Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


1 posted on 08/16/2005 3:06:13 PM PDT by neverdem
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies ]


To: neverdem

Dick Durbin BEFORE he dick's you!!


2 posted on 08/16/2005 3:16:01 PM PDT by GeorgeW23225 (Liberals really aren*t bad people. It*s just that they know so much that simply ISN*T true.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: neverdem

Or:

3. Following in the footsteps of the Clinton Treasury official who lied to his diary, Shoemaker lied to an answering machine...and, also following the Clinton model, Durbin just plain lied.


3 posted on 08/16/2005 3:17:27 PM PDT by WestTexasWend
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: neverdem

Durbin, again...

"A dog returns to its vomit" and "A sow that is washed goes back to its wallowing in the mud".


6 posted on 08/16/2005 3:34:27 PM PDT by Christian4Bush (The modern Democratic Party: Attacking our defenders and defending our attackers.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: neverdem

At this pont we may have to consider an alternative explanation for Turbin's gaffes: dementia? Liberalitis? LBF?(Liberal brain fatigue)


7 posted on 08/16/2005 3:36:49 PM PDT by eleni121 (ual9fyiung for student aid nd taking clleg level course at the same time!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: neverdem
There are two alternatives to this explanation:

1. Durbin got confused and gave Turley an inaccurate account of what was said at the meeting, and Shoemaker, also confused, verified that account, or at the very least failed to challenge it; or

2. Turley, a media-friendly professor and legal commentator who has written roughly 500 articles, picked this point in his career to start making stuff up.

Uh, no. There certainly are other alternatives. I don't believe that Durbin and Shoemaker "got confused" at all. I think the scumbags were deliberately using Turley to spread political disinformation.

10 posted on 08/16/2005 4:17:45 PM PDT by Lancey Howard
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: neverdem
"The only condition under which you can use [the story] is not to identify our office, not identify Durbin, and to say that this came up in the course of several meetings with several senators."

So the condition for Turley using the story was to lie about it! I don't think so little of Turley that I believe he would be willing to trash his reputation over this.

11 posted on 08/16/2005 4:39:51 PM PDT by Bahbah (Air America: kids-for-kilowatts)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: neverdem

Tonmy Snow was telling us that Turley and his wife recently had a chiild and that is why he has been quite on this story.


15 posted on 08/16/2005 5:41:42 PM PDT by mware (Trollhunter of Note)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: neverdem
As long as this is only reported on in the Washington Times it may as well have not happened. For all practical purposes, Democrats can say whatever they want.
18 posted on 08/16/2005 6:56:17 PM PDT by nickcarraway (I'm Only Alive, Because a Judge Hasn't Ruled I Should Die...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: neverdem
According to two people who attended the meeting, Roberts was asked by Sen. Richard Durbin (D-Ill.) what he would do if the law required a ruling that his church considers immoral...

Roberts should have asked Durbin what he'd do if he were required to take some action that was moral...would he recuse himself?

21 posted on 08/17/2005 12:30:51 AM PDT by highlander_UW (I don't know what my future holds, but I know Who holds my future)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson