Hastert looks that way ALL the time! I'm talking about ANYONE being 'tried in in the 'courtroom of the public press'. You conveniently posted that to imply that Hastert is guilty or looks guilty. That might work on the kids but,really, not here! Of Course,some of the kids on DT believe you, so who knows?....

Timm,
Again you are putting "words in my mouth". Very bad!
I never said that Hastert was guilty or looked guilty.
Prove it if I did!
Personally, I think he looks a bit stressed...but that's beside the point.
What's with the "cheap shot" about "might work with kids"?
I thought you had better debating skills besides twisting the words of others and insults. Guess not.
You are very transparent.

You crack me up! You post a political figure being fried in the press for what reason? And your words...if the photo at the top of the page doesn't say it all...that is what you said. So with that being on the page...what WERE you saying or putting out or what? You are a teacher by trade, there was no cheapshot, other than to remind you that you're not talking to kids! You're always bitching about someone slighting you, and yet you invite discourse on subjects you post....so who's being transparent now? You are damn good at innuendo,but innuendo is a 2 edged sword sometimes...

Timm,
I'm not trying to "fry anyone in the press".
Did you take any time to read either of the articles that I put links to?
If you didn't, do so.
Then we can "discourse" about the content of the articles.
I am not the topic of the debate.
I AM NOT THE TOPIC OF THE DEBATE!!!
I AM NOT NOW, NOR WILL I EVER ALLOW YOU TO MAKE ME THE TOPIC OF THE DEBATE!!!!

Timm,
Read the articles. Talk about them...ok?
Nice try...I had a third grader try that tactic once and only once.
It didn't work then, nor will it work now.
Nice try.

Now that you have all the 'primal scream' out of your system...take my response line by line...I said why put up a picture of someone(hastert)being fried in the press and labeling the picture...that picture says it all(your words) If you were an artist,what would be your point(with that picture)be? I certainly read those articles,but because I disagreed with them,I didnt bring them up. You're making a mountain out of a molehill. You're not the topic...you supplied the topic(picture) I just asked your reason for doing so(other than the obvious) I noticed your keystrokes got stuck there for a moment....hope your BP's ok! btw...you never had a 3rd grader like me..trust me

timm,
Unless you can do better than "primal scream", and the fact that you didn't read what I said about Hastert looking stressed, there really isn't much more to "discuss".
Face it...the press had no access to the hearings.
I said the truth will be found.
I believe that justice will be served.
Deal with it.

So you just put up a picture of Hastert looking stressed for fun? I told you I read the articles...are you so busy formulating a witty response that you fail to READ mine. I must give you too much credit. Have you never heard the phase "court of public opinion"? My Lord....I know they were closed door hearings. Believe me...I'm not shaking in my boots...no matter what they find. Oh damn, you'll answer me after dinner,right?

timm,
I apologize for giving more credit to your debating "skills" than I originally surmised.
Count up how many times you've used the word "you" in this quoted post.
I really thought there was more to offer.
Please clear up the confusion.
In an earlier post you claimed that you disagreed with the articles I posted.
Exactly, what is there to disgree with? Cite the statements that you disagree with and reasons for disagreement.
I think you're blowing it out your hole.
Please prove otherwise.
Cute ain't "cute".

DTS

ps..dinner: steak, baked potato, broccolli.

DTS: the person I'm directing this response to is the only person who put up a picture and captioned it..This person is confused....as I am the only other person in the conversation! Here's the thing...I don't want to talk about the articles(they're nothing new) I just wanted a simple answer...why did the poster use this picture? and for what purpose... Apparently you did enroll in the "clinton online debating class". Summ cum Laude, I'll bet! Dinner looked nice! I doubt I'll get that lucky:)

timm,
I'm no longer confused.
Thanks for stating that you "don't wish to talk about the articles".
That speaks volumes.
Why did they use that picture? Hmm...ask the editor of the NY Times.
This line of "thinking" is ridiculous.
I truly thought you had better.
"clinton online debating class"...geesh!

I said that I had read the articles and didn't want to rehash old news! DTS: the poster of the picture on this forum is YOU...WTF do I care(as if I didn't know) why they used the picture. I care about why you posted it. Btw...If I don't have something to say...then I can't be speaking volumes. I thought the Clinton thing was great,as both of you tend to focus on the little things! However...let me say emphatically that I don't think you're are self-obsessed, as is the former! I really hope you are clear now. Ballgame coming on....gone now!

Timm,
I'm very clear regarding the topic that you'd like to discuss. You typed it in caps.
Obviously, you do not wish to discuss the Hastert/Reynolds/Foley topic, which is what I thought this thread was really about.
The links I posted deal with this topic. I posted them because they are informative.
Since you couldn't cite one thing that you disagreed with in either of them and only keep asking why I posted them, my suspicion is that you don't wish to discuss the topic.
The answer to your question: this topic is in the news.

DTS: unfortunately the answer to my question is that you are disingenuous,and your agenda should be apparent to all. Other than that, you're a great guy and I wish you the best.

timm,
Now I'm "disingenuous"?
What happened to "myopic"?
My agenda? Hmmm...explain whatever you think I've "implied".

If you have nothing to say about the topic, just admit it.
To do otherwise exposes your fraud.
You're a great guy and I also wish you the best.
Talk truth, not lies. Speak sense, not nonsense.

Now back to your dictionary to find additional descriptors to toss at me...

DTS: disingenuous fits better! Your agenda ..you're the leading proponent for all things liberal. You implied by the photo of Hastert that the photo said it all(meaning that he's in trouble) I did say that I didn't want to talk on the articles,because they held no new info. How does that expose any fraud on my part? Everything I've said to you has been up front....and you,as an educated man, should have clearly understood my 'drama in the courtroom of public opinion' statements. I have spoken no lies, and have answered your queries to the best of my ability,and remained quiet on commenting on old news,as it would only add more vitriol to the fire. I have spoken no nonsense either, but tried to evoke an honest response to my questions. So the stalemate continues...

timm,
This isn't a "stalemate".
So, I'm a "liberal"?
On some things, yes...but on fiscal responsibility and balanced budgets...hardly. Please do not box me. That play is getting very old.
Ok...my move.
What is your position concerning "current news"..ie: the ongoing investigation involving Hastert and his "alleged cover-up" and denial of being notified of Foley's e-mails to pages?

Well....I noticed that you didn't reply to the fraud and lies part...typical you to dodge my questions. Actually,since there is an ongoing investigation,why bother? You say all the right things about wanting truth and justice, but you add your voice to the "string up the SOB's" mostly at every turn. I hardly need to box you, the sheer volume of your posts railing against that madman Bush et al. is enough. If the hammer fall on Hastert, then it should rightly fall on Democratic leaders 'in the know', don't you think? But that's awhile off,if at all.

timm,
Fraud? Lies?
Go back and reread some of the shameful things you've said regarding me.
Your own words convict you.
I have always been polite, gentlemanly.
I never twisted your words nor insulted you.
I always said "please" and "thank you". It's called "being polite.
Where did I say "String up the SOB's"? Please point that out.
If you are unable to, that's just another of your fabrications.
As far as I know, though I'm not a democrat, reports I've read do not show any evidence that any democrat had knowledge of Foley's e-mails or IM's.
Prove that assertion if possible.
Here are the "players" on Hastert's staff. I'll wait until their tesimony is revealed to the public.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/n...ationworld-hed

What shameful things? What fabrications? Didn't you call Bush a madman? Have you posted venom about him and how dishonest and cowardly he is? God,I dont have time to go back over all the 'info' posts you put up! If the Foley scandal is so widespread...you're telling me that none of the Democratic leadership knew...or was this their October surprise? The only piece of solid info on your link says that Hasterts' chief of staff knew of the Foley situation...it makes no mention of Hastert knowing(directly or indirectly)

DTS: in post#92 you alluded to my fraud and that I spoke lies. So you could explain to me ,as well answer my last post to you, that would be great!

timm,
As I have said before, go back and reread some of the things you have said.
You have accused me of "implications"...that you made.
You have twisted my words to give them meaning only you could invent.
You have insulted me by calling me "myopic", "disingenuous", and "liberal".
You did not wish to discuss the topic but merely saw this thread as an opportunity to attack.
No thanks. I don't allow others to "play that game" with me.
I'm still waiting to have you show the quote where I said, "string up the SOB's".

I have posted links to articles from various sources (not common dreams), that inform about the Hastert/Foley issue. I didn't make up the news.
I only reported it.
Alas, there are no articles on this topic in the news today, at least that I could find. You probably wouldn't wish to discuss them anyway.

As the late Senator from NY, Daniel Patrick Moynahan stated, "Everyone is entitled to their own opinions, but unfortunately, not their own facts."

Tonight's meal is baked chicken, rice, acorn squash, peas.

Timm,
Perhaps you can make more sense of this than I can.
I'd be interested in your thoughts on this article:

http://www.freep.com/apps/pbcs.dll/a...610270355/1009

DTS: well, if being called a liberal(which you used to admit to,laughingly)and myopic,and disigenuous is an insult, then your hormone levels must be low, cuz your feelings are getting in the way. I told you before that I'd let the investigation play out(the same as you did when answering Skippy) and even gave some of my thoughts in last few posts. But you glossed over them, because my opinions don't meet your facts. To the best of my recollection, I have never come close to attacking you( I was rather harsh to KRIM once) but I worked in a warehouse with(shiver) Teamsters for 30 yrs, so I could be a little scewed as to what constiutes an insult. As a last point, do you not see that what you post usually has a 'slant' to it? P.S. Damn you eat good!..do you cook all that or are you hitting a resturant!

Timm,
If you read back through anything I've posted to you, you will see that I've never labeled you as having a specific political position.
Please refrain from doing that with me. My views are "independent". I read opinions from all sides. In terms of finance, I'm conservative. In "world politics", I'm open to negotiation for political solutions rather than military ones. I am not "religious" but very "spiritual" see Romans 15:13.

I thought you would read the article from the Detroit Free Press. I 'm having difficulty understanding it and hope that you could provide insight.

As far as my food...I grow it (most of it) organically. I love my garden as it connects me with something called Eden.
I prepare the food myself, to the best of my ability.
After I give thanks for the blessing of it, I enjoy each mouth full.
I'm thankful that I live in "abundance" and wish others to find and share it.
Anyway, enough of my autobiography.
Please read the article and let me know what you think about it.
Peace,
DTS

DTS: I read the article and feel it was straightforward. The committee is working very long and hard to ascertain the facts, and it could very well be that the only real success is having Foley out of Congress. It appears that they'll not reach resolution until after the election,which probably hurts Republicans. Can they all be telling the truth? the writer queries. I hope so. There are some things that just can't be tolerated, so Foley's gone. I am a Republican, which sometimes distresses me, but I try to read other veins of thought. It always becomes murkey(sp) when elections come around, hence the postulating on both sides of aisle! Though we disagree, thanks for throwing out the 'olive branch', which I'll readily pick up! 2 more things: how much land do you have in order to have such a garden? Please PM me on your thoughts on the verse you mentioned. Timm

Timm,
Thanks for reading the article.
I agree that this probably won't be resolved until after the elections.
As I said in an earlier post, the truth will be found.
Justice will be served.
Dems have had their share of problems as well.
I'll pm you about the other stuff.
Peace.
dTS

Hey Ezrabrooks,
Are you sticking with this or would you like to taste my latest crow recipe?
Eat it!

No, I will take it as the voters have spoken... You will not hear me crying or moaning about the results. Every thing pretty much worked out here in Texas... and that is where my vote counted. As for any crow, you can stick any share you might have thought belonged to me in up your a$$..

Ez

Nothing in my a$$...had a pretty good flush a while ago. Repubs whirled away in a beautiful swirl.
Hope you get your head out of yours before the constipation causes you real damage.
Your insights have been very entertaining. Reminds me of "Three Stooges".
btw...regarding Texas...who won the seat that Delay held?

Rick Perry won with 39% of the vote. Kay Bailey smashed her opposition. The vote split between the democratic nobody for Governor, Strayhorn defect Rep. and Kinky Friedman. If Friedman's people had hopped over to the Democrat without a plan, Perry would have lost. Not what I would call a mandate. Perrry is without a doubt the worst governor this state has had since Bill White. Probably worse.

Ezra you were the guy who thought teachers had unions in Texas. So I can see you really are in the thick of the political situation.

Pagardn... Let me know when you quit cashing those green checks...then we will talk about whether there is a "teachers union".. Yeah, ole Kinky did well..

Best quote of the election by Kinky..."I don't negotiate with terrorists"..when Bell said the same thing.

The Delay seat? Who was on the ballot...you ignoramus. Even you could have won that seat.

Oh Ezr*******,
Thank you so much for calling me an "ignoramus". you could have just said that you didn't know the answer without the insult.
I'll tell you in case your inabilty to do so has been demonstrated, yet again.
The winner's name is Nick Lampson. Coincidently, when Delay redistricted into his in 2003, it seems that Delay demonstrated a level of intelligence equal to your own.
Do you have any more names for me?