When did I jump on you? I repeated my request for a non-sub cite.
And here I was, googling off-line to find a cite for the ‘soft money’ story I’d conflated with the OP’s news item, and was actually going to apologize, specifically to you december, for confusing the issue. I’ve tried very hard to be polite to you in the past, and you’ve often shown that you do know what courtesy is, so I’d expected better. Live and learn.
As for WaPo – they didn’t used to be a subscription site, IIRC, and it peeves me that I suddenly have to subscribe. I get enough spam, thank you.
For your next up-to-date and relevant project could I suggest you steer us to a website that proves that Lizzie Borden was guilty of murdering her parents after all?
Up to date and relevant? The fines were just issued.
Another liberal tactic, stonewalling for forever and then claiming that this is old history, best left in the past.
What I’d like to see is a Democrat actually say that they’re disgusted by this behavior of their party leaders, or provide evidence that the Federal Election Commission is in error in some way.
Registration necessarily implies providing demographic information to them, which I willnot do for free (though it’s easy enough to totally falsify the information into irrelevance).
Making the site check for registrations means making it require cookies to operate. These cookies are then used to rack and tailor advertising. While my own setup is pretty bulletproof against advertising, that doesn’t change change the fact that they want to use my (not their) computer’s resources to get at more demographic information. Since I can easily block this (by not allowing cookies to be set, except by certain specific sites), I do in fact block it as a matter of course. I’m not going to change that behavior just to see whether the OP left out an “It is not the case that…” in their cite. Note that this isn’t a specific criticism of the the OP in this thread, but a general principle that I follow.
Requiring “Opt-out” protection from spam is just about the single most contemptible practice that one can engage in. I didn’t get far enough into the site to see if it actually required it in this case, since it barfed at me about my not having cookies turned on, but the principle holds in general: I shouldn’t have to go to any effort, ever to avoid being spammed. In practice, of course, people will assume that they have a right to spam me unless requested otherwise, but all such people are scum, whether they’re boiler-room telemarketers, penis-enlargement hucksters, or, say, Yahoo!. It’s all morally equivalent to me.
Sorry for the hijack; I’ve got no particular comment on the actual matter at hand.
Minty, you’re comparing apples and oranges. Clinton’s organized “renting out” of the Lincoln Bedroom was excessive and unseemly, but it was legal. This thread is about a whole bunch of flat-out illegal things done by the Clinton-Gore campaign and the Democratic Party.
What stops Democrats from simply admitting that the 1996 campaign had a great deal of illegal Democratic fund-raising? I’m sure the Democratic members of this panel disapprove of the creation of dummy organizations to hide illegal foreign contributions, contributions laundered via religious orders, etc.
There is no need to “admit” anything. The record is clear that the Clinton-Gore campaign paid, according to the site in the cite, about $2000 of the total fine, so the admission has already been made.
To ask board members to individually “admit” to anything is simply trying to rub some noses in it, beat a dead horse, and waste time on something that will become so irrelevant that even december will forget it if GW actually gets to play with his toys and unilaterally attack Iraq.
Okay, since the time you’ve posted this, it’s been established in this thread that it was the Democratic Party, and not Clinton and/or Gore, that was fined. So lemme ask:
What made you say it was “Clinton-Gore” lawbreaking instead of just “Democratic Party” lawbreaking?