NationStates Jolt Archive

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/05/21/washington/21jefferson.html?_r=6&oref=slogin&oref=slogin&oref=slogin&oref=slogin&oref=login&oref=login

WASHINGTON, May 20 — The F.B.I. raided the Congressional offices of Representative William J. Jefferson, Democrat of Louisiana, on Saturday night as part of a corruption investigation focused on the lawmaker and on a Kentucky businessman who has pleaded guilty to trying to bribe him.

Yeah. Um. What was it that Pelosi was going on about a climate of corruption on the Hill that was brought on ONLY by Republicans, and how Democrats are the solution because they AREN'T corrupt?

Mmm?

But did the Democrat actually take the bribe?

But did the Democrat actually take the bribe?

We'll find out. But, in the spirit of Pelosi's argument that an investigation is as good as a conviction, and if a few Republicans are doing it, they must all be doing it, we'll apply the same argument to the Democrats.

I cant see any part of the article without providing the New York Times personal information.

I dont trust the New York Times with any information, mine or anyone else's.

So can you please give a synopsis of the article?

I cant see any part of the article without providing the New York Times personal information.

I dont trust the New York Times with any information, mine or anyone else's.

So can you please give a synopsis of the article?
www.bugmenot.com

But did the Democrat actually take the bribe?
This part alleges that he did:
The Justice Department has said in court papers that the bribes to Mr. Jefferson began in 2001 and were made to a company that was "ostensibly maintained" in the names of the lawmaker's wife and children. The court papers said the payments were actually "designed to be in return for Representative A performing official acts in promoting iGate products and business."

The plea bargain with Mr. Jackson noted that "Representative A" had traveled to Nigeria on official business in 2003 and met with television company officials there to promote iGate's technology. The effort resulted in an agreement by the company to invest $45 million in a joint venture with iGate.
Just going from the article, that doesn't look good.


We'll find out. But, in the spirit of Pelosi's argument that an investigation is as good as a conviction, and if a few Republicans are doing it, they must all be doing it, we'll apply the same argument to the Democrats.
I'm not going to make excuses for this guy (an important difference as well...) but that's one versus how many? One can't be a pattern.

But then the argument that "Oh it's not just one yaddity yankity." Fine. All bad. This dude doesn't let all the Republicans in trouble off the hook any more than them being in trouble lets this guy off.

I'm not going to make excuses for this guy (an important difference as well...) but that's one versus how many? One can't be a pattern.

But then the argument that "Oh it's not just one yaddity yankity." Fine. All bad. This dude doesn't let all the Republicans in trouble off the hook any more than them being in trouble lets this guy off.

Note carefully that I'm not saying this lets the Republicans off the hook.

But, I am quite sure it lays Pelosi's argument (and Reid's argument as well) to rest that Democrats are somehow pure, spotless, and immune to this.

Yeah. Um. What was it that Pelosi was going on about a climate of corruption on the Hill that was brought on ONLY by Republicans, and how Democrats are the solution because they AREN'T corrupt?

Mmm?If you can find a place where Pelosi said that only Republicans are corrupt, I'd love to see it. Hell, Howard Dean was on one of the Sunday morning shows last week and he was asked about this case--Stephanopolous asked if Jefferson ought to resign if indicted and Dean said--no hesitation, no hemming or hawing--"Yes." Stephanopolous was taken aback by the bluntness of the answer.

So Jefferson is dirty--big shock to anyone who lived around the New Orleans area. :rolleyes: He's been an old-school machine politician for years--the question has always been when he'd get caught, not whether.

But one Congressman does not a "culture of corruption" make. How many Republican Congressmen have recently resigned or are in jail? 2. How many more are under investigation? A boatload. How many Democrats in a similar situation? Jefferson, and maybe Mollohan. Hmmmm.

Anyone else find it sad and kinda pathetic how right-wingers latch onto, terrier-like, any and every wrong-doing by a liberal as some sort of justification for the immense corruption and failings of their lot?
And that makes you feel better, how exactly?

Oh look, more trolling. No surprise of course.

Oh look, more trolling. No surprise of course.
You have an interesting idea of trolling. :rolleyes:
This is hardly the only example of Democratic corruption. And I'm not talking about Kennedy. The other Kennedy either.

Abscam?
Keating 5?

You have an interesting idea of trolling. :rolleyes:
This is hardly the only example of Democratic corruption. And I'm not talking about Kennedy. The other Kennedy either.

Abscam?
Keating 5?
You must be new here...

Anyone else find it sad and kinda pathetic how right-wingers latch onto, terrier-like, any and every wrong-doing by a liberal as some sort of justification for the immense corruption and failings of their lot?
And that makes you feel better, how exactly?

Anyone else find it sad and kinda pathetic how left-wingers latch onto, terrier-like, any and every wrongdoing by a conservative as some sort of justification for the immense corruption and failings of their lot? And that makes you feel better, how exactly?

Anyone who says "hey all the Democrats are all corrupt", or "hey, all the Republicans are corrupt" is a self-righteous hypocrite. Because being corrupt, self-serving money grubbing assholes is something BOTH parties excell at.

Pointing out the shortcomings of the guys you don't like is retarded when half the guys in your party are either selling out undercover agents or "accidently" drowning hookers.

Anyone who says "hey all the Democrats are all corrupt", or "hey, all the Republicans are corrupt" is a self-righteous hypocrite. Because being corrupt, self-serving money grubbing assholes is something BOTH parties excell at.

Pointing out the shortcomings of the guys you don't like is retarded when half the guys in your party are either selling out undercover agents or "accidently" drowning hookers.

My point is that they all, Democrat or Republican, are revolting. They stink on ice.

I would add that this whole thread was prompted by Pelosi's own web site, where up until about two weeks ago, she essentially said that Republicans were the party of corruption, and the Democrats most certainly were not.

You must be new here...
I guess I would call myself naieve to think you might actually discuss something rather than your usual tactics.

I'm sorry for feeding you.

More sanctimonious dick-waving from the #2 ass on NSG. DK, get over yourself and use that beloved gun of yours to put yourself out of our misery.

I guess I would call myself naieve to think you might actually discuss something rather than your usual tactics.

I'm sorry for feeding you.
Either you are new here or you are an old salt banned once and back to bullshit tricks.

More sanctimonious dick-waving from the #2 ass on NSG. DK, get over yourself and use that beloved gun of yours to put yourself out of our misery.

What, I'm not number one?

What, I'm not number one?

No. But, while you're at it, take out Corny first, then yourself. Then we'll be left with Raven, who's just fun to point and laugh at.

Either you are new here or you are an old salt banned once and back to bullshit tricks.

I would say "new here", because he refered to feeding you, when HE is the troll who started this thread. We shouldn't be feeding HIM. An old salt wouldn't mess up terminology like that.

Anyone who says "hey all the Democrats are all corrupt", or "hey, all the Republicans are corrupt" is a self-righteous hypocrite. Because being corrupt, self-serving money grubbing assholes is something BOTH parties excell at.
Correction:
Being corrupt, self-serving money grubbing assholes is something any and every politician excels at.
How else do they get themselves elected?

Correction:
Being corrupt, self-serving money grubbing assholes is something any and every politician excels at.
How else do they get themselves elected?
I thought it was Leprechaun gold.

Correction:
Being corrupt, self-serving money grubbing assholes is something any and every politician excels at.
How else do they get themselves elected?

Not 100% true- there are good non-self-serving, non-money grubbing, non-asshole politicians- they just lose the elections. I know, I'm spitting hairs. Can you be a politician if you never get elected? Well, you can be a professional tennis player without every winning a tournament, so I think you can be a politician without every getting elected. You just better have another job.

More sanctimonious dick-waving from the #2 ass on NSG. DK, get over yourself and use that beloved gun of yours to put yourself out of our misery.
No. But, while you're at it, take out Corny first, then yourself. Then we'll be left with Raven, who's just fun to point and laugh at.

For these two quotes, Unabashed Greed has been given a 7 day Forum Ban.

Advocating murder/suicide is unacceptable.

~Erastide
Forum Moderator

You have an interesting idea of trolling. :rolleyes:
This is hardly the only example of Democratic corruption. And I'm not talking about Kennedy. The other Kennedy either.

Abscam?
Keating 5?
Abscam was in the 70s and the Keating 5 was a bipartisan scandal in the 80s--John McCain was one of the five, remember? Besides, if you're looking to tag Democrats, you can do a lot better and more recent.

I would say "new here", because he refered to feeding you, when HE is the troll who started this thread. We shouldn't be feeding HIM. An old salt wouldn't mess up terminology like that.
I wasn't the OP of this thread. What post did I make that was trolling? I merely pointed out that Democrats are not clean by any means. TPH then made a rather pointless post saying I was new.
What is it that Nazz always says? "Reading comprehension is your friend"?

My point is that they all, Democrat or Republican, are revolting. They stink on ice.
Funny--you never seem to bitch about the Republicans. :rolleyes:

I would add that this whole thread was prompted by Pelosi's own web site, where up until about two weeks ago, she essentially said that Republicans were the party of corruption, and the Democrats most certainly were not.

And as a party, right now, she's right. The Republicans are more corrupt than the Democrats--not because of any inherent failing on the part of the Republicans or goodness on the part of the Democrats, but because the Republicans have all the power and are thus the ones most open to corruption. Turn the tables and the corruption will follow, no question.

But she's still correct on that score.

Abscam was in the 70s and the Keating 5 was a bipartisan scandal in the 80s--John McCain was one of the five, remember? Besides, if you're looking to tag Democrats, you can do a lot better and more recent.
Keating 5 was 4 democrats and John McCain. Hardly bi-partisan. Abscam was in 1980 with the convictions coming in '81. Hardly ancient history.

Why can't you admit that politicians of both parties are dirty, it's not limited to either side. Republicans and Democrats. Neither side is better or worse than the other.

Funny--you never seem to bitch about the Republicans. :rolleyes:



And as a party, right now, she's right. The Republicans are more corrupt than the Democrats--not because of any inherent failing on the part of the Republicans or goodness on the part of the Democrats, but because the Republicans have all the power and are thus the ones most open to corruption. Turn the tables and the corruption will follow, no question.

But she's still correct on that score.
No, she's not correct. She is saying that the Republican party is a party of corruption. That is simply not correct, as saying the Democrats were a party of corruption at any time in the history of the party.

It would be correct to say that there are politicians who happen to be Republican that are corrupt. It would also be correct to say that there are politicians who happen to be Democrat that are corrupt.

She's making broad generalizations... don't you dislike when people make those kinds of generalizations? Or are you ok when that brush paints your "opponents?

Keating 5 was 4 democrats and John McCain. Hardly bi-partisan. Abscam was in 1980 with the convictions coming in '81. Hardly ancient history.

Why can't you admit that politicians of both parties are dirty, it's not limited to either side. Republicans and Democrats. Neither side is better or worse than the other.It goes in waves. In the 70s and 80s, who was in control? The Democrats. Who wound up being the dirtier party? The Democrats. Who's in charge now? The Republicans. Who's dirtier now? The Republicans.

God, I hate when I have to spell this shit out for you.

And by the way, in political terms, twenty-five years is ancient history. And by modern Republican standards for PR, 1 Democrat voting with 52 Republicans is bipartisan. The Keating 5 was bipartisan.

No, she's not correct. She is saying that the Republican party is a party of corruption. That is simply not correct, as saying the Democrats were a party of corruption at any time in the history of the party.

It would be correct to say that there are politicians who happen to be Republican that are corrupt. It would also be correct to say that there are politicians who happen to be Democrat that are corrupt.

She's making broad generalizations... don't you dislike when people make those kinds of generalizations? Or are you ok when that brush paints your "opponents?
Follow the flow chart that starts with Tom DeLay and moves through Jack Abramoff, Grover Norquist, Duke Cunningham, Bob Ney, Tom Noe--I can continue if necessary. There's Bill Frist still under investigation by the SEC, as well as Rick Santorum.

When you have one or two or even just a handful of members who are corrupt, then you can call it painting with a broad brush. That's not what's happening here--this is widespread corruption in the House of Representatives that comes from feeling untouchable because you hold all the power. Right here, right now, the Republican party is corrupt--even the members who are honest, and there are many, are tainted because they haven't stood up and demanded an accounting from their cohorts.

I have no doubt that the Republican party will eventually regain its soul, just as the Democrats will lose theirs again, but at this point in time, there is no comparison between the two.

It goes in waves. In the 70s and 80s, who was in control? The Democrats. Who wound up being the dirtier party? The Democrats. Who's in charge now? The Republicans. Who's dirtier now? The Republicans.

God, I hate when I have to spell this shit out for you.

And by the way, in political terms, twenty-five years is ancient history. And by modern Republican standards for PR, 1 Democrat voting with 52 Republicans is bipartisan. The Keating 5 was bipartisan.
God, I hate when I have to spell this shit out for you.
One party isn't dirtier than the other. They are both dirty. To claim one is dirtier than the other is intellectually dishonest, as well as being pure bs.

The only reason one might feel that the party in power is dirtier than the other is because the party not in power makes political gains by pointing fingers.

You are making broad generalizations, but you just won't let yourself realize that. You are saying that Republicans are corrupt. I am saying that there are some Republicans that are corrupt. Who is more accurate?

I say that there are some Democrats that are corrupt. You are saying, well nothing, you dismiss the point. Who is more accurate?

I've always been an advocate for the treatment of the disease, not the symptom. You are focusing on the symptom because you feel it helps your 'side'.

(snip)
even the members who are honest, and there are many, are tainted because they haven't stood up and demanded an accounting from their cohorts.
Do you even listen to yourself?
Now you are saying that even those who aren't corrupt, are corrupt.

Fine, you won't listen to reason.
Good bye.

God, I hate when I have to spell this shit out for you.
One party isn't dirtier than the other. They are both dirty. To claim one is dirtier than the other is intellectually dishonest, as well as being pure bs.

The only reason one might feel that the party in power is dirtier than the other is because the party not in power makes political gains by pointing fingers.

You are making broad generalizations, but you just won't let yourself realize that. You are saying that Republicans are corrupt. I am saying that there are some Republicans that are corrupt. Who is more accurate?

I say that there are some Democrats that are corrupt. You are saying, well nothing, you dismiss the point. Who is more accurate?

I've always been an advocate for the treatment of the disease, not the symptom. You are focusing on the symptom because you feel it helps your 'side'.Some--and it's only some if you make 2=some--versus many. And yet you don't see the difference?

But go ahead--continue to rationalize that both parties are equally bad even when there's no fucking evidence to prove that.

Do you even listen to yourself?
Now you are saying that even those who aren't corrupt, are corrupt.

Fine, you won't listen to reason.
Good bye.Hmmmm. Pelosi got Mollohan to step down from his committee position in the House and Dean said Jefferson ought to resign if indicted. Sounds like the Democrats are calling out their own.

And what do we hear from the Republican side of the aisle about their dirties? Crickets. Fucking crickets. Now, are you going to admit that at this point in time, one side is dirtier, or do I have to keep rhetorically busting your ass?