NationStates Jolt Archive

With the 2 Democrats involved in their own scandels this week...

For all those left leaning who claimed political corruption was a Republican problem and Dem's shit didn't stink...

Feel free to appologize here in this thread.

(knows full well that will only hear crickets here)

Who said Dems weren't corrupt? :/

I think pretty much all politicians go to Washington with good intentions, regardless of what side of the aisle.. However, there is a lot of pressure from groups (corporations tend to wink at the Republicans, environmental and social causes tend to wink at the Democrats) Thus, there is the resulting corruption in both parties, the key is to not let that corruption takeover the whole party..

Who said Dems weren't corrupt? :/
During the Jack Abrahamof scandal, the "Republican culture of corruption" was widely claimed and that Dems were not involved in corruption in general.

During the Jack Abrahamof scandal, the "Republican culture of corruption" was widely claimed and that Dems were not involved in corruption in general.
This is true, there were alot of "witchhunts" coming from the left on this issue..... so happened to be about the same time as Delay's struggles, so the whole Republican party was being chastized in a political maneuver...

The difference between the Abramoff scandal and the two Dems that were exposed is as follows:

- They weren't part of a web of corruption in their party.
- Their party isn't wasting millions of dollars defending them against the undefendable
- Their party has said that they are wrong and has said "We will not allow this in our party".

In the case of Delay and his ilk, none of that is true.

That's the difference between normal politicians (who are crooks by nature), and a "culture of corruption".

The whole point has been that neither party is free of corruption, neither party is rampant with corruption.
It happens on both sides of the isle and is a result of the rampant incumbancy that is going on.

Corruption knows no party lines.

The Republicans were and always will be more corrupt than the Democrats. The only reason the Democrats aren't any worse is that they're out of power. Power corrupts, greed is good.

With the 2 Democrats involved in their own scandels this week...

For all those left leaning who claimed political corruption was a Republican problem and Dem's shit didn't stink...

Feel free to appologize here in this thread.

(knows full well that will only hear crickets here)


Of course they're corrupt. No one's saying they're not. Neither party is worth the powder to blow them up, although it might be fun to try. So why don't you quit being so smug, stop trying to break your arm patting yourself on the back for making a point no one disagreed with in the first place, and grow up, little boy?

Let's face it, when both parties are corrupt its not the political partys' fault, its the system's fault. American Democracy is a horrible institution. It's all about bribery. Not to mention in order to get into a meaningful office one has to be incredibly wealthy.

Political corruption is a property not of a given political party but of a given political system.

The problem is there on both Republican and Democratic sides because the problem extends beyond either of them.

EDIT: Beaten to the very point. >_>;

With the 2 Democrats involved in their own scandels this week...

For all those left leaning who claimed political corruption was a Republican problem and Dem's shit didn't stink...

Feel free to appologize here in this thread.

(knows full well that will only hear crickets here)

Well Comrade Bushevik, can you prove someone said only Republicans were corrupt?

Then again this is just a ploy to try and distract people from the Abramoff scandal as well as the overall incompetence of the Bush Administration so I shouldn't be surprised.

With the 2 Democrats involved in their own scandels this week...Where's the link to that story?
For all those left leaning who claimed political corruption was a Republican problem and Dem's shit didn't stink...Hm. As has been said before, who said democrats weren't corrupt?
Do you never watch the Simpsons?
And what about the right-leaning democrats? Why do you ignore them?

Feel free to appologize here in this thread.

(knows full well that will only hear crickets here)Feels pretty close to trolling or flame-baiting, to be honest...

With the 2 Democrats involved in their own scandels this week...

For all those left leaning who claimed political corruption was a Republican problem and Dem's shit didn't stink...

Feel free to appologize here in this thread.

(knows full well that will only hear crickets here)
But my words like silent raindrops fell,
And echoed
In the wells of silence

Who said Dems weren't corrupt? :/

The democratic party leadership, the democrats running for the house of representatives, the democrats running ro the senate in the 2006 elections.

Accusing the Republicans for being partisan, greedy, corrupt like no democrats themselves are partisan, greedy corrupt.

The democratic party leadership, the democrats running for the house of representatives, the democrats running ro the senate in the 2006 elections.

Accusing the Republicans for being partisan, greedy, corrupt like no democrats themselves are partisan, greedy corrupt.
Basically, if Democrats had as many opportunities to corrupt themselves as Republicans do, they'd take those opportunities. Don't worry, they'll catch up.

And ya'll still think there are any differences between Democrats and Republicans? Either way, we still have two groups of people who try to attain control of the government so they can push their corrupt ideologies on the rest of us. Nanny State vs. Moral State.

With the 2 Democrats involved in their own scandels this week...

For all those left leaning who claimed political corruption was a Republican problem and Dem's shit didn't stink...

Feel free to appologize here in this thread.

(knows full well that will only hear crickets here)
No apologies from me, and I'll tell you why. A representative driving under the influence of sleeping pills and one guy taking bribes in Louisiana doesn't come close to the shit that the Republicans in power have been engaging in for the last five years.

But this isn't a Democratic versus Republican thing--it's a power thing. Had the Dems been in possession of unchecked power for the last five years, I'd expect corruption. That's the natural order of things. Dems aren't cleaner than Repubs right now because they're better--they're cleaner because they haven't had as many opportunities to be dirty.

With the 2 Democrats involved in their own scandels this week...

For all those left leaning who claimed political corruption was a Republican problem and Dem's shit didn't stink...

Feel free to appologize here in this thread.

(knows full well that will only hear crickets here)

Yeah. Just like how everyone said that Stalin was bad. But FDR set up Social Security. He was the real communist. :rolleyes:

Democrats are not immune to corruption. The difference is, Republicans came into power by complaining about Democratic corruption, and as soon as they got there they turned out to be more corrupt than the Democrats ever were. At least the Democrats became corrupt from too many years in power, which corrupts anyone. But the Republicans it seems are corrupt even when they have no power.

I've said it before. The Democratic party is corrupt like an apple that's a week past its sell-by date. It's going brown in spots and its a bit soggy, but if you cut out the worst part, it's still edible.

The Republican party is corrupt like an apple that's been sitting on the windowsill all summer. There's nothing left of it that's good for anything except fertilizer. i.e. perhaps people seeing the total state of corruption in a Republican government will turn to Democrats and third-party candidates. Instant run-off voting is a doable thing if people pay more attention to the primaries.

THE ENTIRE US GOVERNMENT IS A CORRUPT beauraucratic MORRASS!

we need an entirely new one.:headbang:

With the 2 Democrats involved in their own scandels this week...

For all those left leaning who claimed political corruption was a Republican problem and Dem's shit didn't stink...

Feel free to appologize here in this thread.

(knows full well that will only hear crickets here)

Gee, I didn't realize it before you mentioned it, but now I can clearly see that there is an equality of corruption between, say, a Senate minority leader who accepted $50,000 from clients of Jack Abramoff, and the Republican House that built Jack Abramoff and the rest of K-street. I can't believe I was blind enough to miss the fact that a Kennedy with a driving problem is in fact just as dangerous to the Republic as a Republican House that specifically informs lobbyists that they must only or overwhelmingly fund Republicans and only hire Republicans if they ever want to even get face time with any House Republican. I can now honestly say that I see that the Dems of old, whose old House speaker was thrown out by the Democratic House for accepting bribes somewhere in the low tens-of-thousands, are just as corrupt as the Republicans of today, who let California burn while Enron raked in millions, passed several farm bills that do nothing for "farmers" not named Con-Agra, ADM, or Tyson, passed an energy bill that does precisely nothing to solve energy problems not associated with further boosting Conoco's bottom line, repeatedly allowed no-bid contracts with Halliburton, etc.

I for one would like to thank you, Epsilon Squadron. Only my hatred for the troops and desire to destroy the nation caused me to be overlook the obvious parity of corruption between Democrats and Republicans, but now I know the truth. I will go forward from this thread committed to righting the ignorance and America-hating spewed by the left on this forum. Once again, thank you.

Apologetic enough?

THE ENTIRE US GOVERNMENT IS A CORRUPT beauraucratic MORRASS!

we need an entirely new one.:headbang:

You think?

With the 2 Democrats involved in their own scandels this week...What two Democrats involved in scandals this week?

And ya'll still think there are any differences between Democrats and Republicans? Either way, we still have two groups of people who try to attain control of the government so they can push their corrupt ideologies on the rest of us. Nanny State vs. Moral State.

Precisely. It is time for independent and third-party candidates who at least don't pretend to be moderate. We should vote for individual freedoms or socialism, but not lying power-grubbers.

Repotlicans vs. Demkettlecrats. :)

well, both parties are corrupt, but in different ways.

The republicans take the money, and the democrats take the sex.;)

Republicans are hella corrupt but I have to say that Demoncrats take the gold medal in the corruption olympics!

well, both parties are corrupt, but in different ways.

The republicans take the money, and the democrats take the sex.;)
Sig. worthy! lol

But the Republicans it seems are corrupt even when they have no power.

I've said it before. The Democratic party is corrupt like an apple that's a week past its sell-by date. It's going brown in spots and its a bit soggy, but if you cut out the worst part, it's still edible.

The Republican party is corrupt like an apple that's been sitting on the windowsill all summer. There's nothing left of it that's good for anything except fertilizer. i.e. perhaps people seeing the total state of corruption in a Republican government will turn to Democrats and third-party candidates. Instant run-off voting is a doable thing if people pay more attention to the primaries.
That is a very good analogy, Domici. You're particularly adept at that, i've noticed. *bows*

Republicans are hella corrupt but I have to say that Demoncrats take the gold medal in the corruption olympics!
While the republicans gouge everybody in the ticket prices, dope their own runners (and have surrogate piss-testers), and arrange the competitors the same way that FauX arranged "Hannity and Colmes". Also, they used gold paint on a chunk of americium to bestow on the democrat chest.
And then they leave the host city in the financial red.
Good analogy, thanks!

Gee, I didn't realize it before you mentioned it, but now I can clearly see that there is an equality of corruption between, say, a Senate minority leader who accepted $50,000 from clients of Jack Abramoff, and the Republican House that built Jack Abramoff and the rest of K-street. I can't believe I was blind enough to miss the fact that a Kennedy with a driving problem is in fact just as dangerous to the Republic as a Republican House that specifically informs lobbyists that they must only or overwhelmingly fund Republicans and only hire Republicans if they ever want to even get face time with any House Republican. I can now honestly say that I see that the Dems of old, whose old House speaker was thrown out by the Democratic House for accepting bribes somewhere in the low tens-of-thousands, are just as corrupt as the Republicans of today, who let California burn while Enron raked in millions, passed several farm bills that do nothing for "farmers" not named Con-Agra, ADM, or Tyson, passed an energy bill that does precisely nothing to solve energy problems not associated with further boosting Conoco's bottom line, repeatedly allowed no-bid contracts with Halliburton, etc.

I for one would like to thank you, Epsilon Squadron. Only my hatred for the troops and desire to destroy the nation caused me to be overlook the obvious parity of corruption between Democrats and Republicans, but now I know the truth. I will go forward from this thread committed to righting the ignorance and America-hating spewed by the left on this forum. Once again, thank you.

Apologetic enough?
Priceless. *bows*

Further on this topic, which wasn't covered here today (yet):

*ahem*

http://www.suntimes.com/output/elect/cst-nws-delay07.html


E-mails: DeLay aides knew lobbyist funded trip
May 7, 2006
BY JOHN SOLOMON

WASHINGTON -- Prosecutors have e-mails showing Rep. Tom DeLay's office knew lobbyist Jack Abramoff had arranged the financing for the GOP leader's European golfing trip in 2000 and was concerned "if someone starts asking questions."

House ethics rules bar lawmakers from accepting free trips from lobbyists. DeLay (R-Texas) reported to Congress that a Republican advocacy group had paid for the spring 2000 trip that DeLay, his wife and top aides took to Scotland and England. (note underlined.)

E-mails obtained by the Associated Press show DeLay's staff asked Abramoff -- not the advocacy group -- to account for the costs that had to be disclosed on congressional travel forms. DeLay's office worried the group being cited as paying the costs might not even know about them, the e-mails state.

Abramoff's team sought to low-ball the cost estimates and DeLay's office ultimately reported to Congress a total that was a few thousand dollars lower than the one the lobbyist provided, the documents show.

"We should give them the most minimal numbers for cost of the hotel (do not include golf), food and plays,'' Abramoff wrote two assistants at his Preston Gates lobbying firm in a June 29, 2000, e-mail.

Federal prosecutors have secured the cooperation of Abramoff and DeLay's former deputy chief of staff, Tony Rudy, and are investigating whether DeLay filed false public reports to disguise the source and size of political donations, travel and other gifts he received from special interests. Several witnesses have been questioned about the Scotland trip e-mails.

DeLay's lawyer said Friday he believes the congressman's office asked Abramoff, instead of the GOP group, for the trip costs because the group's top executive was on maternity leave. :rolleyes:
He noted Abramoff served as director for the group listed as paying for the trip.

"The way I read this was that staff was trying to get it right," lawyer Richard Cullen said. "[DeLay's] goal and his marching orders to his staff was to do it correctly. And I think staff tried to do it correctly."

It was disclosed more than a year ago that Abramoff arranged for two clients to pick up most of the costs for the trip and to route the money to the listed sponsor, the National Center for Public Policy Research.

DeLay, who is resigning his House seat, has maintained he thought the center paid for the trip.

While the republicans gouge everybody in the ticket prices, dope their own runners (and have surrogate piss-testers), and arrange the competitors the same way that FauX arranged "Hannity and Colmes". Also, they used gold paint on a chunk of americium to bestow on the democrat chest.
And then they leave the host city in the financial red.
Good analogy, thanks!
While most posters get it, the worst of the left demogogues just can't seem to.

Over the years both parties have had their chance to "shine" with corruption. To even try to claim one party is worse or better than the other is being intellectually dishonest with themselves, let alone with the rest of us.

Yet they do. The right is evil, the left is the best :rolleyes:

Can't even remember thier history of just 26 years ago.

While most posters get it, the worst of the left demogogues just can't seem to.Who would that be? Even The Nazz, described repeatedly by Eutrusca as an "ideologue" in the democrat vein, still admits as much. As i have. So perhaps you aren't talking about me but someone else, which would be better demonstrated by quoting someone else.

Over the years both parties have had their chance to "shine" with corruption. To even try to claim one party is worse or better than the other is being intellectually dishonest with themselves, let alone with the rest of us.That's why i'm an independent moderate, as i've posted many x before. Quite likely reproducible after a skim through my posts, in the archives.

Yet they do. The right is evil, the left is the best :rolleyes: Where did it or i say that? Besides, what do you expect, given the OP?

Can't even remember thier history of just 26 years ago.
It's curious you say that - it's the same kind of shifting focus that the republicans and right-wingers are so keen on interjecting to take focus off of things. It works quite well, actually, for people with short attention spans, to have their "cheese moved." That's certainly a good example, at least, of what a right-winger would do, if you happened to be one of them.
Since some of the posters here are obviously younger than 26, it might behoove you to post what your stance is on the events 26 years ago that you're alluding to.

Who would that be? Even The Nazz, described repeatedly by Eutrusca as an "ideologue" in the democrat vein, still admits as much. As i have. So perhaps you aren't talking about me but someone else, which would be better demonstrated by quoting someone else.

That's why i'm an independent moderate, as i've posted many x before. Quite likely reproducible after a skim through my posts, in the archives.

Where did it or i say that? Besides, what do you expect, given the OP?


It's curious you say that - it's the same kind of shifting focus that the republicans and right-wingers are so keen on interjecting to take focus off of things. It works quite well, actually, for people with short attention spans, to have their "cheese moved." That's certainly a good example, at least, of what a right-winger would do, if you happened to be one of them.
Since some of the posters here are obviously younger than 26, it might behoove you to post what your stance is on the events 26 years ago that you're alluding to.
Im not trying to shift focus at all... Corruption is a bad thing. The only thing that can combat corruption IS focus.

What Im saying, is that the faults of one does not excuse the faults of others. Too damn many times I get the response "but so-and-so does it". So what?

Both parties are corrupt. The only reason on might appear more corrupt than the other is because they might be in power at the time.

History is full of examples of corruption on every side of the aisle, to focus on only one doesn't help at all.

Im not trying to shift focus at all... Corruption is a bad thing. The only thing that can combat corruption IS focus.

What Im saying, is that the faults of one does not excuse the faults of others. Too damn many times I get the response "but so-and-so does it". So what?

Both parties are corrupt. The only reason on might appear more corrupt than the other is because they might be in power at the time.

History is full of examples of corruption on every side of the aisle, to focus on only one doesn't help at all.
Admittedly, one of the first/foremost qualifications of "focus" is recognizing who is the immediate and active threat. How much of a threat does a party pose if they won't back their own party members about addressing greivances perpetuated by the opposition's president? Especially the legally sketchy ones?
Hence, an independent moderate.

Im not trying to shift focus at all... Corruption is a bad thing. The only thing that can combat corruption IS focus.

What Im saying, is that the faults of one does not excuse the faults of others. Too damn many times I get the response "but so-and-so does it". So what?

Both parties are corrupt. The only reason on might appear more corrupt than the other is because they might be in power at the time.

History is full of examples of corruption on every side of the aisle, to focus on only one doesn't help at all.
And yet your opening salvo in this thread was a shining example of a false equivalency. You tried to say that the recent example of two instances of Democratic party corruption--one of which was a personal mistake, not government corruption if you're talking about Patrick Kennedy--was equivalent to the current widespread corruption coming out of the Republican party. Rove, Libby, Cheney, DeLay, Abramoff, Cunningham, Ney, Barbour, Frist, Goss, Foggo, Hayden--and that's just what I can remember right now.

If you want to have a legitimate conversation about corruption in government, there are plenty of people on the left, myself included, who will be glad to engage, but if we're talking about the right-here-right-now, then there's no contest--Republicans are far dirtier than Democrats because they have the ability to be.

I think the chicago area alone houses enough Dem corruption to outweigh anything that the repubs have done.

I think the chicago area alone houses enough Dem corruption to outweigh anything that the repubs have done.
Hmmmm. One midwestern city--admittedly a large one--versus the control of the federal government. Yeah, that's a real comparison. :rolleyes:

I think the chicago area alone houses enough Dem corruption to outweigh anything that the repubs have done.
Bull f*cking sh*t.
This is an international forum.
Go ahead and ask a poll, without revealing "the situation" in Chicago about what the world thinks of Chicago and what happened as compared to the republicans.
Then, if you like, ante up and qualify the history of democratic corruption as a contrast to, say, Sumamba Buwhan's Republican Rapsheet thread.
You'll peter out particularly quickly, i wager, and you'll have yourself to thank.

Bull f*cking sh*t.
This is an international forum.
Go ahead and ask a poll, without revealing "the situation" in Chicago about what the world thinks of Chicago and what happened as compared to the republicans.
Then, if you like, ante up and qualify the history of democratic corruption as a contrast to, say, Sumamba Buwhan's Republican Rapsheet thread.
You'll peter out particularly quickly, i wager, and you'll have yourself to thank.
Aw, that's not fair, asking him to back up his ludicrous comparisons with actual fact. He's a Republican, after all. ;)

Aw, that's not fair, asking him to back up his ludicrous comparisons with actual fact. He's a Republican, after all. ;)
You're right - i never learn. I must be an ideologue ... ;)

You're right - i never learn. I must be an ideologue ... ;)

~I-O-KI, Y-A-R, M-O-U-S-E!~

~I-O-KI, Y-A-R, M-O-U-S-E!~
Quality nice

~I-O-KI, Y-A-R, M-O-U-S-E!~
Forgive my blessed ignorance, but ...
chez what?
It's been a long Monday ....

Forgive my blessed ignorance, but ...
chez what?
It's been a long Monday ....
It's O K If You're A Republican, sung to the tune of the Mickey Mouse Club theme.

And yet your opening salvo in this thread was a shining example of a false equivalency. You tried to say that the recent example of two instances of Democratic party corruption--one of which was a personal mistake, not government corruption if you're talking about Patrick Kennedy--was equivalent to the current widespread corruption coming out of the Republican party. Rove, Libby, Cheney, DeLay, Abramoff, Cunningham, Ney, Barbour, Frist, Goss, Foggo, Hayden--and that's just what I can remember right now.

If you want to have a legitimate conversation about corruption in government, there are plenty of people on the left, myself included, who will be glad to engage, but if we're talking about the right-here-right-now, then there's no contest--Republicans are far dirtier than Democrats because they have the ability to be.
My opening "salvo" was just a current example that corruption can and does affect everyone in power. The right-here-right now arguement isn't appropriate because the focus of us all should be on finding the root cause of the corruption and stopping it.
Demogogues on both sides keep pulling the "your shit is stinkier than my shit" crap that doesn't do a damn bit of good addressing the entire issue.
You simply can't accept that crys of "dirtier" don't do a thing fixing anything.
Try helping out the problem rather than just attack your opponents.

**edit** and I wasn't talking about Kennedy

It's O K If You're A Republican, sung to the tune of the Mickey Mouse Club theme.
Oh, mantra!
Thanks!
...ooh, btw ...

I think we should just trust our president in every decision that he makes and we should just support that.

How right you are!
:eek:

My opening "salvo" was just a current example that corruption can and does affect everyone in power. The right-here-right now arguement isn't appropriate because the focus of us all should be on finding the root cause of the corruption and stopping it.
Demogogues on both sides keep pulling the "your shit is stinkier than my shit" crap that doesn't do a damn bit of good addressing the entire issue.
You simply can't accept that crys of "dirtier" don't do a thing fixing anything.
Try helping out the problem rather than just attack your opponents.
The root cause of corruption is easy--power corrupts, but you can't govern without it, so there's always going to be some level of corruption. All you can really do is follow the pendulum.

But there's nothing wrong with pointing out when one group's shit is stinkier than the other's. That's very often the case. In 1994, the Republicans were the less stinky, and they took power by playing that up. It didn't take them long to smell up the joint, and if the Dems get power back this November, I don't imagine it'll take them terribly long either.

The root cause of corruption is easy--power corrupts, but you can't govern without it, so there's always going to be some level of corruption. All you can really do is follow the pendulum.

But there's nothing wrong with pointing out when one group's shit is stinkier than the other's. That's very often the case. In 1994, the Republicans were the less stinky, and they took power by playing that up. It didn't take them long to smell up the joint, and if the Dems get power back this November, I don't imagine it'll take them terribly long either.
Not so simple as that. Power by itself doesn't corrupt. Power coupled with greed corrupts. Power, coupled with greed, in secrecy corrupts the most/quickest.
We can't govern without power invested somewhere. We haven't figured out a way to overcome greed. So the only thing we can do, perhaps is to find a way to make government more transparent.
That's a start to a discussion about how to prevent/minimize corruption in government.
Pointing fingers does absolutely nothing, except make you feel better about your self because "at least I'm not them".

Not so simple as that. Power by itself doesn't corrupt. Power coupled with greed corrupts. Power, coupled with greed, in secrecy corrupts the most/quickest.
We can't govern without power invested somewhere. We haven't figured out a way to overcome greed. So the only thing we can do, perhaps is to find a way to make government more transparent.
That's a start to a discussion about how to prevent/minimize corruption in government.
Pointing fingers does absolutely nothing, except make you feel better about your self because "at least I'm not them".And what makes a person seek power? Greed. The two are, I'm convinced, inextricably linked. That's part of what Douglas Adams was referring to when he said that "Anyone who is capable of getting themselves made President should on no account be allowed to do the job."

Transparency in government would be a start, but again--look who we're asking to make government transparent. The very people who have every vested interest in keeping what they're doing secret and hidden.