Comments
And after the trouble press has gone through to label this one a ’Republican Scandal", and all, the facts show up to play.



Written By: Bithead
URL: http://bitheads.blogspot.com
I think Howard Dean should play ’Teddy Roosevelt’ in a remake of "Arsenic and Old Lace"

C C H H H A A A A R R R G G E!


SLAM!



Brendan Fraser should have Grant’s character, etc...


Yours, TDP, ml, msl, & pfpp

Written By: Tom Perkins
URL: http://
Something else funny: I wonder why we have not heard from MK writing to McQ for a while?

Written By: Notherbob2
URL: http://
Eh, yeah. Then Dean and MK both can go to Happydale. Yours, TDP, ml, msl, & pfpp

Written By: Tom Perkins
URL: http://
This "scandal" is going to play out like Enron... in the beginning everyone was SURE that this was going to hurt the Republicans. And yet, soon after its eruption, the Democrats stilled their calls for investigations and disclosure as it turned out that they ahd been the recipients of a large wad of "Dirty cash" from "Kenny-boy" as well.

Abramoff and lobbyists pay BOTH sides...

Personally, in a cynical way, I love Abramoff. He clipped two groups for millions by representing each them on opposite sides of the argument. How does that work, "Look Chief, I’ve done such a bang-up job for the other tribe that you are DOOMED, BUT if only you pay me millions MORE I think I’ll be able to undo all my hard work." Plus, he got the tribes to contribute to Republicans... this is genious? Uh HELLO the Republicans have been in the MAJORITY since 1995, why have the Native Americans been slow in redirecting their cash? Sometimes, it seems, clients deserve to be clipped....

Written By: Joe
URL: http://
Thus proving my 2006 prediction "Dean will say something stupid" true and we haven’t even hit 10 days...

Written By: shark
URL: http://
Shark;

Point of order; I submit to you given the leanings of the mainstream media, he’s likely said something stupid loooooonnnnnnng before this.

It’s just that they haven’t bothered to report his stupid stuff, until he was sitting in their studios, live on national television, and being recorded in transcription as well. It seems a reasonable argument that they’re reporting it now, because given these circumstances they didn’t have a great deal of choice in the matter.

Written By: Bithead
URL: http://bitheads.blogspot.com
Personally, in a cynical way, I love Abramoff.

What you fail to realize, Joe, is that this will appear to be just another layer of a stinking onion. And while some Democrats took money, the ratio of Dem’s to Repub’s will tip the scale. I do believe, however, that this scandal will no doubt apply the fabled verbiage, “a pox on both your houses”, and I will cheer the same. But don’t think that this won’t hurt the Republicans more than the Democrats, because it will. If only because they are in the majority.

And while you may have a cold indifference toward bribery, others will not. I don’t care if the supply side protagonist’s involved “deserved” their shell game or not, the fact that it exists disturbs me.

And a simple, “it happens all the time” dissuades me not.

Abramoff is a thief, brigand, and a liar. His auxiliaries, the tainted members of congress, have no honor.


Written By: PogueMahone
URL: http://
And, look what Harry Reid was caught doing in a Senate antechamber!

Written By: machs
URL: http://hippocampy.blogspot.com/
Written By: Joe
URL: http://
Thus proving my 2006 prediction "Dean will say something stupid" true and we haven’t even hit 10 days...

Hey Joe....I dare you to lik to a single, solitary link from the FEC which shows a thin dime of Abrahoff money going to a democrat.

Go ahead...I’ll wait..........

In the mean time, I know the only thing stupid seems to be your post.

Written By: charles stanton
URL: http://
whoops.... It appears the post was not by Joe but by shark....Sorry

I will wait for shark to provide the FEC link.

By the way, trust me, THERE IS NOT ONE THIN DIME...PERIOD!




Written By: charles stanton
URL: http://
Why dont they just hire Bahgbad Bob as the DNC spokesperson.

Written By: kyle N
URL: http://impudent.blognation.us/blog
Good ol’ Howie. Bless his pointed little head. I’m praying that he will continue to be the Nr 1 Democrat for many years to come, or at least until we see that party fade into oblivion, in the wake of the Whigs.





Written By: Mike Z
URL: http://www.rigoletto.com/blogger.html
"Was Jack Abramoff giving money to both political parties,"...? No. The lobbyist himself was a Bush Pioneer and directly wrote more than 200K in checks from ’92 to ’05 to Republicans. Abramoff never gave a penny to Democrats or Democratic committees. True — he encouraged or "directed," as the
Washington Post says
, his clients to give generously to politicians of parties, which they did. And several associates who worked closely with Abramoff were, indeed, "equal money dispenser[s]" as Bush said.
But not Abramoff himself."
How wonderful of our astute liberal commenter to point out this small detail for us.
Now, perhaps he can explain why, exactly, this detail is important?


Written By: Notherbob2
URL: http://
“In the mean time (sic), I know the only thing stupid seems to be your post. “
Oh, I think your hyperbolic inane comment is right up there with it.


Written By: Notherbob2
URL: http://
I will wait for shark to provide the FEC link.

By the way, trust me, THERE IS NOT ONE THIN DIME...PERIOD!


Very easy to do:
Responding to a request by lobbyists for the Oneida Indian Nation, a Democrat-leaning tribe which owns and operates the profitable Turning Stone Casino in Verona, N.Y., the FEC ruled unanimously that Indian tribes are not subject to the aggregate limit on annual giving by "individuals." In one of those inexplicable Clintonesque legal interpretations, the FEC ruled that while a tribe is a "person" subject to individual limits on contributions to candidates, parties, and political action committees, it is not an "individual" subject to the current $25,000 limit on its annual total of contributions.

In other words, while Joe Donor is limited to giving 25, $1,000 hard-money donations to 25 candidates during an election cycle, the Oneida Nation or any other tribe can use tribal government funds to give unlimited "individual" donations of $1,000 each to an unlimited number of candidates. That cash is essentially soft money disguised as hard money. The bottom line is that Indian tribes, especially those flush with casino profits and other funds from corporate enterprises, gain an enormous leg up on other political donors.

The ruling "enables an Indian tribe to become a political cash register that can gulp ’soft money’ from any source and disgorge it as ’hard money’ contributions or expenditures," explains Ed Zuckerman, editor of the PACs and Lobbies newsletter. Zuckerman concluded that the FEC gave tribes "a unique opportunity to earn transaction fees and commissions by utilizing their tribal accounts to launder soft money into a new form of hard money that might be called ’political wampum.’" Zuckerman told me this week it is "quite possible, very possible" that this cozy little laundromat arrangement could pick up business dramatically if McCain-Feingold becomes the law of the land.
The article was written in 2001.

Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.qando.net/
Oh, and for even more fun ... from the same article:
In the 1996 election cycle, a Center for Responsive Politics report notes, Indian gaming interests gave over $1.5 million in soft money to national party committees. According to National Journal, six of the top 10 soft money donors among interest groups nationwide in 1999-2000 were Native American tribes. The No. 3-ranked Seminole Tribe of Florida donated $325,000, 85 percent of which went to the Democrats. After making the donations, the Seminoles gained approval for electronic gambling machines. The No. 5-ranked Mashantucket Pequot Tribe, operators of the gargantuan Foxwoods Casino in Connecticut, donated $319,000, 83 percent to the Democrats.

Final tallies are not in yet, but analysts say the top individual recipient of Indian gaming money during election 2000 was none other than anti-soft money crusader Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., who sits on the Senate Committee of Indian Affairs.
So the question the Dems need to ask is "do we really want to go there?"

Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.qando.net/
Oh thanks McQ.....but I wasn’t even going to bother. This guy wants to see money directly from Abramoff for his purposes, but for purposes of gunning at the GOP, Abramoff-directed money from his clients or team was good enough.

Sorry Charlie, I don’t play your little reindeer games.

Written By: shark
URL: http://
Dean proves only one thing:

Republicans have taught the Democrats well in the art of snake oil salesmanship. I applaude him for taking a cue from Cheney and lying with nary a twinke in his eye. My typical solution: they are all dirty swine, throw them all out, etc/yadda....

Personally, I like Dean (the political character, not the anti-medical marijuana doctor) the way Tom likes Abramoff. He is the lightening rod for all the harpey/shrillness (pun intended, yeahhaaaaaww!) the conservacrats can throw e-bolts at.

He is so unlike any of the others (except for Ron Paul), that you HAVE to consider him a welcome dark horse in the Realm of Team Status-Quo.

I typically relate to loose cannons. They get a lot of attention!

As an indie, the very fact that conservatives almost violently detest the man makes me think he is doing something right.

Written By: Rick D.
URL: http://

You guys are almost all fakers. Bighead, sharkboy, McQ, Dale. You’re not Libertrians. Your tax hating Norquistians. Big difference.



You’ll post occasionlly something that’s bad for Repubs, but the fact is, they have been HORRIBLE from a libertarian perspective, and yet you reserve all your venom for Democrats.



Good night.




Written By: Chuck
URL: http://
As an indie, the very fact that conservatives almost violently detest the man makes me think he is doing something right.

By that logic, you must really love Osama bin Laden.

Written By: Achillea
URL: http://
You’ll post occasionlly something that’s bad for Repubs, but the fact is, they have been HORRIBLE from a libertarian perspective, and yet you reserve all your venom for Democrats.

Yeah we’ve explained that a few times, Chuck ... of course you’d know that if you’d read more than a day’s worth of blogging.



Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.qando.net/
Dean’s assertion is quite right as far as it goes. No Democrats took money from Abramoff. Directly.

However, there are two problems with approaching the issue this way. First, it’s waaayyyy too subtle a distinction for a cause celebre. Second, when you that’s how you do the reckoning Republicans only took a grand total of about $200,000 over a period of several years. Can you make a big, majority-overturning scandal out of that?

So, either you’ve got no scandal at all or a scandal that tars both Democrats and Republicans. Take your pick.

Written By: Dave Schuler
URL: http://www.theglitteringeye.com
McQ:

I can vouch for that business at Verona, NY.

That’s only about 90 miles east of here. I still have some friends who work out that way in broadcast news from my radio days, and can tell you that tale is only one of many that rises from that place, and is one major reason why I’ve never trusted John McCain as far as I could throw the twerp. When I saw him smack in the middle of that mess out there near Syracuse, all the while him sounding more and more like your common everyday Social Democrat, that was enough for me. The Republicans would have done well to toss him from the party. As it is, I suspect they will be tarred with him in this matter and a few others. Well, one way or the other, I suppose.

Secondly, as for Chuck’s comments, it strikes me that his comments are right on the money. The Republicans, from a libertarian perspective, have been indeed terrible. Unless and until that is, you start comparing them to the Democrats. Can he, or anyone else for that matter, tell us that the situation would improve with Democrats in power? I think not.

Well, OK, MK, perhaps, but I was speaking specifically of sane people.



Written By: Bithead
URL: http://bitheads.blogspot.com
So, either you’ve got no scandal at all or a scandal that tars both Democrats and Republicans. Take your pick.
Excellent point, Dave. I call it "excellent", because it’s precisely what I just wrote in a new post here.

That you agree with me only increases my estimation of you. :)

Written By: Jon Henke
URL: http://www.QandO.net
Mcq.... I rest my case.

Not one thing you posted shows one contribution from Abramoff to a democrat.

Here they are, from the FEC website. This guy is a republicans republican, period

http://www.fecinfo.com/cgi-win/x_allindiv.exe

Here they are 2002 to 2006 election cycle....I will let you point our the democrat or democratic committee.


Abramoff, Jack
4/23/2003 $2,000.00
Washington, DC 20006
Greenberg Traurig LLP/Sr. Director [Contribution]
LEADERSHIP PAC 2004
[View Image]

2 . ABRAMOFF, JACK
3/21/2002 $1,000.00
WASHINGTON, DC 20006
GREENBERG & TAURING [Contribution]
HUTCHINSON FOR SENATE
[View Image]


3 . ABRAMOFF, JACK
3/14/2003 $2,000.00
WASHINGTON, DC 20006
GREENBERG TRAURIG [Contribution]
ENSIGN FOR SENATE
[View Image]


4 . Abramoff, Jack
10/24/2002 $1,000.00
Washington, DC 20006
Preston Gates Ellis/Attorney [Contribution]
PICKERING FOR CONGRESS
[View Image]


5 . Abramoff, Jack
12/6/2001 $1,000.00
Washington, DC 20006
Preston Gates Ellis/Attorney [Contribution]
PICKERING FOR CONGRESS
[View Image]


6 . Abramoff, Jack
4/25/2002 $5,000.00
Washington, DC 20006
Greenberg Traurig LLP/Attorney [Contribution]
AMERICANS FOR A REPUBLICAN MAJORITY (ARMPAC)
[View Image]


7 . Abramoff, Jack
11/20/2003 $5,000.00
Washington, DC 20006
Greenberg Traurig LLP/Attorney [Contribution]
AMERICANS FOR A REPUBLICAN MAJORITY POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE
[View Image]


8 . Abramoff, Jack
6/22/2001 $1,000.00
Washington, DC 20006
Greenberg & Taurig LLP/Attorney [Contribution]
LOBIONDO FOR CONGRESS
[View Image]


9 . ABRAMOFF, JACK
11/2/2002 $1,000.00
WASHINGTON, DC 20006
GREENBERG TRAURIG [Contribution]
CHAMBLISS FOR SENATE
[View Image]


10 . Abramoff, Jack
8/31/2001 $1,000.00
Washington, DC 20008
Greenberg Traurig LLP/Attorney [Contribution]
FRIENDS OF JACK KINGSTON
[View Image]


11 . ABRAMOFF, JACK
5/23/2001 $1,000.00
Washington, DC 20006
PRESTON GATES/LOBBYIST [Contribution]
JOHN T DOOLITTLE FOR CONGRESS
[View Image]


12 . ABRAMOFF, JACK
12/28/2001 $1,000.00
Washington, DC 20006
PRESTON GATES/LOBBYIST [Contribution]
JOHN T DOOLITTLE FOR CONGRESS
[View Image]


13 . Abramoff, Jack
2/17/2004 -$5,000.00
Washington, DC 20006
[contribution refunded to individual]
AMERICANS FOR A REPUBLICAN MAJORITY POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE
[View Image]


14 . Abramoff, Jack
9/29/2003 $5,000.00
Washington, DC 20006
Greenberg Traurig LLP/Attorney [Contribution]
RICH POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE
[View Image]


15 . Abramoff, Jack
6/16/2003 $2,500.00
Washington, DC 20006
Greenberg Traurig/Attorney [Contribution]
KEEP OUR MAJORITY PAC
[View Image]


16 . ABRAMOFF, JACK
5/3/2002 $1,000.00
WASHINGTON, DC 20006
GREENBERG TRADING [Contribution]
GORDON SMITH FOR US SENATE 2002 INC
[View Image]


17 . Abramoff, Jack
4/30/2003 $1,000.00
Washington, DC 20006
Smith Dawson & Andrews/Lobbyist [Contribution]
DOUG OSE FOR CONGRESS
[View Image]


18 . Abramoff, Jack
3/18/2003 $1,000.00
Washington, DC 20006
Greenberg Traurig LLP/Attorney [Contribution]
RELY ON YOUR BELIEFS FUND
[View Image]


19 . Abramoff, Jack
8/17/2005 -$1,000.00
Washington, DC 20006
[contribution refunded to individual]
LOBIONDO FOR CONGRESS
[View Image]


20 . Abramoff, Jack
3/13/2003 $1,000.00
Washington, DC 20006
Greenberg Traurig Attorneys At Law/ [Contribution]
CANNON FOR CONGRESS
[View Image]


21 . Abramoff, Jack
12/2/2003 $1,000.00
Washington, DC 20006
Greenberg Traurig Attorneys At Law/ [Contribution]
CANNON FOR CONGRESS
[View Image]


22 . Abramoff, Jack
10/18/2002 $1,000.00
Washington, DC 20006
Greenberg/Traurig/Attorney [Contribution]
FRIENDS OF CONNIE MORELLA FOR CONGRESS
[View Image]


23 . Abramoff, Jack
3/19/2003 $2,000.00
Washington, DC 20006
Greenberg Taurig LLP/Govt. Relation [Contribution]
CANTOR FOR CONGRESS
[View Image]


24 . Abramoff, Jack
7/17/2001 $5,000.00
Washington, DC 20006
Greenberg Taurig LLP/Senior Directo [Contribution]
NEW JERSEY REPUBLICAN STATE COMMITTEE
[View Image]


25 . Abramoff, Jack
3/19/2003 $2,000.00
Washington, DC 20006
Greenberg Taurig LLP/Govt. Relation [Contribution]
CANTOR FOR CONGRESS
[View Image]


26 . ABRAMOFF, JACK
9/30/2002 $1,000.00
WASHINGTON, DC 20006
GREENBERG TAURIG LLP [Contribution]
STEVENS FOR SENATE COMMITTEE
[View Image]


27 . Abramoff, Jack
7/18/2003 $5,000.00
Washington, DC 20006
Greenberg Traurig LLP/Senior Dir of [Contribution]
HAWKEYE PAC, THE
[View Image]


28 . ABRAMOFF, JACK
10/18/2003 $2,000.00
WASHINGTON, DC 20006
GREENBERG TAAURIG [Contribution]
GEORGIANS FOR ISAKSON
[View Image]


29 . Abramoff, Jack
6/16/2003 $5,000.00
Washington, DC 20006
Greenberg Traurig LLP/Senior Direct [Contribution]
FIRST FREEDOMS FUND
[View Image]


30 . Abramoff, Jack
2/27/2003 $5,000.00
Washington, DC 20006
Greenberg Traurig LLP/Attorney [Contribution]
AMERICANS FOR A REPUBLICAN MAJORITY POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE
[View Image]


31 . Abramoff, Jack
4/9/2001 $1,000.00
Washington, DC 20006
Preston Gates & Ellis/Attorney [Contribution]
REHBERG FOR CONGRESS
[View Image]


32 . Abramoff, Jack
10/15/2002 $1,000.00
Wasihngton, DC 20006
Greensburg Traurig LLP/Lobbysit [Contribution]
KALOI FOR CONGRESS
[View Image]


33 . Abramoff, Jack
5/21/2003 $1,000.00
Washington, DC 20006
Greenberg Traurig/Attorney [Contribution]
WELDON VICTORY COMMITTEE
[View Image]


34 . ABRAMOFF, JACK
2/7/2003 $1,000.00
WASHINGTON, DC 20006
GREENBERG TRAURIG [Contribution]
SHELBY FOR U S SENATE
[View Image]


35 . Abramoff, Jack
3/25/2002 $500.00
Washington, DC 20006
Greenberg Traurig/Senior Dir Govt R [Contribution]
TOM YOUNG FOR CONGRESS
[View Image]


36 . ABRAMOFF, JACK
3/17/2003 $1,500.00
WASHINGTON, DC 20006
PRESTON GATES AND ELLIS [Contribution]
MISSOURIANS FOR KIT BOND
[View Image]


37 . Abramoff, Jack
10/29/2002 $500.00
Washington, DC 20006
Greenberg Traurig LLP/Government Af [Contribution]
GINGREY FOR CONGRESS
[View Image]


38 . Abramoff, Jack
4/11/2003 $2,000.00
Washington, DC 20006
self employed/Attorney [Contribution]
CHARLES TAYLOR FOR CONGRESS COMMITTEE
[View Image]


39 . ABRAMOFF, JACK
6/12/2002 $1,000.00
WASHINGTON, DC 20006
GREENBERG TRAURIG [Contribution]
TALENT FOR SENATE COMMITTEE
[View Image]


40 . Abramoff, Jack
11/26/2001 $1,000.00
Washington, DC 20006
Greenberg Traurig LLP/Sen. Dir. of [Contribution]
FRIENDS OF MIKE FERGUSON
[View Image]


41 . ABRAMOFF, JACK
3/29/2003 $1,000.00
WASHINGTON, DC 20006
GREENBERG ATTORNEYS AT LAW [Contribution]
GRASSLEY COMMITTEE
[View Image]


42 . Abramoff, Jack
5/25/2001 $1,000.00
Washington, DC 20006
Greenberg Traurig LLP/attorney [Contribution]
FORBES FOR CONGRESS
[View Image]


43 . ABRAMOFF, JACK
2/22/2001 $5,000.00
WASHINGTON, DC 20006
PRESTON GATES ELLIS ET AL [Contribution]
FRIENDS OF THE BIG SKY
[View Image]


44 . Abramoff, Jack
7/29/2002 $1,000.00
Washington, DC 20006
Greenberg Taurig LLP/Govt. Relation [Contribution]
CANTOR FOR CONGRESS
[View Image]


45 . Abramoff, Jack
5/22/2002 $750.00
Washington, DC 20006
Greenbert Taauraig Attorneys/Attorn [Contribution]
SIMMONS FOR CONGRESS
[View Image]


46 . ABRAMOFF, JACK
5/3/2002 -$1,000.00
WASHINGTON, DC 20006
GREENBERG TRADING [Contribution]
GORDON SMITH FOR US SENATE 2002 INC
[View Image]


47 . ABRAMOFF, JACK
3/14/2003 $1,000.00
WASHINGTON, DC 20006
GREENBERG TRAURIG [Contribution]
ENSIGN FOR SENATE
[View Image]


48 . ABRAMOFF, JACK
10/22/2002 $1,000.00
Washington, DC 20006
Self-employed/Attorney [Contribution]
SIMPSON FOR CONGRESS
[View Image]


49 . Abramoff, Jack
5/8/2001 $1,000.00
Washington, DC 20006
Greenberg Taurig LLP/Govt. Relation [Contribution]
CANTOR FOR CONGRESS
[View Image]


50 . Abramoff, Jack
4/30/2001 $250.00
Washington, DC 20006
Electric Boat/Designer [Contribution]
SIMMONS FOR CONGRESS
[View Image]


51 . ABRAMOFF, JACK
2/6/2003 $1,000.00
WASHINGTON, DC 20006
GREENBERG TRAURIG [Contribution]
ENSIGN FOR SENATE
[View Image]


52 . Abramoff, Jack
5/22/2002 $250.00
Washington, DC 20006
Greenbert Taauraig Attorneys/Attorn [Contribution]
SIMMONS FOR CONGRESS
[View Image]


53 . Abramoff, Jack
10/24/2001 $1,000.00
Washington, DC 20006
Greenberg Traurig/Lobbyist [Contribution]
RELY ON YOUR BELIEFS FUND
[View Image]


54 . Abramoff, Jack
1/24/2001 $1,000.00
Washington, DC 20006
Greenberg Trauwig/Attorney [Contribution]
KELLER FOR CONGRESS
[View Image]


55 . Abramoff, Jack
2/3/2003 $1,000.00
Washington, DC 20006
Greenberg Traurig/Attorney [Contribution]
FRIENDS OF ERNEST ISTOOK
[View Image]


56 . ABRAMOFF, JACK
3/29/2003 $1,000.00
WASHINGTON, DC 20006
GREENBERG ATTORNEYS AT LAW [Contribution]
GRASSLEY COMMITTEE
[View Image]


57 . Abramoff, Jack
10/23/2001 $500.00
Washington, DC 20006
Greenberg Traurig LLP/Director of G [Contribution]
DAVE CAMP FOR CONGRESS 2004
[View Image]


58 . Abramoff, Jack
3/30/2002 $1,000.00
Washington, DC 20006
Greenberg Traurig Hoffman PAC/Senio [Contribution]
HEATHER WILSON FOR CONGRESS
[View Image]


59 . ABRAMOFF, JACK
11/3/2003 $1,000.00
SILVER SPRING, MD 20901
GREENBERG TRAURIG [Contribution]
CITIZENS FOR BUNNING
[View Image]


60 . Abramoff, Jack
3/6/2003 $1,000.00
Silver Spring, MD 20901
Greenberg Traurig LLP/Government Af [Contribution]
TOM DELAY CONGRESSIONAL COMMITTEE
[View Image]


61 . ABRAMOFF, JACK
6/8/2002 -$920.00
SILVER SPRING, MD 20901
[contribution refunded to individual]
BOB SMITH FOR U S SENATE
[View Image]


62 . ABRAMOFF, JACK
3/22/2002 $1,000.00
SILVER SPRINGS, MD 20910
GREENBERG TRADING [Contribution]
GORDON SMITH FOR US SENATE 2002 INC
[View Image]


63 . ABRAMOFF, JACK
6/8/2002 -$1,920.00
SILVER SPRING, MD 20901
[contribution refunded to individual]
BOB SMITH FOR U S SENATE
[View Image]


64 . ABRAMOFF, JACK
5/11/2001 $1,000.00
SILVER SPRINGS, MD 20910
PRESTON GATES ELLIS & ROUVELA [Contribution]
GORDON SMITH FOR US SENATE 2002 INC
[View Image]


65 . ABRAMOFF, JACK
6/29/2002 $1,000.00
SILVER SPRING, MD 20901
GREENBERG TRAURIG [Contribution]
BOB SMITH FOR U S SENATE
[View Image]


66 . ABRAMOFF, JACK
2/28/2001 $1,000.00
SILVER SPRING, MD 20901
GREENBERG TRAURIG [Contribution]
BOB SMITH FOR U S SENATE
[View Image]


67 . ABRAMOFF, JACK
2/28/2001 $1,000.00
SILVER SPRING, MD 20901
GREENBERG TRAURIG [Contribution]
BOB SMITH FOR U S SENATE
[View Image]


68 . ABRAMOFF, JACK
5/12/2001 -$920.00
SILVER SPRING, MD 20901
[contribution refunded to individual]
BOB SMITH FOR U S SENATE
[View Image]


69 . ABRAMOFF, JACK
11/9/2002 $1,000.00
SILVER SPRING, MD 20901
GREENBERG TRAURIG [Contribution]
SMITH TEAM EXPLORATORY COMMITTEE
[View Image]


70 . Abramoff, Jack
1/12/2001 $1,000.00
Silver Spring, MD 20901
Greenberg Traurig LLP/Government Af [Contribution]
TOM DELAY CONGRESSIONAL COMMITTEE
[View Image]


71 . ABRAMOFF, JACK
11/9/2002 -$1,000.00
SILVER SPRING, MD 20901
GREENBERG TRAURIG [Contribution]
BOB SMITH FOR U S SENATE
[View Image]


72 . ABRAMOFF, JACK A.
3/13/2003 $1,000.00
WASHINGTON, DC 20006
GREENBERG TRAURIG LLP/SR DIR OF GOV [Contribution]
COMMITTEE TO RE-ELECT CONGRESSMAN DANA ROHRABACHER
[View Image]


73 . ABRAMOFF, JACK A
3/29/2003 $2,000.00
WASHINGTON, DC 20006
GREENBERG TRAURIG ET AL [Contribution]
CITIZENS FOR ARLEN SPECTER
[View Image]


74 . ABRAMOFF, JACK A
2/21/2002 $1,000.00
WASHINGTON, DC 20006
GREENBERG TRAURIG [Contribution]
FRIENDS OF JIM INHOFE COMMITTEE
[View Image]


75 . ABRAMOFF, JACK A
11/25/2002 $1,000.00
WASHINGTON, DC 20006
GREENBERG TRAURIG [Contribution]
TERRELL FOR SENATE
[View Image]


76 . ABRAMOFF, JACK A
11/25/2002 $1,000.00
WASHINGTON, DC 20006
GREENBERG TRAURIG [Contribution]
TERRELL FOR SENATE
[View Image]


77 . ABRAMOFF, JACK A
12/4/2001 $1,000.00
WASHINGTON, DC 20006
GREENBERG TRAURIG [Contribution]
CITIZENS FOR COCHRAN
[View Image]


78 . ABRAMOFF, JACK A
11/25/2002 $1,000.00
WASHINGTON, DC 20006
GREENBERG TRAURIG [Contribution]
TERRELL FOR SENATE
[View Image]


79 . ABRAMOFF, JACK A
9/30/2003 $1,000.00
WASHINGTON, DC 20006
PRESTON GATES & ELLIS [Contribution]
NETHERCUTT FOR SENATE
[View Image]


80 . ABRAMOFF, JACK A
3/21/2002 $1,000.00
WASHINGTON, DC 20006
GREENBERG TRAUN’S [Contribution]
HUTCHINSON FOR SENATE
[View Image]


81 . ABRAMOFF, JACK A MR.
6/23/2003 $2,000.00
WASHINGTON, DC 20006
GREENBERG TRAWRIG L.L.P./SENIOR DIR [Contribution]
BUSH-CHENEY ’04 (PRIMARY) INC
[View Image]


82 . ABRAMOFF, JACK A.
5/2/2003 $2,000.00
WASHINGTON, DC 20006
GREENBERG TRAURIG/SENIOR DIR GOVT A [Contribution]
SENATE VICTORY FUND PAC, THE
[View Image]


83 . Abramoff, Jack A.
1/22/2003 $2,000.00
Washington, DC 20006
Greenberg Traurig LLP/attorney [Contribution]
RICHARD POMBO FOR CONGRESS
[View Image]


84 . Abramoff, Jack A.
3/5/2003 $1,000.00
Washington, DC 20006
Greenberg Traurig LLP/govt. affairs [Contribution]
TOM FEENEY FOR CONGRESS
[View Image]


85 . ABRAMOFF, JACK A.
6/25/2002 $5,000.00
WASHINGTON, DC 20006
GREENBERG TRAURIG/ATTORNEY [Contribution]
SENATE VICTORY FUND PAC (FKA COCHRAN COMMITTEE)
[View Image]


86 . ABRAMOFF, JACK A.
3/19/2001 $1,000.00
SILVER SPRINGS, MD 44432
PRESTON-GATES/LOBBYIST [Contribution]
BOB NEY FOR CONGRESS
[View Image]


87 . Abramoff, Jack A.
12/7/2004 -$1,000.00
Silver Spring, MD 20901
[contribution refunded to individual]
FRIENDS OF JIM SAXTON
[View Image]


88 . Abramoff, Jack A.
10/24/2003 $1,000.00
Silver Spring, MD 20901
Greenberg Traurig/Attorney [Contribution]
FRIENDS OF JIM SAXTON
[View Image]


89 . Abramoff, Jack Mr.
10/18/2001 $500.00
Washington, DC 20006
PRESTON GATES & ELLIS/ATTORNEY [Contribution]
OTTER FOR IDAHO
[View Image]


90 . Abramoff, Jack Mr.
10/19/2001 $2,500.00
Washington, DC 20006
Greenburg & Traurig/Lobbyist [Contribution]
AMERICAN LIBERTY POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE
[View Image]


91 . Abramoff, Jack Mr.
7/31/2001 $1,000.00
Washington, DC 20006
Greenberg Traurig LLP/Senior Direct [Contribution]
REGULA FOR CONGRESS COMMITTEE
[View Image]


92 . Abramoff, Jack Mr.
6/10/2002 $5,000.00
Washington, DC 20006
Preston Gates Ellis et al/Gov’t Aff [Contribution]
BATTLE BORN CLASSIC COMMITTEE
[View Image]


93 . Abramoff, Jack Mr.
6/26/2002 $1,000.00
Washington, DC 20006
Greenberg Traurig/Lobbyist [Contribution]
CAROLYN GRANT FOR CONGRESS
[View Image]


94 . Abramoff, Jack Mr.
4/22/2002 $250.00
Washington, DC 20006
[Contribution]
THOUSANDS OF SOUTH DAKOTANS FOR BILL JANKLOW FOR CONGRESS
[View Image]


95 . Abramoff, Jack Mr.
1/31/2003 $5,000.00
Washington, DC 20006
Preston Gates Ellis et al/Governmen [Contribution]
REPUBLICAN MAJORITY FUND
[View Image]


96 . Abramoff, Jack Mr.
9/30/2002 $500.00
Washington, DC 20006
PRESTON GATES/Attorney [Contribution]
OTTER FOR IDAHO
[View Image]




————————————————————————————————————————

Do A New Search
2006 Election Cycle2004 Election Cycle2002 Election Cycle2000 Election Cycle1998 Election Cycle1996 Election Cycle1994 Election Cycle1992 Election Cycle1990 Election Cycle1988 Election Cycle1986 Election Cycle1984 Election Cycle1982 Election Cycle1980 Election Cycle2002-2006 Election Cycles


————————————————————————————————————————

Time of this request: 1/9/2006 9:56:48 PM


————————————————————————————————————————
About Us: "Meet the new boss, same as the old boss..." —The Who X
What We Do: Web Filing and Disclosure Systems; News and Information ManagementX


————————————————————————————————————————

Privacy Statement
————————————————————————————————————————



Written By: charles stanton
URL: http://
Are you going to post the same damned thing 3 times so that it will be true?

Written By: Mark A. Flacy
URL: http://
So, why is the FBI after Dorgan, then, for example?
You see, your problem is, those pesky facts keep getting in the way.


Written By: Bithead
URL: http://bitheads.blogspot.com
Even if I conceeded your inane point (which I do not) that a client of Abramoff is the same as the "not one thin dime" (my post) of ABRAMOFF’s money going to democrats, here is the list of people who recieve money or gifts in excess of 10 grand from Abramoff. Tell me how this is a bipartisan scandal again?

As far as Dorgan, he wrote a letter (with Burns) on behalf of the Saginaw asking for funding for a school. He publically supported the program 6 months before he ever got a nickle of money. If is is proven this was a quid pro quo, I am honest enough to demand he be throw in jail next to the extensive list below of those with an R next to their names.

Here is the list of Abramoff clients and people who received the bounty. Keep spinning like a top, if you wish.


* denotes individuals who have been subponaed, indicted, or found guilty in the Abramoff investigation.

+ denotes individuals who have returned donations from Abramoff, his clients, or his partners.


SunCruz
Sen. Conrad Burns +
Rep. Tom DeLay +
Rep. Bob Ney *
Adam Kidan *
Neil Volz

Mariana Islands

Sen. Conrad Burns +
Rep. Tom DeLay +
President Bush +

Choctaws

Grover Norquist
Ralph Reed

Coushatta Campaign

Rep. Roy Blunt +
Rep. Eric Cantor +
Sen. Thad Cochran
Rep. Tom DeLay +
Rep. John Doolittle
Sen. John Ensign
Sen. Charles Grassley
Rep. J. Dennis Hastert +
Rep. Ernie Istook +
Sen. Trent Lott
Sen. Harry Reid
Rep. Pete Sessions
Rep. David Vitter +
Rep. Roger Wicker
Grover Norquist

Tigua Casino

Sen. John Cornyn
Rep. Bob Ney *
Ralph Reed
Michael Scanlon *
Neil Volz

Saginaw Funding

Sen. Conrad Burns +
Sen. Byron Dorgan +
Rep. J.D. Hayworth +

Capital Athletic Foundation

Julie Doolittle *


Cronyism

Sen. Conrad Burns +
Rep. Tom DeLay +
Rep. John Doolittle
Rep. Bob Ney *
Grover Norquist
Tony Rudy
Neil Volz
J. Steven Griles
Susan Ralston

Favors

Rep. Bob Ney *
Rep. David Vitter +
Doug Bandow
Italia Federici
Timothy Flanigan
J. Steven Griles
Gale A. Norton
Susan Ralston

Trips

Rep. Tom DeLay +
Rep. Tom Feeney
Rep. Bob Ney *
Ed Buckham
Susan Hirschmann
Ralph Reed
David Safavian

Gifts

Rep. Tom DeLay +
Rep. John Doolittle
Sen. Tom Harkin +
Rep. J.D. Hayworth +
Rep. Bob Ney *


Written By: charles stanton
URL: http://
Not one thing you posted shows one contribution from Abramoff to a democrat.

Your point is a strawman, Charles, which is demonstrated by the article. That’s why I posted it.


Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.qando.net/
My question is: Why post all that whole list (in two different forms, no less) when it is BLINDINGLY obvious that the, ohhh, previous 5 comments concede that Abramoff did not directly contribute to Democrats, but did so by having his clients contribute directly instead? I mean, really? Is the cut-n-paste so tempting that you can’t resist, even though the point has been conceded but arguably demonstrated to be irrelevent?

What about the whole 3 million vs. 200K deal? Do the Dems see indiriect contributions as legitimate or not?

Written By: Terry
URL: http://
You’ll post occasionlly something that’s bad for Repubs, but the fact is, they have been HORRIBLE from a libertarian perspective, and yet you reserve all your venom for Democrats.

Yeah we’ve explained that a few times, Chuck ... of course you’d know that if you’d read more than a day’s worth of blogging.
Yeah, you must be tired of hearing that, McQ.
But there is little wonder why you keep hearing that.


Written By: PogueMahone
URL: http://
"Tom likes Abramoff"

Which Tom? Not this Tom, and anyway, I think that was Joe. Yours, TDP, ml, msl, & pfpp

Written By: Tom Perkins
URL: http://
“My question is: Why post all that whole list (in two different forms, no less) when it is BLINDINGLY obvious that the, ohhh, previous 5 comments concede that Abramoff did not directly contribute to Democrats...”
Terry, you are observing, first hand, the common practice of many liberals who comment in the liberal cocoon. No doubt you are familiar with the term “knee-jerk liberal”? In medicine the knee-jerk reflex goes directly from the knee tap to the brain stem and back to the thigh muscle, bypassing the brain.
After loading up their opinion at the NYT, many liberals respond to key words to identify the issue in a blog article and regurgitate the NYT information on that issue in their comment.
Should their comment be questioned, they knee-jerk their response to the question. To do otherwise, to actually think about the question presented to them before responding, would be to recognize that the NYT might be wrong.
After entering several repetitions of the NYT information, sometimes with limited re-framing, the liberal will conclude that the (obviously non-liberal) questioner is simply incapable of understanding the revealed wisdom. They then issue a flame at the “stupid winger” or just rise above it and move on to something else.
Charles was told by the NYT that non-liberals were trying to say that Democrats took money from Abramoff. Charles clearly remembers that the NYT said that no Democrat took one dime from Abramoff. Since none of the comments in response to his entries were processed by Charles’ brain, he could not recognize the “yes, but...” nature of the responses. Hence, the repetition, longer and louder.
Some people believe that the “knee-jerk liberal” sobriquet is just an accusatory put-down used by right –wingers. You see in this thread an example from the real world. If there were any brain input, the agreement with
Charles’ contentions would be the easiest information to process. Liberals. Faigh!


Written By: Notherbob2
URL: http://
In reference to complaints that this site has more problems with Democrats than Republicans, Pogue Mahone wrote:

"But there is little wonder why you keep hearing that."

It’s because the Democrats are the least liberty oriented party out of the two.

Nationally, no Democrats are talking about ending the war on drugs, the war on guns, social security (but we know which party will when it gets that bad), or federal interference in local issues like education. Most of the unconstituional things we are taxed to pay for were the ideas of Democratic Presidents.

It’s reality, deal with it.

Yours, TDP, ml, msl, & pfpp

Written By: Tom Perkins
URL: http://
Also, I think every one of the actions which some people are calling illegal or unconstitutional, taken by the Bush Administration in prosecuting the war on terror, have precedents in the actions of Democratic party Presidents FDR, and Wilson.

So there.

Nyahh!




Yours, TDP, ml, msl, & pfpp

Written By: Tom Perkins
URL: http://
You guys are almost all fakers. Bighead, sharkboy, McQ, Dale. You’re not Libertrians

Nope, I’m not a libertarian, neo- or otherwise.

Did I ever say that I was?

Written By: shark
URL: http://
Terry asked charles stanton:

"My question is: Why post all that whole list (in two different forms, no less) when it is BLINDINGLY obvious that the, ohhh, previous 5 comments concede that Abramoff did not directly contribute to Democrats, but did so by having his clients contribute directly instead?"

And I must interject, it is because he thinks he has a point of towering consequence.

Yours, TDP, ml, msl, & pfpp

Written By: Tom Perkins
URL: http://
It’s because the Democrats are the least liberty oriented party out of the two.

Bullpuckie.
How Republicans inhibit liberty…
…let me count the ways…
(I can think of half a dozen in my state, alone)


Written By: PogueMahone
URL: http://
And the fact is that most of what the government does to me to limit my freedom, is done either because a Democrat thought it was a good idea, or a Democrat did it first.

First they were the party of the slaveholders, then the party of the rebellion, then the party of Jim Crow, then they were the party of the first total war command economy and the Palmer raids, then the party of the New Deal, then they were the party of quotas. All the while since 1860 or so, voting for gun control because they thought it would only be applied to blacks, and then because it was applied to everyone.

Go ahead, make out your list, pissant. The Democrats are by far, wide, and deep the most anti-liberty party in the nation with any influence. Thank God that influence is waning.

Yours, TDP, ml, msl, & pfpp


Written By: Tom Perkins
URL: http://
Yeah, you must be tired of hearing that, McQ.
But there is little wonder why you keep hearing that.
True.
It’s called "Democrat desperation"



Written By: Bithead
URL: http://bitheads.blogspot.com
I read your replies and the only one operating in a political cocoon are the right wing spinners attempting to wash the dirty hands of the gop with this pox on both houses yarn. I am sure it is my factual information that is being ignored by this crowd.

Can we agree on a few things?

My comment asking for "one thin dime" to be represented going from Abramoff to a democrat could not be done? I hope the answer is yes and the point is ceded.

Taking your bait, I posted the public information showing that all of Abramoff ‘s clients giving in excess of $10,000 went to republicans except for Dorgan (cash)and Harking (in-kind - use of a skybox). Every other recipient was a gop politician or operative. Correct?????

Agreeing on these 2 facts (prove them wrong if you wish) you now paint this as not a republican corruption scandal? What color is the sky in that world of cognitive dissonance in which you people live? Google News, why did you lead me to this loony land…….


Written By: charles stanton
URL: http://
Go ahead, make out your list, pissant.

What a nice guy! Riiiiiiiight.
Restricting what you see.
Restricting what you hear.
Restricting what you read.
Restricting what you say.
Yeah, Republicans are all about liberty. (not!)

Now listen up, you twit. I’m not suggesting that Democrats do not participate in regulating what we do, I’m merely suggesting that the Republicans are no better. Now if you could give two shits about the subjects above, well then that’s your problem. Some of us still have a grasp on what liberty is all about.

And as far as a list; I’ll take your challenge. For every liberty infringed upon by the actions or ideas of Democrats, I’ll match you a liberty infringed upon by the actions or ideas of Republicans.
I have just one request.
Let’s keep it within our lifetime … mmmkay. You can take Honest Abe out of your back pocket.

But of course, we can’t do it here. It’s not the proper forum.


Written By: PogueMahone
URL: http://
So, is liberty absolute? Or, is it rather, as the founders envisioned it... within cultural boundaries?

Written By: Bithead
URL: http://bitheads.blogspot.com
Or, is it rather, as the founders envisioned it... within cultural boundaries?

Where is it written in the bill of rights that liberty must be within cultural boundries?
And no offense, but where do you, or anyone else for that matter, get off knowing what the cultural boundries are?

And yes, liberty ... at least for me ... is absolute.
(as long as my liberties do not infringe upon the liberties of others, of course)

Written By: PogueMahone
URL: http://
No responsibility to society at all, eh?



Written By: Bithead
URL: http://bitheads.blogspot.com
Pogue Mahone wrote a load trying to make it plausible that the Republicans are great threats to American liberty. First he says I can’t use the history of the parties, to wit:

Let’s keep it within our lifetime … mmmkay. You can take Honest Abe out of your back pocket.

No. I certainly don’t need to use Lincoln. That wouldn’t be fair at all, since the Democrats of the time were all about letting the South have it’s way... Going that far back is overkill, really. The Democrats would have to hang themselves at Nuremberg.

Then of course the Democratic Party was the favored party of the ex slavers for quite some time. I wonder why that was?

Then vrey racist Wilson was doing the Palmer raids and stopping contraceptive info in the mails.

I suppose it isn’t fair to re-remind you of the unconstitutional New Deal programs which we’re still paying for.

But more modernly here are democrats trying to control
What we see say and see:
and
also.
http://www.religioustolerance.org/abo_lice2.htm
The Democratic LA legislature putting the kibosh on “Choose Life” license plates. They’re more the old style Democrats who liked Jim Crow, I’ll bet.

What we play:
Hilary Clinton wanting a higher, more censorable rating on a video game.

What we read:
http://chemistry.about.com/library/weekly/aa021003a.htm
No no no. Mustn’t learn how to make bombs.

And I suppose you won’t have the decency to admit that every gun control law in the country is a blatantly unconstitutional infringement of our liberties—one that gets good people killed among other things—and that until they got badly spanked over it, Democrats loved every gun law they could pass.

I suppose you won’t admit the taxes to pay for unconstitutional programs—to the tune almost the entire federal budget!—are abrogations of our economic liberty, and vast and terrible ones at that.

I’m prepared to stop being nice to posters who make me giggle with the ludicrousness of their arguments.

In the category of Destroying American Liberty, the winnuh and still Champeen!

The Democratic Party, Ladies and Gentleman!!!

Yours, TDP, ml, msl, & pfpp


Written By: Tom Perkins
URL: http://
Oh the capper! What party runs Commiefornia?

You’re silly Pogue. Very silly.

Yours, TDP, ml, msl, & pfpp

Written By: Tom Perkins
URL: http://
It’s also interesting that although the White House is denying the President ever met Abramoff, it was Abramoff who headed up the Dept. of the Interior in Bush’s 2000 transition team. One of 48 people on the team, and Bush didn’t even meet him? No way.

Written By: Bob
URL: http://
Tom Perkins, TDP, ml, msl, & wtf
You fool.

What part of “Now listen up, you twit. I’m not suggesting that Democrats do not participate in regulating what we do, I’m merely suggesting that the Republicans are no better.”, did you not understand?
BTW, What the hell are you doing? As far as, “What we see say and see.” You gave me this,
Legislation for "Choose Life" plates was passed in 1999. An amendment to another bill which would have made a pro-choice plate available to the public was rejected by the legislature.
(…)
On 2003-JUL-8, U.S. District judge Stanwood Duval blocked the state from issuing all current specialty license plates, including the Choose Life tags. His ruling was based on the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, because the state provides anti-abortion plates but does not offer plates for opposing views. Judge Duval wrote: "If the state built a convention hall for speech and then only allowed people to speak with whom they agreed with their message, the state’s actions would be in contravention of the First Amendment," Duval wrote.
Which seems to me that all they want is an equal voice in the process or no process at all. Fair enough. And if you wanna funnel money into non-profit organizations, knock yourself out. Just keep the government and my tax dollars out of it will you.

And the bomb making info law… !?!
Again, What the hell are you doing? You gave me this,
In June of 1997, Congress voted 94-0 to add an amendment to a Department of Defense spending bill to prohibit the distribution of bomb-making instructions in the United States.
94-0. So a Dem introduced the bill? So what? Everybody agreed. Which kinda puts the kibosh on your theory, eh?
I suppose you won’t admit the taxes to pay for unconstitutional programs—to the tune almost the entire federal budget!—are abrogations of our economic liberty…
Heh. Perhaps you should mention that to George W. Bush.
Let me guess, Tommyboy. You didn’t receive high marks in debate class, did you?

And as far as Hillary is concerned? Well she can go fuck herself as well then, can’t she? Although, if Sen. Stevens (R-Ak) had his way, no one could watch. Not that anyone would want to.

Democrats loved every gun law they could pass.

Again, “you twit”

You’re foolish Tom, very foolish.


Written By: PogueMahone
URL: http://
I’m sorry. I can’t resist.

It’s also interesting that although the White House is denying the President ever met Abramoff,


Yeah, I can believe that the President doesn’t know Jack.

(Oooh, COME ON. That’s funny.)

Written By: PogueMahone
URL: http://
Pogue Mahone wrote:

"What part of “Now listen up, you twit. I’m not suggesting that Democrats do not participate in regulating what we do, I’m merely suggesting that the Republicans are no better.”, did you not understand?"

The part where you think it’s true.

It is not true that Republicans are no better. The Democrats are no worse than Republican on many issues, but on issues like economic liberty and firearms, the Democrats are a black hole.

"Which seems to me that all they want is an equal voice in the process or no process at all."

No, they wanted "Choose Life" licenses illegal, they never said anything towards disapproving of "Choose Choice" licenses. You’re confusing what the judge said with what the elected Democrats said. They wanted the ground clear to have it both ways.

Your retort that the vote on the making bomb making info illegal was 94-0 loses its sting, if, unlike you, a reader realizes the Feinstein inserted this into a spending bill as an "earmark" of sorts. Got that dummy!? It was her own personal statement in a very large bill. It couldn’t be voted out without crashing the whole thing. It also is especially eggregious because it makes public domain information illegal to post, making it an especially awful precedent. At least the most prominent catch with this law was one of her own allies.

Your George Bush link actually makes him look pretty good, mentioning that he wants to reform the tax laws and Social Security. Did you read that before you posted it? It also makes some statements that are quite risible, for example,
"Illegal immigrants cost the federal government more than $10 billion a year, and a program to legalize the undocumented would nearly triple that figure, according to the Center for Immigration Studies. The majority of illegal immigrants are low-wage workers with little income tax liability, yet they draw heavily on most public services."
It’s already illegal to turn illegal immigrants away from most federally funded welfare programs. The real problem with the guest worker program is that it will morph into permanency and encourage others to jump the immigration lines to come illegally, this is also not an are where you can differentiate the President from the Democrats, but you can differentiate the President and Demoxcrats from many House Republicans. I guess that’s a nuance you missed. In fact you can differentiate the President from the Democrats on this issue, but only because the Democrats want to be more lax! Is that the point you were trying to make?

Firearms and economics; you choose to minimise these areas of freedom, they don’t mean much to you. Almost the entire federal budget is an unconstitutional abrogation of my and your economic freedom, and it’s the Democrats fault.

Now the American public has been minimizing the Deomcrats mainly because they are useless and clueless about national defense, but their astoundingly bad and by an order of magnitude worse record than the Republicans of preserving the freedoms of the American public is the main reason I’m glad of it.

Yours, TDP, ml, msl, & pfpp

Written By: Tom Perkins
URL: http://
"this is also not an are where" /= "this is also not an area where" Yours, TDP, ml, msl, & pfpp

Written By: Tom Perkins
URL: http://
The part where you think it’s true.

Oh..uh..Oookay.
(I can see this is going nowhere.)

You can put hands over your eyes and pretend that there aren’t Republicans trying to limit what I can see, hear, read, or say.

You can close your eyes and imagine yourself giving GWB a reach around. Republicans are actually libertarians and want nothing but freedom for everybody.

Riiiiiiiiight.
(dream on, twit)


Written By: PogueMahone
URL: http://
Pogue, I am not claiming that Republicans are not—at this time—marginally more interested than the Democrats in limiting what I see, hear, and say solely in the social conservative sense. However, this both a relatively recent development in politics, and it is far the only criteria by which a governemnt’s crushing of liberty should be gauged.

You seem to entirely discount economic criteria. You seem to entirely discount the 2nd amendment.

I contend these criteria are at least as important as the others and that here the Democrats and Democrat inspired ideas have done far more damage to the country than anything the Republicans have done or to my knowledge proposed, and I have to point out that it is generally leftists, Democrats, who are in favor of speech codes to criminalize what is said, even for explicitly political purposes.

Gun laws get good people killed.

The New Deal programs create poverty, lock people who are poor into poverty, and make us a poorer society, such that we have fewer resources to deal with societal problems in a manner that is consensual even or constitutional.

I think your blindnesses are clear and we have to agree to disagree, because you are in the top three of the most pigheaded idiots ever to post here.

Yours, TDP, ml, msl, & pfpp

Written By: Tom Perkins
URL: http://
Yeah, I can believe that the President doesn’t know Jack.
[rimshot]

Written By: Jon Henke
URL: http://www.QandO.net
You seem to entirely discount economic criteria. You seem to entirely discount the 2nd amendment.

Bull.
Medicare entitlement program, corporate welfare energy bill, and the pork laden highway bill.
(‘nuff said)

Gun laws get good people killed.

Agreed. I own two assault rifles, two hunting rifles, a pistol grip pump action shotgun, and a .357 pistol for my wife. And I despise anyone, no matter of ideological persuasion, who wishes to inhibit my Constitutional Right to obtain and retain said firearms.
And I’ll go to the mat to protect it.

I think your blindnesses are clear and we have to agree to disagree, because you are in the top three of the most pigheaded idiots ever to post here.

Right back atcha, punchy.

Written By: PogueMahone
URL: http://
I think your blindnesses are clear and we have to agree to disagree, because you are in the top three of the most pigheaded idiots ever to post here.
On the contrary, I find Pogue among the most interesting critics who participate in this comment section.

Written By: Jon Henke
URL: http://www.QandO.net
I wrote:
“You seem to entirely discount economic criteria. You seem to entirely discount the 2nd amendment.”
And I have to amplify, you haven’t mentioned them ‘til now despite my repeated harping, so clearly they don’t mean much to you. Certainly, it didn’t occur to you naturally as an issue, although it is plainly an awesome denigration of American liberty and the constitution. But it’s nothing foremost in your mind.

Pogue wrote:
“Bull.
Medicare entitlement program, corporate welfare energy bill, and the pork laden highway bill.
(‘nuff said)”
Not nearly ‘nuff said. You’d have to explain how corporate welfare energy bills are any worse than permitting the NEA to keep a lock on public education, where the feds have no business anyway, or permitting closed shop laws in such states as have them are anything other than an equivalent Democratic counter demerit. The medicare entitlement program is, for example, only part of medicare. Where did the rest of it come from? Democrats.

And these recent measures were both either bipartisan, or, the Democrats only complaint was we didn’t spend enough money on it. At best, these very recent examples very weakly support your contention, do not address the accumulated assaults on American liberty in the past, and in particular you still avoid addressing the white elephant called social security—a Democratic Party idea, and an overwhelmingly large expense compared to these other relatively trifling costs.

Your avoidance of that big issue is especially telling.

I wrote:
Gun laws get good people killed.
Pogue wrote:
Agreed. I own two assault rifles, two hunting rifles, a pistol grip pump action shotgun, and a .357 pistol for my wife. And I despise anyone, no matter of ideological persuasion, who wishes to inhibit my Constitutional Right to obtain and retain said firearms.
And I’ll go to the mat to protect it.”
No you won’t. Because it’s Democrats who really go after it and you don’t think the Democrats are significantly worse than the Republicans when it comes to destroying American liberty.

And which party is overwhelmingly worse on gun issues? Democrats. But you don’t think they are much worse than the Republicans. Therefore, 2nd amendment infringements aren’t that important to you.

I wrote:
"I think your blindnesses are clear and we have to agree to disagree, because you are in the top three of the most pigheaded idiots ever to post here."
Pogue wrote:
"Right back atcha, punchy."
You still haven’t addressed your blindnesses. You’ve just used smoke and mirrors to try to obscure them.

You don’t value economic liberty especially, and you don’t care much about 2nd amendment liberties obviously, or overall you’d rate the Democrats as being far worse than the Republicans in terms of destroying American liberty.

I wrote:
"I think your blindnesses are clear and we have to agree to disagree, because you are in the top three of the most pigheaded idiots ever to post here."
Jon Henke wrote:
"On the contrary, I find Pogue among the most interesting critics who participate in this comment section. "

Oh he’s intersting, he’s just missing the deep and ancient Democratic forest for recent Republican saplings.

Yours, TDP, ml, msl, & pfpp

Written By: Tom Perkins
URL: http://
On the contrary, I find Pogue among the most interesting critics who participate in this comment section.

Geez Jon, give him the bighead why don’t you?

Interesting?

Eh.

Occasionally funny?

Yeah. ;)

Written By: McQ
URL: http://qando.net
But it’s nothing foremost in your mind.
...
Not nearly ‘nuff said. You’d have to explain how...

How do you know what’s foremost in my mind? I never mention those things because there are plenty of other writers here who fill that role amply (shark, bithead, notherbob2, the list goes on). You NEVER see me disagreeing with the 2nd Amendment. You NEVER find me arguing against tax cuts or spending cuts. You NEVER find me proposing that Dem’s are in anyway better, do you Tom?
And I don’t have to explain shit to you or anyone else where my priorities lie.

It’s real simple Tom. I put forth evidence that there are Republicans trying to inhibit liberty. You explode with a diatribe with examples dating all the way back to the horse and buggy at the same time calling me a “pissant”. Your inferences are way off base. Just because I don’t like it when books are banned in Alabama, doesn’t mean I want the Dem’s in power to tax and spend.
You don’t know me and you have no idea where my values reside.
And I’ll go to the mat to protect it.
No you won’t.
Jesus, Joseph, Mother Mary, hanging off the cross, for Christ sake, goddamit shit.
How the fuck do you know. I gotta an idea, why don’t come to my house and try to take away my pistol and see what happens.

And these recent measures were both either bipartisan, or, the Democrats only complaint was we didn’t spend enough money on it.

Here’s the skinny;
The Republicans are in power. The President has the magic pen. If it weren’t for the Repub’s, then none of that shit would’ve passed, and you and everyone else with half a brain knows it.

Oh he’s intersting, he’s just missing the deep and ancient Democratic forest for recent Republican saplings.

Right now the Republicans are in the driver seat and I’m always a backseat driver. It is the Republicans pushing budget deficits, it is the Republicans who are spending my money, it is the Republicans sticking their lily white ass into my business.
I have a Republican POTUS, I have a Republican congress, I have a Republican Governor, I have a Republican state senate, and their all pissing me off.
So when the Dem’s take control, and they will take control someday if not soon, then you’ll see me out there in your fabled forest with Paul Bunyon’s axe swingin’ dat bitch ghetto style.
But until then, I’m quite content whackin’ weeds.

Cheers.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Interesting?

Eh.

Occasionally funny?

Yeah. ;)
Awwwwe. :):):)
I luv you too, man.

Written By: PogueMahone
URL: http://
I can see the order you mentioned things in, what you never mentioned, and I can see how the fact your beloved Democratic Party has taken the lead in abrogating the 2nd amendment doesn’t bother you much, from what you’ve said. Oh sure NOW you claim it’s big deal, why wasn’t it in your foirst posts? Your attempts to say the Republicans are serious threats to our economic liberties are laughable, and "socially conservative" laws are not at the state level unconstitutional in any orginal view, however unwise they are—and for example, the federal level attempts to protect traditional marriage are a response from an equally unconstitutional attempt by democrats to force gay marriage on a public that plainly doesn’t want it.

The issue is who is worse, and not just worse, but worse by far.

The question isn’t whether Republicans as a party are denying or attempting to deny our freedoms in some slight degree. They are, to a slight degree.

It’s pissing you off. Good. Now step back and get some perspective on things.

I stand by this statement:
he’s just missing the deep and ancient Democratic forest for recent Republican saplings.
And you are. In the history, old and recent, of the destruction of American liberties, the Republicans are bit players compared to the Democrats.
Right now the Republicans are in the driver seat and I’m always a backseat driver. It is the Republicans pushing budget deficits, it is the Republicans who are spending my money, it is the Republicans sticking their lily white ass into my business.
When they are passing their budgets, those budgets to the overwhelming degree going to pay for Democraticaly begun and expanded programs. True, no? And when they are not raising taxes they are letting us keep more of our money and hastening the day when however the entitlements crisis is dealt with is dealt with. It can hardly be avoided now, sooner is better, with us having more funds in a better economy to prepare with in the meantime. And about whose messing with you know, get over it, you can’t on that score say the Republicans are any worse than the Democrats, so get a grip.

So when the Dem’s take control, and they will take control someday if not soon, then you’ll see me out there in your fabled forest with Paul Bunyon’s axe swingin’ dat bitch ghetto style.
No. That’s as wrongheaded as anything I’ve heard. Now is the time to take the Democrats and DO THEM IN AS A PARTY.

When will there be a better chance? Who’s the worse enemy?

At best you’ve got very short term goals; cutting your nose off to spite your face.

Yours, TDP, ml, msl, & pfpp

Written By: Tom Perkins
URL: http://
The question isn’t whether Republicans as a party are denying or attempting to deny our freedoms in some slight degree. They are, to a slight degree.

Slight degree!? So freedom of speech and freedom of the market doesn’t concern you? Oh, I get it. Only freedom of speech you agree with, huh?
Maybe those freedoms aren’t in your “perspective”, but they are definitely in mine. I don’t care if they are viewed as trivial to some, but the right to speak out against drug policy, the right to put blue material over private, market based media, and the right to read “gay” books climb right up there with the right for me to shoot beer bottles and scare the neighbors (also protect my family against intruders, even the government if necessary). Kapeesh!

When they are passing their budgets, those budgets to the overwhelming degree going to pay for Democraticaly begun and expanded programs.

(chuckle)
So the Dem’s make the shit pancakes…
Well the Repub’s pour syrup on them.
To me, it’s all apart of a shitty breakfast that you and I have to pay for. How is that better, again?

No. That’s as wrongheaded as anything I’ve heard. Now is the time to take the Democrats and DO THEM IN AS A PARTY

No, a one party government is wrong. Gridlock is good.
Lord Acton long ago told us what absolute power does and we all know it’s true. And rather than destroy the Democratic Party, why not try to influence through reasoned debate instead of “you pissant”, I believe you’ll get a better reception. I know I don’t want to destroy the Republicans, I just want them to realize that their “morals” don’t govern me and never will, so just do your job… cut taxes, cut spending, defend the nation, and kick Pat Robertson square in the balls.

I can see the order you mentioned things in, what you never mentioned, and I can see how the fact your beloved Democratic Party...

beloved Democratic Party!?
Okay, it’s clear that you’re in a fightin’ mood. I know that MK has been MIA lately, but if you want to piss in someone’s post toasties, pick another bowl will ya’. Condemning the Republicans may get your goat, condemning the Democrats does not get mine.

That’s ok, though. I find myself in a fighting mood from time to time; Where the slightest annoyance sets me off to a KILL, KILL, KILL. But let me be clear. I don’t love the Dem’s, I just don’t love the Republicans either.
Here’s a tip.
Don’t invest too much into the Republicans, okay? The Republican majority has proven to be a great disappointment, not that I expected otherwise.



Written By: PogueMahone
URL: http://
pdgamfso [URL=http://dscowuhe.com]ixygbmfn[/URL] adxfzbjs http://xzznmfra.com mnqkdfvv lsytogrr

Written By: keoqglhk
URL: http://itrnjcti.com
migraine headache other [URL=http://helpmigraineheadache.blogspot.com/]migraine headache[/URL] treatment http://helpmigraineheadache.blogspot.com/ migraine headache relief
http://migrainestore.blogspot.com/ migraine symptom migraine headache [URL=http://migrainestore.blogspot.com/]migraine[/URL] treatment
http://butalbitalnew.blogspot.com butalbital aspirin [URL=http://butalbitalnew.blogspot.com]butalbital[/URL] apap butalbital information
http://migrainemedications.blogspot.com/ migraine medication pain [URL=http://migrainemedications.blogspot.com/]migraine medication[/URL] new migraine medication imitrex
[URL=http://realhydroxycut.blogspot.com]hydroxycut[/URL] diet pill http://realhydroxycut.blogspot.com hydroxycut 24 effects hydroxycut cheap


Written By: migraine
URL: http://migrainestore.blogspot.com

 
Add Your Comment
  NOTICE: While we don't wish to censor your thoughts, we do blacklist certain terms of profanity or obscenity. This is not to muzzle you, but to ensure that the blog remains work-safe for our readers. If you wish to use profanity, simply insert asterisks (*) where the vowels usually go. Your meaning will still be clear, but our readers will be able to view the blog without worrying that content monitoring will get them in trouble when reading it.
Comments for this entry are closed.
Name:
Email:
URL:
HTML Tools: Bold Italic Blockquote Hyperlink
Comment: