Comments (38)

Jan wrote on July 18, 2007 12:42 PM:

Laws don't always equate with ethics (or common sense).

Jake D. wrote on July 18, 2007 12:45 PM:

As if this isn't exactly why Bill Clinton was never prosecuted for rape.

johnnydoughey wrote on July 18, 2007 12:57 PM:

It's strange that, if one is able to hide a crime for a period of time, it is no longer prosecutable. I was under the impression that the statute of limitations began when a crime was discovered. Of course, important people, such as congressmen, should be able to abide by different rules, shouldn't they?

Dan wrote on July 18, 2007 1:04 PM:

Jake: "As if"? Why, if I didn't know any better, I'd think you were just pulling your view of "reality" out of thin air! Surely, you don't think that the FACT that Young took these illegal contributions is equatable to your UNJUSTIFIED SPECULATION that Clinton raped someone. Surely!

chabuka wrote on July 18, 2007 1:05 PM:

What a sniveling, unethical creep..! Are Alaskans pleased with their choices in government?

The REAL Jake D. wrote on July 18, 2007 1:05 PM:

There's no statute of limitations on murder (unless you are the mother of an unborn child ; )

chabuka wrote on July 18, 2007 1:05 PM:

What a sniveling, unethical creep..! Are Alaskans pleased with their choices in government?

POed Lib wrote on July 18, 2007 1:05 PM:

Clinton was not prosecuted for rape because only wingnut nazis believe that there was any credibility to that stuff.

baba durag wrote on July 18, 2007 1:07 PM:

Hey - Jerk D.

"Clinton did it too."? HOOOWWWL!

Pretty pathetic. You guys need to get some new material.

[SC: flag - long may it wave]

POed Lib wrote on July 18, 2007 1:09 PM:

Are Repukeliscum human? Before we worry about the abortion of the Repukelifetuses, it's important to settle that question.

chabuka wrote on July 18, 2007 1:11 PM:

Clinton was impeached..(that only means he was indicted in the House) (which our House with Pelosi as speaker refuses to do), but Clinton was acquitted (found not guilty!) in the Senate....

The REAL Jake D. wrote on July 18, 2007 1:12 PM:

Yes, I do, Dan. And, don't call me Shirley.

POed Lib wrote on July 18, 2007 1:17 PM:

Let me summarize the Repukeliscum argumentation as offered by Jake:

1) Clinton existed and was president

2) Therefore, Repukeliscum are not guilty.

The REAL Jake D. wrote on July 18, 2007 1:23 PM:

chabuka:

Do you think that Clinton was impeached for rape?

The REAL Jake D. wrote on July 18, 2007 1:32 PM:

Not at all, POed Lib -- if "statute of limitations" was a legitimate defense for Bill Clinton, then it should be for Don Young as well.

Henk wrote on July 18, 2007 1:46 PM:

I know this if futile but, do you all really need to let one idiot derail the entire thread. Many of these assholes are paid to come to liberal sites and disrupt the dialog. It works because folks respond to them. I know it’s tough when they spout their asinine bullshit, but if you really want to piss them off don't respond to it. Ignore them like you'd ignore a petulant child, because that is exactly what they are.

Dan wrote on July 18, 2007 2:11 PM:

I like your sentiments Henk, but I do see value in pointing out the transgressions against reason of such as Jake here.

Jake, you're either missing the point or attempting to change the argument. The point here is not to debate the merits of statutes of limitations. Bill Clinton's defense was never, "I did it, but oh well, the statute of limitations has run out!" Meanwhile, that is precisely Don Young's position. He admits to taking money illegally, and yet feels that he has no ethical obligation to return the monies in virtue of the fact that he has been absolved of his legal obligation.

Finally, pointing fingers at one individual in an attempt to defray the moral transgressions of another individual shows a weak moral constitution indeed. And by the way, it's a logical fallacy.

Aaron G. Stock wrote on July 18, 2007 2:13 PM:

BEGIN SAMPLE

If "________" was a legitimate defense for ______, then it should be for ________.

END SAMPLE

I encourage each of you to copy this legal argument and use it whenever you feel it applies. The beauty of this statement is that you don't need to provide supporting details. It doesn't even need to legally apply in any way. It simply only needs to feel right for YOU.

Please, everyone, stop attacking Jake D. He has done everyone struggling for legal guidance a huge favor here.

The REAL Jake D. wrote on July 18, 2007 2:18 PM:

It goes to the hypocrisy of those defending Bill Clinton, Don and Aaron.

Aaron G. Stock wrote on July 18, 2007 2:18 PM:

[Please forgive my poorly-phrased final sentence.]

Aaron G. Stock wrote on July 18, 2007 2:20 PM:

Sorry, Jake D. You keep wanting us to fill in blanks in your arguments, and although others may take the bait, I refuse.

The REAL Jake D. wrote on July 18, 2007 2:28 PM:

You were the one who inserted those "blanks" not me.

raincntry wrote on July 18, 2007 2:33 PM:

As an Alaskan I am appalled that my elected officials are wrapped up in this mess but I'm not surprised. Maybe we will wise up and turn this guy out next election.

za wrote on July 18, 2007 2:42 PM:

and who could possibly be Young's role models?

Hmmmmmmmmmmmmm, I wonder................

Could it be the "Masters of Fuck You" Bush and Cheney??? Setting a wonderful example for scorched earth politics everywhere.

Aaron G. Stock wrote on July 18, 2007 2:48 PM:

Jake D., Maybe I tried to be too clever. I wasn't referring to the template's blanks but to your arguments' blanks.

Singularity wrote on July 18, 2007 2:56 PM:

You know, baselessly accusing someone of a crime as serious as rape is a highly unethical thing to do, Jake. You should be ashamed of yourself, but I'm sure that your lack of conscience precludes any feelings of shame. Other than the uncorroborated ravings of a trailer-park lunatic willing to do anything for 15 minutes of fame, do you have any evidence to put forth regarding your calumnious accusations? Other than your own personal feelings of inadequacy that force you to lash out at a president who was more popular than any Republican in the last 50 years, what makes you believe that Juanita Broderick is believable? Finally, how sad is your life, that you feel compelled to drop half-assed hate-bombs into the comments section of a liberal blog just for a little attention?

(sc: again, as in never again)

Aaron G. Stock wrote on July 18, 2007 3:09 PM:

Wait, don't respond to Singularity, Jake D. I've got this one:

*ahem*

It's too bad [1]__liberals__ like [2]___Singularity___ don't care about Clinton's crimes like [3]__rape__ of [4]__Broderick__ because they're too busy hypocritically screeching about [5]__Don Young__ acting as Clinton did. Maybe [1]__liberals__ don't actually support [generic category to which 4 belongs]__women__?

Martiki wrote on July 18, 2007 3:14 PM:

Our troll is accomplishing what he intends to do...disrupt the comments. Those who are responding to the troll are aiding him.

Powkat wrote on July 18, 2007 3:29 PM:

Please don't feed the troll - it is highly dependent on handouts of reason to keep it alive. If you ignore it - it goes away. It left Think Progress for this site, and now it is achieving its goal of debasing the conversation. It is paid to crawl out from under its rock and come here - so make it earn its money - ignore the nasty bit of pond scum and talk to each other. Remember, this site is graced by the wonderful Mrs. Pantsrepon, not troll spawn

Henk wrote on July 18, 2007 3:56 PM:

Maybe there is some hope. This site has been one place that I visit, and I visit a few, where the troll problem has not been an issue. I thought that it might be that the contributers here might be a bit more savy and seasoned then some of the other sites. Maybe folks here are smarter, but as TPM's profile rises the assault of the trolls will only get worse. As I said before it is tough not responding, but each time you do remember you are doing exactly what they want you to do. It is a distraction. It needs to stop.

If you want to see what happens when the trolls take over just go over to Huffington Post and read the last pages of any comment section. It will be entirely personal attacks between a few trolls and regular commenters who feel the need to "engage" them. Some of their fights have been going on since the first days of Huffpo. So please think hard before responding to these assholes. It CAN totally ruin the comments section of a blog and they are getting paid to do it.

Never wrestle with a pig you both get covered in crap and the pig likes it.

Aaron G. Stock wrote on July 18, 2007 3:57 PM:

Substance: Don Young can claim that he's run out the clock and is now legally entitled to keep the illegal contributions, but I think that, ethically, since he agrees that they're illegal, he should return the illegal contributions.

The REAL Jake D. wrote on July 18, 2007 4:39 PM:

I just spoke with Meredith Penny, Rep. Young's press secretary in D.C., who clarified that the Congressman has NOT "admitted" to taking illegal campaign contributions, under any interpretation of applicable law or ethics rules. He has agreed to return the portion that could conceivably be alleged as "illegal" but the contributions outside the applicable statute of limitations are not "illegal" and, as such, he is not returning those contributions.

Aaron G. Stock wrote on July 18, 2007 4:54 PM:

OK fine. I mean to say that they were illegal at one time.

It's still unethical is all I'm saying. Way to go, Don.

The REAL Jake D. wrote on July 18, 2007 5:17 PM:

I believe the Congressman is denying the contributions were illegal at one time -- therefore, nothing unethical either -- that's the whole reason I called.

The REAL Jake D. wrote on July 18, 2007 7:16 PM:

Too bad I didn't know about the new thread before I called:

http://www.tpmmuckraker.com/archives/003723.php

waitn4u wrote on July 19, 2007 5:53 AM:

any guys lookin 4 handsome man tonite?

waitn4u wrote on July 19, 2007 5:57 AM:

Want a male to ride me. man to man

Samantha wrote on August 9, 2007 9:25 PM:

Everyone who posts on newsgroups is a loser. Aaron, whats with all the blanks, i skimmed right over it. to make a point, brevity is king.