Absolved: The alcohol made me do it...

[iplaw]

quote:
The reason my comments aren't balanced is because the Democrats aren't in a lot of high-profile scandals RIGHT NOW, are they? I think I've made that clear.

So we choose to twist in the wind and play the "that was yesterday" game?  Is 2005 too far back for you to go?  How about 2004?  There have been plenty of Dems in the news the last few years.  If you were really equitable you would be able to concede that political scandals didn't begin in 2006 and that both sides are equally detestable.

Do you always dogpile on the party in power or just the individual?  Would it be the Reps fault if Dems knew about Foley and didn't say anything?

Anyways, why are we talking about Foley now; that was in the past, that happened last week...I want to know what is happening TODAY...


BEER IS GOOD....

[Conan71]

quote:Originally posted by rwarn17588

<iplaw wrote:

Politicians are blowing it. Both side equally suck about 95% of the time. Your comments are not equally balanced in your indignation and that raises questions about whether you actually believed this or not.

<end clip>

You can choose to believe me or not. That was my thought at the time.

The reason my comments aren't balanced is because the Democrats aren't in a lot of high-profile scandals RIGHT NOW, are they? I think I've made that clear.

Give 'em control of the House and Senate and they will be within a year or two. []

[Conan71]

quote:Originally posted by snopes

Since the topic of this thread has alcohol in it. How 'bout we all sit down and have a few of
these.


What do y'all say? Aox, you're invited as well.

I say we all meet at Arnie's some time and settle it once and for all like gentlemen with a keg o' beer and a battle royale dart game. []

[azbadpuppy]

quote:Originally posted by iplaw

Yeah, let's just forget about the fact that the Democrats allowed on of their own to do the exact same thing BUT ALLOWED HIM TO STAY IN OFFICE, but some of those EXACT SAME Democracts are now pointing fingers across the asile as if they now have some new found moral outrage.  Somehow that hypocrisy seems to escape you.

No one is trying to shift the blame, it lies squarely on Foley where it should.  The hypocrisy exists in the fact that Dems and now trying to extend this to the leadership, when there is NO EVIDENCE of that.  They fail to remember their leadership allowed far worse with Studds and KEPT HIM IN OFFICE.  

Dick Morris is correct in stating that the Dems are about to overplay this hand.

First of all the Democrats didn't allow Studds to do anything, he just did it. The main difference between then and now is the legal age of consent. In 1983 it was 16, and the page in question was 17 and consenting. Now because of newer laws placing the age of consent on the internet to 18 (much to Foley's credit, ironically) what Foley may have done (the jury is still out) is illegal, not to mention it hasn't been established if it was consenting, but that wouldn't matter anyway from a legal standpoint (but certainly from a moral one).  

Another fact about the Studds case- he stood by his ground and was not found to have done anything legally wrong, although he was censured due to Newt Gingrich's insistence (more hypocrisy since Newt is a bit ethically challenged himself). Studds won re-election and served in Congress until retirement in 1996. Doesn't sound 'far worse' than Foley to me.

I know its easy to drudge up the past to excuse the present bad behavior, but lets try to focus on the here and now, shall we?

As far as the evidence of a cover up? Stay tuned.....

[Chicken Little]

quote:Originally posted by Conan71

CL- Why did you even bother to quote me since not one word of what you said even remotely addressed my statement?

Point taken, sorry.  Abramoff is a Republican scandal.  Abramoff did not give a single dime to Democrats.  Some of Abramoff's victims, the Indian tribes, did give money to Democrats.  They gave money to people like Reid (Senator from the the great state of Vegas) in hopes of gaining assistance with gambling issues.  They did it long before Abramoff came along, and they continued to do it afterwards.

However, Abramoff's chief objective was to convince tribes and other clients to give less to Democrats and more to Republicans.  This is MO of the entire K-Street Project creeps and it was very successful, even with the tribes.  Its inaccurate and misleading to say that this is a "bipartisan" scandal simply because some of Abramoff's victims continued to give money to Democrats as they had done for decades.  Abramoff conned and cajoled them into changing this long-established trend, and then used the money illegally for partisan purposes.  The end.

quote:You give the Dems a free pass on all their past mal-feasance, and make the blind assumption there isn't still plenty going on.

Your statements above characterize every presidential administration and congress for at least the last 100 years.

The Abramoff and Foley scandals are indicative of Washington, not a political party.  Can you honestly say without doubt that there aren't some Democrats who have been laundering money through PAC's, etc. like DeLay is accused of?

The only charges brought on DeLay are from the district attorney in Travis County, Tx.  I'm outraged that there seems to be enough evidence against DeLay that there should be federal charges, yet because he's a congressman, he's somehow immune to laws people like you and I are subject to.

I have to call them as I see them.  Except for Jefferson's freezer full-'o-fifties, the Democrats are not exhibiting the same criminality these days as the Republicans.  A scoundrel is a scoundrel.  Chalk it up to the arrogance of power if you want; perhaps arrogance is the only explanation needed.  Does it not, therefore, make some sense to take some of the power away from the Republicans and give it to Democrats?  Would it not shift the center of gravity and change the status quo?  The Republicans have been arrogant, and reticent about it.  If they can't change on their own, then voters will have to help them.

quote:You'd rather ignore history that says there's been plenty of corruption on both sides of the aisle in order to make a partisan point about today.

 As I said previously, the issues of today (and tomorrow) are what we, as voters, can address.  Personally, I love history, but I don't appreciate it when others use it as a smokescreen...for partisan purposes.[]

quote:It's a prime example of what happens in Washington.  Congress doesn't do the job they were hired to do by the voters, so they sit around and point fingers at the opposing party's weaknesses to keep the focus off their own weaknesses and criminal activity.

This is the reason we have such an effed up legislative system that is for sale to the highest bidder.

More than anything, I want things to change.  But your position seems to be "leave it alone", correct?  Leave all the power in the hands of the Republicans.  Where's the logic in that?  These sleepy SOBs have had twelve years to affect change and things are far worse for their efforts, or lack thereof.

quote:What will happen if the Dems take the house back over is that more of the slush fund money will be directed toward them.

Purely speculative. update: no, this is probably quite true.  I misread your sentence, sorry.

quote:Changing the name of the party that is running the House or Senate will change nothing about how business is done in Washington.

Again, speculative.  But even if it were true, what other choices does a voter have.  We send somebody to Washington.  If they fail us, then we send somebody else.

quote:Take the blinders off and realize that the majority of the people in Washington are not there to make this a better country, they are there to be in power, advance their personal agendas, and become even richer.

Blinders?  That's funny.  Ben Franklin said, "The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results."  I'll keep sending new folks to Washington until we get somebody who is willing to do the job right.  Your position, however, is "stay the course"; keep these goofs in charge.  Blinders...feh.

[papaspot]

The argument over whether the Republicans are sleazier than the Democrats or vice versa is like arguing about whether vomit is more disgusting than feces.

Anyone that allows a child to be harmed and keeps quiet is as low as the ones that harm them. Anyone that knew about this and kept quiet should resign immediately and hang their heads in shame for the rest of their lives. And that goes whether they're Republican, Democrat, Libertarian, socialist, communist or anarchist. Period.

[Conan71]

CL-

"Point taken, sorry. Abramoff is a Republican scandal. Abramoff did not give a single dime to Democrats. Some of Abramoff's victims, the Indian tribes, did give money to Democrats. They gave money to people like Reid (Senator from the the great state of Vegas) in hopes of gaining assistance with gambling issues. They did it long before Abramoff came along, and they continued to do it afterwards."

Do the names Daschle, Gephardt, Dorgan, or Reid mean anything to you?

Again, suggested reading:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/06/02/AR2005060202158.html

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/12/13/AR2005121301582.html

http://www.uncorrelated.com/2006/01/abramoff_democrats.html

Whether or not the check was signed by Abramoff, one of his toadies, or their clients is irrelevant- It was done at his behest- in many cases with Dems.  And what were Democrats doing in his skybox?  It's bribery and it is rampant in Washington and there are a number of Democrats who have back-tracked, amended campaign reports, and returned filthy money.  There is evidence there is just as much guilt to share with Dems.  

The last article clearly outlines "pay-to-play" that has been going on with the Democrats.

Do you care to justify why it's okay for ANY lawmaker to engage in pay-to-play whether it's from a lobbyist or directly from groups legislation and favors will benefit?

The insanity is we keep sending new people to Washington thinking that will solve the problem.  The real problem is, we need to get rid of slush-fund PACs, clamp down on lobbyists, and get some people with real ba**s that will re-write ethics rules.

How many other Abramoffs do you think are operating in Washington?  Shutting him down is sticking a finger in the proverbial dyke.

[Conan71]

quote:Originally posted by papaspot

The argument over whether the Republicans are sleazier than the Democrats or vice versa is like arguing about whether vomit is more disgusting than feces.

Anyone that allows a child to be harmed and keeps quiet is as low as the ones that harm them. Anyone that knew about this and kept quiet should resign immediately and hang their heads in shame for the rest of their lives. And that goes whether they're Republican, Democrat, Libertarian, socialist, communist or anarchist. Period.

Amen!

[snopes]

quote:Originally posted by papaspot

The argument over whether the Republicans are sleazier than the Democrats or vice versa is like arguing about whether vomit is more disgusting than feces.

Anyone that allows a child to be harmed and keeps quiet is as low as the ones that harm them. Anyone that knew about this and kept quiet should resign immediately and hang their heads in shame for the rest of their lives. And that goes whether they're Republican, Democrat, Libertarian, socialist, communist or anarchist. Period.

DITTO!

[iplaw]

quote:
First of all the Democrats didn't allow Studds to do anything, he just did it.

As with Foley.  No one has presented proof of anything beyond his singular volitional act.

quote:
The main difference between then and now is the legal age of consent. In 1983 it was 16, and the page in question was 17 and consenting.

Ummmm... the page in this case was legal age as well.  He should have just pulled a Studds and had sex with him.  Studds did actually had sex with his page...you forgot that difference.

quote:
Now because of newer laws placing the age of consent on the internet to 18 (much to Foley's credit, ironically) what Foley may have done (the jury is still out) is illegal, not to mention it hasn't been established if it was consenting, but that wouldn't matter anyway from a legal standpoint (but certainly from a moral one).  

So it was okay morally for a Congressman to have sex with a page, but not for another one to talk about sex with a page???

quote:
I know its easy to drudge up the past to excuse the present bad behavior, but lets try to focus on the here and now, shall we?

Yeah.  Let's just forget the past because that makes you look good.  Don't bother digging too deep there puppy, you may just find that you're party is as repugnant as the next.

quote:
As far as the evidence of a cover up? Stay tuned.....

This WILL backfire if they continue to push the issue because there is a story brewing about who and how those emails were obtained by...three year old instant messages...upcoming elections...something is pointing to smear site funded by George Soros.

[Chicken Little]

quote:Originally posted by Conan71

CL-

Do the names Daschle, Gephardt, Dorgan, or Reid mean anything to you?

Let me repeat this.  Indian tribes have been historically supportive of the Democratic Party for obvious reasons.  They gave to these guys before Abramoff came along, and they continued to do so afterwards.

Abramoff simply interjected himself into the process and convinced tribes to give a heck of a lot more to Republicans.  He convinced them that he could help them influence Republicans, then he stole money and blew it on hookers, smack, Ralph Reed, and whatnot.  The "Abramoff scandal" is entirely a Republican problem.  The fact that Democrats continued to receive money from Abramoff's victims (less money, btw) after he came along is strictly incidental.  Do you dispute this?

quote:Whether or not the check was signed by Abramoff, one of his toadies, or their clients is irrelevant- It was done at his behest- in many cases with Dems.

Victims, not toadies.  How on earth does being a victim of theft make you a co-conspirator?  Abramoff was not "spreading it around" he was directing money to Republican interests in a targeted and highly partisan way.  Donations to Democrats by tribes were done "in spite" of Abramoff, not "at his behest".

The Washington Post was wrong about this, leading to a series of retractions, culminating in the ombudsman's admission that the Abramoff scandal is "not a bipartisan scandal; it's a Republican scandal."

quote:And what were Democrats doing in his skybox?  It's bribery and it is rampant in Washington and there are a number of Democrats who have back-tracked, amended campaign reports, and returned filthy money.  There is evidence there is just as much guilt to share with Dems.  

The last article clearly outlines "pay-to-play" that has been going on with the Democrats.

Do you care to justify why it's okay for ANY lawmaker to engage in pay-to-play whether it's from a lobbyist or directly from groups legislation and favors will benefit?

The insanity is we keep sending new people to Washington thinking that will solve the problem.  The real problem is, we need to get rid of slush-fund PACs, clamp down on lobbyists, and get some people with real ba**s that will re-write ethics rules.

How many other Abramoffs do you think are operating in Washington?  Shutting him down is sticking a finger in the proverbial dyke.

What were Republicans, including Istook, doing in those skyboxes?  Pay-to-play stinks.  Don't presume that I "heart" Democratic shenanigans.  You should only presume that I am ready for a change.  Convince me that Republicans will change the system, and I'd consider voting Republican, even though I do not support the idealogy.  Fact is, your guys have had a dozen years of control, total control these last few, and the the gaming continues.  I'll vote for a change.

[Chicken Little]

quote:Originally posted by papaspot

...Anyone that knew about this and kept quiet should resign immediately and hang their heads in shame for the rest of their lives...

 And that would be Congressman Dennis Hastert (R), Speaker of the House of Representatives.

[Conan71]

quote:Originally posted by Chicken Little

quote:Originally posted by Conan71

CL-

Do the names Daschle, Gephardt, Dorgan, or Reid mean anything to you?

Let me repeat this.  Indian tribes have been historically supportive of the Democratic Party for obvious reasons.  They gave to these guys before Abramoff came along, and they continued to do so afterwards.

Abramoff simply interjected himself into the process and convinced tribes to give a heck of a lot more to Republicans.  He convinced them that he could help them influence Republicans, then he stole money and blew it on hookers, smack, Ralph Reed, and whatnot.  The "Abramoff scandal" is entirely a Republican problem.  The fact that Democrats continued to receive money from Abramoff's victims (less money, btw) after he came along is strictly incidental.  Do you dispute this?

quote:Whether or not the check was signed by Abramoff, one of his toadies, or their clients is irrelevant- It was done at his behest- in many cases with Dems.

Victims, not toadies.  How on earth does being a victim of theft make you a co-conspirator?  Abramoff was not "spreading it around" he was directing money to Republican interests in a targeted and highly partisan way.  Donations to Democrats by tribes were done "in spite" of Abramoff, not "at his behest".

The Washington Post was wrong about this, leading to a series of retractions, culminating in the ombudsman's admission that the Abramoff scandal is "not a bipartisan scandal; it's a Republican scandal."

quote:And what were Democrats doing in his skybox?  It's bribery and it is rampant in Washington and there are a number of Democrats who have back-tracked, amended campaign reports, and returned filthy money.  There is evidence there is just as much guilt to share with Dems.  

The last article clearly outlines "pay-to-play" that has been going on with the Democrats.

Do you care to justify why it's okay for ANY lawmaker to engage in pay-to-play whether it's from a lobbyist or directly from groups legislation and favors will benefit?

The insanity is we keep sending new people to Washington thinking that will solve the problem.  The real problem is, we need to get rid of slush-fund PACs, clamp down on lobbyists, and get some people with real ba**s that will re-write ethics rules.

How many other Abramoffs do you think are operating in Washington?  Shutting him down is sticking a finger in the proverbial dyke.

What were Republicans, including Istook, doing in those skyboxes?  Pay-to-play stinks.  Don't presume that I "heart" Democratic shenanigans.  You should only presume that I am ready for a change.  Convince me that Republicans will change the system, and I'd consider voting Republican, even though I do not support the idealogy.  Fact is, your guys have had a dozen years of control, total control these last few, and the the gaming continues.  I'll vote for a change.

The Republicans have failed starting with their "Contract For America".  There were very few who signed the contract who honored the term limits, ethics reform never happened- need I go on?

And what was the reason for ethics reform not happening?  Legislators on both sides of the aisle wilted when they realized it would mean less money, gifts, trips, and favors that have become expected accoutrements to elected office.

Unless ethics rules are changed, by eliminating "PACs" and "caucuses" (and what ever other sanitary term people use for slush funds) and candidates quit taking contributions for their influence, it will not matter one whit which party is in control in Washington.  As it sits now, money is in control of Washington.

[Conan71]

quote:Originally posted by azbadpuppy

quote:Originally posted by iplaw

Yeah, let's just forget about the fact that the Democrats allowed on of their own to do the exact same thing BUT ALLOWED HIM TO STAY IN OFFICE, but some of those EXACT SAME Democracts are now pointing fingers across the asile as if they now have some new found moral outrage.  Somehow that hypocrisy seems to escape you.

No one is trying to shift the blame, it lies squarely on Foley where it should.  The hypocrisy exists in the fact that Dems and now trying to extend this to the leadership, when there is NO EVIDENCE of that.  They fail to remember their leadership allowed far worse with Studds and KEPT HIM IN OFFICE.  

Dick Morris is correct in stating that the Dems are about to overplay this hand.

First of all the Democrats didn't allow Studds to do anything, he just did it. The main difference between then and now is the legal age of consent. In 1983 it was 16, and the page in question was 17 and consenting. Now because of newer laws placing the age of consent on the internet to 18 (much to Foley's credit, ironically) what Foley may have done (the jury is still out) is illegal, not to mention it hasn't been established if it was consenting, but that wouldn't matter anyway from a legal standpoint (but certainly from a moral one).  

Another fact about the Studds case- he stood by his ground and was not found to have done anything legally wrong, although he was censured due to Newt Gingrich's insistence (more hypocrisy since Newt is a bit ethically challenged himself). Studds won re-election and served in Congress until retirement in 1996. Doesn't sound 'far worse' than Foley to me.

I know its easy to drudge up the past to excuse the present bad behavior, but lets try to focus on the here and now, shall we?

As far as the evidence of a cover up? Stay tuned.....

Actually, Studds (sorry that name still cracks me up, it sounds like the name of a gay bar) affair happened in 1973 but was not exposed until 1983.

The age of consent varies by state and I believe even goes as low as 14 in New Mexico.

Now, here's the kicker, the age of consent in Washington D.C. is 16.  So if Foley had had physical contact instead of internet contact with a 16 year old page, it would have been perfectly legal and legally speaking, a non-issue.

Now- sodomy, oral or uh, otherwise is still considered a felony under D.C. law whether it's homo or heterosexual, which means virtually all lawmakers in Washington could be guilty of a felony.

However, these pages are supposed to be in Washington to learn how the political system works and ostensibly assist members of the Senate and HOR not to be personal play-toys of elected officials.

So no, I'm not brushing aside Foley, just pointing out some ironies in the laws.

[Chicken Little]

Funnier that Packwood?[]