom" <dishborealis@yahoo.com> wrote:
[color=blue]
> Go play with your colostomy bag.[/color]


Why Do Republican Crooks Get More Ink than Democrat Crooks?
Posted by John Armor on June 2, 2006 - 10:59.

Quick, name the two Congressmen who were convicted of corruption this
year and sent to the slammer.* Bet you came up with Duke Cunningham
(R-Calif.) like a shot.* But who was the other one?
My friend John Fogle, a fine writer, ran an eye-opening comparison in
the Hendersonville Times-News today.* It names the other crooked
Congressman.* The other one, who now resides in the same federal
penitentiary as Cunningham, is Rep. Frank Ballance (D-NC).* Here's the
comparison of the national press coverage of these two convicts:
*A Web search for articles containing the three words Cunningham,
congressman and jail results in 156,000 hits. But, replace Cunningham
with Ballance and you get only 890 hits. So the liberal press produced
not twice as many, not 10 times as many, but 175 times as many articles
describing a Republican going to jail as those describing a Democrat in
the same predicament.
What explains the difference in coverage?* Well, Cunningham is a white
Republican, therefore a*target of opportunity for much of the press.*
Ballance, on the other hand, is a black Democrat.* And we cannot have
strongly negative coverage of blacks and Democrats in the press, now can
we?
Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif) is leading the charge against the
"culture of corruption" among the Republicans.* Here's another Google
search to run.* Try D'Alesandro + corruption + Baltimore.* You will get
just*194 hits. Why D'Alesandro?
Well, Nancy Pelosi grew up as Nancy D'Alesandro. She was the daughter of
one Baltimore Mayor, Tommy D'Alesandro Sr, and the sister of another,
Tommy III. Both Tommys were crooked as a dog's hind leg, but only one
ever*was charged with anything.
Tommy III was charged with rape as a young man, and charged with bribery
as Mayor (along with a City Councilman, Mimi DiPietro). In both cases
the charges were dropped when the principal witnesses made themselves
scarce. In the bribery matter, the witness surfaced in a Las Vegas hotel
connected to the mob, the day after the charges were dropped.
There are three possible reasons why*this crooked Republican got big
ink, but*this crooked Democrat gets little ink.* One is that Republicans
are held to a higher standard.* Corruption is considered par for the
course, especially among big city Democrats.* The other two are that the
press are trying to protect both Democrats and blacks from the
consequences of their own misdeeds.
My estimate is that*the*last two*causes of slanted coverage are at play
in the wildly disparate coverage of the convictions and jailings of
Reps. Cunningham and Ballance.
Interestingly, this Hendersonville paper is owned by the New York
Times.* Obviously it has editorial independence, as this article would
never see the light of day in the Times.
--

"badgolferman" <REMOVETHISbadgolferman@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:xn0f1z8tz5h7vyi002@news.readfreenews.net...[color=blue]
> dbu, 2/2/2007, 9:39:22 AM,
> <nspam-A7DBA7.08392202022007@comcast.dca.giganews.com> wrote:[color=green]
>> Have another drink joe, it's friday.
>>
>> In article <i3Hwh.1770$B25.694@news01.roc.ny>,
>> "JoeSpareBedroom" <dishborealis@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>[color=darkred]
>> > Go play with your colostomy bag.[/color]
>>
>> Why Do Republican Crooks Get More Ink than Democrat Crooks?
>> Posted by John Armor on June 2, 2006 - 10:59.
>>
>> Quick, name the two Congressmen who were convicted of corruption this
>> year and sent to the slammer. Bet you came up with Duke Cunningham
>> (R-Calif.) like a shot. But who was the other one?
>> My friend John Fogle, a fine writer, ran an eye-opening comparison in
>> the Hendersonville Times-News today. It names the other crooked
>> Congressman. The other one, who now resides in the same federal
>> penitentiary as Cunningham, is Rep. Frank Ballance (D-NC). Here's
>> the comparison of the national press coverage of these two convicts:
>> A Web search for articles containing the three words Cunningham,
>> congressman and jail results in 156,000 hits. But, replace Cunningham
>> with Ballance and you get only 890 hits. So the liberal press
>> produced not twice as many, not 10 times as many, but 175 times as
>> many articles describing a Republican going to jail as those
>> describing a Democrat in the same predicament.
>> What explains the difference in coverage? Well, Cunningham is a
>> white Republican, therefore a target of opportunity for much of the
>> press. Ballance, on the other hand, is a black Democrat. And we
>> cannot have strongly negative coverage of blacks and Democrats in the
>> press, now can we?
>> Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif) is leading the charge against
>> the "culture of corruption" among the Republicans. Here's another
>> Google search to run. Try D'Alesandro + corruption + Baltimore. You
>> will get just 194 hits. Why D'Alesandro?
>> Well, Nancy Pelosi grew up as Nancy D'Alesandro. She was the daughter
>> of one Baltimore Mayor, Tommy D'Alesandro Sr, and the sister of
>> another, Tommy III. Both Tommys were crooked as a dog's hind leg, but
>> only one ever was charged with anything.
>> Tommy III was charged with rape as a young man, and charged with
>> bribery as Mayor (along with a City Councilman, Mimi DiPietro). In
>> both cases the charges were dropped when the principal witnesses made
>> themselves scarce. In the bribery matter, the witness surfaced in a
>> Las Vegas hotel connected to the mob, the day after the charges were
>> dropped. There are three possible reasons why this crooked
>> Republican got big ink, but this crooked Democrat gets little ink.
>> One is that Republicans are held to a higher standard. Corruption is
>> considered par for the course, especially among big city Democrats.
>> The other two are that the press are trying to protect both Democrats
>> and blacks from the consequences of their own misdeeds.
>> My estimate is that the last two causes of slanted coverage are at
>> play in the wildly disparate coverage of the convictions and jailings
>> of Reps. Cunningham and Ballance.
>> Interestingly, this Hendersonville paper is owned by the New York
>> Times. Obviously it has editorial independence, as this article
>> would never see the light of day in the Times.[/color]
>
> Excellent article. However trying to convince leftists that the
> mainstream media is biased against conservatives will get you nowhere,
> regardless of how much evidence you present.[/color]

Especially those of us who find that the paper landing on our doorstep every
day endorsed Dubya.

And "proving" something with Google hits will work only on the gullible. I
didn't think you were particularly gullible. Wrong, sure. Stubborn -
excuse me - resolute, sure. But dim? Nooo, I didn't thnk so. Gullible? I
thought not but perhaps I was wrong. I'm going to go with "uncritically
accepting of reinforcement of your worldview" for now.

Now, Nancy Pelosi is about 60, isn't she? That would probably put her
father somewhere between 85 and long dead at 140 and his brother was most
likely a contemporary of her father. When we consider that his political
career ended perhaps 20 years ago - and maybe more, 10 years before the
Internet took hold and perhaps 15 years before papers began routinely
publishing on the net, then it's no surprise that there'd be just 194 hits.
And maybe this goes much further back. Are we talking about the '60's,
here? I notice "John Armor" conveniently left the dates out. There are
other aspects of the D'Alesandro affair that are interesting but let's move
on...

Now, Cunningham's transgressions, being more recent, are going to be all
over the web. Tough luck, Duke. Shoulda' done your stealin' back in the
'60's...

As to the Frank Ballance / Duke Cunningham imbalance, you might consider
what a Google "hit" means. If I google my first and last name and my street
I get absolutely nothing that pertains to me. If I Google my first and last
name and "jail", I get quite a few hits, far more than Googling with my
street. I've never been to jail. And you might ponder the possibility that
"Ballance" is a less common name than "Cunningham." "Ballance" gets about a
million hits. "Cunningham" gets about 29 million hits. When I Google
"Frank Ballance jail," I get 37K hits. When I Google "Duke Cunningham
jail", I get 534,000 hits. How many of those are Duke University football
players in jail?

Now, if it could be proven, somehow, that Cunningham got more "ink" than
Ballance (and I'd suggest a perusal of major newspapers and news airtime
analysis), we might also start to look at the relative newsworthiness of
each case.

Cunningham personally made off with $2.4 million in stuff. Not a bad haul.
Just ten percent of that would replace my house. Ballance channeled
$100,000 in inappropriate payments to a few relatives. I'd say Cunninghame
deserves an "ink factor" of 24 for this aspect of the case.

Then, we could look at some of the other intangibles. Cunningham was
very... colorful... as a Congressman. The Wiki entry is amusing in many
respects. Ballance was a nobody... Ballance was a member of the minority
party, spent just one term in Congress and was no longer in Congress when
the indictment was handed down. . In fact, not even a full term, resigning
for health reasons prior to the indictment. Cunningham was a well-placed
and influential member of the party in power. A ranking member of the
Appropriations Committee. I'd give that an "ink factor" of at least 5.

Then there's the crime itself. Ballance was skimming. The $100,000
diverted was the sum total of the crime. Cunningham was influence-peddling.
His $2.4 million was for services rendered. In other words, he was willing
to be paid for his vote and to put the interests of lobbyists and others
over the interests of his country and consituents at a time when we were at
war. And then countless taxpayer dollars - can you say "billions" were
channeled to things that the Republic is probably better off without. You
go work out the "ink factor" on a thing like that.

Stop whining about bias. "John Armor" is either a naive fool or a scheming
tool. You make the call.



--
Posted via a free Usenet account from [url]http://www.teranews.com[/url]

"dbu" <nspam@nojoke.com> wrote in message
news:nspam-9C9E33.08214502022007@comcast.dca.giganews.com...[color=blue]
> In article <i3Hwh.1770$B25.694@news01.roc.ny>,
> "JoeSpareBedroom" <dishborealis@yahoo.com> wrote:
>[color=green]
>> Go play with your colostomy bag.
>>
>>
>>
>> Scooter Libby - Indicted - Trial Set To Begin January 15, 2007
>> Scooter Libby was indicted for Obstruction of Justice, Perjury, and
>> Making
>> False Statements on October 28th, 2005.
>>
>> The parties are currently in pretrial litigation. In a June 2nd order
>> U.S.
>> District Judge Reggie B. Walton limited the scope of the trial, ruling
>> that
>> the only question before the jury will be whether or not Libby committed
>> perjury and obstruction of justice, eschewing such peripheral matters as
>> Ambassador Joe Wilson's trip to Niger, his wife's affiliation with the
>> CIA,
>> the propriety of the Iraq war, etc.
>>
>> Libby is set to go on trial January 15th, 2007 - that's when jury
>> selection
>> will begin. The trial will begin immediately after jury selection.
>>
>> Libby faces a possible sentence of between two and five years
>> imprisonment.[/color]
>
>
> Silly for the government to be spending all that money for this.
> --[/color]
But wasting government money on investigating and impeaching Clinton for
diddling his intern was money well spent?

"badgolferman" <[color=blue]
> . The
> Google search engine is notoriously liberal-leaning and have been shown
> to rank articles they want viewed higher so others won't be noticed as
> easily.[/color]

But Faux News is 'fair and balanced'? Do you still believe in the Easter
Bunny?

mack, 2/2/2007, 1:14:05 PM, <12s6vrk7aifjpc3@corp.supernews.com> wrote:
[color=blue]
>
> "badgolferman" <[color=green]
> > . The
> > Google search engine is notoriously liberal-leaning and have been
> > shown to rank articles they want viewed higher so others won't be
> > noticed as easily.[/color]
>
> But Faux News is 'fair and balanced'? Do you still believe in the
> Easter Bunny?[/color]

Since it gives both sides of the story then yes, it is fair and
balanced.

In article <12s6vhj2uk2e309@corp.supernews.com>,
"mack" <mackerel@dslextreme.com> wrote:
[color=blue]
> "dbu" <nspam@nojoke.com> wrote in message
> news:nspam-9C9E33.08214502022007@comcast.dca.giganews.com...[color=green]
> > In article <i3Hwh.1770$B25.694@news01.roc.ny>,
> > "JoeSpareBedroom" <dishborealis@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >[color=darkred]
> >> Go play with your colostomy bag.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Scooter Libby - Indicted - Trial Set To Begin January 15, 2007
> >> Scooter Libby was indicted for Obstruction of Justice, Perjury, and
> >> Making
> >> False Statements on October 28th, 2005.
> >>
> >> The parties are currently in pretrial litigation. In a June 2nd order
> >> U.S.
> >> District Judge Reggie B. Walton limited the scope of the trial, ruling
> >> that
> >> the only question before the jury will be whether or not Libby committed
> >> perjury and obstruction of justice, eschewing such peripheral matters as
> >> Ambassador Joe Wilson's trip to Niger, his wife's affiliation with the
> >> CIA,
> >> the propriety of the Iraq war, etc.
> >>
> >> Libby is set to go on trial January 15th, 2007 - that's when jury
> >> selection
> >> will begin. The trial will begin immediately after jury selection.
> >>
> >> Libby faces a possible sentence of between two and five years
> >> imprisonment.[/color]
> >
> >
> > Silly for the government to be spending all that money for this.
> > --[/color]
> But wasting government money on investigating and impeaching Clinton for
> diddling his intern was money well spent?[/color]

Yes.
--

"dbu" <nspam@nojoke.com> wrote in message
news:nspam-E19657.13444502022007@comcast.dca.giganews.com...[color=blue]
> In article <12s6vhj2uk2e309@corp.supernews.com>,
> "mack" <mackerel@dslextreme.com> wrote:
>[color=green]
>> "dbu" <nspam@nojoke.com> wrote in message
>> news:nspam-9C9E33.08214502022007@comcast.dca.giganews.com...[color=darkred]
>> > In article <i3Hwh.1770$B25.694@news01.roc.ny>,
>> > "JoeSpareBedroom" <dishborealis@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >> Go play with your colostomy bag.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> Scooter Libby - Indicted - Trial Set To Begin January 15, 2007
>> >> Scooter Libby was indicted for Obstruction of Justice, Perjury, and
>> >> Making
>> >> False Statements on October 28th, 2005.
>> >>
>> >> The parties are currently in pretrial litigation. In a June 2nd order
>> >> U.S.
>> >> District Judge Reggie B. Walton limited the scope of the trial, ruling
>> >> that
>> >> the only question before the jury will be whether or not Libby
>> >> committed
>> >> perjury and obstruction of justice, eschewing such peripheral matters
>> >> as
>> >> Ambassador Joe Wilson's trip to Niger, his wife's affiliation with the
>> >> CIA,
>> >> the propriety of the Iraq war, etc.
>> >>
>> >> Libby is set to go on trial January 15th, 2007 - that's when jury
>> >> selection
>> >> will begin. The trial will begin immediately after jury selection.
>> >>
>> >> Libby faces a possible sentence of between two and five years
>> >> imprisonment.
>> >
>> >
>> > Silly for the government to be spending all that money for this.
>> > --[/color]
>> But wasting government money on investigating and impeaching Clinton for
>> diddling his intern was money well spent?[/color]
>
> Yes.
> --
>[/color]

If a CIA employee outed an agent, they'd be tried for treason, and perhaps
imprisoned for life. Libby may have been involved in the same thing, and you
think it's a waste of effort & money to find out?

On Fri, 02 Feb 2007 14:26:32 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"
<dishborealis@yahoo.com> wrote:
[color=blue]
>"dbu" <nspam@nojoke.com> wrote in message
>news:nspam-9C9E33.08214502022007@comcast.dca.giganews.com...[color=green]
>> In article <i3Hwh.1770$B25.694@news01.roc.ny>,
>> "JoeSpareBedroom" <dishborealis@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>[color=darkred]
>>> Go play with your colostomy bag.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Scooter Libby - Indicted - Trial Set To Begin January 15, 2007
>>> Scooter Libby was indicted for Obstruction of Justice, Perjury, and
>>> Making
>>> False Statements on October 28th, 2005.
>>>
>>> The parties are currently in pretrial litigation. In a June 2nd order
>>> U.S.
>>> District Judge Reggie B. Walton limited the scope of the trial, ruling
>>> that
>>> the only question before the jury will be whether or not Libby committed
>>> perjury and obstruction of justice, eschewing such peripheral matters as
>>> Ambassador Joe Wilson's trip to Niger, his wife's affiliation with the
>>> CIA,
>>> the propriety of the Iraq war, etc.
>>>
>>> Libby is set to go on trial January 15th, 2007 - that's when jury
>>> selection
>>> will begin. The trial will begin immediately after jury selection.
>>>
>>> Libby faces a possible sentence of between two and five years
>>> imprisonment.[/color]
>>
>>
>> Silly for the government to be spending all that money for this.
>> --
>>[/color]
>
>
>Messing with CIA secrets. He should get the gas chamber.
>[/color]

Please try to keep up with FACTS......

He is NOT charged with anything to do with CIA secrets.....

--

Scott in Florida

'Let every nation know, whether it
wishes us well or ill, that we shall
pay any price, bear any burden,
meet any hardship, support any friend,
oppose any foe to assure the survival
and the success of liberty.'

John F. Kennedy

On Fri, 2 Feb 2007 10:14:05 -0800, "mack" <mackerel@dslextreme.com>
wrote:
[color=blue]
>But Faux News is 'fair and balanced'? Do you still believe in the Easter
>Bunny?
>[/color]

I challenge you to watch Brit Hume every evening and find ONE instance
of biased NEWS.

Yes he has a panel with both sides of view....

Cite ONE instance during the news cast part that is not fair and
balanced!
--

Scott in Florida

'Let every nation know, whether it
wishes us well or ill, that we shall
pay any price, bear any burden,
meet any hardship, support any friend,
oppose any foe to assure the survival
and the success of liberty.'

John F. Kennedy

You wrote:
[color=blue]
> If a CIA employee outed an agent, they'd be tried for treason, and
> perhaps imprisoned for life. Libby may have been involved in the same
> thing, and you think it's a waste of effort & money to find out?[/color]

Plame's CIA employment was public knowledge. Treason and imprisonment for
confirming public knowledge? HAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHA

dbu wrote:
[color=blue]
> Why Do Republican Crooks Get More Ink than Democrat Crooks?
> Posted by John Armor on June 2, 2006 - 10:59.
>
> Quick, name the two Congressmen who were convicted of corruption this
> year and sent to the slammer. Bet you came up with Duke Cunningham
> (R-Calif.) like a shot.[/color]
[color=blue]
> The other one, who now resides in the same federal
> penitentiary as Cunningham, is Rep. Frank Ballance (D-NC). :
> A Web search for articles containing the three words Cunningham,
> congressman and jail results in 156,000 hits. But, replace Cunningham
> with Ballance and you get only 890 hits. So the liberal press produced
> not twice as many, not 10 times as many, but 175 times as many articles
> describing a Republican going to jail as those describing a Democrat in
> the same predicament.[/color]

Probably because Ballance wasn't involved with Jack Abramoff, a much
bigger crook than either of them, plus Ballance had no yacht named
"The Dukester" or conspired with guy who dressed like a movie mobster
and wore a ridiculous hat.

Why did Republican Newt Gingrich's adultery get much less coverage
than Democrat Clinton's, both which occurred at about the same time?
Must be some kind of conspiracy, right?

You wrote:
[color=blue]
>
> Fred Garvin, Male Prostitute wrote:
>[color=green][color=darkred]
>> > If a CIA employee outed an agent, they'd be tried for treason, and
>> > perhaps imprisoned for life. Libby may have been involved in the
>> > same thing, and you think it's a waste of effort & money to find
>> > out?[/color]
>>
>> Plame's CIA employment was public knowledge. Treason and imprisonment
>> for confirming public knowledge? HAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHA[/color]
>
> It wasn't public knowledge at the time[/color]

Incorrect - it was in "Who's Who In America".