RSS
Email Updates
Enter your email address:
Delivered by FeedBurner
To post this comment click here:
Otherwise click cancel.
Really though, this is a pretty ridiculous article. The DoJ went farther with Jefferson than it had ever done before - so far that even Republican leadership condemned the actions. The issue is Separation of Powers.
It's not like this court ruling removed a medium of investigation that had always been available in the past rendering the Burns investigation less thorough than previous investigations. This court ruling merely checked (and balanced) a new investigative approach that overstepped the separation of powers.
In any case, for this article to be at all relevant to Burns you'd have to show that the DoJ was prevented from searching Burns' office for evidence when there is very little chance that would have otherwise occurred. Besides, wasn't all of this shady behavior supposed to have happened at Signatures where the DoJ still had free reign?
Can a blogger stained with intellectual dishonesty credibly call for intellectual honesty among his opponents?
You really don't have the first clue what blogging is all about, do you MTSimpinel?
Then again, maybe you couldn't have.
Petty, thy name is Budge.
But no, I'm sure that if you get more red-faced and barrel-chested about your denials, you'll convince everyone that your tough reasoning will make something into what it wasn't. I mean really, everyone knows that MTSentinal's question was just harmless rhetoric. Come on, Dave. Puff up some more. Strive for that righteous aneurysm. You've worked for it! You've earned it! Go for it, Big Fella!
Or ... you could just admit that you backed the wrong pony. You could acknowledge that MTSentinal tried to chide Jay into admitting wrong-doing that Jay has no earthly reason to admit, based on a false assumption of what blogging is. That would be the simple, honest path, and we already know you'd never choose the obvious when the self-aggrandizing presents itself.
You truly are a wanker, but please keep it up. I'm having a barrel of fun with this.
Geeze, what the heck does that even mean? Even if I was trying to invoke some action on Jay's behalf (I wasn't, I was just making a rhetorical point as Dave pointed out), how in the world would that be based on a false assumption of what blogging is.
For that matter if blogging is "whatever the blogger wants it to be about." how is it even possible to have a false assumption about what it is? Your definition seems to encompass any possible assumption about blogging that anyone would care to make.
In realms outside of this mysterious blogging world, credibility is a rather important aspect of persuasion. Credibility is established by trustworthiness among other things. And trustworthiness is lost when someone lies to further an agenda and then squirrels around said lie with tortured spin and doubletalk desperately looking for a way to keep the wool over they eyes of their audience.
Wow. That was verbose. Sorry.
PS- How come your LITW username doesn't have a "!" in it?
What is blogging all about?
Simply put, it's whatever the blogger wants it to be about. You're adult enough to handle the idea of free will, right?
credibility is a rather important aspect of persuasion.
How come your LITW username doesn't have a "!" in it?
That's funny. My username at my own website doesn't have one either. How very odd.
Oh, I think I get it. Thanks for educating me. You're far smarter than me - so I appreciate your patience in explaining something that's so easy for you to understand while I struggle.
Wait...
Sorry, I must be pretty dumb because I still don't get it. If blogging is about whatever the blogger wants it to be then there's no right or wrong assumption about blogging since it can be anything.
So I don't understand why you would say, "You really don't have the first clue what blogging is all about?" Since your definition of blogging is that it doesn't have a definition - help me with this - what definition did I violate?
So, yeah, all in all, I'd say you must be pretty dumb.
I sincerely believe Burns acted unethically. I have plenty of links to authoritative sources that make my case. I believe a reasonable person would agree with me. I stand by my beliefs that money shouldn't play a central role in politics, and that a representative should serve his constituency and not lobbyists and their clients.
I do regret that some righties have distorted my original post to fit their preconceptions about me and leftys in general. (Apparently I now also wrote the TPM post that I linked to...?) I'll still be glad to pit my reputation that Burns' voting records and actions in office were as I have characterized them.
So while you wax eloquent about "plenty of links" and "authoritative sources" I contend that all of those links and sources depended on the DoJ investigation as their source. That house of cards doesn't stand any more. Produce your links and sources.
Beyond being cleared of wrong-doing in relation to Abramoff, Burns was never accused of wrong-doing which would necesitate his being cleared. The only place he is guilty of anything is in your personal beliefs.
And that's the weight of the evidence that you have now collapsed to: "I sincerely believe that Burns acted unethically." You know Jay, there are people who believe the world is flat and some who believe in White Supremacy. Fortunately, believing something don't make it so. As reasonable people, we have something beyond personal beliefs to sort out the valid beliefs from the invalid ones. That something is evidence - the basis of reason.
I suppose that it's possible that you did not lie, but given the collapse of evidence around you, the continued belief in the conclusions that were supported by said evidence suggests that your problem may be more deeply rooted in intellectual defect or blind partisan denial.
Like Matt said, it's possible Burns voted for slave labor, forced prostitution and abortions, and a weak border on principle, and not as a favor for an old pal and a small campaign contribution. It's also possible that Burns earmarked for his lobbyist friends on principle. Or designated money for tribes that didn't need it (but who donated generously to Abramoff) on principle. Or created a non-profit organization, in which his friends and family members received paychecks, but didn't do any work, on principle. Or, or, or...
None of these things are in dispute, by the way. The question is, did Burns realize what he was doing? Did he do it for money? Or was he incompetent? Or did his staff do him wrong? Or did he see Washington DC as a big party, where you do favors for your friends in exchange for being a US Senator?
There's no good way to spin his record, IMHO. You can try...
To my knowledge the DOJ never asked for a single document. Ever.
The court ruling is in response to executive branch seizing docs from the legislative branch. No seizures were warranted since they were given access to anything they wanted.
Regardless, if the files were readily available and freely given, the court ruling would have no impact on any investigation of Conrad Burns.
I'd take issue with the 'chilling effect' headline for that reason.
But let's us see here. Did Burns claim he would only serve two terms while trying to get elected twice? Yes. Was that a lie? Hell yes! You think that your own opinion and innuendo equal lies and falsehood, and ignore the obvious and blatant lies that stand out. Was Burns' campaign based entirely on truth? Not even a little. Are you completely full of yourself while trying to goad a blogger into satisfying your need for moral redemption? Of course you are.
"We got everything we ever wanted from sen. buns", Jackoff Abrahams! That's all we need to know bout Buns!
Cornbread is living proof that crime does pay.
