In case you live in a hole, Jack Ryan, the Republican candidate for the Illinois Senate seat, has had a few things about his past pop up. HaHaHaHaHa......Wait !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
This guy makes Clinton look like a Sunday School teacher.

is pretty impressive. Dartmouth, Harvard, Goldman Sachs, high school teacher in an underfunded school. All he wanted to do was get kinky with his own wife. Speculation was that the divorce proceedings, when released, would indicate abuse. I guess this is worse.

That being said, Barak star is unstoppable.

In case you live in a hole, Jack Ryan, the Republican candidate for the Illinois Senate seat, has had a few things about his past pop up. HaHaHaHaHa......Wait !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
This guy makes Clinton look like a Sunday School teacher.


and the republicans and the gop have been the first ones to criticize him too. they have asked him to get out of the race. did you hear any libbys asking clinton to step down during monicagate? its easy to criticize the other guy. its takes moral clarity to criticize your own. you should get some.

"and the republicans and the gop have been the first ones to criticize him too"

A few, a very few........Most are just keeping their mouths shut. If you don't live in Illinois and see the local news, you don't know what you're talking about.
I just think that it's pretty funny. The guy was already 20 points down. This could be an all time record for an election.

I still think the best was Ashcroft losing to a dead guy. That has got to hurt when the electorate of a swing state thinks a guy in the ground is more adept at doing the job than Ashcroft.

"and the republicans and the gop have been the first ones to criticize him too"

A few, a very few........Most are just keeping their mouths shut. If you don't live in Illinois and see the local news, you don't know what you're talking about.
I just think that it's pretty funny. The guy was already 20 points down. This could be an all time record for an election.

i still didnt hear which dems asked clinton to leave office during monicagate.

i still didnt hear which dems asked clinton to leave office during monicagate.


There weren't any. However and this is a big however. What did you expect from Bubba? He had already come clean about Jennifer Flowers, everyone knew he was unfaithful going in and elected him anyway. You get what you pay for.

For Conservatives it is a much different story. They are the party of "family values," marital sex for the purpose of procreation, in short good old fashioned missionary sex.

I knew Bill was a lout when it came to women, just as so many presidents or men in power have been. It is an aphrodesiac and many men can not handle the surge. My big problem is that she didn't look anything like Norma Jean.

The difference is in the hypocracy. Like all the Republican women who came out of the woodwork to defend ANNOLD in California. The party cannot have it both ways.

I like the honesty of some of the Dems they like myself like sex, sometimes they like it in public hey whatever as long as you don't spend your days preaching and your nights in leather with a ball in your mouth and spiked heels on.

I don't know about "leave office", but Joe "Mr. Popular" Lieberman was all over Clinton.

Surely you wouldn't be so dense as to suggest that no Democrats were critical of Clinton over Monica! Heh, imagine someone making a point <i>that</i> stupid.

There weren't any. However and this is a big however. What did you expect from Bubba? He had already come clean about Jennifer Flowers, everyone knew he was unfaithful going in and elected him anyway. You get what you pay for.

For Conservatives it is a much different story. They are the party of "family values," marital sex for the purpose of procreation, in short good old fashioned missionary sex.

I knew Bill was a lout when it came to women, just as so many presidents or men in power have been. It is an aphrodesiac and many men can not handle the surge. My big problem is that she didn't look anything like Norma Jean.

The difference is in the hypocracy. Like all the Republican women who came out of the woodwork to defend ANNOLD in California. The party cannot have it both ways.

I like the honesty of some of the Dems they like myself like sex, sometimes they like it in public hey whatever as long as you don't spend your days preaching and your nights in leather with a ball in your mouth and spiked heels on.

thats a huge brush you paint with. buy it at home depot?

thats a huge brush you paint with. buy it at home depot?

Feel free to attempt to refute any part of it.

Feel free to attempt to refute any part of it.


easy. to start with, not all conservatives are "family values" people. some are athiests, some are wife beaters, some are pro choice and some are pro gay marriage. i happen to be neither and i am the majority. conservatives have segments, fragments and left and right leaners. just like libbys.

easy. to start with, not all conservatives are "family values" people. some are athiests, some are wife beaters, some are pro choice and some are pro gay marriage. i happen to be neither and i am the majority. conservatives have segments, fragments and left and right leaners. just like libbys.

You may want to go back and read your GOP 2000 party platform.
Are there breaks from it by some. Absolutely, but officially and in the case of Mr. Ryan he was toeing the company line. Remember it was Newt who gave us "family values." (Glass houses anyone?)

Like Peter Griffin says. "Hey Lois, look at me the two symbols of the Republican party an elephant and a fat white guy who is afraid of change." (shedding a tear for the Family Guy)

You may want to go back and read your GOP 2000 party platform.
Are there breaks from it by some. Absolutely, but officially and in the case of Mr. Ryan he was toeing the company line. Remember it was Newt who gave us "family values." (Glass houses anyone?)

Like Peter Griffin says. "Hey Lois, look at me the two symbols of the Republican party an elephant and a fat white guy who is afraid of change." (shedding a tear for the Family Guy)


so what? the only difference is we're willing to push and promote what you may deem as family values but what most people dont even think about as deserving attention because its what should be done for the right reasons. youre walking right into the libby "all issues are gray" trap.

...not all conservatives are "family values" people. some are athiests, some are wife beaters, some are pro choice and some are pro gay marriage.

Sounds like you Nazi's..oops!...I mean Neo-Con's..oops!...I mean "Republican's", have your own "whining bed-wetters", hmm???

LAFF (LOUDLY) MY A$$ OFF! :D

so what? the only difference is we're willing to push and promote what you may deem as family values but what most people dont even think about as deserving attention because its what should be done for the right reasons. youre walking right into the libby "all issues are gray" trap.


For the benefit of our readers let me see if I can put your posts together for a moment.

1) Republicans come in all shades and many do not adhere to "family values" platform.
When confronted with the GOP party platform you...FLIP
2) So what if the GOP is the party of "Family values" and then you defend why.
Which contradicts your assessment of a big tent party that would have...FLOP
3) Shades of Grey in it. the color that you find abhorrant in Liberalism.

So which is it. You have tried to have both sides of the coin here.

Hint Hint...All issues have at least two sides, all beliefs have different levels and different meanings. Symbols mean different things to different people. When you add all that up and 6 billion people on this earth what you are left with are (quoting from the Monkees now I will apologize in advance for not supplying you with a hyperlink.) "Today there is no black and white, today there is no day or night, today there is no dark or light...only shades of grey."

Again I know this type of thinking is revulsive to you as it does not fit neatly on a bumper sticker, but you will find that even the Richard Perle's of the world understand the greyness of the issues, they have only thought deeply enough (incorrectly so it would seem) to develop a defined stance on an issue.

For the benefit of our readers let me see if I can put your posts together for a moment.

1) Republicans come in all shades and many do not adhere to "family values" platform.
When confronted with the GOP party platform you...FLIP
2) So what if the GOP is the party of "Family values" and then you defend why.
Which contradicts your assessment of a big tent party that would have...FLOP
3) Shades of Grey in it. the color that you find abhorrant in Liberalism.

So which is it. You have tried to have both sides of the coin here.

Hint Hint...All issues have at least two sides, all beliefs have different levels and different meanings. Symbols mean different things to different people. When you add all that up and 6 billion people on this earth what you are left with are (quoting from the Monkees now I will apologize in advance for not supplying you with a hyperlink.) "Today there is no black and white, today there is no day or night, today there is no dark or light...only shades of grey."

Again I know this type of thinking is revulsive to you as it does not fit neatly on a bumper sticker, but you will find that even the Richard Perle's of the world understand the greyness of the issues, they have only thought deeply enough (incorrectly so it would seem) to develop a defined stance on an issue.

1) sorry to disappoint. there is no flip. i know the party platform. i also know yours. i adhere to most parts of the gop way of thinking too but i realize that some dont. like i said, i'm the majority.
2) we claim to be the family values party and rightly so. we invite everyone, some dont attend. so whats your point? that everyone there has to wear the same hats?
3) gray. yes, in most cases there is enough justification or cause to find black or white answers. in liberalism all things are gray no matter the issue. different.

The last poll had him down 10 points. Maybe people love this sort of thing and think it's an asset. Personally I only believe he should step aside if it's true. His ex doesn't seem to want to talk about this now. Maybe it was as I said, just a way of ensuring she got what she needed out of the divorce.

He doesn't seem like a bad guy, just a little kinky. He certainly put his money where his mouth is regarding his support of resource poor schools - he quit Goldman Sachs to be a teacher in one. As far as Republicans go, if the Senate's going to have 49 of them, I want them all to be like him.

I don't like seeing this guy become a lightning rod for Democrats to claim Republican hypocrisy. Dem's look unseemly when they challenge on moral issues. It's not our thing. Besides, all he wanted to do was screw his wife in new and interesting ways. She wasn't into it, they got divorced.

I don't think he should step aside, unless the party decides they want to keep their ammo dry for a future race. He also has the disadvantage of challening Barak star in a heavily D state.

Ryan had to cancel a fund raiser that Dennis Hastert was billed to show up at. Hastert had to "cancel" his apearance because he was "called" to the White House.
Ps. His ex just came out and said that all of these things were true.
.................dirty, dirty, dirty boy
This guy is "toast".......He's sooo dead that other Repubs won't be seen with him.

She's actually endorsing him

And I would bet dollars to donuts that she's backing down because it looks bad for him vis-a-vis custody/visitation. If Jeri is even a half-way decent and reasonable human being, and it sounds like she is, she'll want the kid(s) to have visitation with their father. The majority of fathers in Family Court get screwed to start with, and weird stuff like this certainly doesn't help.

There weren't any. However and this is a big however. What did you expect from Bubba? He had already come clean about Jennifer Flowers, everyone knew he was unfaithful going in and elected him anyway. You get what you pay for.

Sorry, but that's incorrect. Clinton went on 60 Minutes in January (right after the Super Bowl) and lied to Steve Kroft (and us) about it. Remember "That allegation is false". The truth didn't come out until much later.

Andrew Sullivan, in a fisking of the Dan Rather interview with Clinton about Clinton's book says:

"RATHER: (Voiceover) Later, when he entered politics and was elected attorney general and governor, there were rumors about his personal life. When he ran for the Democratic nomination for president in 1992, a storm broke over stories of his relationship with cabaret singer Gennifer Flowers.

GENNIFER FLOWERS: Yes, I was Bill Clinton's lover for 12 years.

(Footage of Gennifer Flowers; Bill and Hillary Clinton)

RATHER: (Voiceover) Candidate Clinton plummeted in the polls, so, in an effort to salvage his campaign, he took the risky step of doing an interview on "60 Minutes" in front of a huge audience right after the '92 Super Bowl. Bill and Hillary Clinton were questioned by correspondent Steve Kroft.

(Begin file footage)

STEVE KROFT: She's alleging and has described in some detail in the supermarket tabloids what she calls a 12-year affair with you.

CLINTON: That allegation is false.

KROFT: I'm assuming from your answer that you're categorically denying that you ever had an affair with Gennifer Flowers.

CLINTON: I've said that before, and so has she.

(End of file footage)

(Footage of Kroft, Bill and Hillary Clinton)

RATHER: (Voiceover) It took years for Mr. Clinton to admit that he was lying in that interview and that he had had a relationship with Gennifer Flowers. Even though the interview rejuvenated his campaign, he writes in his book he was so furious at correspondent Kroft for prying into his personal life that he wanted to, quote, "slug him."

Directly put, how in the world did you ever get Mrs. Clinton to go with you on that television program?

What a craven question after that segment. Rather has already conceded that Clinton directly lied on "60 Minutes." Now Clinton is on the same show and Rather doesn't follow up. The first interview was years before Kenneth Starr or any of the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy. But it's the same Clinton. And that suggests that his entire excuse--that he was lying because of the nature of his enemies--is phony. Notice also the brilliant parsing: "That allegation is false." It could refer to any aspect of the previous statement. So Kroft follows up with a more direct question, and Clinton again indirectly refuses to answer it, merely referring to things he has said in the past. At the time, we barely noticed. We later learned to read the Clinton lies. But this one was at a critical moment in an election campaign, enabled by his wife (you think she didn't know about Gennifer?) and deceiving the American public he was seeking to represent. The obvious follow-up question is: Do you regret lying in that interview? The obvious subsequent question is: Why should we believe anything that you are saying now? But Rather punts. Pathetic."

http://www.tnr.com/doc.mhtml?i=fisking&s=sullivan062204

There's a lot more in the article...


The difference is in the hypocracy.

Hypocracy?

Please refresh my memory. Aren't the Dems. the party of the feminists? The party always on the lookout for sexual harrassing predators? Didn't they run Bob Packwood out of office for that? Didn't they go all out to torpedo Clarence Thomas for that?

Clinton lied about Monica to escape a sexual harassment charge, and there was near silence from the left. Except for Leiberman, who condemned Clinton? No one that I know of called for him to step down. All we heard was "it's his personal business".

It continues even now. Atrios is one of the most prominent liberal bloggers around. He had this to say a few days ago:

"Remember when... lying about a personal sexual indiscretion not material to a civil case was an impeachable offense"

It may come as a surprise to you, but I don't think you have to answer a question that isn't material to the case...

http://www.atrios.blogspot.com (you have to scroll down about 3/4 of the page.)

Creepy.

Please refresh my memory. Aren't the Dems. the party of the feminists? The party always on the lookout for sexual harrassing predators?

Please refresh my memory. Aren't the Repubs. the party of "personal responsibility"? Then why are they so silent or dismissive on the:

~ Abu Gharab/Geneva Convention issue,
~ the lies about WMD in Iraq,
~ Halliburton and no-bid contracts,
~ the continuing lies about Al Queda=Saddam,
~ Phallus Cheney's past & present business dealings, especially with Halliburton,
~ Phallus Cheney's REAL health problems,
~ Bush's past business dealings, especially on the Texas Rangers stadium in Arlington, TX,
~ Bush's cover-up about his National Guard AWOL,
~ Bush admin's backing of the ousting of Aristide from Haiti,
~ Tom DeLay's current malfeasance & illegal activities in Congress,
~ Who leaked Valerie Plame's CIA identity,
~ Rumsfeld's stonewalling in providing Congress with info on DoD appropriations,

~ ad infinitum??

this guy sounds like he learned at the feet of bill.

he's a liar. (http://www.humaneventsonline.com/article.php?id=4290)

Lyin' Ryan
Posted Jun 24, 2004

By John Gizzi and David Freddoso

Jack Ryan, the Illinois GOP's nominee for the seat of outgoing Sen. Pete Fitzgerald (R.-Ill.), saw his campaign implode Tuesday after the release of highly embarrassing papers from the divorce custody battle over his nine-year-old son.

This came as a surprise to the two of us, despite the fact that we had heard rumors about Ryan--which in retrospect were surprisingly accurate. That's because Ryan looked both of us straight in the eyes and lied to us in an off-the-record lunch two weeks ago.

At one point, we asked him point blank about the files and whether their release would be damaging. Ryan insisted emphatically that the files contained nothing untoward. And we said to ourselves later, why would he lie to us since the files were to be released in a matter of days? A campaign staffer even said to us, in Ryan's absence, that Ryan was acting against his political interests by not releasing the files. He said that they contained nothing but information on his son, whom he loves dearly and only wants to protect.

Now a judge in Los Angeles Superior Court has released 400 pages of the files to the public, thanks to a lawsuit brought by two Chicago media outlets. The files, it turns out, contain extremely embarrassing accusations by Ryan's ex-wife, actress Jeri Ryan, that he pressed her to have sex in front of crowds at swingers' clubs in New York City, Paris, and New Orleans--including a New York club "with cages, whips and other apparatus hanging from the ceiling."

The accusations could all be false, since in the midst of a custody battle, some people will say almost anything in order to get custody of their children. But the fact is, Ryan lied to us about the files' content, which is why we are now reporting what he told us, falsely, off the record. It is difficult to explain how he thought he would get away with it. The candidate knew the truth was going to bite him soon, and yet he lied to everyone, including members of his party, without whose support he would not have gotten the nomination.

It would have been an uphill climb in any case for Ryan to win the Senate race, since Illinois has been trending leftward in recent years and is one of the few states in which Democrats did well in 2002. But by knowingly concealing the embarrassing allegations until after he had won the Republican primary, Ryan, should he remain the nominee, has irreparably damaged the GOP's chances of holding onto Fitzgerald's Senate seat. Ryan's dishonesty alone could cost Republicans their majority in the U.S. Senate.

The Democrats have fielded an attractive, young, and extremely left-wing candidate. Barring the replacement of Ryan with another Republican candidate (and even then the odds of GOP victory would be very long), the public might as well get used to reading about: "U.S. Sen. Barack Obama (D.-Ill.)."

Please refresh my memory. Aren't the Repubs. the party of "personal responsibility"? Then why are they so silent or dismissive on the:

~ Abu Gharab/Geneva Convention issue,
~ the lies about WMD in Iraq,
~ Halliburton and no-bid contracts,
~ the continuing lies about Al Queda=Saddam,
~ Phallus Cheney's past & present business dealings, especially with Halliburton,
~ Phallus Cheney's REAL health problems,
~ Bush's past business dealings, especially on the Texas Rangers stadium in Arlington, TX,
~ Bush's cover-up about his National Guard AWOL,
~ Bush admin's backing of the ousting of Aristide from Haiti,
~ Tom DeLay's current malfeasance & illegal activities in Congress,
~ Who leaked Valerie Plame's CIA identity,
~ Rumsfeld's stonewalling in providing Congress with info on DoD appropriations,

~ ad infinitum??

First of all, all of the above are irrelevant concerning my post to TMB who was trying to say that Clinton wasn't as bad as Ryan since the Dems were honest regarding sex. I was just pointing out that the perjury wasn't about sex but sexual harassment, which is where the hypocracy comes from. It does't mean I think that Ryan's action don't go against so-called "family values". But, something I haven't seen mentioned here: at least Ryan's actions were with his wife, while Bill's were with anyone but his wife.

Some thoughts...



~ Abu Gharab/Geneva Convention issue,

Haven't there already been hearings on these in the Congress? Other than asking to keep things in perspective, who is defending the actions at AG like Clinton was defended for perjury?

~ the lies about WMD in Iraq

In the "Bush apologist" thread, you responded to me with this:

"How does that in any way excuse Bush for lying to the Congress & people about WMD, aluminum tubes, British intel, etc. in his '03 SOTU address, and Powell for the trumped-up, vastly exaggerated presentation to the UN - all when they KNEW it was untrue, unsubstantiated, or highly suspect information?"

It's your last bit there that contains the lie. The intelligence that Bush depended on was consistant with everything said in the '90s. Even Woodward's book recounts how Bush told Tenet not to "stretch the case" and that Tenet had to convince Bush that the case was solid.

I think your problem is that you think the existance of any question or doubt should invalidate any other intelligence, and if it doesn't, then Bush must have known he was lying. But David Kay's had this to say to Ted Kennedy:

" KENNEDY: What weight was given to these reports when you look at in retrospect
and when you have a number of those that where involved in the reports
believing that the information reports were used selectively to justify a
policy decision to take the country to war?
KAY: Senator Kennedy, it's impossible in a short time I have to reply to take
you through fully that. And in fact, that's my hope that Senator Roberts and
his committee will have done that.
But let me just say that while it -- there's a selecting process that goes on
both ways. There were people in the DOE who believed that those aluminum tubes
were indeed for a centrifuge program. It's a lot easier after the fact and
after you know the truth to be selective that you were right. I've gone
through this a lot in my career.
All I can say is if you read the total body of intelligence in the last 12 to
15 years that flowed on Iraq, I quite frankly think it would be hard to come
to a conclusion other than Iraq was a gathering, serious threat to the world
with regard to WMD."

As far as the British intel goes, today's news has something about that, too.

"Illicit sales of uranium from Niger were being negotiated with five
states including Iraq at least three years before the US-led
invasion, senior European intelligence officials have told the
Financial Times.

Intelligence officers learned between 1999 and 2001 that uranium
smugglers planned to sell illicitly mined Nigerien uranium ore, or
refined ore called yellow cake, to Iran, Libya, China, North Korea
and Iraq.
These claims support the assertion made in the British government
dossier on Iraq's weapons of mass destruction programme in September
2002 that Iraq had sought to buy uranium from an African country,
confirmed later as Niger. George W. Bush, US president, referred to
the issue in his State of the Union address in January 2003.
The claim that the illicit export of uranium was under discussion
was widely dismissed when letters referring to the sales -
apparently sent by a Nigerien official to a senior official in
Saddam Hussein's regime - were proved by the International Atomic
Energy Agency to be forgeries. This embarrassed the US and led the
administration to reverse its earlier claim.
But European intelligence officials have for the first time
confirmed that information provided by human intelligence sources
during an operation mounted in Europe and Africa produced sufficient
evidence for them to believe that Niger was the centre of a
clandestine international trade in uranium."

http://news.ft.com/servlet/ContentServer?pagename=FT.com/StoryFT/FullStory&c=StoryFT&cid=1087373295002&p=1012571727085

Or perhaps you could have read the New York Times on 12/20/1998, right after Operation Desert Fox: (Page A20, para 3 - 6).

"Again and again over the last week, Mr. Clinton and his senior aides have said the central goal of the air strikes was to "degrade' the ability of President Saddam Hussein to develop chemical and biological weapons. And that mission, he said today, "is now complete."

But "degrade" can mean many things. It is possible to degrade a target heavily. It is possible to degrade one slightly.

And as senior Administration officials acknowledge, albeit on condition of anonymity, the aftermath of the bombing campaign will be a weakened Iraq, but one still capable within months -- and possible just weeks or days -- of threatening its neighbors with an arsenal of chamical, biological and even nuclear weapons.

United Nations weapons inspectors believe that the Iraqis are still hiding tons of nerve gas and that they are seeking to obtain uranium from a rogue nation or terrorist groups to complete as many as four nuclear warheads."

In other words, the WMD intel might not have been accurate, but Bush wasn't lying. (Not that anything will change your mind.)


~ Halliburton and no-bid contracts

Do you know what LOGCAP is? Didn't think so.

~ the continuing lies about Al Queda=Saddam

The press is spinning wildly trying (in your case succeeding) to get the public to think that any claim that there were ties between Iraq and Al Qaeda is an accusation that Iraq was involved in 9-11. It's two different things.

In 1998, the Justice department (under Janet Reno) issued an indictment of Bin Laden over the embassy bombings. It had this to say about Iraq/Al Qaeda.

"In addition, al Qaeda reached an understanding with the government of Iraq that al Qaeda would not work against that government and that on particular projects, specifically including weapons development, al Qaeda would work cooperatively with the Government of Iraq."

Should we ask Reno why she lied?

http://www.mywoodlawnbaptist.org/clientImages/22000/Animations/hands_clapping_lg_clr.gif
All I can say is, I'm impressed :O)
But he still won't get it! His rabid hate
prevents him from desiring to know the truth!

Got any more excuses/denials/misplaced blame to throw up? Or is that the extent of your argument?

Ok, now how about trying some actual FACTS?

Got any more excuses/denials/misplaced blame to throw up? Or is that the extent of your argument?

Ok, now how about trying some actual FACTS?

That's it??? Yes, by all means, please use some facts to refute what I said.

But he still won't get it! His rabid hate
prevents him from desiring to know the truth!

That be the truth!