Tom Delay indicted in campain finance scheme - Page 6

cool_chick · 10-02-2005, 04:10 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Mulhollanddose
You answered your own question...The media was running cover for Clinton, as evidenced by Starr getting blamed for Clinton's crimes...Starr was a prosecutor allowed off the leash by Clinton's Justice Department (leftist demonization aside, Republicans had nothing to do with it)...You notice how Reno didn't unleash a special prosector to investigate the Chinese Military monies raised at the WhiteHouse...You notice how the media covered up the rape charge by Juanita Brodderick...You notice how Barbara Battalino was convicted by the Clinton Justice Department for "lying about sex", yet the media was silent.

Clinton was kept alive by the media, a media that spent more time painting the Republicans as the culprit than the prosecutor.

What?

Good grief.

It's all in your head buddy.

Mulhollanddose · 10-02-2005, 04:13 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by cool_chick

What?

Brevity is the soul of wit.

CamB · CamB's Garage

I'm not aware of any western country that complains about a liberal bias in the media... except people in the US.

And the media is the same the world around. Besides, why would I believe:

Quote:

Do they sit around in conspiracy headquarters to plan their strategy?...No...Do they attend the same parties, travel in the same circles, stay at the same 5-star hotels, vacation in the same elitist hot-spots, and share the same ideology?...Yes, they certainly do.

...given that I am expected (by you) not to believe any matching conspiracy theories with respect to oil companies, Haliburton, etc?

cool_chick · 04:19 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Joeaksa
Ahmmm... It may not be a conspiracy but they sure are reporting a lot of things on the conservative side of the country that never get mentioned if a liberal does the very same thing... Even a blind person can see that the reporting is not "fair and balanced" so to speak with the majority of the news outlets.

BTW, did read your comments about the Grand Jury and it is really meaningless unless there is some documentation from the foreman. His saying that there were "stacks and stacks of paperwork" supporting Earle's cause does not mean that much. If Earle had these "stacks and stacks" of paperwork then why did not the first 5 GJ not act on it? If this paperwork was not available for the first 5 GJ then that opens up the possibility of forgery. Not saying it was but 60 minutes found out last year the hard way about this.

Lets wait and see what the court says.

JoeA

Oh come on. The "poor old me" is wearing thin. They don't "hide" democrats actions and "lambast" republican actions. They lambast both. Give me a break. The media's goal is to "get the scoop" before the other media gets it......and based on your theory, this would mean all the media worldwide would have to coordinate not releasing something...makes no sense.

And yes, I agree with you, without the evidence...etc. we cannot determine either way. But here is someone who did see it and his opinion. He actually saw it. He could be lying, he could be telling the truth, but he actually saw it. Everything anyone else writes is just speculation.

And what 5 GJs? Quit saying that until you find it to be credible, because at this point, to me, without any proof, there was only one GJ, and they indicted.

cool_chick · 10-02-2005, 04:20 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Mulhollanddose
Brevity is the soul of wit.

As well as the response to comments that don't make logical sense.

There is no worldwide conspiracy. Trust me...

Do I need to find you another tinfoil hat?

Mulhollanddose · 10-02-2005, 04:24 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by cool_chick
There is no worldwide conspiracy. Trust me...

The world's, and the more frequently than not state-controlled media's, silence regarding the UN oil for food scam suggests a worldwide conspiracy...Kofi should be on his ass.

Tell me why "trust me" should suffice?

cool_chick · 04:41 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Mulhollanddose
The world's, and the more frequently than not state-controlled media's, silence regarding the UN oil for food scam suggests a worldwide conspiracy...Kofi should be on his ass.

Tell me why "trust me" should suffice?

They do? I've heard enough of Kofi to last a lifetime in the media. But sorry, Kofi was cleared of wrongdoing....it's over, move along.

Let me "run" with your "state-run" conspiracy theory here for a minute...maybe they're "protecting" the American companies involved?

LMAO

Oops.

haha

No conspiracy my friend.

And why? You don't have to trust me, that's fine, but it's too bad you can't step back and listen to how you sound. It sounds kooky, schizophrenic-like. And this "woe is me" stuff, it just sounds whiny. I hope you don't take offense, I really don't mean any, I can't figure another way to put it, but it sounds so much like nothing is a republican's fault, they're just victims, everything is the democrats fault, anything reported about them is dead on, everything reported about republicans is fake. It's like a genuine lack of accountability or lack of care for a large segment of America that happens to run under the republican ticket. It's like you guys don't care at all, except only if it's a democrat doing wrong.

Mulhollanddose · 10-02-2005, 04:40 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by cool_chick
They do? I've heard enough of Kofi to last a lifetime in the media. But sorry, Kofi was cleared of wrongdoing....it's over, move along.

By who, chicky?...By the UN?

Please chicky...You are being taken for a ride whether you understand it or not.

cool_chick · 10-02-2005, 04:43 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Mulhollanddose
By who, chicky?...By the UN?

Please chicky...You are being taken for a ride whether you understand it or not.

Do you have something tangible on Kofi to prove the clearing was in error? If you don't have anything tangible, your allegations of this clearing as false has no basis.

And I edited my last post, sorry, was trying to catch before anyone responded. I put this in:

Let me "run" with your "state-run" conspiracy theory here for a minute...maybe they're "protecting" the American companies involved?

LMAO

Oops.

haha

No conspiracy my friend.

Good point the CC brings up. LMAO

lendaddy · 10-02-2005, 04:46 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by cool_chick
But sorry, Kofi was cleared of wrongdoing....it's over, move along.

Just when my headache starts to let up you come in with something like this. I swear you're trying to kill me.

cool_chick · 10-02-2005, 04:58 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by lendaddy
Just when my headache starts to let up you come in with something like this. I swear you're trying to kill me.

Sorry, perhaps you need to go to bed now?

I don't know what to say, he was cleared. I can't change that. You can't either. If you have valid reason to believe it was in error, put it up now, I'm most definitely interested and will change my position and believe it was fake if you can prove your case.

Mulhollanddose · 10-02-2005, 05:06 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by cool_chick
Do you have something tangible on Kofi to prove the clearing was in error? If you don't have anything tangible, your allegations of this clearing as false has no basis.

Kofi apparently couldn't find any...Like Reno couldn't find any fund-raising violations under Clinton...Like Sandy Bergler was just "messy" about shoving top-secret documents down his pants...Like John Kerry had memories "seared, seared" in his mind that Nixon sent him into Cambodia.

You got me Chicky

cool_chick · 10-02-2005, 05:09 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Mulhollanddose
Kofi apparently couldn't find any...Like Reno couldn't find any fund-raising violations under Clinton...Like Sandy Bergler was just "messy" about shoving top-secret documents down his pants...Like John Kerry had memories "seared, seared" in his mind that Nixon sent him into Cambodia.

You got me Chicky

I sure do.

I await patiently for something tangible. Think I'll be waiting until hell freezes over?

Hey what do you think about the war-for-oil scandal? That falls under this umbrella as well.... Doesn't that just piss you off?

gavinlit · 10-02-2005, 05:18 PM

"more frequently than not state-controlled media's..."

Ok - lets see the list of state controlled media outlets/assets. The media will rip into anyone if it sells papers and more often than not they're owned by corporations who have an axe to grind and it's not often a left leaning one.

You guys have a more right leaning media than most countries (and that's really saying something) yet you still whine about it. So produce the list of media outlets showing circulation and which ones are state owned. Think you'll be having a hard time.

Mulhollanddose · 10-02-2005, 05:21 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by cool_chick
Hey what do you think about the war-for-oil scandal? That falls under this umbrella as well.... Doesn't that just piss you off?

Kofi and Co, and media collaborators, were trying to secure their oil-for-starving-Iraqis-while-Saddam-got-rich scam...So they concocted, as real deal scumbags quite frequently do, blaming America for this red-herring of "war-for-oil".

Kofi's investigation of himself exhonerated he and his buddies; funny as it may seem to the most brainwashed among us.

hook.....line.....sinker....chicky

cool_chick · 10-02-2005, 05:29 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Mulhollanddose
Kofi and Co, and media collaborators, were trying to secure their oil-for-starving-Iraqis-while-Saddam-got-rich scam...So they concocted, as real deal scumbags quite frequently do, blaming America for this red-herring of "war-for-oil".

Kofi's investigation of himself exhonerated he and his buddies; funny as it may seem to the most brainwashed among us.

hook.....line.....sinker....chicky

Ahhh, the conspiracies abound. No hook...line...sinker...for those who do not don tinfoil hats. Sorry.

Again, I await patiently for tangible information. Think I'll be waiting until hell freezes over?

And that's not the war-for-oil scandal. The war-for-oil scandal, doesn't that piss you off?

cool_chick · 10-02-2005, 05:30 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by gavinlit
"more frequently than not state-controlled media's..."

Ok - lets see the list of state controlled media outlets/assets. The media will rip into anyone if it sells papers and more often than not they're owned by corporations who have an axe to grind and it's not often a left leaning one.

You guys have a more right leaning media than most countries (and that's really saying something) yet you still whine about it. So produce the list of media outlets showing circulation and which ones are state owned. Think you'll be having a hard time.

They can't. It's in their heads. It's made up!

CamB · CamB's Garage

Exonerated himself? Do you blame the Chairman of the Un investigation? Paul Volcker? Is he just another dupe of the naughty old liberals?

(edit) Note that Annan was exonerated of wrong-doing, but not exonerated from doing a crappy job - should he go for that? I think yes, because it is about accountability. (/edit)

Besides, you're own Senate found that 50% of the abuse of Oil for Food was by US companies.

Mulhollanddose · 10-02-2005, 05:48 PM

Duelfer is the report referenced:

The report notes that the start of Oil-for-Food, in 1996, marked the revival of Saddam's post-Gulf War fortunes. His regime amassed some $11 billion in illicit funds between the end of the Gulf War in 1991, and his overthrow by the U.S.-led Coalition in 2003. Most of that money flowed in from 1996-2003, during the era of Oil-for-Food. One might add that what allowed this dirty money to stack up was U.N. policy — urged along and overseen by Annan, in the name of aid — that allowed Saddam to import the equipment to revive Iraq's oil production, all of it accruing to Saddam. Saddam's regime had virtually no other source of income; there was no tax base. It was out of these oil flows, condoned (but not well metered) by the U.N., that Saddam derived virtually all income for the astounding roster of political bribery and illicit arms transactions detailed in this report.

Saddam followed a deliberate strategy of using bribes in such forms as contracts for cheap oil via the U.N. program, or outright gifts of vouchers for oil pumped under U.N. supervision, to gain political influence abroad. He grossly violated U.N. rules, with illicit trade agreements, oil smuggling, and arms deals (conventional, but still deadly) — and the U.N. did not stop him. By 2001, Saddam was able to thwart many of the constraints sanctions were meant to impose on his regime. His strategy, notes the Duelfer report, succeeded "to the point where sitting members of the Security Council were actively violating resolutions passed by the Security Council."

"Wha-choo talking about Kofi???" {/Gary Coleman -- Diff'rent Strokes (the French version

Mulhollanddose · 10-02-2005, 05:53 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by CamB
Exonerated himself? Do you blame the Chairman of the Un investigation? Paul Volcker? Is he just another dupe of the naughty old liberals?

(edit) Note that Annan was exonerated of wrong-doing, but not exonerated from doing a crappy job - should he go for that? I think yes, because it is about accountability. (/edit)

Besides, you're own Senate found that 50% of the abuse of Oil for Food was by US companies.

Who was in charge of Kofi's friend Volker?...Kofi was in charge of the "oil for food" scam...I do not care how many American companies capitalized on his corruption...He SHOULD NOT have let it happen. Apparently Bush did not care about his buddies oil deals with Saddam, unlike the French, German, Chinese, et al., who were fighting dirty for their buddies.