Besides, I’ve always wondered at what place and time Scooter perjured himself. With all the proclamations to that effect, are you telling me you do not recall the time and place?

I prefer to reverse engineer arguments down to their basic assumptions and components. Since the people that you think are partisan in their discussion of Scooter, really aren’t, TS, it sort of undermines your arguments. Especially since those arguments have unnaturally tied together Scooter’s presumed guilt with people’s presumed partisanship. You should really try to keep down the things assumed, especially if those assumptions are the conclusions.

For example. The thing you use to prop up your proposition that people are blinded by partisanship, is that Scooter and the media illusionary show trial is the actually real. Because if Scooter wasn’t what he was portrayed to be, that would make your blinded partisans, the ones with an eye in the land of the blind. And yet ostensibly, you are also at the same time defending the Scooter illusion by attacking the argument that Scooter is a mirage for the Left, by focusing in on the double standard (Bookworm’s title-topic).

That house of cards might fall down if something wobbles.

I’m just trying to point out that “double standards” are not solely the province of the so-called left or the so-called right, but belong to anyone with a myopic view of the way the world works.

You believe the right has one standard for Bush, Delay, and Scooter, and another one for fake liberals. You base this belief on things that aren’t true.

I think things get simpler when you get down to fundamentals.

I’m just trying to point out that “double standards” are not solely the province of the so-called left or the so-called right, but belong to anyone with a myopic view of the way the world works.

People blinded by partisanship cannot see the fact that they, too, are guilty of applying the same double standards they criticize others for.

I’m reminded of something. Do people here remember the Left keep saying that the US shouldn’t become like terrorists and therefore avoid doing to terrorists anything that might hint of the things terrorists have done to us?

And yet at the same time, this very same group of people on the Left, starts talking about how it is okay for them to do things they always believed they could do, simply by the magnificent accussation and presumption that the Right does it too. If two wrongs don’t make a right, why do people, here at Bookworm, think the Left always likes to make that fallacious argument that two wrongs make them right at least? While at the same time saying the greater US (or Bush) should always do the morally pristine thing regardless of what else is going on?

Jy and Hy never had anything on the Left.

Oh btw, this would actually apply to TS’s future justifications of the Democrat’s excusing of perjury. So it is at least one step ahead in the debate in terms of what I am referencing.

In a sense, this is like figuring out what started the clan wars. Sure, we can go back and look over why the Left is in the wrong, but they just keep going back into history like with Saddam and what not. But they never do go back to the Civil War, for very good reasons. The Democrats were not on the right side. They weren’t even on the winning side.

TS is trying to attack people for being hypocrites. But he does not have the initiative to pull it off. He’s one step behind.

Because both in general and specifically, Republicans, conservatives, and neo-cons don’t justify their stances and positions based upon a distorted mirror image of their opponent’s flaws. That has always been a specialty of the Left and their allies. And they got a lot of allies, I can tell you that.

Scooter didn’t perjure himself, twisting the law like twisting the positions of people like Limbaugh, is transparently easy to see through.

Perhaps. But then again, I’ve noticed that when Democrats commit purjury, it’s very very serious. But when Republicans do it, it’s “Poor Scooter” time.

Donald Shields and John Cragan, two professors of communication, have compiled a database of investigations and/or indictments of candidates and elected officials by U.S. attorneys since the Bush administration came to power. Of the 375 cases they identified, 10 involved independents, 67 involved Republicans, and 298 involved Democrats. The main source of this partisan tilt was a huge disparity in investigations of local politicians, in which Democrats were seven times as likely as Republicans to face Justice Department scrutiny.

How can this have been happening without a national uproar? The authors explain: “We believe that this tremendous disparity is politically motivated and it occurs because the local (non-statewide and non-Congressional) investigations occur under the radar of a diligent national press. Each instance is treated by a local beat reporter as an isolated case that is only of local interest.”

And let’s not forget that Karl Rove’s candidates have a history of benefiting from conveniently timed federal investigations. Last year Molly Ivins reminded her readers of a curious pattern during Mr. Rove’s time in Texas: ‘In election years, there always seemed to be an F.B.I. investigation of some sitting Democrat either announced or leaked to the press. After the election was over, the allegations often vanished.’

So Rush went to Sierra Tucson, a rehab that costs upwards of $40,000 a month, for shits and giggles?

But anyway, this Rush Limbaugh quote is from Oct 5, 1995:

“There’s nothing good about drug use. We know it. It destroys individuals. It destroys families. Drug use destroys societies. Drug use, some might say, is destroying this country. And we have laws against selling drugs, pushing drugs, using drugs, importing drugs. And the laws are good because we know what happens to people in societies and neighborhoods, which become consumed by them. And so if people are violating the law by doing drugs, they ought to be accused and they ought to be convicted and they ought to be sent up.”