error corrected. feel free to make a mountain out of a molehill.

I would have sworn that I was once told by someone that a corruption scandal by a Democrat wasn't necessarily a Dem scandal, it was just a scandal. Given the fact that this isn't about a national politician, or a state politician, or the fact that the crime had nothing to do with the carrying out of his office, etc., I'm surprised (not) that this is called a "republican" scandal.

It could also be noted that he was arrested for this in 2001, and convicted in 2003, and had been in JAIL for years on what was ALREADY a 37 year jail sentence. This was just a few extra charges, the real story was years ago.

The best you can do is a 6 year old case about a guy whose been out of politics for 6 years? Come on, with all the Jefferson stuff, with the Dems turning their back on cleaning up the supposed "culture of corruption", with Pelosi's own ethics problems, with Murtha calling oversight legislation "crap", with Mollohan and Jefferson being handed key roles after being found to be supreme violators of the public trust...

Your bias is showing. You're most certainly not a Libertarian, given that many of the offenses against the Libertarian point of view are being made by Dems, who have the majority, and who are NOT keeping their promises. Your irrational focus betrays your slant. Here you sit, actively being betrayed by Democrats, banging away about a "Republican" that hasn't even been in an office for 6 years. Pathetic, really.

I couldn't see the "nolo" molehill for the mountain of political hypocrisy...

blah, blah, blah...i am on point with the major issues as the libertarian party lists them on their website. and i have written about the ineptness of congress since the dems takeover, even calling for the removal of harry reid, well before anyone else did. you obviously haven't been paying attention, or like the rest of the right wing, just see what you want to see where i am concerned.

my bias is showing? what a joke! the right wing neoconservative bias is shown here every single day. it just pisses you all off that i won't quietly go away like all the other's ya'll have scared off.

someone who is fearless against the neoconservative smear machine is a total threat to ya'll every day. and ya'll show it every day.

keep trashing me folks. keep doin what yer doin...it serves me well. i couldn't make up a better scenario.  

You'd have to be dishonest or insane to look down your list of articles and not see where your focus lies. Look at this article, for heaven's sake. This guy has been in jail for 4 years, and you are still calling it a "Republican" scandal? There are several Dem issues with corruption in the news NOW, and where is your focus? Come on. This is so piddly assed.

You have like a 1:10 or 20 ratio comparing articles critical of Reps verses Dems. This week there are several active stories about how the Dems are choosing not to clean up congress, about Jefferson facing 200+ years of jail time, etc., and you drag up a mayoral from seven years ago? Nah, that's not bias... surely not...

i blasted jefferson and pelosi months ago.

called for reid's removal as maj. leader.

and written other things about problems with the democrats like murtha and jefferson. but what ya'll fail to see is that if anyone on here, esp. me doesn't totally "damn" the democrats in every way shape or form, ya'll try to paint them as a "Liberal democrat" and the like. sorry folks, i'm pretty middle of the road, a social and civil libertarian, fiscally conservative as anyone chap. but when you are tryin to be right of george bush and dick cheney, it's easy to mistake me and others for something we are not. and all the parroting you can muster between the 1/2 dozen or so of ya'll that like to gang up on dissenting views won't change who or what i am.

do i have my biases? sure, everyone does. but just because my bias isn't what you want me to be, doesn't make me dishonest or the person you paint whatsoever. i am who i am. i know who i am and nothing ya'll squak will ever change that.

unlike most, i don't preach like i have some ideology that is right 100% of the time. to me, all ideologies have their flaws, some more than others. i simply call it as i see it. and for the past several years, the most damaging ideology out there has hardly been the liberals. it has been the neoconservative ideology. which i do find to be pompous, arrogant and certainly amongst the most flawed ways of thinking that i know of. so yeah, i do speak more about that than anyone.

was this article a lil gratuitous in its language? sure, that case can be made...but that hardly makes me liberal. and like everyone, i have my days, and my moods. the way i see it. this blurb of an article was me killing time and writing what i felt like writing at the time. the story was interesting to me. it was indeed a republican official. the facts were there. and i brought up foley more because he came to mind and i was kind of wondering what happened to him.

but what is truly arrogant and indeed narcissistic is ya'll. a bunch of rock throwers who really don't have a clue about me trying to tell me who and what i am based on this drivel on here.

get this people...this is FUN for me. it is fun to write stuff. i like to write. i like to ask questions and get people talking. the views i express aren't always how i feel. and sometimes, i am asking questions and ya'll pompously and wrongly read things as me saying that "this is my position" when it isn't. ya'll also like to focus on the red herrings and strawmen in the articles. sometimes i throw stuff in there just to prove that to myself. it's fun for me.

it's also SO telling how ya'll attack me in such a crude and moblike fashion time after time. and each and every one of ya'll go away when i slam you, sit back and wait for someone else to be more clever than they were and try to "git me" on something,,,anything. then they will join a pile on when it seems someone "zinged" me. i can almost predict the patterns of the pilers on.

and it's hilarious for anyone outside of the lil circle to watch.

so, PLEASE... keep doin it. i wouldn't have it any other way. after all, it was ya'll who made me "the King." (sic)

No, I think people outside it are a little weirded out by how you are more and more looking like Col Gene, or by your almost romantic infatuation with Keith Obermann. You've not become more refined, you've just become more apt to run here after seeing some outraged pundit on TV. Look at the blog above, a seven year old case of a mayor gone bad, characterized as a "Republican scandal". The Col would be proud.

It's still pretty silly, since Latin is actually the standard language of law. I'm actually rather surprised you were unaware that the courts use Latin.

Nolo Contendre

Legal term, basically a neutral plead. Simply a method of pleading "guilty" while refusing to admit said guilt.

Basically to say, "Well the evidence seems to demonstrate guilt, and I cannot win. Instead of fighting I plead Nolo Contendre, but still maintain my innocence."

Sorry, but that is just hilarious.  Maybe you should start "standing up" against the far-left smear machine as well.

see,,,these 'Col" comparsons aren't the bombs ya'll think they are. they are only a put down to the neocons around here. as far as i am concerned, the col, who i only got to know of thru ya'll and your rants, does what he does. i've agreed with him and disagreed with him just like you and just about everyone else on here.

the fact is, he is hardly a big ol liberal. he may be a moderate, and to far right, radicalized right wingers, he may look like a liberal to you, but that doesn't make it so. and over the years, ya'll's frustration level measurably grows as more and more people see this administration for what they really are. a bunch of incompetent, at best, ideologues and at worse, the worse bunch of lying crooks we ever gave the key to the white house to.

i know real liberals. and they all think i'm right of stalin sometimes. and the neocons all think everyone who doesn't agree with them is a liberal. so why should that be any different here? the patterns of the ideologies remain.

being against the war is not a liberal position. it is a real conservative one. it is a position held by the libertarian party from day 1. speaking out against habeaus corpus being ripped out of our nation and the constitution being pissed on is hardly a liberal democratic position. just because fox news and rush say it is, doesn't make it so. defending the constitution is an AMERICAN position.

wanting a better and simpler tax system is hardly a liberal position. it is a conservative one.

another note on taxes and gene....when i suggested that i didn't want a tax put on the oil industry but was more interested in their actual competitiveness and wanted that looked into and scrutinized, i was attacked for weeks and told that i supported raising taxes. just more of ya'll seeing what ya'll want to see, and confusing people, issues, stances and just about everything else on here to fit your agendas and biases.

saying i want science to be a bigger determiner in our abortion laws is what the conservatives argue. esp when it comes to fetus viability and the like. just because the science sometimes takes me in another direction, doesn't make me a liberal. it makes me someone looking at a situation, and usually asking questions or looking for more input on a subject.

i could go on and on, but i think you get the point...

you don't get it...really...you don't. sometimes i WANT someone to put up a good argument against what i submit in an article or comment (and sometimes the views are my own, but no one ever asks me which they are in most any article, they just see red and attack). but time and time again, i just end up being insulted and personally attacked and the actual issue is pushed aside. again, those challenges are FUN for me. learning new information is FUN for me.

and again, since i am not an ideologue, there is no issue with me that i wouldn't consider changing on. i'd like to know when we all decided in this country that all views must be established early in life and never changed. when exactly is that age? i'm 40 and see life as a learning experience, where new information can change my view.

hell, i'd even give this administration my support if anyone could give a decent argument as to why. but in 7 years, no one has.

i'll be more than happy to change my views on any other issue, and have said so many times, but no one ever comes up with an actual argument. and when anyone comes close, they always end up trying to "git me" with insults and put downs. some blatant, some backhanded and carefully written as to give plausible deniability (something anyone who has blogged for more than 2 months anwhere is guilty of) when accused. but regardless, i've been doin this a long time, have thicker skin than any annonymous keyboard bully and know how to use it all to my advantage.

so, by all means,,,i'll say it again...keep doin what yer doin.   

It's still pretty silly, since Latin is actually the standard language of law. I'm actually rather surprised you were unaware that the courts use Latin.

yeah it is. my mistake, and it was corrected.

guy and others can attest to the FACT that when someone shows me something is in error, i try to correct it. sometimes i get too tied up in life to go thru the tediousness of correcting small things that have nothing to do with the point of a given piece, but i at least try to throw something in the comments.

this was another example. just a brain fart, something we all do on here and elsewhere. but of course, i am held to an impossible standard. one other error i made was i accidentally deleted one of your comments while cleaning house. it was an insult, but if you wish to type it again, feel free...it was a mistake, not a censor. for those wondering, gid called me a pseudo intellectual cause i made a mistake in this article and incorrectly wrote spanish (i have no idea why i did, maybe because of some distractions in the house) instead of latin. or maybe it had to do with the republican debate notes of mine being in front of me on my desk where they were talking about english being the official language. in any case, it was my error, and it was corrected. the deletion, however, i can't correct. my apologies. i'm sure some will draw a conspiracy out of there, but that is to be expected.

What you don't understand is that the Col thing has nothing to do with being liberal or conservative. It is about reflex-level obsession. Go look at the 9/11 conspiracy theorists or the immigration obsessed, or the anti-war people, etc. They span many different levels of liberalism and conservatism, yet when they sink lower and lower they all look like the Col.

You don't have to be liberal, you just have to be infatuated and negatively biased to the point that your opinions come off as knee-jerk. Once you reach that point, your opinions are easily overlooked as just more anti-whatever white noise. You've reached that point with me with Republicans, and this blog is a perfect example as to why.

I don't mind it terribly because this always happens, and more than a year before the election is the perfect time for it to happen. By the time we vote America should be totally numb to this constant drone of political dren, and often creeped out by people who over the years have seemed to become infatuated on a demented level. Their arguments gutted, they become a non-issue.

I was just pointing out that you are flirting with that status. You've stooped to digging up crap like this blog in the face of real offenses by people you don't have as much "fun" criticizing. This is the consummate Col Gene article, and if you can't see that, well, maybe that's a symptom of how far you've fallen.