Abramhoff Will Plead Guilty & Cooperate

Wow, this is turning out to be a great Christmas. With Dubya caught eliminating the 4th ammendment, intelligent design getting bitch-slapped, the blockage of the artic drilling and patriot acts, and the introduction of the torture ban, I can hardly wait to see what next year brings. :)

Looks like DeLay and Ney are toast!
 
[quote name='mykevermin']Remember when Heidi Fleiss opened up her yap?

Kinda like that, but with more indictments.[/QUOTE]
You really shouldn't insult whores by comparing them to Abramhoff. :lol:
 
NEW UPDATE

MIAMI (AP) -- Washington lobbyist Jack Abramoff has reached an agreement with federal prosecutors to plead guilty to two criminal charges stemming from the 2000 purchase of a fleet of gambling boats, his attorney said Tuesday.

Abramoff will also agree to cooperate in any ongoing federal investigations in Washington, said his Miami attorney Neal Sonnett. Prosecutors there are investigating several members of Congress who allegedly received favors from Abramoff or his clients.
 
While I am hopeful that Abramoff will exposed the scum (ahem *Delay*) in congress, part of me thinks the "liberal" press will fall over itself trying to show that the corruption is "equal".

I mean there is a difference between a congressman taking a one time trip from a lobbyist (although illegal) and a congressman operating a slush fund generated by a lobbyist.
 
This reminds me, the vs forums' been quiet lately. It could be that little to nothing happened over the winter break. It could be that most of our conversations revolve around waiting for PAD to make a statement, and then swarming around him like ideological pirhanas; in his absence over the break (mostly), we have collectively found ourselves with nothing to do.

Perhaps PAD has been quietly having moments of doubt and/or clarity. Though, considering holidays and the number of parties most people attend, perhaps 'clarity' is the wrong word.

Who knows. I'll be glad to see Abramoff's lil' black book open up.
 
Can't get enough of that Abramhoff

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/12/30/AR2005123001480.html

The U.S. Family Network, a public advocacy group that operated in the 1990s with close ties to Rep. Tom DeLay and claimed to be a nationwide grass-roots organization, was funded almost entirely by corporations linked to embattled lobbyist Jack Abramoff, according to tax records and former associates of the group.

...

The former president of the U.S. Family Network said Buckham told him that Russians contributed $1 million to the group in 1998 specifically to influence DeLay's vote on legislation the International Monetary Fund needed to finance a bailout of the collapsing Russian economy.
Is it just me, or does this remind anyone else of the "Human Fund"
 
Not much news did happen over break. Congress/Senate was on vacation, George "King of Vacations" Bush was incorrectly assuming he's right to spy on Americans in between his HOLIDAYS, and that's about it.
 
[quote name='usickenme']While I am hopeful that Abramoff will exposed the scum (ahem *Delay*) in congress, part of me thinks the "liberal" press will fall over itself trying to show that the corruption is "equal".[/QUOTE]

They've already started. I've already lost count of the number of times I've heard the MSM mention that one of Abramoff's tribal clients donated money to Reid, thereby implying that Reid is corrupt. The only 'problem' with that story is that the donation which was perfectly legal, and Abramoff and his illegal slush fund doesn't appear to be involved in in it any way.
 
Casino Jack is lucky he wasnt scalped by the tribe in El Paso. All I know is he better bring down the bigger fish or he cooperation aint worth shit.
 
[quote name='usickenme']While I am hopeful that Abramoff will exposed the scum (ahem *Delay*) in congress, part of me thinks the "liberal" press will fall over itself trying to show that the corruption is "equal".[/QUOTE]

It's funny - I'm watching C-Span, and in the past hour 2 self-identified Republican callers have fallen all over themselves in trying to accuse the liberal media (and by extension the C-Span BusinessWeek commentator) of turning this into a Republican scandal instead of a just a congressional scandal.

I mean c'mon - I want to see the most corrupt congressmen go down no matter who they are or which side they are on.
 
[quote name='camoor']It's funny - I'm watching C-Span, and in the past hour 2 self-identified Republican callers have fallen all over themselves in trying to accuse the liberal media (and by extension the C-Span BusinessWeek commentator) of turning this into a Republican scandal instead of a just a congressional scandal.

I mean c'mon - I want to see the most corrupt congressmen go down no matter who they are or which side they are on.[/QUOTE]

Just a hypothetical situation here. What if tons of info had been found that John Kerry was involved in multiple bribes and other corrupt behavior, not only that but this information was found in september of 2004. Would you still have wanted him to go down?
 
Kerry would never take a bribe...
WASHINGTON (AP) — John Kerry said Thursday his intervention on a legislative matter that affected the nation's most expensive highway project had nothing to do with an insurer who benefited from his action and later gave him tens of thousands of dollars in donations.
Responding to an Associated Press report Wednesday about the donations, Massachusetts Sen. Kerry said he had worked to block the legislation because it would have cost Boston's "Big Dig'" project $150 million. The legislation in 2000 aimed to close a loophole that had allowed the insurer to divert millions of federal dollars from the project.

The entire Massachusetts delegation "fought to hold onto $150 million for the Big Dig, which is the most important single project in Massachusetts and New England, and it had absolutely nothing to do with the industry," Kerry said.

He said he had opposed the insurance industry on other legislative issues including bankruptcy changes and terrorism insurance.

In the two years after the Big Dig issue, American International Group paid Kerry's way on a trip to Vermont and donated at least $30,000 to a tax-exempt group Kerry used to set up his presidential campaign. Company executives also donated $18,000 to his Senate and presidential campaigns, according to records obtained by AP.

Some government watchdogs said Kerry's story is a textbook case of Washington special interest politicking that he rails against on the presidential trail.

"The idea that Kerry has not helped or benefited from a specific special interest, which he has said, is utterly absurd," said Charles Lewis, head of the Center for Public Integrity that just published a book on political donations to the presidential candidates.

"Anyone who gets millions of dollars over time, and thousands of dollars from specific donors, knows there's a symbiotic relationship," Lewis said. "He needs the donors' money. The donors need favors. Welcome to Washington. That is how it works."

The documents obtained by AP detail Kerry's effort as a member of the Senate Commerce Committee to persuade committee chairman John McCain, R-Ariz., to drop legislation that would have stripped $150 million from the Big Dig project and ended the insurance funding loophole.

The Massachusetts Democrat actually was critical of the loophole but didn't want money stripped from the project because it would hurt his constituents who needed the Boston project finished, Cutter said.

When the "AIG investment scheme (came) to light, John Kerry called for public hearings to investigate the parties involved and the legality of the investment practices. However, he firmly believed cutting funding for the Big Dig was not the answer," Cutter said.

Instead of McCain's bluntly worded legislation, Kerry asked for a committee hearing in May 2000. Kerry thanked McCain at the start of the hearing for dropping his legislation and an AIG executive was permitted to testify that he believed the company's work for the Big Dig was a good thing even though it was criticized by federal auditors.

"From the perspective of public and worker safety and cost control, AIG's insurance program has been a success," AIG executive Richard Thomas testified.

Asked why Kerry would subsequently accept a trip and money from AIG in 2001 and 2002 if he was concerned by the investment scheme, Cutter replied: "Any contributions AIG made to the senator's campaign came years after the investigation."

The New York-based insurer, one of the world's largest, declined to comment on its donations to Kerry, simply stating, "AIG never requested any assistance from Senator Kerry concerning the insurance we provided the Big Dig."

The Big Dig project has become a symbol of government contracting gone awry, known for its huge cost overruns that now total several billion dollars, and its admissions of mismanagement.

During the 1990s, Sens. Kerry and Edward Kennedy, D-Mass., helped win new federal funding for the project as its costs skyrocketed and threatened to burden the state's government. In 1998, Kerry was credited with winning $100 million in new federal funding.

But in 1999, Transportation Department auditors discovered that Big Dig managers had overpaid $129.8 million to AIG for worker compensation and liability insurance that wasn't needed, then allowed the insurer to keep the money in a trust and invest it in the market. The government alleged AIG kept about half of the profits it made from the investments, providing the other half to the project.

Outraged by the revelations, McCain submitted legislation that would have stripped $150 million from the Big Dig and banned the practice of allowing an insurer to invest and profit from excessive premiums paid with government money.

"Any refunds of insurance premiums or reserve amounts, including interest, that exceed a project's liabilities shall be immediately returned to the federal government," McCain's legislation said.

But Kerry and Kennedy intervened, and McCain withdrew the legislation in 2000 in favor of the hearing. A Senate Commerce Committee aide, who spoke only on condition of anonymity, said McCain dropped the provision because the Massachusetts delegation's opposition threatened a broader highway safety bill.

At that hearing, the Transportation's Department inspector general made a renewed plea for a permanent federal policy banning the overpayment of insurance premiums and subsequent investment for profit — what McCain had proposed and Kerry helped kill.

"The policy is needed to ensure that projects do not attempt to draw down federal funds for investment purposes under the guise that they are needed to pay insurance claims," the inspector general told senators.

In September 2001, AIG paid an estimated $540 in travel expenses to cover Kerry's costs for a speech in Burlington, Vt., according to a Senate report filed by Kerry.

A few months later in December 2001, several AIG executives gave maximum $1,000 donations to Kerry's Senate campaign on the same day. The donations totaled $9,700 and were followed by several thousand dollars more over the next two years.

Kerry wasn't the only committee member to get AIG donations. In 1999 and early 2000 as the Big Dig issue was pending, McCain received several thousand dollars in donations from executives of the insurer, the records show.

In spring 2002, AIG donated $10,000 to a new tax-exempt group Kerry formed, the Citizen Soldier Fund, to lay groundwork for his presidential campaign. Later that same year, AIG gave two more donations of $10,000 each to the same group, making it one of the largest corporate donors to Kerry's group.

The insurer wasn't the only company connected to the Big Dig to donate to Kerry's new group. Two construction companies on the project — Modern Continental Group and Jay Cashman Construction — each donated $25,000, IRS records show.
 
Funny, my comment was an opportunity to do one of two things. One to accuse liberals of hypocrisy (though its intended to accuse everyone of that), the other is to attack my example. While that specific person has little to do with my question (the context, not the individual, was the point), its not like you'd ever pass up a chance to attack me or a statement I made.

Its either that or you just couldn't stomach agreeing with me, so you had to find something.
 
[quote name='alonzomourning23']Just a hypothetical situation here. What if tons of info had been found that John Kerry was involved in multiple bribes and other corrupt behavior, not only that but this information was found in september of 2004. Would you still have wanted him to go down?[/QUOTE]

If it was as clear as Delay's corruption is now, then yes I would.

You can call me an idealist if you want, but I don't support rampant corruption on either side of the fence. I realize that lobbyist deal brokering and campaign contributions always carry some level of shadiness (c'mon I live near DC) but this Abramoff scandal is way beyond the pale.

While I may have supported many Bill Clinton policies, I was never a big fan of the guy because of all the "Clinton-Marc Rich" type scandals. Had he ever been caught in front of a smoking gun (past an errant blowjob which I couldn't give a fuck less about) I wouldn't have blindly championed his cause.
 
[quote name='camoor']If it was as clear as Delay's corruption is now, then yes I would.

You can call me an idealist if you want, but I don't support rampant corruption on either side of the fence. I realize that lobbyist deal brokering and campaign contributions always carry some level of shadiness (c'mon I live near DC) but this Abramoff scandal is way beyond the pale.

While I may have supported many Bill Clinton policies, I was never a big fan of the guy because of all the "Clinton-Marc Rich" type scandals. Had he ever been caught in front of a smoking gun (past an errant blowjob which I couldn't give a fuck less about) I wouldn't have blindly championed his cause.[/QUOTE]

So you would have no problem with encouraging actions to be taken that you know would hand victory to your opponent, one that you despise and feel is very dangerous to the country?

Personally I wouldn't want to support corrupt politicians, I'd think very little of the guy personally, and wouldn't particularly enjoy aiding him. But I'd try to supress it knowing what the end result for my political views would be. Its not that I wouldn't support it with any democrats, but there are certain situations where I couldn't support bringing down people. The situation kerry was in in 2004 is one of them.
 
[quote name='alonzomourning23']Funny, my comment was an opportunity to do one of two things. One to accuse liberals of hypocrisy (though its intended to accuse everyone of that), the other is to attack my example. While that specific person has little to do with my question (the context, not the individual, was the point), its not like you'd ever pass up a chance to attack me or a statement I made.

Its either that or you just couldn't stomach agreeing with me, so you had to find something.[/QUOTE]

No, actually I thought your post was a very astute 'devils advocate' submission. I just like to take any opportunity possible to smack talk John Kerry, it really had nothing to do with you, alonzo.
 
[quote name='alonzomourning23']So you would have no problem with encouraging actions to be taken that you know would hand victory to your opponent, one that you despise and feel is very dangerous to the country?[/QUOTE]

I believe that a Democratic Republic is the best political system for the modern world. Therefore I can't support action that undermines this system, regardless of how it would help or hinder the policies that I support.

Now I realize this is the modern world, and I find incidents such as the one BMulligan cites very distasteful but I know they occur and I believe that you have to pick your battles. I'd like to see widescale, rampant corruption on the level of Abramoff eradicated. Trimming the pork barrel is important but secondary.

Alonzo, I guess it all depends what you mean by "very dangerous". If the opponent you speak of ever attempted to do something on the level of declaring himself dictator of the country, then I would support using any means necessary to strip him of his power.

BTW thanks alot Alonzo - I hate sounding like an idealist. :p
 
[quote name='alonzomourning23']Personally I wouldn't want to support corrupt politicians, I'd think very little of the guy personally, and wouldn't particularly enjoy aiding him. But I'd try to supress it knowing what the end result for my political views would be. Its not that I wouldn't support it with any democrats, but there are certain situations where I couldn't support bringing down people. The situation kerry was in in 2004 is one of them.[/QUOTE]

While I disagree, I think it's pretty cool that you're honest about it.
 
[quote name='alonzomourning23']So you would have no problem with encouraging actions to be taken that you know would hand victory to your opponent, one that you despise and feel is very dangerous to the country?

Personally I wouldn't want to support corrupt politicians, I'd think very little of the guy personally, and wouldn't particularly enjoy aiding him. But I'd try to supress it knowing what the end result for my political views would be. Its not that I wouldn't support it with any democrats, but there are certain situations where I couldn't support bringing down people. The situation kerry was in in 2004 is one of them.[/QUOTE]

Yet I'm sure you agree with people who criticize Republicans for supporting Bush through his troubles. Why support anyone who is corrupt? I just can't stand the "lesser of two evils" attitude that fills our electorate. We do indeed get what we vote for :(
 
Found this story rather amusing. :lol:

How they got caught: After lobbyist broke off engagement, ex-fiancee told of illicit dealings to FBI

Michael Scanlon found himself at the center of one of the biggest political scandals in Washington history as a result of cheating and lying—but not the type involving the numerous clients he was paid to lobby Congress for, former coworkers and friends of his ex-fiancee say.

Scanlon was implicated in the Abramoff scandal by his former thirtysomething fiancee, Emily J. Miller, whom he met in the late 1990s while working as communications director for former House Majority Leader Tom DeLay (R-TX), three former associates who worked with Scanlon at DeLay’s office said. Colleagues say Miller went to the FBI after Scanlon broke off their engagement and announced his intention to marry another woman.

Miller did not return a call seeking comment. Scanlon’s attorney, Stephen Braga, did not respond to phone calls or emails seeking comment. Former coworkers of Scanlon and Miller at DeLay’s office and of Miller at the State Department would speak only under condition of anonymity, saying they did not want to be called as witnesses in a trial.

Miller was DeLay’s young press secretary and as communications director, Scanlon was her boss. The two began a secretive office romance and Scanlon eventually proposed marriage, associates say.

In 2003, Miller left DeLay’s office to work at the State Department. Scanlon departed too, partnering with now-indicted conservative lobbyist Jack Abramoff in lobbying for an array of Indian tribes. As Scanlon’s star rose, troubles between the couple mushroomed.

In May 2004, Miller found herself at the center of attention when—while live on air—she ordered a cameraman for NBC’s Meet the Press to stop filming Colin Powell. A copy of the transcript shows Miller, who also used to work as an NBC staffer, as a brusque press aide. Powell eventually ordered that the interview continue and asked Miller to step aside.

What many people didn’t realize at the time, however, is that during the Powell interview Miller was upset because her fiancee, Michael Scanlon, had broken off their engagement, two of Miller’s former State Department co-workers said. While still engaged to Miller, Scanlon had started an affair with a manicurist and broke up with Miller because he planned to marry the other woman, three of Scanlon’s former associates at DeLay’s office said. They added that the two had numerous public arguments.

But Miller had something on Scanlon. He confided in her all of his dealings with Abramoff, former colleagues said. She saw his emails and knew the intimate details of his lobbying work—work which is now the center of a criminal fraud investigation. After the breakup, Miller went to the FBI and told them everything about Scanlon’s dealings with Abramoff, her coworkers added.

In turning him in, she became the agency’s star witness against her former lover. Scanlon pled guilty in November and is cooperating with prosecutors; Abramoff reached a plea agreement today.

Scanlon's former colleagues did not speak warmly of him, saying he was not a very likable person because of the way he treated others, and that he later became flamboyant with his newfound wealth.

Aside from the Powell interview, Miller also attracted attention after berating a Washington Post Magazine reporter. In 2001, while Miller was working as press secretary to DeLay she told a reporter who was writing a profile about DeLay. "You lied! . . . You betrayed him! You twisted his words! . . . We don't know you. You don't exist. . . . You are dead to us."


http://rawstory.com/news/2005/How_Jack_Abramoff_and_Michael_Scanlon_0103.html
 
[quote name='E-Z-B']
Michael Scanlon found himself at the center of one of the biggest political scandals in Washington history as a result of cheating and lying—but not the type involving the numerous clients he was paid to lobby Congress for, former coworkers and friends of his ex-fiancee say.[/QUOTE]
Hell hath no fury like a woman Scanlon'ed. :lol:
 
[quote name='elprincipe']Yet I'm sure you agree with people who criticize Republicans for supporting Bush through his troubles. Why support anyone who is corrupt? I just can't stand the "lesser of two evils" attitude that fills our electorate. We do indeed get what we vote for :([/QUOTE]

You missed my point. My point is when there's a valid reason to go after someone the position you take is effected by your political opinions and the situation that politician is in. Sometimes certain actions would amount to shooting yourself in the foot politically.

Whenever situations like this arise I think of the 1968 presidential election between hubert humphey and richard nixon. Many liberal groups decided not to vote for humphrey due to his continued defending of the current vietnam policies, in effect taking a similar attitude of refusing to vote for the lesser of two evils. In the end the election was so close that that was possibly the difference. For many that is a decision they regret due to the long term consequences.

Its one thing if bringing down the corrupt politician will have the long term benefits that override the victory of his opponent, but I don't think any of us believe that is the case. I think the argument is more "we shouldn't support any corrupt politicians", not so much the end result. That's fine, and in most cases I would agree, but there are a few instances where I wouldn't go along with it.
 
[quote name='camoor']It's funny - I'm watching C-Span, and in the past hour 2 self-identified Republican callers have fallen all over themselves in trying to accuse the liberal media (and by extension the C-Span BusinessWeek commentator) of turning this into a Republican scandal instead of a just a congressional scandal.

I mean c'mon - I want to see the most corrupt congressmen go down no matter who they are or which side they are on.[/QUOTE]

Don't let 'em lie to you, there....Abramoff's money went to Repubs:

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=10000103&sid=arVHles5cKJc&refer=us

Abramoff's `Equal Money' Went Mostly to Republicans (Update1)

Dec. 21 (Bloomberg) -- U.S. President George W. Bush calls indicted lobbyist Jack Abramoff ``an equal money dispenser'' who helped politicians of both parties. Campaign donation records show Republicans were a lot more equal than Democrats.

Between 2001 and 2004, Abramoff gave more than $127,000 to Republican candidates and committees and nothing to Democrats, federal records show. At the same time, his Indian clients were the only ones among the top 10 tribal donors in the U.S. to donate more money to Republicans than Democrats.
 
[quote name='alonzomourning23']Whenever situations like this arise I think of the 1968 presidential election between hubert humphey and richard nixon. Many liberal groups decided not to vote for humphrey due to his continued defending of the current vietnam policies, in effect taking a similar attitude of refusing to vote for the lesser of two evils. In the end the election was so close that that was possibly the difference. For many that is a decision they regret due to the long term consequences.[/QUOTE]

This is a totally different case from Abramoff - these voters were abstaining from voting based on policy, the Abramoff case is all about corruption.
 
Not saying it isn't. My point was I doubted whether most people would willingly bring down every corrupt politician based on it being the right thing. While it is obviously the right thing, I think many people would decide its not the "best" thing to do if certain conditions were in place.
 
[quote name='alonzomourning23']...My point was I doubted whether most people would willingly bring down every corrupt politician based on it being the right thing. While it is obviously the right thing, I think many people would decide its not the "best" thing to do if certain conditions were in place.[/QUOTE]

I would support it. Bringing down EVERY corrupt politician is always the best thing to do in any circumstance, regardless of the 'situation' he's in at the time. It may not be the best thing for people who seek power, or enjoy it vicariously through party association, but those types of people don't believe in representative democracy anyway.

A few years ago, I think it was during the '96 election, Jay leno joked that politicians should wear their sponsors on their jacket like Nascar drivers. Everyone laughed but I think he was being serious and I think it would be a good idea.

Anybody who's thinking Abramoff is a major scandal, or the only one, is kidding themselves. This is the tip of the iceburg. Just think of all the back door deals we'll never hear about. There are few uncorrupt people in Washington DC and some of them are elected.
 
[quote name='alonzomourning23']You missed my point. My point is when there's a valid reason to go after someone the position you take is effected by your political opinions and the situation that politician is in. Sometimes certain actions would amount to shooting yourself in the foot politically.[/QUOTE]

No, I understand your point perfectly. You advocate supporting morally bankrupt candidates as long as they aren't as morally bankrupt, in your opinion, than the other major-party candidate is. I say they are both morally bankrupt and voting for either one would be morally bankrupting myself, because I would be voting for someone I thought was corrupt or would do a bad job. The classic example for me in Virginia politics was the Oliver North v Chuck Robb race.
 
[quote name='bmulligan']Anybody who's thinking Abramoff is a major scandal, or the only one, is kidding themselves. This is the tip of the iceburg. Just think of all the back door deals we'll never hear about. There are few uncorrupt people in Washington DC and some of them are elected.[/QUOTE]

It IS a major scandal. You don't make the front page of most credible newspapers day-after-day if it's just a small-potatoes lobbying issue.

Congress's unwillingness to self-regulate lobbying has doubtless created more birbery and corruption. However I would be surprised if there were more then one or two other crooks who were broke the law in such a flagrant manner.
 
[quote name='camoor']It IS a major scandal. You don't make the front page of most credible newspapers day-after-day if it's just a small-potatoes lobbying issue.[/QUOTE]
Much as I would loathe to agree with bmulligan, I think his point is that Abramoff is small potatoes compared to some of the truly shady illegal negotiations and dealings in Washington, DC. Your argument, that Abramoff IS a major scandal, isn't related to bmulligan's point.

His point: This ain't the real deal. This is like seeing Mini-Kiss in concert and thinking you just saw Gene Simmons et al.

Your point: Unlike Dorothy, the tinman, the cowardly lion, and those other fucks, we're never gonna see the man behind the curtain. Knowing that, this is the big time.
 
[quote name='elprincipe']No, I understand your point perfectly. You advocate supporting morally bankrupt candidates as long as they aren't as morally bankrupt, in your opinion, than the other major-party candidate is. I say they are both morally bankrupt and voting for either one would be morally bankrupting myself, because I would be voting for someone I thought was corrupt or would do a bad job. The classic example for me in Virginia politics was the Oliver North v Chuck Robb race.[/QUOTE]

But one of the two is going to win, protesting it by not voting will simply help the greater of 2 evils.
 
[quote name='alonzomourning23']But one of the two is going to win, protesting it by not voting will simply help the greater of 2 evils.[/QUOTE]

I basically agree - however I think you should vote for the best man for the job.

If I didn't agree with Kerry or Bush, I would have probably voted for Nader with no regrets. I don't think that the people who voted for Nader threw away their votes, in fact I think they gained more power because they showed that they will only vote for a candidate who aligns with their beliefs. Future politicians will have to work harder to get the Nader voters, unlike those of the voting block Republican fundies or voting block Democrat union members. Just imagine what could happen if more members were willing to split from the "safety" of the pack - we might even have an real debate about the issues!
 
[quote name='mykevermin']Much as I would loathe to agree with bmulligan, I think his point is that Abramoff is small potatoes compared to some of the truly shady illegal negotiations and dealings in Washington, DC. Your argument, that Abramoff IS a major scandal, isn't related to bmulligan's point.

His point: This ain't the real deal. This is like seeing Mini-Kiss in concert and thinking you just saw Gene Simmons et al.

Your point: Unlike Dorothy, the tinman, the cowardly lion, and those other fucks, we're never gonna see the man behind the curtain. Knowing that, this is the big time.[/QUOTE]

What I can't understand is that BMulligan whines about corrupt politicians, but then in another thread he has a sudden willful blindness to how under-regulated businesses have contributed to this culture of corruption and bribery. What creates a lobbyist lapdog such as Robert Ney? I'll tell you what - campaign money taken from under-regulated corporations such as Indian casinos and Floridian gambling boat companies, corporations that are eager to stay out of the watchful eye of regulatory agencies promoting fair competition.

If the public banded together to force corporations to compete fairly, pay their taxes, and pay their fair share for treatment of the physical or social pathologies that their trades create, then favorable corporate treatment from the government would be easily recognized and outed. Instead we have industries that are so immensely corrupt (for example diamonds, record labels, operating systems) that a scandal of the Abramoff size still manages to seem like the "tip of the iceburg"
 
[quote name='camoor']What I can't understand is that BMulligan whines about corrupt politicians, but then in another thread he has a sudden willful blindness to how under-regulated businesses have contributed to this culture of corruption and bribery. What creates a lobbyist lapdog such as Robert Ney? I'll tell you what - campaign money taken from under-regulated corporations such as Indian casinos and Floridian gambling boat companies, corporations that are eager to stay out of the watchful eye of regulatory agencies promoting fair competition.

If the public banded together to force corporations to compete fairly, pay their taxes, and pay their fair share for treatment of the physical or social pathologies that their trades create, then favorable corporate treatment from the government would be easily recognized and outed. Instead we have industries that are so immensely corrupt (for example diamonds, record labels, operating systems) that a scandal of the Abramoff size still manages to seem like the "tip of the iceburg"[/QUOTE]

This reminds me of something that people rarely bring up; the relationship between cronyism and the government/corporation problems. It's a paradox of sorts; we fume at the egregious expenses of our government waste, yet we applaud companies that maximize their net profit (especially if they are publicly-owned). Now the problem with this only occurs for companies (such as Halliburton and its subsidiaries) that deal with goods and services that are sought by the government. I've never heard of the government refusing to pay outrageous fees to companies who lack competition. I've always wondered how much money could be reduced from our annual budget expenditures, how much more armor or other equipment could be purchased with the same amount of money we spend, if ONLY someone in Washington could simply tell a profit-seeking company to go fuck itself when it, and it alone, makes a proposal to the government. I always wondered if you could maintain the size of the military and reduce the cost of running it by merely engaging in some older-than-capitalism-itself style heckling.

As far as saying something relevant to your post, you are comparing the government, whom we ultimately believe to be in the sector of public service (as if that's possible in the absence of term limits); on the other hand, we expect participants in capitalism to maximize profits. They are not beholden to the consumer, they are not beholden to the employees, they are not beholden to the government. They exist for generating profit for themselves and their shareholders, nothing else. It's almost so laissez-faire I can't understand why any free-market capitalist would want to declare drugs illegal for sale (lest they delve into some anti-capitalist value judgment).
 
[quote name='mykevermin']
...we expect participants in capitalism to maximize profits. They are not beholden to the consumer, they are not beholden to the employees, they are not beholden to the government. They exist for generating profit for themselves and their shareholders, nothing else. It's almost so laissez-faire I can't understand why any free-market capitalist would want to declare drugs illegal for sale (lest they delve into some anti-capitalist value judgment).[/QUOTE]

Companies ARE beholden to consumers, they would not exist otherwise. They ARE beholden to employees, as they are compensated every other week and cannot produce without them. They ARE beholden to the government, they have the power to regulate commerce, and that's why they try to bribe officials who could erase their advantages in a few commitee meetings.

Businessmen are beholden to the market 24/7. Their fortunes can be made or broken in seconds. Congressmen are beholden to no one during the reprieve between elections.

We have to stop looking at our representatives as gods and see them for what they really are - whores. We need to stop revering them for their selfless sacrifice of 'service' to our country. They are only servicing themselves. It is the nature of government. It always has been and it always will be. There is a reason the first amendment of the Constitution begins with the first 5 words:

"Congress shall make no law..."

Or founding fathers had an inherent mistrust of government. It's something we all need to adopt, especially people like you, Camoor

What I can't understand is that BMulligan whines about corrupt politicians, but then in another thread he has a sudden willful blindness to how under-regulated businesses have contributed to this culture of corruption and bribery. What creates a lobbyist lapdog such as Robert Ney? I'll tell you what - campaign money taken from under-regulated corporations such as Indian casinos and Floridian gambling boat companies, corporations that are eager to stay out of the watchful eye of regulatory agencies promoting fair competition.

So, are businesses under-regulated or over-regulated? You are contradicting yourself. You think that 'government' regulatory agencies are some magical entity creating fairness for everyone? You can't be that naive.

What you are is a lazy consumer. You buy products and don't realize the consequences of the votes you place with every dollar you spend. You think businesses are the only ones responsible for social pathologies? Look in the mirror, and your refrigerator, and your closet. You paid for it.
 
[quote name='bmulligan']Or founding fathers had an inherent mistrust of government. It's something we all need to adopt, especially people like you, Camoor
[/QUOTE]

Our founding fathers didn't think much of unscrupulous businesses that didn't pay their fair share of taxes either (see "The Whiskey Rebellion").

[quote name='bmulligan']So, are businesses under-regulated or over-regulated? You are contradicting yourself. You think that 'government' regulatory agencies are some magical entity creating fairness for everyone? You can't be that naive.

What you are is a lazy consumer. You buy products and don't realize the consequences of the votes you place with every dollar you spend. You think businesses are the only ones responsible for social pathologies? Look in the mirror, and your refrigerator, and your closet. You paid for it.[/QUOTE]

Basically there is too much regulation without any teeth. For the good of America, we should institute a flat tax, simple but effective safety regulations, and increased enviornmental regulation.

Let's say that I can get cheap nuclear energy from an unsafe plant that is poisoning residents who live 1000 miles away. Should I still be allowed to use it because that's what free-market capitalism is all about? I say NO. (Listen, I believe in safe Nuclear energy, it is just an example)

As for lazy consumers, coporations routinely poison and exploit their customers, then lie up-and-down about their involvement. BMuligan, I'm so glad that your independently wealthy status and ample free time allows you to fully research the eniviornmental, social, and health impact of every product you buy, from hair spray to chicken to home electronics. Some of us actually work for a living and need to rely on govenment agencies to do their job and promote fairness in the marketplace, safety for consumers and workers, and veracity in ad campaigns and corporate communications.
 
[quote name='PittsburghAfterDark'] Without commenting on the legality or illegality of each and every donation here's a complete list of who got the cash.

Oh, in case you're wondering? 40 out of 45 Senatorial Democrats got cash. As did the RNC, DNC, Republican & Democratic Senatorial and Congressional Campaign Committes.

If all of his actions are illegal and harmful poltically 88% of Senate Democrats are tainted with his cash.[/QUOTE]

A cute piece of bamboozlement, PAD, but I note that in order to argue that the Dems are tainted by Abramhoff, you have to lump in legitimate donations made by the tribes that hired him.

If just his donations alone are considered, you start seeing why GOPers are having trouble sleeping at night: Abramhoff donated almost exclusively to Repubs.

Here's the linky linky, which I listed before in this thread but you must have missed:

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?...s5cKJc&refer=us

And BTW, when are you going to respond to the facts and questions I raised in the other threads that have been active today? Given the cheap shots you took against me in both of them, I should think you'd at least have the balls to mount some sort of intelligent response.
 
Dennis, what you view as a cheap shot most people would take as a reasonable measured response given all you do is stretch, distort and make absurd analogies of wartime conditions to normal civillian life in the United States.

Since you can't take what you dish out only you view them as cheap shots.

BTW, that list isn't baboozlement. Every dime he got is going to be viewed as illegitimate and tainted. Just because you can't deal with that fact and wish to turn it into a OMG ITZ DA R'S!!! BWYAYAYAYHAHAHA topic doesn't make it bamboozlement.

If you think voters are going to differentiate legal and illegal monies bandied about you're on crack.

I already know your delusional, irrational and lacking in basic comprehension but I don't suspect you of smoking crack. Just acting like you do.

Question in general are you really just going to keep score on this? He gave more money to the R's than the D's. Therefore it's a R scandal? So, without having measured amounts, lets say 60% of the cash, hell... 70% of the cash went to Republicans but just as many Democrats took cash but in much smaller amounts do you really think voters will differentiate parties?

Nope, they won't. They also know, like you and I do, that the entire lot of those in Congress are all guilty of taking questionable money, perks, travel and benefits. That knows no party limits.
 
[quote name='PittsburghAfterDark']Dennis, what you view as a cheap shot most people would take as a reasonable measured response given all you do is stretch, distort and make absurd analogies of wartime conditions to normal civillian life in the United States.

Since you can't take what you dish out only you view them as cheap shots.

BTW, that list isn't baboozlement. Every dime he got is going to be viewed as illegitimate and tainted. Just because you can't deal with that fact and wish to turn it into a OMG ITZ DA R'S!!! BWYAYAYAYHAHAHA topic doesn't make it bamboozlement.

If you think voters are going to differentiate legal and illegal monies bandied about you're on crack.

I already know your delusional, irrational and lacking in basic comprehension but I don't suspect you of smoking crack. Just acting like you do.

Question in general are you really just going to keep score on this? He gave more money to the R's than the D's. Therefore it's a R scandal? So, without having measured amounts, lets say 60% of the cash, hell... 70% of the cash went to Republicans but just as many Democrats took cash but in much smaller amounts do you really think voters will differentiate parties?

Nope, they won't. They also know, like you and I do, that the entire lot of those in Congress are all guilty of taking questionable money, perks, travel and benefits. That knows no party limits.[/QUOTE]

You keep saying "cash HE gave," but if you will read the article I provided a link to, you will see that the cash he gave went to Republicans.

You can try to spin it by including lawful donations from the tribes -- which are the victims in this, not perpetrators -- and I'm sure a number of folks like yourself will refuse to comprehend the distinction. But that doesn't make it correct. That just makes it bamboozlement.

And on a final note: How pathetic is it that your best defense is, "The Democrats are as sleazy as WE are?"
 
Did I say we?

I said all.

See, you have a tremendous lack of ability to comprehend what you read. You've proven it again.

You also quoted me in a fashion not even close to my post. Way to go!

Why not run away for another 10 months dennis? Just as I know you will after this coming November.

You talk so much smack on Republicans, how much they're evil, lie, cheat, steal, are worthless, want to starve people, kill people and watch them die yet..... YOUR SIDE LOSES! Your arguments fall on deaf ears nationally. They're losers.

Just like you couldn't face the reality of one single poster for 10 months, me, that would have knocked your dick in the dirt for your boy JFK losing you can't face that this whole thing is a non-starter.

You can argue right and wrong, who took what from whom but this issue has no legs. Just like Cindy Sheehan, Rathergate, Joe Wilson/Valerie Plame, Merry Fitzmas, extremeist judges, war in Iraq.... every cause, issue, smoking gun and "scandal" the left comes up with doesn't work, doesn't stick and most importantly doesn't win.

Cut, slice and dice this all you want but just add the name of Abramhoff to the long list of "ULTIMATE GOTCHAS" that will, in the end, result in nothing. It's an issue being written about by the Washington/New York/Boston press corps for the Washington/New York/Boston press corps. It carries no weight in election issues or mainstream America.

Bank on it skippy.
 
So your side is a bunch of zombies who wont listen to what is correct morally legally and logically and somehow the problem is ours?
 
[quote name='dennis_t']You can try to spin it by including lawful donations from the tribes -- which are the victims in this, not perpetrators -- and I'm sure a number of folks like yourself will refuse to comprehend the distinction. But that doesn't make it correct. That just makes it bamboozlement.
[/QUOTE]

So, the groups who hired a lobbyist to go to washington and bribe congresspeople on their behalf are victims? You have a twisted definition of criminal.

I suppose if I pay someone $10,000 to kill you then I am just a victim of a hitman who wanted to take my money. I think the one who's been bamboozled is you.
 
bread's done
Back
Top