Muscatine

Hi BigBrother

What a rude person:::

Especially when we're about as far from the original comment as you wanted to take this. No challenge was ever made, it was simply a hearsay comment made by me after you and a few others were railing the democrats  for messing up the country and others here for recognizing that Bush was the leader of this nation when the collapse was fully understood. Dems had a slim 35 vote majority for one year after 14 years of republican pull and Bush vetoed every piece of legislation they(dems) sent him. Then some blindly stood their ground forgetting precisely how we got to this point. Your elitist musings, jibes, digs and overtly unfriendly manner is what took us this far. I never set rules, that was a collective decision by all interested in refuting my original comment. Any inclusion of citizenry would be purely by their own involvement within political purpose and again, not my rule. No matter how gray you characterize it, scandals of and by politicians that OBVIOUSLY involve some citizens in politics are relevant. Thereby making their names unavoidably important within those political scandals that they played a part in. Lay is not off that hook no matter how badly you obviously think the Enron scandal should be. Neither are the McDougles in Clinton's column, unless you want those citizens removed from the lists too? You see BigBrother, in a perfect world, politicians don't get involved with citizens, but sadly, we are in a different reality. Didn't you mention Edwards scandal and ask about Kerry's knowledge? Or one of your protagonists? Shouldn't that be removed too from the scandal list since that adultress was a citizen videographer who voluntered with the campaign. Not only that, but that affair took place well after his bid for election with Kerry. So that should be removed from Kerry's scandal list? Since the Swift Boat affair wasn't political in scope shouldn't that be removed from Kerry's list? No, you want it both ways, not me. I am doing what I said I would do and for your information, it isn't easy to go through all this history of scandal and corruption in this messed up system. mallory is right. As I said some time back, research was my major and I don't take it lightly. It's almost ready, patience::: patience.

Oh by the way, I don't appreciate being given some name of a person, "davie" I never met even on-line, nor know at all. And in the short time I've been on this earth I never met a woman named Dave.

It's Lucy.

Allow me to offer my assistance, Big Brother.  I'm quite sure that you find Mallbirds lengthy diatribes to be tedious and dull, so will cut to the chase on his/her behalf and give you the short version.

1.  He/she can never substantiate his/her 3 to 1 claims.  Too many subjective judgement calls required, which he/she just demonstrated.

2.  He/she will continue to change rules at will.  (See "Davis School of Reasoning")

3.  Final findings, if truthful....there have been just about as many "scandals" on both sides of the aisle.  Big shocker.

Hi Oldfox

Not at all, it was always my contention that it was about political scandal from the very first word. You're other voice was the one intent to redirect the points and purpose into something it was never about when I was asked many posts back what I considered scandal. I hadnt set any rule and agreed that the variables issues made it impossible to do so. So:::it was always and is about ratios of scandal. The variables were questions tossed at ME:::  I'm sure by now that what ever falls to the floor, you'll call it flawed and pointless unless it makes my comment enormously wrong. If so::: I'll accept that what I was told was wrong, have my crow pie and bow to the republican authority.  You/they/them/he/she are the wave behind "some rules adjustment." It's maintained by me and won't change, Political scandals, simple no outside the issue rule as it were. If that involves some parasitic hosts from the citizenry, then it does, but until the Kenneth Lay, as to say Enron scandal came up in a point to eliminate a whole scandal by one of you. There were no rules issues. The Enron thing was to clarify that the public can be counted when involved in a political scandal that happens to be a Bush scar. How that become some plea doesn't make your case. Proof? besides an extensive bibliography, history speaks for it's self.

So, what have we got to lose if as you say, "there have been about as many scandals on both sides." I'm then wrong, get to eat crow and You/they/them/he/she will be pleased and have a bigger laugh.

Lucy