If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Some Guy)   Sen. Daschle's largest campaign contributor is a Caribbean money launderer.   (argusleader.com) divider line 80
    More: Obvious  
•       •       •

2981 clicks; posted to Main » on 05 Mar 2002 at 9:30 AM (12 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



80 Comments   (+0 »)
   

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2002-03-05 12:23:34 PM
Dems got more from (insert soft money lender here)
Repubs got more from (insert soft money lender here)
Who cares who got more from (insert soft money lender here). If I killed 10 people and you killed 3 people were both murderers.

The American taxpayer (Democrat or Republican) gets the shaft in the end.

If we voted everyone out of office and elected the Juggies in their placed there'd be no more "soft" money
 
2002-03-05 12:26:46 PM
Juggies running the U.S. government??? I'd vote for that!

Does Adam Carolla also get to be King?
 
2002-03-05 12:37:11 PM
This is kind of an odd plave to put this rant but I started typing and I just couldn't stop.

I've been enjoying the massive slew of political debates on FARK from a far for a while now. I have not been able to really say anything in a political sense that has not already been said. I sure can tell you that they're getting ridiculous though.

The fact of the matter is that people in search of political power are desperate to be rich and oversexed. END OF STORY...NO FURTHER COMMENT NEEDED. I don't really mean no further comment needed, but as to why this happens it's all there...has been for centuries. Didn't anyone take history in school?

Conservative, Liberal, it's all the same shiat. No one has truly come up with a feasible plan for digging us out of the 3000 year old pile of shiat we've built up around ourselves. The key now is to examine the shiat and make sure that we REALLY know where it's coming from. We need to stop the production of shiat before we can start digging ourselves out of it. The first step...accepting that people are just different and there's nothing you can do about it. Rules don't work because there's always people that they don't apply to...that creates conflict. As soon as someone says "This is the way it is and there are no exceptions!" people die.

To accept all is to accept none. All religions accepted = No religion correct. We just need to kill the hostility. A lot of the comments made on these boards are ignorant and certainly not constructive towards bettering ourselves.

Where's the movement? Where are the people trying to build community and acceptance. The best community is one where there are no guidelines as to how to be a member. Kind of like this one...only without the ignorance that frequently accompanies debate.

Nerve.com has managed to build a very impressive global community off of the desire to be sexually open and independent. Why can't FARK do the same thing? FARK needs a community about the will to be informed.

When it comes down to it we're just a bunch of respectable human beings who like to drink, smoke, and appreciate how ridiculous the world is. If there was ever something that could bring people together...that could be it.

The greatest thing FARK has going is that it's population are loyal and informed. Although we disagree, we are all still having a good time. If we could all get along and not be vicious with someone who disagrees than we'd have more potential power than god.

I'm thinking like a new party in the world...the FARK party.

"We are people who agree to disagree. Apathy is worth than death. Everything is a contradiction. There is no one god."

If you want to crap all over me for wanting to do something about all this bullshiat in the world than go right ahead. I look forward to being amused at such an obvious show of immaturity and egotism.

Aint no power like the power of the poeple cause the power of the people don't stop.
 
2002-03-05 12:41:09 PM
If nobody was aware that Enron was partaking in illegal activity (assuming they didn't know), then what difference does it make if democrats or republicans took money from them? On the other hand, accepting money from someone who is a known money launderer is condemnable.

Also, for those who are praising Daschle for speaking out against the war effort, he waited until polls showed the time was right. Where is the honor in that?
 
2002-03-05 12:58:50 PM
"Also, for those who are praising Daschle for speaking out against the war effort, he waited until polls showed the time was right. Where is the honor in that? "

How do you know this?
 
2002-03-05 01:06:14 PM
I have heard that in Antigue they have banks
set up in the airport. This is so you
can fly to the island and make your bank deposits
BEFORE you go through customs.
You could turn around, get on the plane and
have no record of your stop.

Brilliant.
 
2002-03-05 01:10:14 PM
At least Daschle voted for campaign finance reform. Lott, who also got money from the sleazy banker, did not.
 
2002-03-05 01:25:59 PM
::bong hit:: Y'all need to chill the fark out. Vote for Al Gard!
 
2002-03-05 01:42:50 PM
Daschele isn't speaking out against the war effort, he's expressing 'concern' and asking the administration things like "what are our plans?", "how long will it take?", "how do we know when we're done?", etc. However, he stepped out of an administration meeting regarding the war and before TV cameras to ask those questions. This implies that A) he didn't ask the questions in the meeting, or B) he asked but didn't receive an answer. So which is it? If (A), then his asking them publicly is clearly a political move on his part. If (B), then why doesn't he say so?

I don't regard those questions as reasonable anyway. Congress leaks like a sieve and telling anyone there our strategy is likely to get our troops killed. And I doubt that at this stage anyone can possibly know how long we're going to be involved, what it's going to cost, or how we'll know when we're done. No one that I saw publicly predicted the rapid downfall of the Taliban, and a month ago people were thinking Afghanistan was pretty much done and already expecting the attack on Iraq to start any minute. Yet we're now involved in a big battle in Afghanistan. The situation is too fluid to be able to answer Daschele's questions, even if they were sincerely asked.
 
2002-03-05 01:58:16 PM
Daschele isn't speaking out against the war effort, he's expressing 'concern' and asking the administration things like "what are our plans?", "how long will it take?", "how do we know when we're done?",

"What questions can we ask to attempt to undermine Republican popularity before November?"
 
2002-03-05 01:59:42 PM
Thanks for pointing that out, Freddie. Why, you're right, they are BOTH guilty.
 
2002-03-05 02:08:46 PM
Well said, White_Russian.

The answer to your question is, blame. Too many of these people are begging for any reason to hate, blame and convict any and all Republicans simply because they are Republicans. The method and cause doesn't matter.

You want guilt without proof of some REAL sick, twisted behavior? One word: Condit. Republicans murdered any of the interns they were fvcking extra-maritally lately?
 
2002-03-05 02:10:43 PM
At least Daschle voted for campaign finance reform.
You're reffering to the Democratically watered down version that served no purpose but lip service to sucker their liberal constituents? Go Dashcle. My hero.
 
2002-03-05 02:20:34 PM
Well, Daschle asked the same questions I ask everyday, but he is more likely to get an answer than I am. I respect the man. We need to ask "what is our real objective here" Ok, if it's "to stop terrorism" then we need a real plan, not an open ended non-"war".....
 
2002-03-05 02:32:11 PM
I am a carribean money launderer.
 
2002-03-05 02:49:14 PM
BlockedIP, okay. Give us an example of your plan. We don't know who all of the terrorists are or which nations are hiding them. They could be anywhere in the world. Many nations would harbor such people willingly. We do know they murdered several thousands of our citizens on our own soil and wish to do so again.

Go!
 
2002-03-05 02:49:56 PM
curses. Messed up my tags again.
 
2002-03-05 03:10:10 PM
I have a better idea. I've seen numerous pro-open-ended-war people demand that anti-war types and dissidents present "their plan." As an interesting gedankenexperiment, I'd like to see a warhawk come up with an alternative to the open-ended war Bush seems hell-bent on carrying out. Come up with a better idea than "we'll smash the Taliban for letting al Qaeda set up shop then... ummmm... uhhh... we'll hit whatever looks terrorist next! or whatever ticks us off!"
 
2002-03-05 03:16:20 PM
PlatinumDragon, trying to put me on the defensive as a way of distracting from the faults of your argument rarely works on me.

I am not the one complaining about the current plan. Since you are, share your alternative.
 
2002-03-05 03:32:43 PM
This is what was meant by "campaign finance reform?"
 
2002-03-05 03:34:31 PM
I wasn't the one making the original argument. I've just had it up to here with warhawks demanding an alternative plan, then deriding any plan presented as "unrealistic." It's a losing battle, and for once I'd like to see the people who support Bush play devil's advocate to themselves and try to come up with an alternative way out of this mess.

For starters, I would have at least called the Taliban's bluff on handing over bin Laden with evidence. They certainly seemed willing to discuss extraditing him some years previous, right up until some yutz lobbed cruise missiles into Afghanistan following bin Laden's embassy bombings. Unilateralism worked so well that day in 1998... could've had bin Laden on a platter, took the phallic solution instead. Smooth move, Bill.

Right now, the U.S. needs to decide what its target is. al Qaeda? bin Laden alone? Islamist terrorist groups? State-supported terrorism? Terrorism as a whole? Right now, the lack of a focus is frightening a few tens of millions of people who get the feeling the U.S. government will use the "war on (some) terrorism" to also take out despotic regimes that don't support the U.S. and replace them with potentially despotic regimes that do support the U.S. The government should also keep in mind that it is damn near impossible to wage war against a tactic, or a social problem. See: war on (some) drugs, war on poverty. Another problem is that the U.S. government is viewed as having little moral authority in terms of support for terrorism, the most glaring examples being the CIA-backed overthrow of the elected Allende government in Chile back in 73, support of the Contras in Nicaragua (ironically funded by selling weapons to the Iranian regime), and of course the very mujahideen the CIA and ISI worked so hard to fund and arm back during the 1980's. Even acknowledging responsibility for any of the above actions, or numerous others, would indicate that the U.S. is serious about wiping out terrorism around the world, by cleaning up its own house first.

I could go for hours. I could probably go even longer if I had all the information not currently being made available through the press or public sources.
 
2002-03-05 03:49:08 PM
Just how realistic is it to ask for a detailed plan and exit strategy when we aren't even sure who, where and what we are up against? You want an answer Sen. Arsehole errr.... Daschle? We're doen when the terrorists are dead.

Next week he'll tell scientists they need to come up with a set plan outlining when they will achieve cold fusion.
 
2002-03-05 04:00:24 PM
Just how realistic is it to ask for a detailed plan and exit strategy when we aren't even sure who, where and what we are up against?

Since I assume you're directing this at me and the other anti-war folks, I wish the pro-war crowd would think of this before demanding the same of their debating opponents. Instead, we go with what information we have.

We're doen when the terrorists are dead.

Which ones, and how are you sure terrorism as a tactic is eliminated? How is a terrorist different from a freedom fighter, or a guerilla army, or a paramilitary group? These aren't distractions, these are serious questions that need to be dealt with before going off on a "war on terrorism." I don't think these questions have been adequately dealt with by the Bush administration, and the result is that the administration can take many actions it wouldn't dare take before Sept. 11 under the aegis of the 'War on Terrorism', simply because it hasn't set any limits on what it is going after.
 
2002-03-05 04:13:13 PM
: The tag is ly overused.
 
2002-03-05 05:14:19 PM
At least you tried to give a somewhat informed reply, Platinum. I'll give you that.

I wasn't the one making the original argument
True. But you piped in with agreement of the other poster, putting you in his camp.

who support Bush play devil's advocate to themselves and try to come up with an alternative way out of this mess.

This isn't about Bush. I support the people of the United States. I support stopping people who would ram a jetliner full of fuel into a building full of innocents without provocation. In case you didn't notice, these are Bad People who did and do Bad Things, committing murder several thousand times over to Americans on our own soil. Time to chat over tea about our differences is over. That's regrettable but a fact.

the U.S. needs to decide what its target is

The goal has been addressed. Terrorism as a whole? Yes. Exactly. Actually I'd say the answer is "terrorism that affects the US" to be more precise. But, again, that's been answered. Hence, "war on terrorism." I'm unaware of how that could be more clear.

How is a terrorist different from a freedom fighter, or a guerilla army, or a paramilitary group?

Answer: They are all the same if they would kill United States citizens, especially on our own soil. There you go. Problem solved.

I don't think these questions have been adequately

See? No offense but this is all rhetoric. You get praise for recognizing some of Clinton's errors. But you still say the same nothing you started with but with more words.

You just said the U.S. needs to decide what its target is. It's target is any terrorist or terrorist network or supporter thereof who would harm the citizens of this country. This has been explained, ad nauseum.

I'm sorry it isn't conveniently clean for you. I'm sorry that a group of people chose to gather together, plan and execute the ruthless cowardly murder of thousands of people for no reason. I'm sorry we can't easily name and hunt down those responsible within the normal American 3 minute attention span. But that's life.

If it bothers you that much, I've a suggestion on how to occupy your time and keep your mind busy. Go pick up six month old decaying body parts from Ground Zero.

We "pro-war" people didn't ask for this. But when you get sucker punched you don't try to reason with the asshole who hit you, as he stands over you with murder in his eyes. You don't chat. You don't discuss. And you don't take the time to ask everyone who stood there watching if it's okay with them if you hit back. What you do is you beat him and anyone who looks like they were cheering him on until they piss themselves, cry and beg you to stop.

Then no one hits you for a very long time.

"Life sucks, get a helmet"

pro-war crowd

And then you lose all credibility when you make a statement like this. "pro-war" has implications that certainly do not apply. It's rhetoric and it's insulting. It's as fair a label but not nearly as accurate, as calling you "pro-murder".
 
2002-03-05 08:52:55 PM
Soft Money Donations
for 01/01/1995 through 06/30/2001:

http://www.commoncause.org/laundromat/detail.cfm?parentcode=31835&start=01/01/ 1995&end=06/30/2001&pname=Stanford%20Financial%20Group%20Co

Looks like the Republican party wins the battle for freshly laundered Antiguan money. It's a close one... $210,375.00 to $155,000.00.
 
2002-03-05 10:01:44 PM
No one wins. We all lose, ass.
 
2002-03-06 12:33:31 AM
I'm not going to jump into this minefield except to say that adding an insult to the end of your post pretty much serves to invalidate the whole thing. Ass.
 
2002-03-06 01:29:30 AM
Hey Chessboxer, lighten up. It's FARK. If you want intellectual content, go back and finish up high school. That will keep you off your sister, a KY pastime.
 
2002-03-06 03:44:37 AM
Well Charon, since you don't approve I'll certainly change my evil ways. Immediately.
 
Displayed 30 of 80 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all



This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report