NationStates Jolt Archive

COMMENTARY: At first, I wasn't going to post this. Everyone should know by now that "being on the take" knows no party or particular political persuasion. But ... certain posters ... are so quick to jump all over one party everytime anyone in it looks crosseyed, I decided to post it anyway. This Democrat is not only on the take, he's also the ranking Democrat on the House Ethics Committee. Irony anyone?


As the Ethics Panel Ossifies (http://www.nytimes.com/2006/04/12/opinion/12wed2.html?th&emc=th)


Published: April 12, 2006
Inert and feckless, the House ethics committee stands as a laughable oxymoron. It is a still life in partisan gridlock even as the issue of Congressional corruption captures voters' attention. Now its ranking Democrat, Alan Mollohan of West Virginia, has emerged as the latest example of the sort of shady dealings that have sent Congress plummeting in the public's estimation. News articles have disclosed that Mr. Mollohan, while unstinting in criticizing Republicans for the abuses of the Jack Abramoff scandal, has made a lucrative art form of the notorious budget "earmarks" by which lawmakers customize pork projects for favored constituents back home.

Mr. Mollohan has channeled $250 million in taxpayer money to five nonprofit organizations, all designed by him in the name of local economic development. The congressman created what looks like a patronage machine that rewards him with campaign contributions from grateful nonprofit executives who often owe their jobs to him — one of them at a $500,000 salary paid by federal earmark.

Republican partisans, looking to counter their own ethical problems, question how in the course of just four years Mr. Mollohan managed to become a millionaire while in Congress. The lawmaker denies any corner cutting, citing legitimate investments in a soaring real estate market. But clearly Mr. Mollohan deserves immediate scrutiny — if only Congress were up to that task.

Unfortunately, the ethics committee was immobilized by Republican leaders back when Representative Tom DeLay ran into trouble in 2004. It has gathered more cobwebs than courage, mired in partisan one-upsmanship. If Democrats seriously seek the anticorruption edge in the coming elections, they had better force Representative Mollohan to quit the panel. More important, both parties have little time left to show some spine and approve a vital proposal, now bottled up, to create an independent integrity office. It would have the power to investigate dicey legislative dealings and enforce standards for a Congress now in ethics denial.

Well, that article doesn't state that he's corrupt, only that there is evidence that he is. I agree that this should be looked into.

No irony.

It's the thing with corruption. While it takes only one dirty party to start the rot, soon enough, the whole system will be infected.

Take a look at the Party-Loans for a Peerage thing in the UK ( Old news by now )

No irony.

It's the thing with corruption. While it takes only one dirty party to start the rot, soon enough, the whole system will be infected.

Take a look at the Party-Loans for a Peerage thing in the UK ( Old news by now )
If it's not irony, what is it? Business as usual? :(

If it's not irony, what is it? Business as usual? :(

*nods*

See one infected avian.
Expect flock of flu-birds soon, in a chicken-coop near you.

But ... certain posters ... are so quick to jump all over one party everytime anyone in it looks crosseyed

Kind of like how you're a centrist but you've never even whispered a bad word about the failings of the current administration?

If you stop and think about it for a bit, "it's not just Republicans who are corrupt" is a very poor defense, especially when it is based on a suspicion.

It's about as weak as the time-old "he can't say nuclear". And even I cringe when I see that line. And I hate the shrub.

Kind of like how you're a centrist but you've never even whispered a bad word about the failings of the current administration?
How many times I gotta tell ya? Others on here have assumed responsibility for doing that, and do it with such fervor that there's no need for me to lay in as well.

I have indeed posted criticisms of the Bush Administration, but it's pointless to add to the general cacaphony of endless nattering, since some have apparently taken that upon themselves as a life goal. :p

If it's not irony, what is it? Business as usual? :(
Shady and profiteering usage of the earmark of pork? Par for the course.

Though, this particular deal is particularly shady, I'm sure all the other members of Congress are going "Damn, wish I thought of that." He deserves a medal, and a citation for a violation of a number of laws.

How many times I gotta tell ya? Others on here have assumed responsibility for doing that, and do it with such fervor that there's no need for me to lay in as well.

I have indeed posted criticisms of the Bush Administration, but it's pointless to add to the general cacaphony of endless nattering, since some have apparently taken that upon themselves as a life goal. :p



And bush practically satires himself anyway :p

If you stop and think about it for a bit, "it's not just Republicans who are corrupt" is a very poor defense, especially when it is based on a suspicion.

It's about as weak as the time-old "he can't say nuclear". And even I cringe when I see that line. And I hate the shrub.
I don't actually "hate" anyone, but he's definitely not the brightest dish in the cabinet. Don't accuse ME of defending him, 'cause I don't and won't. :p

And bush practically satires himself anyway :p
LOL! True, true. I actually feel sorry for him sometimes ... well, maybe once or twice. Once? :p

If you stop and think about it for a bit, "it's not just Republicans who are corrupt" is a very poor defense, especially when it is based on a suspicion.

It's about as weak as the time-old "he can't say nuclear". And even I cringe when I see that line. And I hate the shrub.


Ah call upon all right thinking people to shrub out the shrub.
Now watch my drive...

( hint: check fahrenheit911 for the origin of 'now watch my drive' )

Politicians across the political spectrum are corrupt. The corrupt are drawn to positions of power, and power corrupts even those who aren't. This is not a surprise. Congress maintaining their own inquiries on themselves in the stupidest thing in history however.

The fox is guarding the hen house.

Ah, so this excuses the corruption in the Republican party does it?

I don't believe that anyone seriously thinks that any political party, anywhere is completely free of corruption. So pointing the finger at any other party adds nothing to our knowledge and does not alter our attitudes.

Politicians across the political spectrum are corrupt. The corrupt are drawn to positions of power, and power corrupts even those who aren't. This is not a surprise. Congress maintaining their own inquiries on themselves in the stupidest thing in history however.

The fox is guarding the hen house.
Apparently they's scared shitless of an independent ethics commission. :eek:

How many times I gotta tell ya?

As many times as you claim you're a centrist while fellating the administration and their Vietnam.

As many times as you claim you're a centrist while fellating the administration and their Vietnam.
But if we don't fellate the administration, the terrorists win. There were no terrorist victories during the Clinton administration.

COMMENTARY: At first, I wasn't going to post this. Everyone should know by now that "being on the take" knows no party or particular political persuasion. But ... certain posters ... are so quick to jump all over one party everytime anyone in it looks crosseyed, I decided to post it anyway. This Democrat is not only on the take, he's also the ranking Democrat on the House Ethics Committee. Irony anyone?


Ah... the "You Can't Fly, Either" defense...

As many times as you claim you're a centrist while fellating the administration and their Vietnam.
STFU & KMA! :p

STFU & KMA! :p

Yeah, good response. How have you not been deleted yet? You're a troll.

Yeah, good response. How have you not been deleted yet? You're a troll.
No. I'M a flamer. YOU'RE a troll! :p

Yeah, good response. How have you not been deleted yet? You're a troll.
The sheer weight of inertia.

STFU & KMA! :p

Weren't they Simba's friends?

STFU & KMA! :p
What antelope?

No. I'M a flamer. YOU'RE a troll! :p

No, you're a troll. At the very most I'm a mild flamebaiter, for posts such as this one where I call you a troll.

The sheer weight of inertia.
Ahhh! The Vultures gather! :p

Ahhh! The Vultures gather! :p
What? You know it's true. For you to be deated, you'd have to post goatse or tubgirl photos. You've been around long enough that you're practically an institution--not that I'm saying that's a good thing--and that means you get more leeway than other, newer players. You get the benefit of the doubt. And you're not alone either--there are a number of people who have the same status. But you know, and I know, that we have both posted things that would have gotten newer players warned, if not forumbanned or deated. Seniority has its privileges.

No, you're a troll. At the very most I'm a mild flamebaiter, for posts such as this one where I call you a troll.

Strictly speaking, you are the troll, both of you are flamebaiters, and you both took the bait.

Strictly speaking, you are the troll, both of you are flamebaiters, and you both took the bait.

How, strictly speaking, am I trolling? I'm only talking to Eutrusca, alone. Comments directed to "certain posters" is trolling.

"Poli" = latin for "many." "Tics" = "blood-sucking arachnids."
"Politics" = "many blood-sucking arachnids."

"Poli" = latin for "many." "Tics" = "blood-sucking arachnids."
"Politics" = "many blood-sucking arachnids."

Usually, they use the 'blood sucking parasite' definition...

Politicians are supposed to be corrupt. It's like how Sasquatch is supposed to have big feet or Christians are supposed to worship God. If they didn't, they just wouldn't be politicians, now would they?

How, strictly speaking, am I trolling? I'm only talking to Eutrusca, alone. Comments directed to "certain posters" is trolling.
Kind of like how you're a centrist but you've never even whispered a bad word about the failings of the current administration?

As many times as you claim you're a centrist while fellating the administration and their Vietnam.

Yeah, good response. How have you not been deleted yet? You're a troll.

Exactly what kind of response did you expect? You singled him out and essentially "threw out a line" hoping he would bite. You posted a rude and inflammatory post specifically to antagonize a specific member. That makes you a troll; calling him one makes you a flamebaiter.

*Mod instinct showing* Heh... I'll just be over here, it's not my turf.

Exactly what kind of response did you expect? You singled him out and essentially "threw out a line" hoping he would bite. You posted a rude and inflammatory post specifically to antagonize a specific member. That makes you a troll; calling him one makes you a flamebaiter.

*Mod instinct showing* Heh... I'll just be over here, it's not my turf.

Right. Flamebaiter. Trolling is making deliberate inflammatory remarks directed at no one with the intention of inciting people to flame you. Flamebait is directed at a specific person. Flaming would be when I called him a troll, were it not for the fact that he is trolling in this thread and has repeatedly in the past done the same.

And bush practically satires himself anyway :p

You know, I've always wondered something. Do the people who right his speeches sit behind the stage and take bets on if he'll say exactly what they wrote? Is there a group of people laughing and yelling "OH MY GOD, HE SAID IT! " in the background? Does Bush read straight from the teleprompter, Ron Burgandy style?

Personally, I would love to believe that the speech writers just put random stuff into his speeches just to see if he'll say.

Right. Flamebaiter. Trolling is making deliberate inflammatory remarks directed at no one with the intention of inciting people to flame you. Flamebait is directed at a specific person. Flaming would be when I called him a troll, were it not for the fact that he is trolling in this thread and has repeatedly in the past done the same.

And how exactly was you post not intended to incite flames? I ask you again, what did you expect from him? You where blatantly inflammatory and antagonistic from your first post in this thread; the fact that you specifically targeted one particular person makes you no less of a troll.

Now, I invite you to show me exactly where he was trolling in this thread and what prompted you to attack him. That he “has repeatedly in the past done the same” is a vapid and worthless claim.

You know, I've always wondered something. Do the people who right his speeches sit behind the stage and take bets on if he'll say exactly what they wrote? Is there a group of people laughing and yelling "OH MY GOD, HE SAID IT! " in the background? Does Bush read straight from the teleprompter, Ron Burgandy style?

Personally, I would love to believe that the speech writers just put random stuff into his speeches just to see if he'll say.

I have noticed that people like Karl Rove have used certain "Bushisms" in their own speeches. I wouldn't be surprised at all if they are scripted that way.

And how exactly was you post not intended to incite flames? I ask you again, what did you expect from him? You where blatantly inflammatory and antagonistic from your first post in this thread; the fact that you specifically targeted one particular person makes you no less of a troll.

Now, I invite you to show me exactly where he was trolling in this thread and what prompted you to attack him. That he “has repeatedly in the past done the same” is a vapid and worthless claim.

Sdaeriji was targetting Eutrusca specifically. He was accusing him of doing what he has always done here. (I am a reincarnation of another much older nation. I was here when Eut got forum banned.) Which is to sit right on the edge of trolling and then adopt a holier than thou attitude whenever anyone accuses him of it.

Eutrusca consitently claims to be a centerist politically, but always supports the GOP. How does that work? Sdaerii has every right to question this, and he can question it as he did without being accused of flamebaiting, as his accusation is honest and justified, on the evidence of Eut's posts now and in the past.

@Eut. Do you have any reply to posts #15 and #19, or are you just going to conveniently ignore points that you can not answer as usual?

Sdaeriji was targetting Eutrusca specifically. He was accusing him of doing what he has always done here. (I am a reincarnation of another much older nation. I was here when Eut got forum banned.) Which is to sit right on the edge of trolling and then adopt a holier than thou attitude whenever anyone accuses him of it.

Eutrusca consitently claims to be a centerist politically, but always supports the GOP. How does that work? Sdaerii has every right to question this, and he can question it as he did without being accused of flamebaiting, as his accusation is honest and justified, on the evidence of Eut's posts now and in the past.

@Eut. Do you have any reply to posts #15 and #19, or are you just going to conveniently ignore points that you can not answer as usual?
Poor baby. I'm so sorry that your memory is failing you. Tsk. It must really be rough on you. :(

And how exactly was you post not intended to incite flames? I ask you again, what did you expect from him? You where blatantly inflammatory and antagonistic from your first post in this thread; the fact that you specifically targeted one particular person makes you no less of a troll.

Now, I invite you to show me exactly where he was trolling in this thread and what prompted you to attack him. That he “has repeatedly in the past done the same” is a vapid and worthless claim.

Were I trolling, I would use vague terms that might refer to several posters, or even groups of people in general, instead of speaking directly to a single poster and attacking that single poster. Please, read the definitions of the terms in Moderation before you incorrectly use them.

But ... certain posters ... are so quick to jump all over one party everytime anyone in it looks crosseyed

Perhaps you noticed that it was the part of his post that I quoted originally. Seems to reason that I might quote the portion of the post that I was responding to, no?

The fact is that Eutrusca toes the line consistently and then feigns ignorance when he is confronted with his activities. He consistently claims he is a "centrist" and then assaults the left while leaving the right unharmed. He criticizes the left and anyone who would attack the current administration as ideologues, yet he shows clear bias for the current administration and the Republican party. I have every right to confront Eutrusca's hypocrisy.

Now, please, stop. If you feel I am breaking the rules, go report me.

Poor baby. I'm so sorry that your memory is failing you. Tsk. It must really be rough on you. :(

A classic example of what I said he would do. Thank you for being so pathetically predictable Eut. Can anyone say "holier than thou"?

Poor baby. I'm so sorry that your memory is failing you. Tsk. It must really be rough on you. :(

See, this is flamebaiting.

This line in the article really snagged me when compared with the title of the thread...

"Unfortunately, the ethics committee was immobilized by Republican leaders back when Representative Tom DeLay ran into trouble in 2004. It has gathered more cobwebs than courage, mired in partisan one-upsmanship."

(bold by me)

So, in essence what this whole thread looks like is a desperate way to justify republican corruption by pointing at the dems, and blustering about how "they do it too." This is not an acceptable defence, never was, never will be. To point out ONE democrat that appears to be "on the take" before any kind of invesigation is hardly a comparison with the DeLays', the Cunninghams', the Neys', the Burns', and so on in congress. Plain and simple.

Were I trolling, I would use vague terms that might refer to several posters, or even groups of people in general, instead of speaking directly to a single poster and attacking that single poster. Please, read the definitions of the terms in Moderation before you incorrectly use them.

Perhaps you noticed that it was the part of his post that I quoted originally. Seems to reason that I might quote the portion of the post that I was responding to, no?

The fact is that Eutrusca toes the line consistently and then feigns ignorance when he is confronted with his activities. He consistently claims he is a "centrist" and then assaults the left while leaving the right unharmed. He criticizes the left and anyone who would attack the current administration as ideologues, yet he shows clear bias for the current administration and the Republican party. I have every right to confront Eutrusca's hypocrisy.

Now, please, stop. If you feel I am breaking the rules, go report me.
"None so blind as those who will not see."

I could say the same to you, Sdaeriji. As a matter of fact, I'm virtually 100% certain that one of the flock of vultures will post some sort of accusation towards me in Moderation. As a matter of fact, I'm greatly suprised that it hasn't happened already. You guys must be losing your grip.

Prove to me where I have shown "clear bias for the current administration and the Republican party." You and the other vultures constantly make this wild assertion, totally ignoring the posts and threads where I have consistenly opposed the radical right's stands against gay marriage, debt reduction, big government, civil rights ... on and on.

I suggest that one of three things must be true:

1. You're irritated that I don't always support attacks against Republicans on everything, or perhaps just those things which happen to be your pet peeves, or ...

2. You indulge in selective reading, only responding to posts or threads I create which seem to you to support anything even remotely favorable to the current administration. Where were you when I agreed that President Bush was intellectually challenged, for example? ... or ...

3. You just have some sort of animus against me for reasons known only to yourself.

A classic example of what I said he would do. Thank you for being so pathetically predictable Eut. Can anyone say "holier than thou"?
Can anyone say, "physician, heal thyself?"

Can anyone say, "physician, heal thyself?"

Do you realise that you just posted a reply to the equivalent of I know you are, but what am I?

Do you realise that you just posted a reply to the equivalent of I know you are, but what am I?
ROFLMAO! And the problem with that is?

People do that all the time on here, especially when they know that further discussion is pointless.

"None so blind as those who will not see."

I could say the same to you, Sdaeriji. As a matter of fact, I'm virtually 100% certain that one of the flock of vultures will post some sort of accusation towards me in Moderation. As a matter of fact, I'm greatly suprised that it hasn't happened already. You guys must be losing your grip.

Prove to me where I have shown "clear bias for the current administration and the Republican party." You and the other vultures constantly make this wild assertion, totally ignoring the posts and threads where I have consistenly opposed the radical right's stands against gay marriage, debt reduction, big government, civil rights ... on and on.

I suggest that one of three things must be true:

1. You're irritated that I don't always support attacks against Republicans on everything, or perhaps just those things which happen to be your pet peeves, or ...

2. You indulge in selective reading, only responding to posts or threads I create which seem to you to support anything even remotely favorable to the current administration. Where were you when I agreed that President Bush was intellectually challenged, for example? ... or ...

3. You just have some sort of animus against me for reasons known only to yourself.

I think what Sandi, and the others who are on your case, are upset about is the fact (and you alluded to it earlier in this very thread) that you claim to be a "centerist", yet post numerous threads like this one, taking pot shots at democrats. And, you never do the same for repulicans. And, I have to agree with them. you hate democrats more than republicans (if you actually hate repos at all) and try to hide behind "centerism," and "liberatarianism" when people call you on it.

Why can't you just come out and say it. People will probably have a smidgen more respect for you if you just tell the truth about your politics. You hate democrats, but don't have as much of a problem with republicans. Just admit it.

"None so blind as those who will not see."
"The pot calling the kettle black", that is the great thing about using sayings, there is always one that fits and it means that yu do not have to think for yourself. (Where is your reply to posts 15 and 19? All you have given me so far is a failed attempt at flamebaiting)

I could say the same to you, Sdaeriji. As a matter of fact, I'm virtually 100% certain that one of the flock of vultures will post some sort of accusation towards me in Moderation. As a matter of fact, I'm greatly suprised that it hasn't happened already. You guys must be losing your grip.
Nice ad hominem addition. No reference to the point at issue, just an attack on the people that disagree with your views rather than an attack on their views themselves.

Prove to me where I have shown "clear bias for the current administration and the Republican party." You and the other vultures constantly make this wild assertion, totally ignoring the posts and threads where I have consistenly opposed the radical right's stands against gay marriage, debt reduction, big government, civil rights ... on and on.
So now you expect us to think that the Republican party is the radical right? Come on Eut. You may have attacked the radical right, but have never, ever, attacked the republican party as a whole.

As for the rest, it is all personal attacks on Sdaeriji. Act your age for once in your life.

Can anyone say, "physician, heal thyself?"

I am healed gramps. I admit to being a freemarket libertarian, warts and all. I don't hide behind attacks on people when my political position is questioned, I defend my position. Now what is your political position again?

And can you reply to the points made in posts 15 and 19, for the third time of asking.

I think what Sandi, and the others who are on your case, are upset about is the fact (and you alluded to it earlier in this very thread) that you claim to be a "centerist", yet post numerous threads like this one, taking pot shots at democrats. And, you never do the same for repulicans. And, I have to agree with them. you hate democrats more than republicans (if you actually hate repos at all) and try to hide behind "centerism," and "liberatarianism" when people call you on it.

Why can't you just come out and say it. People will probably have a smidgen more respect for you if you just tell the truth about your politics. You hate democrats, but don't have as much of a problem with republicans. Just admit it.
Why would I "admit" to something I don't believe?

Seriously ... I'm registered independent, I voted for Eugene McCarthy when he ran, I also voted for Ronald Reagn when he ran. I didn't vote at all the first time George W. Bush ran. I did vote for him against the execreable Kerry, however. I didn't vote in either election when Clinton was running. I voted for Jimmy Carter the first time he ran.

What's that record sound like to you? "Rampant Republican?" Riiiiight! :rolleyes:

Every one of those tests that appear on here indicates the same thing ... every single time, with only relatively minor changes: Economic Left/Right: 0.13, Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -2.87, just like it says in my sig.

Why would I "admit" to something I don't believe?

Seriously ... I'm registered independent, I voted for Eugene McCarthy when he ran, I also voted for Ronald Reagn when he ran. I didn't vote at all the first time George W. Bush ran. I did vote for him against the execreable Kerry, however. I didn't vote in either election when Clinton was running. I voted for Jimmy Carter the first time he ran.

What's that record sound like to you? "Rampant Republican?" Riiiiight! :rolleyes:

Every one of those tests that appear on here indicates the same thing ... every single time, with only relatively minor changes: Economic Left/Right: 0.13, Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -2.87, just like it says in my sig.

Ok, you at least addressed one part of the post you quoted. Can you please get to the rest? I don't care about your voting racord going back 30 years. I want to know why it is that, at least on these forums, you appear to hate on democrats while, for the most part, giving republicans a pass. This doesn't include the wackos on the fringe that everybody hates, both parties have those. But, take this thread, or at least the OP, for instance. This is endemic of your style. While you don't heap praise on the republicans, you really put dems through the wringer.

Why would I "admit" to something I don't believe?

Seriously ... I'm registered independent, I voted for Eugene McCarthy when he ran, I also voted for Ronald Reagn when he ran. I didn't vote at all the first time George W. Bush ran. I did vote for him against the execreable Kerry, however. I didn't vote in either election when Clinton was running. I voted for Jimmy Carter the first time he ran.

What's that record sound like to you? "Rampant Republican?" Riiiiight! :rolleyes:

Every one of those tests that appear on here indicates the same thing ... every single time, with only relatively minor changes: Economic Left/Right: 0.13, Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -2.87, just like it says in my sig.

What we can judge from is what you post here. Your voting record is secret, and I can certainly make my political compass score come out like yours if I wanted to.
This very thread is absolutely typical of the threads you start. Supporting the Republicans by attacking the Democrats. If that is what you want to do, then fine, do it; but don't pretend that you do not support the republicans in general. Your hypocrisy in claiming one position and acting from another is the factor that leaves a lot of us with no respect at all for you.

(Where is your reply to posts 15 and 19? All you have given me so far is a failed attempt at flamebaiting)
I honestly didn't think either post warranted a reply, but since you're making such an issue of it ...

Post 15: 1. Ah, so this excuses the corruption in the Republican party does it?

2. I don't believe that anyone seriously thinks that any political party, anywhere is completely free of corruption. So pointing the finger at any other party adds nothing to our knowledge and does not alter our attitudes.

1. No, it obviously doesn't "excuse" any sort of political corruption whatsoever. How on earth did you derive that from the OP?

2. There are a number of people on here who know little or nothing about politics, particularly politics American-style. To listen to you and some others on here without any balance whatsoever would lead some to the conclusion that "corruption" is the exclusive province of the Republican Party, which it obviously is not.

Post 19: Ah... the "You Can't Fly, Either" defense...

This somehow needs a reply? It's nothing more than a statement of Gave_n_idel's personal opinion ( to which he is certainly entitled ) and doesn't require an answer.


Happy now? :)

What we can judge from is what you post here. Your voting record is secret, and I can certainly make my political compass score come out like yours if I wanted to.
This very thread is absolutely typical of the threads you start. Supporting the Republicans by attacking the Democrats. If that is what you want to do, then fine, do it; but don't pretend that you do not support the republicans in general. Your hypocrisy in claiming one position and acting from another is the factor that leaves a lot of us with no respect at all for you.
"Us" being the flock of selectively reading "challengers" who read only those posts of mine with which you wish to take issue. And I should worry about those who decide to deride based on reading what they want to read? Riiiight! :rolleyes:

I'm certainly no fan of Dubya or the GOP, in fact I make no secret of and no apology for being further to the left than most other Americans. But does anyone else find it funny that now the apologists for the left are out in force? As for the guy in the story: typical. Typical of both parties. There's no such thing as an ethical politician.

I'm certainly no fan of Dubya or the GOP, in fact I make no secret of and no apology for being further to the left than most other Americans. But does anyone else find it funny that now the apologists for the left are out in force? As for the guy in the story: typical. Typical of both parties. There's no such thing as an ethical politician.

If the assertions in the OP are true, I'd like to see that guy get a cell right next to Duke Cunningham in prison. But, we don't know if they are true, and there's no one who's really trying to find out because the commitee that was designed to do so was frozen by republican meddling. And, like I posted earlier, comparing one person who is under suspicion to a near party wide level of confirmed corruption is hardly a comparison at all.

What we can judge from is what you post here. Your voting record is secret, and I can certainly make my political compass score come out like yours if I wanted to.
So I'm being deliberately deceptive ( read: lying )? Interesting that you accuse me of lying and then turn around and say that I should "admit" to being pro-Republican ... which would, in fact, be an actual lie. Intersting.

If the assertions in the OP are true, I'd like to see that guy get a cell right next to Duke Cunningham in prison. But, we don't know if they are true, and there's no one who's really trying to find out because the commitee that was designed to do so was frozen by republican meddling. And, like I posted earlier, comparing one person who is under suspicion to a near party wide level of confirmed corruption is hardly a comparison at all.
There ya go, folks! That's exactly why I bash the left far more than I do the right. It's known as "smearing with a broad brush."

There are good Democrats, and good Republicans, and to use the actions of a few to defame the many is just plain foolish ... or duplicious.

It's impossible for a party to exist without *some* corruption, particularly since you can't afford a competetive campaign without corporate contributions unless you're Steve Forbes-rich.

But, the prominent republicans are corrupt in more damaging ways.

It's gotten to the point where there's a complete and utter disconnect between what a politician says and his true motives for saying it. This is not how a democracy is supposed to function.

There has always been BS and manipulative rhetoric. But it doesn't usually get *this* bad.

1. No, it obviously doesn't "excuse" any sort of political corruption whatsoever. How on earth did you derive that from the OP?
So what is the issue here. Look at the thread title and ask yourself what exactly is it you are trying to do? Why the reference to the Republican party if you are not trying to split the blame in some way?



2. There are a number of people on here who know little or nothing about politics, particularly politics American-style. To listen to you and some others on here without any balance whatsoever would lead some to the conclusion that "corruption" is the exclusive province of the Republican Party, which it obviously is not.
I, not being an American, have never even commented on the corruption in the US system. I have posted once in a thread entitled "Why now?" commenting that the US politicians were copying the Brazilian ones. That is the limit of my comments on the corruption scandals there. Lack of balance with regard to US political parties is not a problem that I have. Additionally, do you really think that anyone here thought that corruption was "the exclusive province of the Republican Party"?


Post 19:

This somehow needs a reply? It's nothing more than a statement of Gave_n_idel's personal opinion ( to which he is certainly entitled ) and doesn't require an answer.
Happy now? :)
GnI was making the same point as I was. Accusing the other is not a defence in this situaton.

It's not just the Republicans who are corrupt. There might be a Democrat doing bad things too so we should stop bashing the Republicans already.

There ya go, folks! That's exactly why I bash the left far more than I do the right. It's known as "smearing with a broad brush."

There are good Democrats, and good Republicans, and to use the actions of a few to defame the many is just plain foolish ... or duplicious.

LOL, and acting like a jerk in the process!

Except it's not just a small cabal of republicans that are involved with the scandals. Not even a minority percentage. You are defending people who don't deserve it, Eut. And that only make you one of them.

So I'm being deliberately deceptive ( read: lying )? Interesting that you accuse me of lying and then turn around and say that I should "admit" to being pro-Republican ... which would, in fact, be an actual lie. Intersting.

Not at all. What I said, as you would know if you could comprehend anything that disagrees with you, is that the evidence we have is what you post here. Anything else you claim, or deny, is completely inadmissable. It is hearsay effectively.

Maybe...Just maybe the original point of this thread was to demonstrate that instead of bashing the corrupt republicans, that we should be bashing the corrupt.

And I don't think the article is trying to say that 'The Democrats are corrupt too, that makes Republican corruption ok.' I think that it's trying to say that 'A Corrupt Democrat is the last person that ought to be railing against corrupt Republicans and if the Democrats want to really fight corruption, they ought to clean out their own house first.'.

But then again, maybe I'm the crazy one. ;)

1. Why the reference to the Republican party if you are not trying to split the blame in some way?

2. Additionally, do you really think that anyone here thought that corruption was "the exclusive province of the Republican Party"?

3. GnI was making the same point as I was. Accusing the other is not a defence in this situaton.
1. For the thousandth and last time: to add some balance.

2. Yes.

3. For the thousandth and last time: I wasn't trying to "defend" anyone.

It's not just the Republicans who are corrupt. There might be a Democrat doing bad things too so we should stop bashing the Republicans already.
How very ... disengenuous of you. Seems to be your forte.

[ watching the flock of vultures gather ]

Maybe...Just maybe the original point of this thread was to demonstrate that instead of bashing the corrupt republicans, that we should be bashing the corrupt.

And I don't think the article is trying to say that 'The Democrats are corrupt too, that makes Republican corruption ok.' I think that it's trying to say that 'A Corrupt Democrat is the last person that ought to be railing against corrupt Republicans and if the Democrats want to really fight corruption, they ought to clean out their own house first.'.

But then again, maybe I'm the crazy one. ;)
At LAST! Someone who chooses to understand rather than joining the flock of vultures! :D

Not at all. What I said, as you would know if you could comprehend anything that disagrees with you, is that the evidence we have is what you post here. Anything else you claim, or deny, is completely inadmissable. It is hearsay effectively.
Which is just a weasel-worded way of once again accusing me of lying. How adroit!

How very ... disengenuous of you. Seems to be your forte.

[ watching the flock of vultures gather ]


Interesting word you chose there. ;)

It's impossible for a party to exist without *some* corruption, particularly since you can't afford a competetive campaign without corporate contributions unless you're Steve Forbes-rich.

But, the prominent republicans are corrupt in more damaging ways.

It's gotten to the point where there's a complete and utter disconnect between what a politician says and his true motives for saying it. This is not how a democracy is supposed to function.

There has always been BS and manipulative rhetoric. But it doesn't usually get *this* bad.
The Republicans are in power. This makes them high-profile, and also magnifies the impact of those who indulge themselves in venality.

At LAST! Someone who chooses to understand rather than joining the flock of vultures! :D

Don't be too thrilled. It took a damaged brain to understand. http://www.abestweb.com/smilies/happydance.gif

Don't be too thrilled. It took a damaged brain to understand. http://www.abestweb.com/smilies/happydance.gif
[ joins LG in a lil dance for all the "damaged brain" people ]

After all, the inmates are obviously in charge, which means you and I must be the original caretakers. :eek:

I discern a sudden silence among the flock. Shhh! They're plotting! Mwahahaha! :D

Interesting word you chose there. ;)
Isn't it though. Care to comment further? :)

I discern a sudden silence among the flock. Shhh! They're plotting! Mwahahaha! :D

You, sir, are deluded. You actually think that we might be bothered to plot!

You, sir, are deluded. You actually think that we might be bothered to plot!
ROFLMAO! What ... EVER!

And you, sir, are humorless. :p

*Picks at Euts remains like every vulture should just to find out it's too rancid for even me*

*Picks at Euts remains like every vulture should just to find out it's too rancid for even me*

YAY! :D

*Picks at Euts remains like every vulture should just to find out it's too rancid for even me*
I guess you'll just have to find someone else to eat then.

[ Looks into the sky, searching for vultures. ] Hmm. Wonder where they all went?

[ Looks into the sky, searching for vultures. ] Hmm. Wonder where they all went?

Maybe we're sick of you flaming us.

In related news....Anyone see the irony that a former exterminator (Mr. Delay) just got axed by the biggest bug of all....scandal?

Talk about your double edged sword....

In related news....Anyone see the irony that a former exterminator (Mr. Delay) just got axed by the biggest bug of all....scandal?

Talk about your double edged sword....

http://www.abestweb.com/smilies/huh.gif

Maybe we're sick of you flaming us.
Or maybe, just maybe, you know you're .... WRONG! :p

In related news....Anyone see the irony that a former exterminator (Mr. Delay) just got axed by the biggest bug of all....scandal?

Talk about your double edged sword....
He who lives by the double-edged sword shall by that same sword die!

Mwahahahaha! :D

He who lives by the double-edged sword shall by that same sword die!

Mwahahahaha! :D
Or at least cut off an extremity.

Or at least cut off an extremity.
ROFL! True, true. :D

He who lives by the double-edged sword shall by that same sword die!

Mwahahahaha! :D
Easy to talk tough when you know you won't get deated without breaking one of the unbreakable rules.

Easy to talk tough when you know you won't get deated without breaking one of the unbreakable rules.
Avada Kadavra?

Avada Kadavra?
I want to reach out and grab ya? Sorry, I was channeling the Steve Miller Band for a second there.

I want to reach out and grab ya? Sorry, I was channeling the Steve Miller Band for a second there.

Heh, Steve Miller lives on the same island as I do. He comes into the restaurant I work at all the time.

He likes our food. Especially my desserts;)