Watergate II?

  1. You have chosen to ignore posts from tvoter. Show tvoter's posts

    Watergate II?

    Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell’s reelection campaign asked the FBI and the U.S. attorney’s office on Tuesday to investigate how Mother Jones magazine obtained a recording of a February strategy session.

    “Senator McConnell’s campaign is working with the FBI and has notified the local U.S. Attorney in Louisville, per FBI request, about these recordings,” McConnell campaign manager Jesse Benton said in a statement. “Obviously a recording device of some kind was placed in Senator McConnell’s campaign office without consent. By whom and how that was accomplished presumably will be the subject of a criminal investigation.”

    Added a source close to the campaign: “We’re going on the assumption that a crime has been committed. No one at the meeting leaked this.”

    Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2013/04/mitch-mcconnell-ashley-judd-recordings-fbi-89803.html#ixzz2PzeI2ZTT

     

     

     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from skeeter20. Show skeeter20's posts

    Re: Watergate II?

    In response to WhatDoYouWantNow's comment:

    As I said in the other thread.....

     

     

    While I do not condone what may have been Watergate-style bugging, it seems that said bugging revealed just how low Mr. Scared-Chipmunk-Obstructionist-Man's campaign was willing to go:

    "She's clearly, this sounds extreme, but she is emotionally unbalanced. I mean it's been documented. Jesse can go in chapter and verse from her autobiography about, you know, she's suffered some suicidal tendencies. She was hospitalized for 42 days when she had a mental breakdown in the '90s."

     

    Yeah. Don't attack her as being someone far far left on most issues, completely inexperienced politically, makes insane statements about people who buy Apple products, etc. Attack her for having severe depression. And seriously, not only is she depressed, she isn't a real Christian!

     

    "Anyhow I know this is sort of a sensitive subject but you know at least worth putting on your radar screen is that she is critical…[inaudible] sort of traditional Christianity. She sort of views it as sort of a vestige of patriarchy. She says Christianity gives a God like a man, presented and discussed exclusively with male imagery which legitimizes and seals male power, the intention to dominate even if that intention is nowhere visible."

     

    Keep it classy, moral right. Keep it classy.

     

     

     

     

     



    Sounds a bit like what was on the "accidential Jerry Brown" taping:

     

    Recording Captures Brown Camp Calling Whitman a 'Whore'

    Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/10/08/report-recording-captures-brown-camp-calling-whitman-whore/#ixzz2PzgsXKFv

     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from skeeter20. Show skeeter20's posts

    Re: Watergate II?

    In response to WhatDoYouWantNow's comment:

    As I said in the other thread.....

     

     

    While I do not condone what may have been Watergate-style bugging, it seems that said bugging revealed just how low Mr. Scared-Chipmunk-Obstructionist-Man's campaign was willing to go:

    "She's clearly, this sounds extreme, but she is emotionally unbalanced. I mean it's been documented. Jesse can go in chapter and verse from her autobiography about, you know, she's suffered some suicidal tendencies. She was hospitalized for 42 days when she had a mental breakdown in the '90s."

     

    Yeah. Don't attack her as being someone far far left on most issues, completely inexperienced politically, makes insane statements about people who buy Apple products, etc. Attack her for having severe depression. And seriously, not only is she depressed, she isn't a real Christian!

     

    "Anyhow I know this is sort of a sensitive subject but you know at least worth putting on your radar screen is that she is critical…[inaudible] sort of traditional Christianity. She sort of views it as sort of a vestige of patriarchy. She says Christianity gives a God like a man, presented and discussed exclusively with male imagery which legitimizes and seals male power, the intention to dominate even if that intention is nowhere visible."

     

    Keep it classy, moral right. Keep it classy.

     

     

     

     

     



    Reading from her own autobiography is not classy?

    Oh, that's right.  She's a progressive.  Progressives can do anything without consequence. like Jerry Brown.

     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from UserName99. Show UserName99's posts

    Re: Watergate II?

    Bring on the investigation.  It will be amusing to find out that one of his campaign lackies did it to him.

     

     

     
  5. This post has been removed.

     
  6. This post has been removed.

     
  7. This post has been removed.

     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from DamainAllen. Show DamainAllen's posts

    Re: Watergate II?

    Mother Jones probably doesn't want to burn their source, so I wouldn't expect them to name names.   But regardless there are many ways to get a recording without using a bug.  Most phones have a record function, for example.  I think McConnell's office are being a bunch drama queens by leaping straight into conspiracy land. 

     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from tvoter. Show tvoter's posts

    Re: Watergate II?

    In response to WhatDoYouWantNow's comment:

    Hmm..  I wonder how he feels about warrantless wiretapping of Americans other than himself.



    Obama loves it!

    And using drone to kill Americans (if, necessary of course)

     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from tvoter. Show tvoter's posts

    Re: Watergate II?

    In response to WhatDoYouWantNow's comment:

    In response to tvoter's comment:

    Obama loves it!
    The article was about McConnell.




    Its my post so deal with it or go away

     
  11. You have chosen to ignore posts from tvoter. Show tvoter's posts

    Re: Watergate II?

    In response to WhatDoYouWantNow's comment:

    In response to tvoter's comment:

    Its my post so deal with it

    I did.

    Heh....



    Oh I dont usually consider whinning as "dealing" with something.

     
  12. You have chosen to ignore posts from skeeter20. Show skeeter20's posts

    Re: Watergate II?

    In response to WhatDoYouWantNow's comment:

    In response to skeeter20's comment:

    Reading from her own autobiography is not classy?

     


    The operative word was "attack." Now reread my post with that in mind.



    Attack? Come on.  He's reading from her own biography.  That's not an attack. That's the same as if she said, oh, 47 percent of the people get government stuff. Now, calling your republican opponent a wh0re, that's an attack.

    face it, this is much ado about nothing, as everything in the recording is admitted by Judd.

     
  13. You have chosen to ignore posts from skeeter20. Show skeeter20's posts

    Re: Watergate II?

    In response to WhatDoYouWantNow's comment:

    In response to Newtster's comment:

     

    THere is nothing to worry at all about this. IT's nothing like Watergate. In the case of Watergate, it was Republican operatives bugging Democrats and breaking into their office.

    In this case it is a Democrap operative perhaps doing the same thing to a Repblican. So obviously there is no concern here for anyone. The liberals know  what is best for us and if breaking into a Republicans office or illegally taping them is best for us then we damned well better accept it.

     




     

     

    Because, of course, someone said that......

     

     

    Why don't you just shut up?



    What is your issue with this recording?

     
  14. You have chosen to ignore posts from tvoter. Show tvoter's posts

    Re: Watergate II?

    In response to WhatDoYouWantNow's comment:

    That information that she was depressed and suicidal in the past is in a book doesn't mean it isn't low as hell to attack her based on that.




    Yea because the high road is the political strategy for Washington; said no one ever!

     
  15. This post has been removed.

     
  16. This post has been removed.

     
  17. You have chosen to ignore posts from ComingLiberalCrackup. Show ComingLiberalCrackup's posts

    Re: Watergate II?

    In response to WhatDoYouWantNow's comment:

    In response to skeeter20's comment:

    He's reading from her own biography.  =



    Are you confused?

     

    This wasn't a book club. This was a brain-storming session on how to politically attack her if she ran.

    That information that she was depressed and suicidal in the past is in a book doesn't mean it isn't low as hell to attack her based on that.

     Especially with all the other low-hanging fruit.



    How could they be "attacking her on that", when they were talking confidentially. This is what  campaign operatives do, they look through possible issues to raise.  It is not "low" to bring up all possible issues confidentially in a private campaign discussion.

     "While I do not condone what may have been Watergate-style bugging, it seems that said bugging revealed just how low Mr. Scared-Chipmunk-Obstructionist-Man's campaign was willing to go":

    Bullcrap. It is only logical to discuss in a campaign strategy meeting, all possible issues.  

    One can only imagine what a David Axelrod  confidential campaign discussion on how to personally attack Mitt Romney,  might sound like.  Mother Jones wouldnt need to record it, because David Corn is one of their operatives, pure and simple...he admitted he held the Romney 47% tape until releasing would do the most damage... 

     

     
  18. You have chosen to ignore posts from tvoter. Show tvoter's posts

    Re: Watergate II?

    In response to ComingLiberalCrackup's comment:

    In response to WhatDoYouWantNow's comment:

     

    In response to skeeter20's comment:

    He's reading from her own biography.  =



    Are you confused?

     

    This wasn't a book club. This was a brain-storming session on how to politically attack her if she ran.

    That information that she was depressed and suicidal in the past is in a book doesn't mean it isn't low as hell to attack her based on that.

     Especially with all the other low-hanging fruit.

     



    How could they be "attacking her on that", when they were talking confidentially. This is what  campaign operatives do, they look through possible issues to raise.  It is not "low" to bring up all possible issues confidentially in a private campaign discussion.

     

     "While I do not condone what may have been Watergate-style bugging, it seems that said bugging revealed just how low Mr. Scared-Chipmunk-Obstructionist-Man's campaign was willing to go":

    Bullcrap. It is only logical to discuss in a campaign strategy meeting, all possible issues.  

    One can only imagine what a David Axelrod  confidential campaign discussion on how to personally attack Mitt Romney,  might sound like.  Mother Jones wouldnt need to record it, because David Corn is one of their operatives, pure and simple...he admitted he held the Romney 47% tape until releasing would do the most damage... 

     



    BOOM!!!

     
  19. This post has been removed.

     
  20. You have chosen to ignore posts from FortySixAndTwo. Show FortySixAndTwo's posts

    Re: Watergate II?

    In response to WhatDoYouWantNow's comment:

    In response to tvoter's comment:

    lol dont get your panties all wadded!

     


    Do you have some sort of inferiorty complex? Insecure about your masculinity?

    Odd that your favorite insults are to call people pvssies and reference panties. In my experience, those males who do this the most aren't so sure about themselves....  

     

     

    Really? Then I guess you're not so sure about yourself eh???

    "lol...

    Do you expect that by telling me lies about my position, I'm going to be compelled to go find the threads for you? You can't go look them up yourself?

    "What a pvssy."

     

     

     




     
  21. This post has been removed.

     
  22. You have chosen to ignore posts from FortySixAndTwo. Show FortySixAndTwo's posts

    Re: Watergate II?

    In response to WhatDoYouWantNow's comment:

    On queue. Thanks.

    Now I'll put you down again....  run along



    You're having a tough day...might want to call it a day and try again tomorrow. Just a suggestion...just trying to help : )

     
  23. You have chosen to ignore posts from FortySixAndTwo. Show FortySixAndTwo's posts

    Re: Watergate II?

    In response to WhatDoYouWantNow's comment:

    In response to FortySixAndTwo's comment:

    You're having a tough day...might want to call it a day and try again tomorrow. Just a suggestion...just trying to help : )



    Man.....oh man...  

     

    It's a sad image: pinkie, the middle aged hall monitor, huddling over his screen and cracking his fingers. Is he right that he annoyed someone? Is it possible?

    The wonder!

    The glory!


    The VICTORY!

     

     

    Congratulations! You won the internets!


     



    I only have one computer. Oh to be that guy though....one can dream...

     
  24. You have chosen to ignore posts from ComingLiberalCrackup. Show ComingLiberalCrackup's posts

    Re: Watergate II?

    In response to WhatDoYouWantNow's comment:

     

    It is low when you are planning to smear someone who was suicidally depressed for being suicidally depressed.

     

    It was also low to campaign against Christie by saying "look: he's a fatazz! hahaaha fatty!"

    Though not as low.

     Or would support attacking someone for having a kid with Down's syndrome and then becomming paralyzed after contracting polio?



    Again, who says they were planning to "attack" Judd for this? Talking about this issue , and 'attacking' someone are separate things.

    The campaign operative should be fired, if he didnt bring up all potential weaknesses of an opponent.

    Faux liberal outrage that campaigns discuss the potential weaknesses of an opponent...

     
  25. You have chosen to ignore posts from skeeter20. Show skeeter20's posts

    Re: Watergate II?

    In response to WhatDoYouWantNow's comment:

    In response to skeeter20's comment:

    He's reading from her own biography.  =



    Are you confused?

     

    This wasn't a book club. This was a brain-storming session on how to politically attack her if she ran.

    That information that she was depressed and suicidal in the past is in a book doesn't mean it isn't low as hell to attack her based on that.

     

    Especially with all the other low-hanging fruit.



    And, your problem wiht McConnel "attacking" her with her own words is?????

     
Sections
Shortcuts

Share