Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Heeee's back! Ken Starr on CNN.

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (Through 2005) Donate to DU
 
Hamlette Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-29-04 01:28 PM
Original message
Heeee's back! Ken Starr on CNN.
Edited on Sun Feb-29-04 01:32 PM by Hamlette
Using Clinton's support of DOM act to show even a Dem supports the gay marriage amendment.

Yowza. Starr, of all people, using Clinton as the example. Enough to make you sick. (Wish someone had said: but didn't you think Clinton should have been impeached? They don't use him as you good example.)

On Wolf. CNN.

Haven't seen him since the impeachment. Wish he'd stay gone. His grim makes me sick.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
maddezmom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-29-04 01:31 PM
Response to Original message
1. blec
I'm watching now :puke:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
PCIntern Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-29-04 01:37 PM
Response to Reply #1
2. Well Mr. Starr-bucks
certainly should know something about judicial activism...his judicially active US Supreme Court installed his guy in the WH - that's defined as "great" and "moral" since not only did they do that without any precedent, but they engaged a self-limiting clause such that it was not to be considered precedent. So if a Dem were in the same position, they wouldn't be forced to do the same thing again.

All for the 'good' of the country.

When it came to this business, however, judicial activism is 'bad'. Once again, it's not the politics - it's the utter hypocrisy. He must be getting ready to be nominated to some court somewhere...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
diplomats Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-29-04 01:46 PM
Response to Original message
3. DOMA isn't the same as Bush's gay marriage amendment
Duh. They must be desperate if they're hauling Ken Starr out of mothballs.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
PCIntern Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-29-04 02:01 PM
Response to Reply #3
5. Wolf is the master
of the leading question. When he doesn't get the answer he likes, he feigns outrage.

Wolf: "Did you really think that Al Gore won the election?"

Respondent: "Well, yes..."

Wolf: "Well, don't you think that you have to get past that kind of thinking for the good of the country?"

Resp.: "It's just that..."

Wolf: Sneer followed by dismissal..."86.483937% of Americans would disagree with you, and adjusted for patriotism factor 99.24646% would. How does THAT make you feel?

CNN at work.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
The Zanti Regent Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-29-04 02:19 PM
Response to Reply #5
9. Just once, a patriot ought to punch Blitzer in the face
Maybe that would knock some sense into that worthless whore's head!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Kahuna Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-29-04 02:54 PM
Response to Reply #5
11. Welcome to DU, PCIntern!
:hi: I like the style of your post. I hope to enjoy many more.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jean Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-29-04 01:57 PM
Response to Original message
4. How can Starr help their homophobic cause? He is a Negative.
It has been such a relief NOT to see his pale, clammy face. Now I'm reminded "they're still out there."

Some are blatant like Starr (also Gingrich, on Rumsfeld's defense advisory board) and create pandemic nausea while others stay under the surface, causing itching and rash.

We're uneasy, almost ill with this crowd in power - when they parade their players out (like Starr) we remember why.

Ken Starr, icon for the Executive Bj...how can he help their homophobic cause?

Really, what comes to mind when you think of or see Starr? The blue dress? Cigars? Thong underwear? It's ridiculous!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
PCIntern Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-29-04 02:03 PM
Response to Reply #4
6. This is the first chapter in his (Starr's)
rehabilitation. Next it'll be Bennett - his brother was trotted out for the Russert mess this AM. Bill can't be far behind...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jean Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-29-04 02:08 PM
Response to Reply #6
7. These major names are boils on the butt of the Republican party
Edited on Sun Feb-29-04 02:09 PM by jean
just come on out you guys and let's see if the Dem's can whip up any outrage.


Welcome to DU, pcintern - Excellent comments!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
PCIntern Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-29-04 02:14 PM
Response to Reply #7
8. Thank you...I appreciate it...
We have ALWAYS been outraged. The major media has been pretending, and is pretending even now, that the large primary turnout is due to economic issues, or Iraq or anything which is expediently explained. What it goes to is the question of legitimacy, or lack thereof.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bluestateguy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-29-04 02:31 PM
Response to Original message
10. Ken Starr is a sex-crazed pervert
An effeminate, puritanical, hypocritical little shit.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
snippy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-29-04 06:32 PM
Response to Reply #10
19. I call him the "Chief Semen Sleuth."
I also apologize whenever my dog gets a little too enthusiastic about crotch sniffing by saying: "She thinks she's Ken Starr." This comment annoys some people.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wuushew Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-29-04 02:58 PM
Response to Original message
12. Speaking of former President Bill Clinton
has he voiced any opinion what so ever on his position on gay marriage? As a former President and Democrat spokesperson I am not getting alot of mileage out of him.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ComerPerro Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-29-04 03:25 PM
Response to Original message
13. "Mr. Starr,
Isn't it amazing to you that you were given limitless power by Congress to investigate the sexual escapades of a President who has otherwise committed no crimes, but now apparently no one has the authority to question this President on matters such as lies leading to war and the obvious failures to act before 9/11?"

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Dr Fate Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-29-04 03:31 PM
Response to Reply #13
14. but, but that question would not be "balanced"...
Edited on Sun Feb-29-04 03:31 PM by Dr Fate
...how dare you suggest the media point out the hypocrisy of the right- that would not be "balanced". Better to just sit back and let them blame Clinton for everything.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
remfan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-29-04 04:39 PM
Response to Original message
15. Hmmm...more Federalist Society input
Interesting. Might there be something more to this amendment (written with help from the Federalist Society's Robert Bork) than meets the eye?

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Democat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-29-04 05:00 PM
Response to Original message
16. Bush may appoint Starr to the Supreme Court if Nader has his way
For those who think there is no difference between Kerry and Bush.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
PCIntern Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-29-04 05:35 PM
Response to Reply #16
18. The last two comments here (15 and 16)
are exactly correct IMO. Starr is Bork but actually exponentially worse, as Scalia was exponentially worse. In the media-driven society, we rail against the first of anything: recall Judge Ginsberg (not Ginzburg) smoking marijuana - he was pilloried. After that, it became OK to smoke dope, since he had been sacrificed. The slope is not just slippery, it's greased. So if one guy like Bork comes along and is a 'strict Constitutionalist' and is rejected, then it becomes very permissible for the next guy who is of the same political stripe to be successful. The criteria for rejection only work once - sort of like the Borg on Star Trek (if you please forgive the illusion and the near-pun) - they learned to compensate for the weaponry used against it. It reminds me of the old armies who used to have a front line which threw themselves on the barbed wire. Then everyone else could run thru. The Right has done this all too successfully and they have a very long memory.

But I just don't think they're all that bright or creative and can be defeated by a well thought-out campaign.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DEM FAN Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-29-04 05:35 PM
Response to Original message
17. Right NOW Is When We Really Need A Ken Star In Washington.
:-(
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dennis4868 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-29-04 06:34 PM
Response to Original message
20. I was at a convention for lawyers last year....
and Starr was one of the speakers and when it was his turn to speak me and a friend walk out in protest. Before we left we went near the stage and ask him not to speak!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
spanone Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-29-04 06:36 PM
Response to Original message
21. I saw that evil little shit on there. Smug bastard.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Sat May 18th 2024, 06:04 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (Through 2005) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC