Absolved: The alcohol made me do it...

[Conan71]

quote:Originally posted by rwarn17588

The joke just writes itself:

Roughrider?!?!  Now THAT'S funny! Is that a pack of Roughriders in the bottom of the sword case?[}:)]

[Chicken Little]

quote:Originally posted by Conan71Did you say that the Democrats were morally bankrupt when President Clinton was proven to have had an extra-marital affair in the oval office, then had his minions try to cover it up?  Does that not fall into the realm of "moral bankruptcy"?

No, Abramoff is not a Republican scandal.  It is a Congressional scandal if you chose to read the Democrats cited in his contributions list.  He tried to buy influence from ANY congressman who could help his lobbying efforts.  As long as we allow our congressmen have PAC's and they allow money to influence their work, there are plenty more Abramoffs operating in D.C.  The main reason Abramoff was brought down was professional jealousy:  he was spreading more of his largesse toward Republicans which was a trend that began with the Republican take-over of the House.  Republicans now have the majority in both houses, which means they have more of the key leadership roles.  If the Dems had been in control of both houses, you can be assured that Abramoff would have been spreading more of his money on the other side of the aisle.

Money gets the influence in Washington and has for a very long time.  Which ever party controls the key influential posts will get most of the money thrown their way.

An effed up, pointless war, runaway spending, steady erosion of our freedoms, secret meetings with oil execs, open borders and open ports...these are some of the issues at hand.  These are the things about which we can do something.

1996, and 1983, and 1066, while all very interesting to some, are history now. Fact is, the Republican rap sheet is growing by the day and the scale of their crimes and malfeasance dwarfs anything the Democrats have done in recent history. Not even Bill's member is this big.

You and IP seem to think we want to play the red herring game, but we don't.  Your guys don't deserve to be in charge and in about a month, some boots will begin to find some Republican butts.  

All that power...your guys could've changed the world for the better.  Instead, they effed it all up.  Its a shame.  Its a tragedy.  Its King Lear with trained monkeys playing all the parts.  Have a banana Cordelia, the play's over.

[Rico]

Someone needs to advise this fellow to stay silent...

His latest reason for his Behavior

[snopes]

Foley is a sick __hole. He's using a well-known tactic of high profile people that when caught, claim they are the victim. I've seen Democrats use this ploy, and I've seen Republicans use this ploy. He's BAD people. BAD people need to go, on both sides of the aisle.

[snopes]

On a somewhat unrelated note, whatever happened to statesmen like Moynihan. I know he's passed on, but I really miss people like that in politics. I'm sure he had his flaws of course, he was human, but he was my kind of guy, regardless if I disagreed or agreed with him on issues.

[Conan71]

quote:Originally posted by Chicken Little

quote:Originally posted by Conan71Did you say that the Democrats were morally bankrupt when President Clinton was proven to have had an extra-marital affair in the oval office, then had his minions try to cover it up?  Does that not fall into the realm of "moral bankruptcy"?

No, Abramoff is not a Republican scandal.  It is a Congressional scandal if you chose to read the Democrats cited in his contributions list.  He tried to buy influence from ANY congressman who could help his lobbying efforts.  As long as we allow our congressmen have PAC's and they allow money to influence their work, there are plenty more Abramoffs operating in D.C.  The main reason Abramoff was brought down was professional jealousy:  he was spreading more of his largesse toward Republicans which was a trend that began with the Republican take-over of the House.  Republicans now have the majority in both houses, which means they have more of the key leadership roles.  If the Dems had been in control of both houses, you can be assured that Abramoff would have been spreading more of his money on the other side of the aisle.

Money gets the influence in Washington and has for a very long time.  Which ever party controls the key influential posts will get most of the money thrown their way.

An effed up, pointless war, runaway spending, steady erosion of our freedoms, secret meetings with oil execs, open borders and open ports...these are some of the issues at hand.  These are the things about which we can do something.

1996, and 1983, and 1066, while all very interesting to some, are history now. Fact is, the Republican rap sheet is growing by the day and the scale of their crimes and malfeasance dwarfs anything the Democrats have done in recent history. Not even Bill's member is this big.

You and IP seem to think we want to play the red herring game, but we don't.  Your guys don't deserve to be in charge and in about a month, some boots will begin to find some Republican butts.  

All that power...your guys could've changed the world for the better.  Instead, they effed it all up.  Its a shame.  Its a tragedy.  Its King Lear with trained monkeys playing all the parts.  Have a banana Cordelia, the play's over.

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

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.

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.  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.

What will happen if the Dems take the house back over is that more of the slush fund money will be directed toward them.  Changing the name of the party that is running the House or Senate will change nothing about how business is done in Washington.  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.

[iplaw]

quote:
1996, and 1983, and 1066, while all very interesting to some, are history now. Fact is, the Republican rap sheet is growing by the day and the scale of their crimes and malfeasance dwarfs anything the Democrats have done in recent history.

Please.  You must have the shortest of short term memories.  If we stacked up everything perpetrated under Dem party rule we'd be digging through the stack for a thousand years.    

Nothing that has transpired in the last 12 years is worse than what has happened in the past and asserting that is just partisan BS.  The Dems have been as active in the last 12 years in every facet of malfeasance just as the Reps have, you just turn a blind eye to it because it fits your paradigm.

I bet if pressed for an answer to what you mean by "recent" you would somehow decide to stop just shy of the doorstep of the last and most heinous of Dem scandals.

quote:
You and IP seem to think we want to play the red herring game, but we don't.  Your guys don't deserve to be in charge and in about a month, some boots will begin to find some Republican butts.  

All that power...your guys could've changed the world for the better.  Instead, they effed it all up.  Its a shame.  Its a tragedy.

FYI.  You don't have to link to definitions of words for me.  I, unlike most here, actually understand the words that I use.

Though I don't like some of the things that have transpired in the last 12 years, out of control spending, open borders...I am not so blind as to ignore the fact that it was the Dem party that had the control of the helm for 8 years before that leaving in it's wake a brooding recession, a terror attack and corporate scandals that eclipsed anything that we had seen before. Inception, and preparation for all these took place unchecked under Dem rule.

[azbadpuppy]

Pointing out past scandals seems to be very popular these days, on both sides. As the Republicans scramble to deal with blow after blow (no pun intended), it is easy to try and shift the blame and use past scandals to somehow justify their actions. In regards to the Foley scandal, the Republican party and those involved just need to fess up and move on. Not doing so only makes them look worse. What happened in the past is history. What we can do now about rectifying the issues at hand is all that really should matter.    

What I find ironic and slightly amusing however is the so called 'moral' platform the Republicans have hijacked that has now been called into question. I for one am glad this has been brought into the spotlight and questioned for the hypocrisy it is. Lets focus on that.

[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.

[rwarn17588]

I don't find the pointing out of all these scandals from one to two decades ago relevant to NOW.

Right NOW, the scandals in Congress and federal government are dominated by Republicans -- period.

If the Democrats were in charge, would they dominate the corruption news? Probably. But they're not. So they don't. I don't deal with hypotheticals -- I deal with what's apparent and happening NOW.

Those scandals from one to two decades ago involved Democrats that are no longer even in office, plus there's obviously been a lot of turnover since then.

(And, gee, I'm so sorry I wasn't outraged at Gerry Stubbs or Studs or Toestubbed or whatever the hell his name was. Like I said, it was so long ago and I was so young ... what was I thinking of with my lack of indignancy? <sarcasm off.>)

Besides, this "the other side does it, too" practically is a half-defeatist, apologist attitude. We need to hold politicians' feet to the fire, and this cynical stance sure isn't helping.

That's what so frustrating. When the GOP took over both houses of Congress, I thought, "Well, the other side didn't do too well ... maybe these guys can do better." But when I see the corruption, monster deficit, stupid earmarks and a willingness to step on the Constitution, I just shake my head. These guys had a chance to really do something great, and they're blowing it.

Make 'em pay. Raise hell with your e-mails. Zap 'em at the voting booth. Tell 'em you're not putting up with any more of their bullsh*t.

[snopes]

azbad, I haven't used any past issues such as this to justify the actions of Foley. There IS NO justification for his behavior, regardless if he is an alcoholic or claims to have been molested. And the fact that he was on some panel that was supposed to prevent these kinds of things from happening makes it even worse. It is hypocrisy on steroids.

The people that point to this and claim it is a Republican (only) issue seem to have a short memory and are being hypocritical as well (imo).


There is a terrible problem with corruption on both sides, especially over the last twenty years or so. As for the Republicans laying claim to being the party with morales; I can agree that they have definitely tarnished their reputation these past few years with scandals, no bid contracts, and more. I for one do not like to be snookered by anyone, and I've been snookered by both sides because I vote for the person and not the party.

I'm thoroughly disgusted and if there are any people who knew about this and covered it up, they should get the boot, Republican AND Democrat.

[snopes]

quote: When the GOP took over both houses of Congress, I thought, "Well, the other side didn't do too well ... maybe these guys can do better." But when I see the corruption, monster deficit, stupid earmarks and a willingness to step on the Constitution, I just shake my head. These guys had a chance to really do something great, and they're blowing it.

I agree with a large part of this statement.

[iplaw]

quote:
I don't find the pointing out of all these scandals from one to two decades ago relevant to NOW.

That's because it suits your argument to ignore the past.

quote:
Right NOW, the scandals in Congress and federal government are dominated by Republicans -- period.

Any independent is rolling their eyes at this rediculous comment.  Do we need to post links to every Dem scandal in the last 12 years?

quote:
If the Democrats were in charge, would they dominate the corruption news? Probably. But they're not. So they don't. I don't deal with hypotheticals -- I deal with what's apparent and happening NOW.

No, you deal with fallacies and aviod glaring facts to help you justify your position.  

quote:
Those scandals from one to two decades ago involved Democrats that are no longer even in office, plus there's obviously been a lot of turnover since then.

So the Democratic party has fundamentally changed?  They were FOR child exploitation before they were AGAINST it?  How VERY VERY John Kerry of them.

quote:
That's what so frustrating. When the GOP took over both houses of Congress, I thought, "Well, the other side didn't do too well ... maybe these guys can do better." But when I see the corruption, monster deficit, stupid earmarks and a willingness to step on the Constitution, I just shake my head. These guys had a chance to really do something great, and they're blowing it.

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.

[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.

[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.