Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

At 12/28/07 11:09 PM, Musician wrote: By simple definition, but you're riding on a technicality, and it doesn't make the torture of Iraqi detainees any less despicable.

The Geneva Convention is very clear. You foolow it, and you are then protected by it. There is no reason to believe that people who have to interest in abiding by the terms of the Convention are protected by it.

Oh, and This:
http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/12/11/a gent.tapes/
makes waterboarding them acceptable.

What I'm eager to see is a real investigation into what happened.

We had that. We know who leaked the info. You want to know why Armitage wasn't charged? Because he didn't commit a crime. In fact, they couldn't prove anyone committed a crime. I provided proof above that going in, Fitzgerald already knew who the "leak" was. Why wouldn't he? Bob Novak told him, as did Woodward. The fact that Plame was a beaurocrat (director of operations), who used her own name when she went on location severely undermines any contention that she was covert.

What you want is an investigation that ends the way you want. Because the "real" investigation happened. They couldn't get anybody on a crime, so they took Scooter Libby, and some confused statements on who knew what when, and charged him with bogus perjury charges.
That didn't satisfy you, so you want ANOTHER one.

Maybe not, but it doesn't mean it wasn't.

But it doesn't mean it was either.

The fact that she was covert was the only thing that was declassified, and even then it was because an investigation had to the source of the leak.

See above.

"Ms. Wilson was a covert employee of the CIA. We cannot discuss all of the details of her CIA employment in open session. I have met with General Hayden, the head of the CIA, to discuss what I can and cannot say about Ms. Wilson's service. My staff has also worked with the agency to ensure these remarks do not contain classified information."

See above.

Honestly, asking how an unclassified document can show the CIA agent was covert is just a dodge to avoid actually addressing the evidence that she was a covert CIA agent.

On covert status:

http://thelede.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/05 /30/valerie-plame-covert-indeed/
While assigned to CPD, Ms. Wilson engaged in temporary duty (TDY) travel overseas on official business. She traveled at least seven times to more than ten countries. When traveling overseas, Ms. Wilson always traveled under a cover identity - sometimes in true name and sometimes in alias - but always using cover - whether official or non-official cover (NOC) - with no ostensible relationship to the CIA.

Notice the term "temporary" in that.

At 12/28/07 07:27 PM, Leeloo-Minai wrote: what about that bribe-taking Louisiana representative who's been protected by his crooked-cronies because he stashed his loot IN his capital hill office? He's a democrat, and his scheming is small change compared to some on that list . . . but still, the man was caught red-handed and got away on a technicality.

Didn't he get re-elected too?

At 12/29/07 06:15 AM, TonyTostieno wrote: Didn't he get re-elected too?

And is still in a position of power.

I've looked back to 2005. None of the Republicans on the lists are still around.

The only Dem I can find to be on the list (honerable mention) and be gone is Cynthia McKinney.

The point I'm trying to make is NOT that Democrats are the only corrupt politicians. It's that they can do whatever they want, and the constituency will keep voting for them. Republicans are even accused of being corrupt and they go bye-bye. Democrats are proven to be corrupt and stay around.

Uh... I think we're getting at the wrong point here, anyone can quote others n make stupid comments about spelling er lack of evidence.
If I'm not mistaken we should be putting in who we think are the most corrupt, disagreeing or agreeing to each other's ideas.

Just wanted to let you all know that, this is a community type site, so start acting like one or you will wish you had when you start feeling angry all the time just because some asshole can't get anything through their heads, jsut because there are less intelligent people here, not to mention racist and probably psychotic people here, lets all treat each other as we would want to be treated.

Unless somone makes a deliberate comment, then just ignore them n they should get the idea.

As determined by Judicial Watch:

"Judicial Watch, Inc., a conservative, non-partisan educational foundation, promotes transparency, accountability and integrity in government, politics and the law. "

Always check where your sources are coming from. How the hell can anything be conservative and non-partisan? It seems like a thin definitional line to draw - we have (and promote) certain political views, but do not align ourselves to any party.

The Crucible and McCarthyism anyone?

At 12/30/07 01:53 PM, XeroXTC wrote: The Crucible and McCarthyism anyone?

He wasn't corrupt, but misguided. He was genuinely afraid of communist spies, and he cracked under the pressure. There really were communist spies, and he was trying to find them, but failed.

The schools teach it differently, though.

At 12/30/07 03:55 PM, Christopherr wrote:

At 12/30/07 01:53 PM, XeroXTC wrote: The Crucible and McCarthyism anyone?

He wasn't corrupt, but misguided. He was genuinely afraid of communist spies, and he cracked under the pressure. There really were communist spies, and he was trying to find them, but failed.

The schools teach it differently, though.

He went too far, and he didn't care. His witch hunt destroyed peoples' careers.

People claiming Bush, his administration, and probably other government officials haven't broken the Geneva convention are in some sort of denial.

You try to defend it by saying the people detained are terrorists. That isn't even true. They are suspected of terrorism. What ever happened to innocent until proven guilty.

So it is okay to not give terrorists rights. I'll agree with you there. However, many of the prisoners haven't been convicted or proven to be terrorists. Then when it turns out they aren't terrorists, I guess the Geneva convention or some other laws have been broken. The possibility that the detainees aren't terrorists automatically gives them rights.

At 12/30/07 07:57 PM, skatin-andy wrote:

You try to defend it by saying the people detained are terrorists. That isn't even true. They are suspected of terrorism. What ever happened to innocent until proven guilty.

That makes about as much sense as Al Gore's son being busted for pot and other prescription drugs and was booked under "Suspicion of drug possession".

Suspicion?

So it is okay to not give terrorists rights. I'll agree with you there. However, many of the prisoners haven't been convicted or proven to be terrorists. Then when it turns out they aren't terrorists, I guess the Geneva convention or some other laws have been broken. The possibility that the detainees aren't terrorists automatically gives them rights.

You are aware that over 450 people have been released from Gitmo since the start of the Terror War, right?

At 12/30/07 05:29 PM, Sigma-Lambda wrote: He went too far, and he didn't care. His witch hunt destroyed peoples' careers.

Err, tear tear? Many of them were socialist nutjobs, and most of them were authors, directors, and actors. Whoop-de-doo, we went without some B-rate movies.

Even if he did ruin some careers, he still thought he was doing the right thing. Don't make him out as too bad of a guy.

At 12/30/07 10:28 PM, Christopherr wrote:

Even if he did ruin some careers, he still thought he was doing the right thing. Don't make him out as too bad of a guy.

The guy claimed to have names of communists who've snuck their way into the government, on a piece of paper... which turned out to be blank.

At 12/30/07 11:46 PM, Memorize wrote: The guy claimed to have names of communists who've snuck their way into the government, on a piece of paper... which turned out to be blank.

It was the wrong way to do it, but he was trying to get America to fight against communism.

I don't really a problem with fighting communism, but he did do it in a stupid way. My point is that he was not corrupt, but misguided.

Does anybody know if Ted Kennedy made the list? If he didn't he should have. Especially with all the questionable stuff that happened to him...

Maybe we should consider Alberto Gonzales???
I'm surprised he's not on the list...

At 12/31/07 12:53 AM, Bookman60 wrote: Does anybody know if Ted Kennedy made the list? If he didn't he should have. Especially with all the questionable stuff that happened to him...

I kind of agree, except the fact that no one really cares about him. He's like the six year old that plays in a sand box when the adults are talking.

Except that the sandbox was filled with vodka.

At 12/30/07 08:24 AM, Slizor wrote: Always check where your sources are coming from. How the hell can anything be conservative and non-partisan? It seems like a thin definitional line to draw - we have (and promote) certain political views, but do not align ourselves to any party.

It is a clearly nonpartisan site.

If you go back to 2006 (a whole year ago), 6 of the top 10 were Republicans. Unless you have something better to offer me, I'll keep going with the fact that the site is nonpartisan. Though, if we really wish to dig into it, the Democrats have to do far more to get on the list than the Republicans.

At 12/30/07 05:29 PM, Sigma-Lambda wrote: He went too far, and he didn't care. His witch hunt destroyed peoples' careers.

Of course he cared. And it's remarkable that the Venona Cables proved McCarthy right.

And don't even bring up Hollywood people, they weren't connected to McCarthy.

Always check where your sources are coming from. How the hell can anything be conservative and non-partisan? It seems like a thin definitional line to draw - we have (and promote) certain political views, but do not align ourselves to any party.

It is a clearly nonpartisan site.

If you go back to 2006 (a whole year ago), 6 of the top 10 were Republicans. Unless you have something better to offer me, I'll keep going with the fact that the site is nonpartisan. Though, if we really wish to dig into it, the Democrats have to do far more to get on the list than the Republicans.

I'm not denying that it does not support one party in particular. However, it openly admits to promoting a certain political viewpoint and, as such, should not be viewed as a source that is trying to take a balanced view.

At 12/28/07 11:22 PM, Jon4life wrote: I would have to say all republicans, and hilary, obama.

That's typical... "Let's just call an entire political party as well as every civillian who has registered under it corrupt!" You aren't even worthy of an intelligent debate with any educated conservative.

Sorry 'bout late, but seriously, nearly everyone on that list is a big name democrat, presidential front runner or already well known corrupt politican. Looking at the list, Im sure there are alot worse out there.

Then again, they arnt well known politicans worth attacking.

why the fuck is bushy not on this list?

At 12/31/07 07:40 AM, Slizor wrote: I'm not denying that it does not support one party in particular. However, it openly admits to promoting a certain political viewpoint and, as such, should not be viewed as a source that is trying to take a balanced view.

Game, Set, and Match

At 12/31/07 02:07 PM, valium9 wrote: why the fuck is bushy not on this list?

Hmmm.... maybe because.... HE DOESN'T DESERVE TO BE ON IT!

But then again you've been told that Bush is evil for years now so I can understand why you would say that he should be on it.

At 12/30/07 10:28 PM, Christopherr wrote:

At 12/30/07 05:29 PM, Sigma-Lambda wrote: He went too far, and he didn't care. His witch hunt destroyed peoples' careers.

Err, tear tear? Many of them were socialist nutjobs, and most of them were authors, directors, and actors. Whoop-de-doo, we went without some B-rate movies.

Last time I checked, America is a place where you are free to have whatever political opinion you want.

And I don't care if he thought he was doing the right thing. Mao Zedong thought he was doing the right thing, but he was still a terrible person.

At 12/31/07 07:40 AM, Slizor wrote: However, it openly admits to promoting a certain political viewpoint and, as such, should not be viewed as a source that is trying to take a balanced view.

More recently, Judicial Watch has also sued the George W. Bush administration for access to minutes of Vice President Cheney's Energy Task Force[5] and has also sued the Secret Service to force the release of logs detailing corrupt lobbyist Jack Abramoff's visits to the White House.[6]

Simply because they're funded by conservatives doesn't mean you get to write off their opinion as a whole, slizor.

At 12/31/07 04:26 PM, Sigma-Lambda wrote: Last time I checked, America is a place where you are free to have whatever political opinion you want.
And I don't care if he thought he was doing the right thing. Mao Zedong thought he was doing the right thing, but he was still a terrible person.

This is irrelevant, because my ultimate point is that he was not corrupt. Part of being corrupt is acting for yourself and not for what you think is best for the people. McCarthy thought he was doing what was best for the people, so he wasn't corrupt.

At 12/31/07 08:28 PM, Christopherr wrote: McCarthy thought he was doing what was best for the people, so he wasn't corrupt.

Being right in your own mind does not make you right in practice. McCarthy ruined people's careers with unfounded accusations and caused a sensation not unlike Satanic Panic to grip the country for decades to come.

And for what? The greater good of the country? What good comes from fear mongering like that?

At 12/31/07 08:39 PM, Proteas wrote: Being right in your own mind does not make you right in practice. McCarthy ruined people's careers with unfounded accusations and caused a sensation not unlike Satanic Panic to grip the country for decades to come.
And for what? The greater good of the country? What good comes from fear mongering like that?

Regardless of what consequences it brought, he did not do anything for himself. The very definition of political corruption is when someone starts working for themself and not for what they feel is right for the people.

I never said what he did was right. I just said that it would not be correct to label his actions corrupt.

At 12/31/07 09:01 PM, Christopherr wrote: I never said what he did was right. I just said that it would not be correct to label his actions corrupt.

The only thing he is famous for is making unsubstantiated accusations against members of the government and actors/writers in Hollywood. He capitalized on the fear created by the cold war to make his mark on the political landscape of this country and get his name in the history books.

That, my friend, is the most self serving and corrupt thing any man can do.

At 12/31/07 09:14 PM, Proteas wrote: The only thing he is famous for is making unsubstantiated accusations against members of the government and actors/writers in Hollywood. He capitalized on the fear created by the cold war to make his mark on the political landscape of this country and get his name in the history books.

How would you know he did it for that reason? It's far more logical to reason that he was trying to turn attention to communists.