McDowell Controversy

A Dub in Glasgo · 18-12-2005 9:39pm

Earthman wrote:

The corollary of what you're saying there is that some Garda information is made up and thats not the case.

You missed the 'Appalling vista...' part of your statement. I have had personal experience of Gardai who have made things up and lied in a court of law. Of course, I could not prove any of it so the details that were made up stuck. There are enough publicised cases of corruption within the Gardai to make your statement not true without me adding my personal experience.

18-12-2005 9:42pm

A Dub in Glasgo wrote:

There are enough publicised cases of corruption within the Gardai to make your statement not true without me adding my personal experience.

I know of one case myself where stuff was definitely made up.
Thats a bad apples thing.
But to suggest as a result that its widespread and endemic is nonsense.

the1andonly1 · 18-12-2005 9:48pm

But it is important to note that there is a possibility of it

(shortest reply so far!!)

Pa ElGrande · 19-12-2005 12:42am

Earthman wrote:

I know of one case myself where stuff was definitely made up.
Thats a bad apples thing.
But to suggest as a result that its widespread and endemic is nonsense.

Few bad Apples?? Why are the Gardaí so opposed to an independent ombudsman like they have in Northern Ireland?

Minister McDowell is aware of allegations of very serious misconduct by members of the force operating from the Phoenix Park, it remains to be seen how he will act on this intelligence.

On a seperate issue, when the Gardaí make a seizure of illegal narcotics who audits the quantity seized and its safe disposal?

19-12-2005 9:08am

Pa ElGrande wrote:

Few bad Apples?? Why are the Gardaí so opposed to an independent ombudsman like they have in Northern Ireland?

Thats unions for ya.

Minister McDowell is aware of allegations of very serious misconduct by members of the force operating from the Phoenix Park, it remains to be seen how he will act on this intelligence.

I'm sure he is, just as he'll be aware of the vast majority of thousands of Gardaí who conduct themselves very well

On a seperate issue, when the Gardaí make a seizure of illegal narcotics who audits the quantity seized and its safe disposal?

This is neither a thread on the Gardaí or a Garda bashing thread so no more off topic posts about the Gardaí.
If you want to discuss them, open a new thread.I will delete any further posts on that subject in this one.

the1andonly1 · 19-12-2005 3:37pm

Its important to note that I wasnt doubting the gardaí in this matter, just noting that not all informantion in garda files is credible, as stated by vincent browne in the article linked.

Much of what is on Garda files is false - and inevitably so.

Some of the material comes from informers who have an animus against the person concerned or a motivation for supplying false information.

Some of the information is speculative, a lot of it hearsay.

Some, as in this instance, is based on information received from other police forces whose reliability is very much open to question.

Some such information is fabricated by the gardai themselves, as we have come to know through the Morris Tribunal. In other words, it is thoroughly unreliable.

The only context in which such information should be disclosed is in the context of a trial where the rules of evidence can determine its admissibility and test the reliability of the information.

The latest revelations, on the front page of todays Irish Times http://www.ireland.com/newspaper/front/2005/1219/1728377327HM1FRANK.html state that McDowell provided information to Chuck Feeney regarding garda knowledge that Mr. Connolly was a member of a left-wing student group in his youth, and that he had a previous conviction for rioting. This all seems to point to there being a concerted effort by McDowell to close down the CPI.

Lemming · 19-12-2005 3:44pm

There was an interesting comment made at the weekend in the Indo. What is Connelly hiding that he is willing to lose the CPI a large amount of money over? Essentially undermining his own position in doing so. Surely if it's all above board there'd be no problem. So why the hush-hush?

Mighty_Mouse · 19-12-2005 4:36pm

http://www.sbpost.ie/post/pages/p/story.aspx-qqqt=VINCENT%20BROWNE-qqqs=commentandanalysis-qqqid=10498-qqqx=1.asp

Good article in this weeks Business Post.

Peanut · 19-12-2005 10:24pm

Mighty_Mouse wrote:

Good article in this weeks Business Post.

Some good points alright, but the last paragraph sounds like the writer has a bit of a chip on their shoulder -

"The PDs would prefer the fawning adulation of ‘investigative' reporters, who never found out anything that wasn't in their postbox, or of columnists who revile other journalists for ignoring obvious issues and then go on to do the same themselves."

Mighty_Mouse · 20-12-2005 11:26am

http://www.irishexaminer.com/pport/web/opinion/Full_Story/did-sgb6cyj26VH1YsgHuTLc4nqWo2.asp

Another relevant article. Feel free to make your minds up

20-12-2005 7:00pm

Why hasnt Connolly shown where he was and destroyed McDowells reputation in one fowl swoop at the same time? All this talk of McCarthyism is well and good but such a simple thing to be done and instead the man seems to have gone to ground.
It's all very fishy.

Mighty_Mouse · 21-12-2005 10:26am

Why hasnt Connolly shown where he was and destroyed McDowells reputation in one fowl swoop at the same time?

Do you accept there is a flaw you argument. ie guilty until proven innocent.

That's where the similarity to mccarthyism lies

21-12-2005 10:55am

Mighty_Mouse wrote:

Do you accept there is a flaw you argument. ie guilty until proven innocent.

That's where the similarity to mccarthyism lies

Nope because its not a crime to head up the CPI.
However It has been pointed out that someone who has been with the farc is not a fit person to run an outfit like the CPI.
McDowell is open that pointing this out is both in the public and national interest.
Connolly so far has singularally failed to do the simple thing and prove that he couldnt have been there and , the absence of this is fishy.
Each day that goes by makes it look more and more like he has something to hide, ie that he cant prove the impossible as he must have been in Columbia

Time for the beef as otherwise, it would seem that he couldnt care less about the CPI as its reputation would be badly damaged given that Chuck Feeney's private investigations led him to the conclusion that there was reason enough to withdraw his philantropic money while an unacceptable man was at the helm.

BuffyBot · 21-12-2005 11:43am

Do you accept there is a flaw you argument. ie guilty until proven innocent.

The quote "all that is necessary for the triumph of evil is
that good men do nothing" springs to mind here. If the evil and sinister McDowell is so in the wrong, why doesn't the force of goodness (Connolly) do something - shoot McDowell out of the sky (figuratively speaking)?

Mighty_Mouse · 21-12-2005 11:46am

Nope

However It has been pointed out that someone who has been with the farc is not a fit person to run an outfit like the CPI.

when was he with Farc?

McDowell is open that pointing this out is both in the public and national interest.

And his own because the CPI had begun investigating the 30million prison development

Connolly so far has singularally failed to do the simple thing and prove that he couldnt have been there and

Guilty until proven innocent as above. I'm presuming you don't have a problem with it.

Each day that goes by makes it look more and more like he has something to hide,

It's up to his accusers to prove it. Anyways it's not the point imo. The point is whether a minister for justice acting as Judge Dredd is a good thing for society.

The point is the irony of McDowell threatening to throw Guards in jail for leaking information.

The point is the DPP dismissing the evidence only for McDowell to leak it to the newspapers.

The point is the man has nothing to answer for criminally and our minister for justice took matters into his own hands and tried him by public media.

The point is ; is this a practice you find acceptable?

If so, in the future, does the minister for justice have the right to leak evidence to the newspapers in all criminal trials that are dimissed?

Seth Brundle · 21-12-2005 1:18pm

Nuttzz wrote:

If Connolly wasnt in Columbia, proving that he wasnt would put egg on McDowell's face and make his position untenable as minister of justice, I wonder why Connolly doesnt do that??

This is succumbing to a police state where you are guilty until proven innocent.

oscarBravo wrote:

I have no beef with the DPP. I can only assume that no charges were brought because such evidence as exists is insufficient to secure a conviction. That doesn't mean that no evidence exists; nor does it mean that such evidence is not compelling.

If there is insufficient evidence then there can be no conviction. Therefore, McDowell has tried to 'convict' someone publically based on insufficient evidence.

oscarBravo wrote:

It's easy to forget that "innocent until proven guilty" is a criminal justice concept. I don't feel compelled to apply the same standard to my personal decisions about who to find trustworthy. I have no reason to believe that this is the case. In fact, I not so long ago directly challenged someone on this forum who indirectly accused the DPP of political bias (but chose not to back that accusation up).

If the ""innocent until proven guilty" is a criminal justice concept" why then did the Minister for Justice (who incidentally is a barrister and should be fairly familiar with the system) choose to ignore it?

Peanut · 21-12-2005 1:28pm

kbannon wrote:

If the ""innocent until proven guilty" is a criminal justice concept" why then did the Minister for Justice (who incidentally is a barrister and should be fairly familiar with the system) choose to ignore it?

Because it wasn't a criminal justice issue perhaps?

21-12-2005 1:50pm

Mighty_Mouse wrote:

when was he with Farc?

Fact of the matter is, Chuck Feeney wasnt capable of being persuaded that he was a fit character to head up an organisation that he funded.Connolly is silent.
Asking me when he was with Farc is a diversion from the obviousness of his not doing what he should do ie simply show he was here in Ireland.

And his own because the CPI had begun investigating the 30million prison development

You havent read the whole thread have you...? I dealt with that ages ago.The issue is character and , its been questioned and its the norm in any job that I'm aware of that these allegations are met head on.In this case with the beef...

If anything dodgy is found by the CPI, their journalists if they are worth their salt arent going to hide a scoop.It will make the papers.

Guilty until proven innocent as above. I'm presuming you don't have a problem with it.

Guilty of what? It's a simple question of character.I dont have a problem with anyones being questioned on the assumption that they can counter the questioning pretty easily.

It's up to his accusers to prove it. Anyways it's not the point imo. The point is whether a minister for justice acting as Judge Dredd is a good thing for society.

At least he's being completely transparent in what he did.He will be judged for that.Connolly on the other hand appears to be anything but transparent.He appears to have gone to ground in the hope it will all go away you know...

The point is the irony of McDowell threatening to throw Guards in jail for leaking information.

Guards who give away information are both not entitled to do it and arent answerable if not caught because they are doing so anonmyously.
McDowell isnt being anonmymous about this and is answerable.

The point is the DPP dismissing the evidence only for McDowell to leak it to the newspapers.

We dont know what the DPP's oppinion is.
We can only assume he thinks theres not enough evidence.

The point is the man has nothing to answer for criminally and our minister for justice took matters into his own hands and tried him by public media.

The point is ; is this a practice you find acceptable?

I'd find it unacceptable if Connolly could come up with the beef and show he wasnt in Columbia.
Then I'd have some grounds to show McDowell was acting on his own bat with some vandetta or other wise.
At the moment Connolly is silent when showing where he was should be so easy.
What makes it more fishy is, that a supposed golden opportunity to show McDowell is wrong and ergo get his resignation or at least tarnish his ability to do this again, and tarnish it irrepairably, is not being used.
You'd just have to ask why? And as time goes on the conclusion is getting closer to the fact that he may be hiding something.

If so, in the future, does the minister for justice have the right to leak evidence to the newspapers in all criminal trials that are dimissed?

He has made a case that this was a question of public interest and national security.He has been open in saying that he couldnt stand idly by and let an investigative tool like the CPI fall under the subtle influence of subversive hands.

It's hard to argue wiuth that reasoning if McDowell is right about Connolly being in Collumbia.
Ergo its very imperative that Connolly resolve this issue as it is in his power to do so and not hide behind some smokescreen by not showing where he was.
It's very simple.

Tuars · 21-12-2005 4:12pm

Earthman wrote:

He has made a case that this was a question of public interest and national security.He has been open in saying that he couldnt stand idly by and let an investigative tool like the CPI fall under the subtle influence of subversive hands.

This is the contentious issue. He has not made a clear case that there is an issue of national security. If there is an issue of national security then his actions have been totally inadequate. If there is no issue of national security then his actions are very questionable.

Earthman wrote:

It's hard to argue wiuth that reasoning if McDowell is right about Connolly being in Collumbia.
Ergo its very imperative that Connolly resolve this issue as it is in his power to do so and not hide behind some smokescreen by not showing where he was.
It's very simple.

Whether Frank Connolly was in Colombia or not is irrelevant when we are looking at the behaviour of the minister. I agree that Frank Connolly's behaviour isn't doing him any favours but this is for the most part a private matter between him and his employers. The reputation of Frank Connolly and the CPI will stand or fall on how the public perceives them. Frank Connolly and the CPI have no obligation to answer the public's questions about their business. It may be unwise for them to do so but it is not unlawful.

The minister, on the other hand, is accountable to the public (or so we are led to believe). His actions and judgement are of critical importance to the security of the state and its people. If there is a threat to national security then I am not happy that he has handled it in the way he has. If there is no threat then I am even more unhappy with his actions.

Mighty_Mouse · 21-12-2005 4:32pm

Asking me when he was with Farc is a diversion

:eek
when was he with Farc?

The issue is character and , its been questioned and its the norm in any job that I'm aware of that these allegations are met head on....

He's not employed by McDowell.

I completely recognize that the person who heads up the CPI needs themselves to be beyond reproach. No problem there. My problem is the minister for justice + media buddies supplanting the mechanics of justice in place with good reason in the state.

In this case with the beef

Another sentence I don't understand

If anything dodgy is found by the CPI, their journalists if they are worth their salt arent going to hide a scoop.It will make the papers.

Sorry. Again I'm not sure I can make sense of the above. Will you explain further?

I dont have a problem with anyones being questioned on the assumption that they can counter the questioning pretty easily.

Reminds me of a George Orwell book!!!! Are you even listening to yourself? Are you saying every person in the state should be open any type of accusation. The onus is on the accused to prove innocence?

Is this the type of country you want? Again I refer to the McCarthy witch-hunts in the states!! It's complete madness.

I understand McDowells publicised reasons (as opposed to being investigated by the CPI himself ).
I could nearly put myself in his shoes and sympathise that as a rabid anti-republican (he's classes himself as a republican:o ) he was just itching to get the info out anyway he could. The CPI attention switching to his own activities was just the extra spur he needed.

My point here is he was wrong. You cannot operate as a minister for justice if you are prepared to act as judge and jury yourself. You cannot feed newspapers confidential information gained from gardai files to persecute a person in public.

It undermines state system of justice and opens a very dodgy floodgate.

If this abuse is going to happen maybe the dail privilege should be reviewed? Remember this is not the first time he has done this. Take the example of new republican newspaper up north “New Ireland” or something. Take his accusations of corrupt guards etc etc

He is a loose cannon who believes himself to actually be judge dredd!

My point is if he is not comfortable operating within the functions of the state then he is in the wrong job.

At least he's being completely transparent in what he did

He's hiding behind the dail privilege.

Connolly on the other hand appears to be anything but transparent.

not the point. If I get elected can I use dail privilege to ruin your life with unsubstantiated claims?
If I get appointed as minister for justice, can I undermine the justice system of the state?

Those are the arguments imo. It’s beyond the details of the Connelly situation.

We dont know what the DPP's oppinion is.
We can only assume he thinks there’s not enough evidence.

DPP did not prosecute = DPP threw it out

If DPP intends to prosecute then you buddy Mcdowell is in more trouble as he has prejudiced any potential jury. Which is it?

As for the rest of the post. I've made my argument above. The onus should never be on the accused in these circumstances.

What else could it be perceived other than a personal vendetta?

Tuars · 21-12-2005 4:50pm

Mighty_Mouse wrote:

Remember this is not the first time he has done this. Take the example of new republican newspaper up north “New Ireland” or something.

From the Sunday Business Post:

The Daily Ireland newspaper has discovered that it can be difficult to claim defamation against a government minister. The newspaper's owners brought a libel case against McDowell last month after he compared the Belfast publication to a Nazi propaganda sheet.

In a 3,000-word broadside directed against various political opponents and published on the Department of Justice's website last January, McDowell had written: “Will it [Daily Ireland] be to Irish democracy what the Volkischer Beobachter was to pre-World War II German democracy?”

He went on to repeat the claims on RTE Radio and said the paper, which had yet to publish its first edition, was driven by the IRA.

Daily Ireland publisher Mairtin Ó Muilleoir claimed the comments had put his staff at risk and said it was an attempt to “bully the readers, workers and investors of Daily Ireland'‘.

However, the minister's lawyer pleaded “sovereign immunity'‘ and said the statements were made on behalf of the government.

http://www.sbpost.ie/post/pages/p/story.aspx-qqqt=NEWS%20FEATURES-qqqs=news-qqqid=10522-qqqx=1.asp

...in the national interest of course.

Cork · 21-12-2005 6:42pm

Tuars wrote:

From the Sunday Business Post:

...in the national interest of course.

The Columbia 3 incident was certainly not in the national interest.

We must wait for a response from Connolly.

What on earth is taking this guy so long?

21-12-2005 7:03pm

Mighty_Mouse wrote:

He's not employed by McDowell.

I completely recognize that the person who heads up the CPI needs themselves to be beyond reproach. No problem there. My problem is the minister for justice + media buddies supplanting the mechanics of justice in place with good reason in the state.

I presume you meant without good reason ? Anyhow I'm only stating what McDowell said his motives were and I see no reason presented yet to doubt them.
I see plenty of Republican friendly McDowell bashing but no concrete reason to doubt McDowells motives.
The main reason for the lack of concrete reason, is Connonnolly's going to ground on this fishilly.

Another sentence I don't understand

The beef [obviously] is Connolly's proof he couldnt have been in Columbia , with evidence of where he actually was eg bank statements, lazer/credit card transactions,functions attended, golf played-oh theres an endless lists.
And before you ask, we did discuss this earlier.I can establish my whereabouts in April/May 2001 and I'm pretty sure most people can.

Sorry. Again I'm not sure I can make sense of the above. Will you explain further?

Would you ever read the whole thread then

The CPI in the main employ investigative journalists, who are not the type to let go of a scoop of corruption if one has been found.
Of course if there is nothing then this prison thing is a red herring(irrelevant)

Reminds me of a George Orwell book!!!! Are you even listening to yourself? Are you saying every person in the state should be open any type of accusation. The onus is on the accused to prove innocence?

Nope but if you think a persons character isnt looked into for certain jobs or that it shouldnt be taken into account then you need to think again.
I would not regard fraternising with the Farc as something to put on my CV if directing the CPI was the job I wanted.
Thats the accusation, it's not something that lends itself to integrity and ergo certainly a highlightable offence for Connolly as head of an investigative body with a remit to investigate corruption.
The two are not compatable.
Now why no beef from Connolly??

Is this the type of country you want? Again I refer to the McCarthy witch-hunts in the states!! It's complete madness.

Thats a diversion.

I understand McDowells publicised reasons (as opposed to being investigated by the CPI himself ).
I could nearly put myself in his shoes and sympathise that as a rabid anti-republican (he's classes himself as a republican:o ) he was just itching to get the info out anyway he could. The CPI attention switching to his own activities was just the extra spur he needed.

What activities?
Here you are doing exactly what you are accusing McDowell of doing...
Do you know the meaning of hypocrisy??

My point here is he was wrong. You cannot operate as a minister for justice if you are prepared to act as judge and jury yourself. You cannot feed newspapers confidential information gained from gardai files to persecute a person in public.

Eh? Whats confidential about a false passport application? We know that it hasnt been proven that it was Connolly's but we have established that it was a forgery and ergo its not confidential information.

It undermines state system of justice and opens a very dodgy floodgate.

If this abuse is going to happen maybe the dail privilege should be reviewed? Remember this is not the first time he has done this. Take the example of new republican newspaper up north “New Ireland” or something. Take his accusations of corrupt guards etc etc

He is a loose cannon who believes himself to actually be judge dredd!

My point is if he is not comfortable operating within the functions of the state then he is in the wrong job.

He's hiding behind the dail privilege.

He's been saying what he has said many times outside the Dáil and so have other journalists-so thats simply not true.

not the point. If I get elected can I use dail privilege to ruin your life with unsubstantiated claims?

You can say I was in columbia anytime, I'll be only happy to refute it with evidence-now wheres Connolly's beef?

If I get appointed as minister for justice, can I undermine the justice system of the state?

Exactly how has McDowell done this? I accept that he shouldnt have released the information in the way that he did.
He should have gone the usual route and done a Dáil debate or something.
But what law has McDowell broken?
Thats not to defend or support him, its to underline that he says that it was a matter of national interest/security that the CPI is not run or influenced by subversives.
Thats an entirely acceptable premise, and even you would have to agree with that, I think.
But it all either stands or falls on whether McDowell is correct and if he isnt Connolly has the power to , not to put it too crudely nueter him.

This is not being done which is very fishy.

Those are the arguments imo. It’s beyond the details of the Connelly situation.

You ignore a very central point, if Connolly was in bed with the Farc, then he is the issue and shouldnt be directing the CPI.
If that is the case then, he was fair game for McDowell.
If he wasnt which is easy to prove, then McDowell is as I say well neutered.

DPP did not prosecute = DPP threw it out

Did he? You're adding to it there.The case is unproven but the suspicion remains.
Clearing up the suspicion would be easy enough.

If DPP intends to prosecute then you buddy Mcdowell is in more trouble as he has prejudiced any potential jury. Which is it?

How would he have prejudiced a jury?
For instance - look at the recent Murder trial in Cork where the 21 year old killed a 10 year old.
Everybody knew the circumstances of the case, but the jury worked fine.
I mean you may aswell say that anyone that appears in court for a case has their good name destroyed forever because the guards decided to take a case.
By your logic if their name is fully cleared later they are still fcucked for life.
On the basis of that line,we may as well shut down all cases regardless of whatever evidence is there... just in case like.

What else could it be perceived other than a personal vendetta?

Hello?
In the way I've perceived it.
You wouldnt be a Republican by any chance

Incidently I'm only presenting a neutral stance here and clearing away the bias on one side or the other.
You should read the whole thread as it is an interesting discussion albeit bogged down or bizzare at points.
If McDowell is accused of playing with donkeys and reasonable evidence is shown,I'll be questioning him here and his fitness for office regarding that.
But I refuse to lose sight of the whole picture for to emphasise part of it due to one bioas or another.
In doing so I obviously fully accept Republicans opinions on this topic and dont apologise for challenging them in a reasoned debate.

Tuars · 22-12-2005 11:39am

Earthman wrote:

Incidently I'm only presenting a neutral stance here and clearing away the bias on one side or the other.

No you're not. You're focusing exclusively on Frank Connolly and ignoring the minister's conduct. Nothing wrong with that but it's dishonest to suggest otherwise.

Earthman wrote:

You should read the whole thread as it is an interesting discussion albeit bogged down or bizzare at points.

I presume those are the points relating to McDowell's conduct which you either ignore or deflect with the "Frank Connolly is fishy" line.

Earthman wrote:

If McDowell is accused of playing with donkeys and reasonable evidence is shown,I'll be questioning him here and his fitness for office regarding that.

There have many posts suggesting that he is "playing with donkeys" (I assume this is a metaphor

) i.e. leaking documents, abusing Dail privilege, invoking national security with dubious circumstantial evidence, compromising the DPP and interfering with due process, for a start. I'm guessing these fall into your category of "bogged down" or bizarre".

Earthman wrote:

But I refuse to lose sight of the whole picture for to emphasise part of it due to one bioas or another.

So the "Frank Connolly is fishy" meme asks you to dance and you say "No, I couldn't possibly... OK, if you insist". How demure of you. I appreciate how attractive the meme is. It's hard for you to resist.

Easrthman wrote:

In doing so I obviously fully accept Republicans opinions on this topic and dont apologise for challenging them in a reasoned debate.

You're throwing "Republican" around like it's a dirty word (much like McDowell). I'm not a Sinn Fein supporter but Im damned if I'm going to let Michael McDowell be the one who makes that decision for me.

22-12-2005 12:29pm

Tuars wrote:

No you're not. You're focusing exclusively on Frank Connolly and ignoring the minister's conduct. Nothing wrong with that but it's dishonest to suggest otherwise.

Wrong. I have stated that I didnt like McDowells method of releasing the information but also stated that so far I've seen nothing to counter his reasoning for releasing it.

I presume those are the points relating to McDowell's conduct which you either ignore or deflect with the "Frank Connolly is fishy" line.

I've not ignored anything,I've discussed everything.The bizarre was a reference to aliens which was a cross over from the other thread.

There have many posts suggesting that he is "playing with donkeys" (I assume this is a metaphor ) i.e. leaking documents, abusing Dail privilege, invoking national security with dubious circumstantial evidence, compromising the DPP and interfering with due process, for a start. I'm guessing these fall into your category of "bogged down" or bizarre".

No
I understand he has leaked one document and a photocopy of a passport photo,which incidently are forged and not anyones property to claim unless they do want to get arrested.
Thats singular not plural.

So the "Frank Connolly is fishy" meme asks you to dance and you say "No, I couldn't possibly... OK, if you insist". How demure of you. I appreciate how attractive the meme is. It's hard for you to resist.

Nope, it stands to reason that transparency is the key here rather than going to ground.
Hence the fishy.

You're throwing "Republican" around like it's a dirty word (much like McDowell). I'm not a Sinn Fein supporter but Im damned if I'm going to let Michael McDowell be the one who makes that decision for me.

Where am I saying Republican is a dirty word? Where have I ever said that?
pfttt I debate the issues and all I get is aggression.
No offence but thats the last tool of debate

22-12-2005 12:34pm

Having reviewed this thread, its all circles and wagons.
Time for it to close and let a new one arise when theres something new to add.

McDowell Controversy

Comments