“Ten Most Wanted Corrupt Politiciansâ€￾

[local 12 proud]

No you moron. The site you linked lied. Look at your site, then look at the actual Judicial Watch site. The lists don't match. The name of your site says it all. If you are going to link a site by NAME, try using the actual site.

I could care less what these BS site say to begin with. You are the one linking to a site that lied in order to further its agenda.

Don't burst an artery dude....What, did those flight attendants put you in a tail spin over the holidays? or perhaps you got tossed from a gay bar for impersonating?

Hey just because you say they lied does'nt make it so!

Besides if you 'could care less what those BS sites say to begin with'... why you posting?

 

[Garfield1966]

Don't burst an artery dude....What, did those flight attendants put you in a tail spin over the holidays? or perhaps you got tossed from a gay bar for impersonating?

Hey just because you say they lied does'nt make it so!

Besides if you 'could care less what those BS sites say to begin with'... why you posting?

Yes it does you twit. The site you linked said they were quoting the Judaical Watch site.

Judicial Watch, the public interest group that investigates and prosecutes government corruption, today released its 2007 list of Washington’s “Ten Most Wanted Corrupt Politicians.â€￾ The list, in alphabetical order, includes:

The site you linked combined the dishonorable mentions with the 10 worst, only picked out the ones they wanted and completely misrepresented what Judicial Watch put on their site. They lied plain and simple. The list they gave had very little to do with the actual list.

 

[Gilding the Lily]

Yes it does you twit. The site you linked said they were quoting the Judaical Watch site.

Judicial Watch, the public interest group that investigates and prosecutes government corruption, today released its 2007 list of Washington’s “Ten Most Wanted Corrupt Politicians.â€￾ The list, in alphabetical order, includes:

The site you linked combined the dishonorable mentions with the 10 worst, only picked out the ones they wanted and completely misrepresented what Judicial Watch put on their site. They lied plain and simple. The list they gave had very little to do with the actual list.

Again, Garfield. YOU are looking at the wrong one. You are looking at 2006. He posted 2007. See my above post for a comparison and you will see they are the same.

As far as I can tell, the website Local used quotes exactly the actual Judicial Watch site (from 2007).

 

[UAL_TECH]

Again, Garfield. YOU are looking at the wrong one. You are looking at 2006. He posted 2007. See my above post for a comparison and you will see they are the same.

As far as I can tell, the website Local used quotes exactly the actual Judicial Watch site (from 2007).

You should know by now Garf doesn't admit mistakes (even when he is blatantly wrong)

Take Care,
B) UT

 

[Garfield1966]

Nope, you're right. I screwed up. Sorry. I did not see the date.

 

[local 12 proud]

No you moron. The site you linked lied. Look at your site, then look at the actual Judicial Watch site. The lists don't match. The name of your site says it all. If you are going to link a site by NAME, try using the actual site.

I could care less what these BS site say to begin with. You are the one linking to a site that lied in order to further its agenda.

Yes it does you twit. The site you linked said they were quoting the Judaical Watch site.

The site you linked combined the dishonorable mentions with the 10 worst, only picked out the ones they wanted and completely misrepresented what Judicial Watch put on their site. They lied plain and simple. The list they gave had very little to do with the actual list.

Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak out and remove all doubt.

 

[KCFlyer]

Senator Hillary Clinton took a lot of heat in 2007 – and rightly so – for blocking the release her official White House records. Many suspect these records contain a treasure trove of information related to her role in a number of serious Clinton-era scandals.

And we all know how forthcoming GW Bush has been with his records. One wonders what treasure trove of information remains locked up behind closed doors....and he even had his DADDY's records locked up. If blocking the release of records is grounds for corruption, Bush should be on that list.

 

[Gilding the Lily]

And we all know how forthcoming GW Bush has been with his records. One wonders what treasure trove of information remains locked up behind closed doors....and he even had his DADDY's records locked up. If blocking the release of records is grounds for corruption, Bush should be on that list.

Yeah... my insatiable need for political gossip wishes that records would be released (gotta love sunshine laws).

At the same time, however, I recognize the need and importance for a strict executive privilege protocol. Some things are better left unturned. It is true that the old excuse of "national security is at stake" is probably used too often, but I think the benefit of the doubt should apply to the executive rather than to the public. Maybe a secret court like FISC should look into these matters.

 

[KCFlyer]

Yeah... my insatiable need for political gossip wishes that records would be released (gotta love sunshine laws).

At the same time, however, I recognize the need and importance for a strict executive privilege protocol. Some things are better left unturned. It is true that the old excuse of "national security is at stake" is probably used too often, but I think the benefit of the doubt should apply to the executive rather than to the public. Maybe a secret court like FISC should look into these matters.

Yes, but even before 9/11, this administration has been unwilling to release any information on much of anything (energy task force...could it have been that Iraq was a part of our energy strategy prior to 9/11?) He also started the process to block the release of his dad's records...again prior to 9/11. Some folks just wonder that with that much to hide, could corruption be far behind.

 

[delldude]

For my Liberal friends:



Special treat

 

[Gilding the Lily]

Yes, but even before 9/11, this administration has been unwilling to release any information on much of anything (energy task force...could it have been that Iraq was a part of our energy strategy prior to 9/11?) He also started the process to block the release of his dad's records...again prior to 9/11. Some folks just wonder that with that much to hide, could corruption be far behind.

The cross-section of executive privilege and national security is not just a post-9/11 idea. It has been used since the early 1800's, and most notably by Nixon. The question shouldn't be "why are they not releasing it"... it should be "Why should they release it." There is usually a presumption that it is privileged.

 

[777 fixer]

Can anyone find the 2004 and 2005 list?

 

[delldude]

Can anyone find the 2004 and 2005 list?

Bingo

 

[777 fixer]

Bingo

I was wondering about the 2004 and 2005 five list of most corrupt politicians.