T
TRGLDTE
Guest
Thus the use of the word 'supports,' not 'confirms' or a similar definitive word. While simultaneity is not proof, it is more strongly correlated to having a particular cause than to chance.
Republicans Are Apparently Claiming Foley Promised Not to Do it Again!!
- Thread starter Prakosh
- Start date
Does rain cause a hurricane??????
T
TRGLDTE
Guest
Wrong way round. The effect is rain. I note the effect, and look for causality or correlation. Oh look! A hurricane!
So if a hurricane causes rain, how do we have rain in Washington State without ever having any hurricanes???? No causality or correlation, how would that work???
You stated and I repeat:
"Correct.. and their would be 33% of Dems that would do the same on behalf of the Democrat Party... "
33% < 23%
And that's giving you the benefit of the doubt that Nixon's presidency was as poorly run as Bush's. I don't recall any prostitutes being given press passes in Nixon's time, but I could be wrong.
Again, given recent events and dems/liberals proclivity to turn their backs on congressman who aren't representing well, I think the margin would be bigger. Its intellectually easy to paint both parties' constituents with the same brush, which is why you do it.
T
TRGLDTE
Guest
TO compare to my point - We have a report of conditions being right for hurricane formation (the allegation), we have rain (october surprise timing), is there a correlation (investigate the allegation)? Why are you so hesitant to even consider that your precious dems allowed this to go on and on for political advantage?
Why are you suddenly so insistent on Democratic involvement when even the House leadership according to your own post:
:
acted responsibily in all of this. How could the Democrats have been more to blame for this than the Republicans who sloughed off an investigation a year ago on the guy. Why are you calling for an investigation of the Democrats instead of an investigation of the people responsible for sloughing off the investigation in the first place? That is the leadership of the Republican Party, or do you suddenly think that the Democrats have more power here than the Republicans who kept the Demecrats out of the loop. It looks to me like you just want an investigation of who leaked these emails. That is all you want. At least be honest enough to own up to what you are asking for.
Since you are interested in the "whole truth" and all.
klaatu
Fusionist
Lady T ..once again you are proving that naïveté is your strong suite. My take on this is not to support the Republican Party, nor Nixon..nor Bush .. but against your assertion which is that the Democrats large in part are free from extreme Party loyalty.... far less than the Republicans. Your One example ..."Lieberman" .. proves nothing.. , especially given that it represents one small state in the Union....and that it was a primary election..... in other words voting one Democrat against another ... this entire conversation roots from your absurdities.
pretty soon I am going to start referring to you as Lady R .. the R standing for rhetoric ...
The fact that you are reaching so far with this proves how friggin extreme you will ride on your Party Loyalty .. and back them to the proverbial bone....
Because Gossip and false allegations is wrong and for me Bibically a SIN....
If we followed what you are saying then is, that anyone can throw out in to the public and false allegations they want , towards any person at any time.
And the solution for the people or person being falsely accused with ABSOLUTELY NO CIRCUMSTANCIAL EVIDENCE AND NO EVIDENCE OF ANY SORT, is to bear with these totally OFF THE WALL ALLEGATIONS until an investigation is done?
YOU have to be fricking kidding Trog.
NO MAIN STREAM MEDIA has reported YOUR GOSSIP....there is absolutely no evidence that would even INDICATE that your gossip is true or even COULD be true....
So when you pass this crap on because "you heard it" without even seeing any kind of evidence that could lead to this kind of accusation, YOU ARE BEING IMMORAL Trog.....immoral to the core.... just rethink your position, please.... it is wrong to think that passing incriminating gossip without any proof of any sort is BEARING FALSE WITNESS in my humble opinion (though you are not doing it under oath) and it is something that all of us as human beings, should refrain from doing.
Now Trog, if you said that you also saw eveidence that shows that pelosi was notified on such and such a date, with such and such paperwork that indicates this very thing, then that would be reason to speculate imo and it would not be just mere gossip, but truth seeking.
care
If we followed what you are saying then is, that anyone can throw out in to the public and false allegations they want , towards any person at any time.
And the solution for the people or person being falsely accused with ABSOLUTELY NO CIRCUMSTANCIAL EVIDENCE AND NO EVIDENCE OF ANY SORT, is to bear with these totally OFF THE WALL ALLEGATIONS until an investigation is done?
YOU have to be fricking kidding Trog.
NO MAIN STREAM MEDIA has reported YOUR GOSSIP....there is absolutely no evidence that would even INDICATE that your gossip is true or even COULD be true....
So when you pass this crap on because "you heard it" without even seeing any kind of evidence that could lead to this kind of accusation, YOU ARE BEING IMMORAL Trog.....immoral to the core.... just rethink your position, please.... it is wrong to think that passing incriminating gossip without any proof of any sort is BEARING FALSE WITNESS in my humble opinion (though you are not doing it under oath) and it is something that all of us as human beings, should refrain from doing.
Now Trog, if you said that you also saw eveidence that shows that pelosi was notified on such and such a date, with such and such paperwork that indicates this very thing, then that would be reason to speculate imo and it would not be just mere gossip, but truth seeking.
care
Last edited:
but against your assertion which is that the Democrats large in part are free from extreme Party loyalty.... far less than the Republicans.
I think its demonstrably true, at least at a macro-scale.
Democrats bascially had a hand in throwing out LBJ for lying about the Vietnam war, and had a hand in throwing out Carter for Iran and for general incompetence.
On matters of critical national importance, Democrats have demonstrated that they will throw lying or incompetent presidents under the bus, if they deserve it.
LBJ knew democratic voters at large wouldn't support him, and had to withdraw from the nomination.
Democrats put up a strong challenge to Jimmy Carter in the 1980 Dem primaries, and even after Carter survived the challenge from kennedy, many dems went on to support either Ronald Reagan or John Anderson in the general election.
I think its demonstrably true, at least at a macro-scale.
Democrats bascially had a hand in throwing out LBJ for lying about the Vietnam war, and had a hand in throwing out Carter for Iran and for general incompetence.
On matters of critical national importance, Democrats have demonstrated that they will throw lying or incompetent presidents under the bus, if they deserve it.
LBJ knew democratic voters at large wouldn't support him, and had to withdraw from the nomination.
Democrats put up a strong challenge to Jimmy Carter in the 1980 Dem primaries, and even after Carter survived the challenge from kennedy, many dems went on to support either Ronald Reagan or John Anderson in the general election.
Right, because I've never disagreed with democrats.
Here lets see if you can understand the challenge this time. And try an actual answer to the question this time, 'kay? Thanks.
Long-winded diatribes on what you feel my loyalty to the democrats don't count.
You stated:
"Correct.. and their would be 33% of Dems that would do the same on behalf of the Democrat Party... "
Where did YOU get that number from?
In the absence of any further enlightenment on the exact location from which the number was gleaned one can only assume that he pulled down his pants, bent over slowly, inserted his thumb and forefinger, felt around gingerly, gripped it firmly and pulled it out of his ass...
Last edited:
Right, after he explained repeatedly where he got the number from, freshly reiterating his comments in several different statements...
It's not like somebody might be deliberately ignoring that during a conversation one may make a more general statement then later back it up with further statements or something... /sarcasm.
Actually the REPORTS mentioned that they were warned by Republicans involved in the Page program....
IT SAYS nothing about Dems warning their pages about Foley...
Do you think that Democrats have their group of Pages and Republicans have their own group of pages that they work with for the year and that this is how the Page program works...
And this is why they specifically mention the Republicans warning the pages about Foley?
care
Bush had a far higher approval rating among all of the nation as well as among his party during the election cycle for his second term. Ignoring this and pretending that all Rs are on this guy's bandwagon when it is clearly not true is still more pretense. It isn't going to convince anybody that all Rs follow Bush or that all Ds will follow Carter. However there was a significant percentage that will vote D or R regardless of who the person running is.
It is ridiculous that they were somehow unable to glean the information from flowover. This idea that they never talked about it and it was all somehow hidden in the open among only Rs is actually quite laughable. If it was that openly known for that long it would be nearly impossible for them not to know about it unless they were quite deliberate like Sargeant Schultz.. "I see NOTHINK!, I know NOTHINK!"...
Honestly... It really does take blinders to allow this type of thinking...
They couldn't have known, those kids were the most closed-mouthed children ever!
No he didn't. Can you tell me where he got 33% from?
I'll tell you my guess:
Given the fact that the pres and his admin currently seem to have a steady 33% foothold on approval ratings that doesn't seem to ever really budge below that number NO MATTER what he or his administration does he seems to be transferring that rate on to the dems, which I believe to not be case. He hasn't really substantiated anything that would elude to the fact that that number is derived from anything other than a guess. Hell, I gave Nixon's approval rating. He pulled that 33% out of his @$$.
But who and on what evidence has ascertained that that number is 33 percent????
He made, as he explained, a generalized statement based on the number she gave. Then he later expanded and deepened the conversation past that point. Pretending he didn't explain that is deliberate disingenuous because you want to pretend the explanation wasn't forthcoming. However, we all saw that it was well-explained as well as expanded upon in later posts.
See my last post, same subject, quoting Prakosh.