Watergate II?

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

    Re: Watergate II?

    In response to WhatDoYouWantNow's comment:

    In response to ComingLiberalCrackup's comment:

    It is not "low" to bring up all possible issues confidentially in a private campaign discussion.



    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?



    I think you are stretching.  If she didn't want it out there, she shouldn't have put it in her book.  Maybe by putting it in her book she is helping someone.  That would be a good thing.

    It is a sad thing that she had these suicidal thoughts.  However, it is part of who she is, and needs to be factored in to her suitability for office.  After all, isn't the left saying that these very issues make someone not suitable for gun ownership?

    If you think this is a good thing, move to Kentucky and vote for her.

     

     
  2. This post has been removed.

     
  3. This post has been removed.

     
  4. This post has been removed.

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

    Re: Watergate II?

    In response to WhatDoYouWantNow's comment:

    In response to ComingLiberalCrackup's comment:

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

     

    Oh please. It was a planning meeting.

    I know I know. R gets a pass.

    Tell us how you felt about "trig truthers" again?




    It was a 'planning' meeting. Meant to be just between his campaign staff.  How dare someone laugh at such a meeting? 'Faux' outrage for mythical 'attacks'.....

     
  6. This post has been removed.

     
  7. 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:

    If she didn't want it out there, she shouldn't have put it in her book.  Maybe by putting it in her book she is helping someone.  That would be a good thing.

     

    What would a political attack ad based on the fact that someone suffered from depression severe enough to cause suicidal tendencies that ISN'T low look like? Can you articulate one? Write the voice-over for the ad....    

     

     

     

     

    In response to skeeter20's comment:

    If you think this is a good thing, move to Kentucky and vote for her.

     

    Read carefully. I didn't want her anywhere near congress.



    So, I'm failing to see whatyour issue is here.  Mitchie-baby talks about some things Judd has talked about herself, in writing, TV appearances, and the like,  and we are supposed to be offended that Mitch knows about them??

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

    Re: Watergate II?

    In response to skeeter20's comment:



    So, I'm failing to see whatyour issue is here.  Mitchie-baby talks about some things Judd has talked about herself, in writing, TV appearances, and the like,  and we are supposed to be offended that Mitch knows about them??



    The left is mad because he is a righty.

    If, he was a lefty the right would be mad.

    see?

     
  9. This post has been removed.

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

    Re: Watergate II?

    Whats amazing is most MSM news stories are about them (Mitch staffers) talking about her admissions and how to beat her and not about any illegal wiretapping! lol

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

    Re: Watergate II?

    In response to WhatDoYouWantNow's comment:

     

    That's because they're still investigating it!

    We don't know whether it was illegal wiretapping.

    As has been pointed out, in many states and federally, if one of his staffers recorded it and disclosed it would be LEGAL.

    If one of his staffers recorded it and accidentally left it in a bar, it would be LEGAL to report it.

     



    Oh that's right because our MSM never reports on what MAY be just what they know; especially when it's damning news!

     

    really??

     
  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:

    I'm failing to see whatyour issue is here.



    It seems dirty to me to attack someone for suffering from depression. Maybe that seems fine to you.

     

     

    /shrug



    Don't be a dork By laying out that red herring.  You run for office, everything you've done is fair game.  Not my rules, but them's the rules.

     
  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 tvoter's comment:

     

    he admitted he held the Romney 47% tape until releasing would do the most damage...

    BOOM!!!

     



    Because attacking someone for suffering from depression is exactly the same as releasing a tape of a candidate announcing that 47% of the country can go F itself?

     

     

    My the right has some strange "morals".



    Sure, and that's EXACTLY what the participants said, right after they figured out calling her a wh0re wouldn't work because a democrat had already used that on Meg Whitman.

    you are really stretching on this.

     
  14. 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:

    You run for office, everything you've done is fair game.



    Yeah, uh, and I kind of count "suffering from depression which was later treated" doesn't count as one of those things someone has "done".

     

     




    Said the man who mis-quotes Palin with glee.

    Look, she WROTE ABOUT IT IN HER BOOK.  IT IS IN THE PUBLIC RECORD.

    I can't be clearer than that.  You can't allow her to use it, and bar Mitchie from using it.  That's the ole progressive one-sided rule.

    Mitchie uses it at his own peril.  It could backfire.

    But, trying to say this is somehow out of bounds? Well, you seem very one-sided on this.  Glad to see you stand up for the progressive doll while trashing the conservative doll.

     
  15. This post has been removed.

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

    Re: Watergate II?

    In response to WhatDoYouWantNow's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Wow. 

    Clue: The reason this thread exists is specifically, precisely, and exactly because the MSM in fact reported "on what MAY be just what they know; especially when it's damning news!"

     [QUOTE]


    uh

    wow

    The MSM is reporting on how mean and nasty Mitch and his staff are and not even mentioning the possibility that is was a criminal act to get the tape!!

    you cant be that stupid.......right?

     
  17. This post has been removed.

     
  18. 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:

    You can't allow her to use it



     

    I'm not aware of any suggested Ashley Judd campaign adds that said "vote for me; I once suffered from depression!"



    Nice attempt to narrow the scope.  No one is suggesting that.  however, you are sufggesting that her state of mind or stability is irrelevant to her holding office.   I think that is a valid concern.

    I would say that because she had such a period in her life, was very, very, public about it, we are allowed to examine it before we decide if we shoudl vote for her, right?

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

    Re: Watergate II?

    In response to GreginMeffa's comment:

    The issue, my friends, is was his HQ illegally bugged, and by whom?  No one gave a rats a55 if George McGovern called Pat Nixon a dirty wh0re and a bug picked it up.



    Actually it was someone in the Brown campaign, and the person was Meg Whitman.  Brown laughed about it in the meeting.  he actually thought it was funny to call Witman a wh0re.

    And the left elected him.

    But, I agree with you on the bigger issue.  I am simply trying to point out the hypocrisy of the left, as they get as worked up over the possibility of the McConnel campaign using something Judd has already admitted and written about.

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

    Re: Watergate II?

    In response to WhatDoYouWantNow's comment:

    In response to GreginMeffa's comment:

    The issue, my friends, is was his HQ illegally bugged, and by whom?



    And yet you seem to be failing to understand that we can'tdiscuss that until it is investigated. That leaves only one possible topic to discuss for the moment:

     

    In response to GreginMeffa's comment:

    No one gave a rats a55 if George McGovern called Pat Nixon a dirty wh0re and a bug picked it up.



     

    .......



    I guess in your minid, that one topic is whether McConnell can talk about something Judd has written about in her autobigraphy.

     

    To which I say:  If she talked about it, McConnell can talk about it.

     
  21. This post has been removed.

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

    Re: Watergate II?

    In response to WhatDoYouWantNow's comment:

    When it first broke, the very liberal online magazine Slate reported it may be bugging and that there was an investigation under way!




    The slate is what you consider main stream media? lol

    How about the alphabet networks, CNN, etc?? They are MSM

     
  23. This post has been removed.

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

    Re: Watergate II?

    In response to WhatDoYouWantNow's comment:

    In response to GreginMeffa's comment:

    Of course.  No one discussed Watergate while the investigation was on going

    Well man, if you can think of something about the recording to discuss then by all means do so.

    The only information I have is that: (a) they looked for bugs but didn't find any, (b) this means it may have been a bug removed before any searches, or (c) someone at the meeting made the recording and either intentionally or accidentally disclosed it.

     



    The FBI has stated they have several leads in the criminal investigation.

    It took 9 months for watergate to break as a crime.

     
  25. This post has been removed.

     

Share