Any ban from you would be moot at this point. You don’t need to post this comment either – it’s just for you.

One more complaint-insult like this and you will be the first one ever banned from here. Comments on this site hit a moderation queue if they contain certain words or have too many links. I have spam filters that catch comments at times too. I don’t sit around all day checking to see if your inane little comments hit the moderation queues or not.

This is your one and only warning – which I fully expect you to screw up in another fit of ‘its all about BIWAH!!!’ whining. Give it a rest will you? You provide no value to the debate here, so slinging insults my way will only leave me with one simple solution. I have no requirement on me to put up with your childish behavior on my site.

Clear?

Hmm. One more time – what are those “politically neutral” creds of yours again?

Ever wondered how the Washington Post got word that Rep. Foley was sending inappropriate messages to pages? Well, stop scratching your head and wonder no more. Our intrepid reporters have out-investigated the mighty WaPo sleuths. To do so, they attac…..

Basically, I note your placing of “knew about” and “protect the teen pages” in quotes. It’s as if, now that they have been proven circumstantially, directly, and by admission to apply to the Repub leadership, you’d like to say these words mean something other than what they mean. What do the quotes imply – “something I’d really like to make go away”?

…or at least suck the meaning out of through repeated relativization, right? I’d like to keep an even keel about this, but I think your finger-pointing is disgusting and hypocritical. Hastert should own up and you should stop hiding the smoking gun between a set of quotation marks. Show me a piece of real evidence that a Dem of any stature looked the other way for Foley and I will not blanch at calling for them to get out of government now. Again, that’s “Real”. “Evidence”. Anything else is a pathetic example of having your cake (“it’s an October surprise trotted out for the election!”) and eating it too (“they shopped the story last October – it’s a conspiracy!”).

Rightwingers have bitched about the relativistic views and the paranoia of liberals for as long as I’ve been around. Now we hear that proof of every Dem leader’s innocence must be served to them on a plate before they will accept the incontrovertible fact of the appalling, self-serving negligence of one of their own. The evidence shows that the only people that could intervene other than by going to the press were the Republican leadership, who now own this issue because they tried to keep it hush-hush.

By all means keep investigating, or perhaps you’d rather sit and churn out lie upon lie. In any case, this issue would have been put to bed if the Republican leadership had any moral compass.

Basically, I note your placing of “knew about” and “protect the teen pages” in quotes. It’s as if, now that they have been proven circumstantially, directly, and by admission to apply to the Repub leadership, you’d like to say these words mean something other than what they mean. What do the quotes imply – “something I’d really like to make go away”?

…or at least suck the meaning out of through repeated relativization, right? I’d like to keep an even keel about this, but I think your finger-pointing is disgusting and hypocritical. Hastert should own up and you should stop hiding the smoking gun between a set of quotation marks. Show me a piece of real evidence that a Dem of any stature looked the other way for Foley and I will not blanch at calling for them to get out of government now. Again, that’s “Real”. “Evidence”. Anything else is a pathetic example of having your cake (“it’s an October surprise trotted out for the election!”) and eating it too (“they shopped the story last October – it’s a conspiracy!”).

Rightwingers have bitched about the relativistic views and the paranoia of liberals for as long as I’ve been around. Now we hear that proof of every Dem leader’s innocence must be served to them on a plate before they will accept the incontrovertible fact of the appalling, self-serving negligence of one of their own. The evidence shows that the only people that could intervene other than by going to the press were the Republican leasership, who now own this issue because they tried to keep it hush-hush.

By all means keep investigating, or perhaps you’d rather sit and churn out lie upon lie. In any case, this issue would have been put to bed if the Republican leadership had any moral compass.

Is “knew about” a term of art then? And is “protecting the teen pages” a euphamism of some kind? It seems to me they mean what they mean, and the evidence on those facts – circumstantial, direct, and by admission – is in the bag with respect to Hastert. If only putting quotes around it would make it go away, that would be a neat trick (and one I would employ more often).

Yes, I know you from elsewhere, and I know that you are rational individual. So why the seeming demand that you be brought proof of every last Democrat’s innocence on a plate before you will open your eyes to the obvious guilt of a Republican? I guess to any other way is just more liberal bias. No one’s saying to stop the investigation. But there is zero reason to suspend judgment on a Republican, just because we don’t have an equivalent Dem heavyweight next to him on the hot seat. There was some institutional negligence going on within the R leadership. The same standard should apply to anyone who gets implicated by real evidence. Oh, that’s “real evidence”.

I guess in your world we need to bring you the evidence of each Dem’s innocence on a plate before you’ll accept the evidence (circumstantial, real, and by admission) of a Republican’s guilt. Anything else would be liberal bias.

The Washington Post has a timeline of the Foley scandal in hopes of disproving it was a political hit. What I find interesting are these quotes: Ken Silverstein, Washington editor for Harper’s, said on the magazine’s Web site yesterday. I…