Abramhoff Will Plead Guilty & Cooperate

[quote name='bmulligan']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.[/QUOTE]

Read the indictment, bmulligan. He is accused in part of swindling the tribes of their money.
 
[quote name='PittsburghAfterDark']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.[/QUOTE]

The reason all this will matter boils down to two words:

Federal Indictments.

No bamboozling a judge and jury conversant in the law.

And the nastier you get in your posts....the more scared inside I know you truly are. Poor boy.
 
[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 never said not to vote. I always vote. If everyone always votes for the lesser of two evils, the two evils will always remain. Hence, voting for the Democrat or Republican only reinforces the status quo where you have severely limited and most of the time only bad choices (in terms of realistic winners). You're considering only the short term, while the long term is much more important. In any case, being morally right is more important than "your" side winning (although it's not really your side at all).
 
[quote name='elprincipe']I never said not to vote. I always vote. If everyone always votes for the lesser of two evils, the two evils will always remain. Hence, voting for the Democrat or Republican only reinforces the status quo where you have severely limited and most of the time only bad choices (in terms of realistic winners). You're considering only the short term, while the long term is much more important. In any case, being morally right is more important than "your" side winning (although it's not really your side at all).[/QUOTE]

I think thats screwing the short term for a small chance of long term benefit. Without a very popular, well respected, moderate and notable third party candidate, then a third party won't do much more than take away votes from the main groups. Currently third party candidates tend to be more (liberal or conservative) than the main party, meaning to please those supporters you have to alienate the more moderate voters, putting them in a lose-lose situation. There are a lot of important issues now, as there will be in the future, but we are not in a position where we can say "screw the next 15 years", because if you opponent controls the government for that period they will have changed things for much longer than 15 years.

If we have a case similar to kadima in Israel, or roosevelts bull moose party, that's different. We don't have that, and the system isn't set up to facilitate small parties.
 
[quote name='alonzomourning23']I think thats screwing the short term for a small chance of long term benefit. Without a very popular, well respected, moderate and notable third party candidate, then a third party won't do much more than take away votes from the main groups. Currently third party candidates tend to be more (liberal or conservative) than the main party, meaning to please those supporters you have to alienate the more moderate voters, putting them in a lose-lose situation. There are a lot of important issues now, as there will be in the future, but we are not in a position where we can say "screw the next 15 years", because if you opponent controls the government for that period they will have changed things for much longer than 15 years.

If we have a case similar to kadima in Israel, or roosevelts bull moose party, that's different. We don't have that, and the system isn't set up to facilitate small parties.[/QUOTE]

I know the system is set up to promote the two biggest parties; that's the problem. By your logic we shouldn't worry that there is a serious ongoing problem with the system because it would take too long to fix. I think you're wrong. I think that not only is it morally wrong to support candidates that you know are corrupt or bad, but it is vastly to the country's benefit for people to try to change the system through voting. No doubt I am in a very small minority at this point, but if I just shut up and vote for one of the terrible candidates the two main parties put forward every four years, do you think it will ever change? Obviously not. My vote is for true political change, not slightly different yet both corrupt Democrats and Republicans. My vote is the moral vote.
 
[quote name='dennis_t']Read the indictment, bmulligan. He is accused in part of swindling the tribes of their money.[/QUOTE]

Ok, they paid him millions of dollars to influence and bribe congresspeople and he didn't do it. So, if I hire someone to murder you and they skip town with my money, I'm still the victim. You are a loon.
 
[quote name='elprincipe']I know the system is set up to promote the two biggest parties; that's the problem. By your logic we shouldn't worry that there is a serious ongoing problem with the system because it would take too long to fix. I think you're wrong. I think that not only is it morally wrong to support candidates that you know are corrupt or bad, but it is vastly to the country's benefit for people to try to change the system through voting. No doubt I am in a very small minority at this point, but if I just shut up and vote for one of the terrible candidates the two main parties put forward every four years, do you think it will ever change? Obviously not. My vote is for true political change, not slightly different yet both corrupt Democrats and Republicans. My vote is the moral vote.[/QUOTE]

No, I said that the chances of fixing it are small and, even if we did, we would screw up too much of the future in the process to make it worthwhile.
 
[quote name='alonzomourning23']No, I said that the chances of fixing it are small and, even if we did, we would screw up too much of the future in the process to make it worthwhile.[/QUOTE]

Ah, thanks for the clarification. In my view this is THE problem to be fixed, therefore the petty and mostly insignificant differences between two terrible candidates (for example, Bush and Kerry) is not worth making a choice over compared to making a vote for future change.
 
[quote name='bmulligan']Ok, they paid him millions of dollars to influence and bribe congresspeople and he didn't do it. So, if I hire someone to murder you and they skip town with my money, I'm still the victim. You are a loon.[/QUOTE]

Actually, they paid him millions of dollars to lobby on their behalf - an activity that's generally considered rather sleazy, but one that's perfectly legal if done within established guidelines. I think a better example, then, would be to hire someone to manage your chain of porno stores and having them skip town with your money. You may not be the most upstanding citizen in town, but that's not the same thing as being a criminal.
 
[quote name='bmulligan']Ok, they paid him millions of dollars to influence and bribe congresspeople and he didn't do it. So, if I hire someone to murder you and they skip town with my money, I'm still the victim. You are a loon.[/QUOTE]

And to add to Drocket's point -- he pled guilty to defrauding the tribes of their money. The crime of fraud requires a victim. Who do you think the victims were?

Who is the loon, again?
 
[quote name='dennis_t']And to add to Drocket's point -- he pled guilty to defrauding the tribes of their money. The crime of fraud requires a victim. Who do you think the victims were?

Who is the loon, again?[/QUOTE]

The victims are you, me, and every other regular working, taxpaying, honest people who believe in the american form of government.

I don't care who is giving 'lobbyists' multiple millions of dollars, they are not victims. They know full well what their money is going for and have specific policy agendas to influence. If General Motors, Halliburton, or any other multi-million dollar evil corporation was 'defrauded' like this you wouldn't be singing the same tune.

And, if you knew how these indian 'tribes' are run and the mafioso style tactics that are played within them, you'd realize they know EXACTLY how the game is played in Washington, and knew exactly what their money was going to do.
 
[quote name='bmulligan']The victims are you, me, and every other regular working, taxpaying, honest people who believe in the american form of government.

I don't care who is giving 'lobbyists' multiple millions of dollars, they are not victims. They know full well what their money is going for and have specific policy agendas to influence. If General Motors, Halliburton, or any other multi-million dollar evil corporation was 'defrauded' like this you wouldn't be singing the same tune.

And, if you knew how these indian 'tribes' are run and the mafioso style tactics that are played within them, you'd realize they know EXACTLY how the game is played in Washington, and knew exactly what their money was going to do.[/QUOTE]

Um, actually, I would be singing the same tune.

Because those corporations would have been defrauded and thus victims under the law. Period.

The question is, why don't you care about an admitted violation of the law? Don't you believe in law and order, or the rule of law?
 
[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]

On CNN's Late Edition, DNC chair Howard Dean put the serious smackdown on Wolf Blitzer when Wolf tried to dish out the same Repub bamboozlement that you offered here, PAD:


http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0601/08/le.01.html

BLITZER: Should Democrats who took money from Jack Abramoff, who has now pleaded guilty to bribery charges, among other charges, a Republican lobbyist in Washington, should the Democrat who took money from him give that money to charity or give it back?

DEAN: There are no Democrats who took money from Jack Abramoff, not one, not one single Democrat. Every person named in this scandal is a Republican. Every person under investigation is a Republican. Every person indicted is a Republican. This is a Republican finance scandal. There is no evidence that Jack Abramoff ever gave any Democrat any money. And we've looked through all of those FEC reports to make sure that's true.

BLITZER: But through various Abramoff-related organizations and outfits, a bunch of Democrats did take money that presumably originated with Jack Abramoff.

DEAN: That's not true either. There's no evidence for that either. There is no evidence...

BLITZER: What about Senator Byron Dorgan?

DEAN: Senator Byron Dorgan and some others took money from Indian tribes. They're not agents of Jack Abramoff. There's no evidence that I've seen that Jack Abramoff directed any contributions to Democrats. I know the Republican National Committee would like to get the Democrats involved in this. They're scared. They should be scared. They haven't told the truth. They have misled the American people. And now it appears they're stealing from Indian tribes. The Democrats are not involved in this.
 
Holy crap! - Check out this pic of Bush W and Abramoff

image43c19ed9cf865.jpg



Just try and claim it isn't a Republican scandal now :^o
 
[quote name='dennis_t']On CNN's Late Edition, DNC chair Howard Dean put the serious smackdown on Wolf Blitzer when Wolf tried to dish out the same Repub bamboozlement that you offered here, PAD:


http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0601/08/le.01.html

BLITZER: Should Democrats who took money from Jack Abramoff, who has now pleaded guilty to bribery charges, among other charges, a Republican lobbyist in Washington, should the Democrat who took money from him give that money to charity or give it back?

DEAN: There are no Democrats who took money from Jack Abramoff, not one, not one single Democrat. Every person named in this scandal is a Republican. Every person under investigation is a Republican. Every person indicted is a Republican. This is a Republican finance scandal. There is no evidence that Jack Abramoff ever gave any Democrat any money. And we've looked through all of those FEC reports to make sure that's true.

BLITZER: But through various Abramoff-related organizations and outfits, a bunch of Democrats did take money that presumably originated with Jack Abramoff.

DEAN: That's not true either. There's no evidence for that either. There is no evidence...

BLITZER: What about Senator Byron Dorgan?

DEAN: Senator Byron Dorgan and some others took money from Indian tribes. They're not agents of Jack Abramoff. There's no evidence that I've seen that Jack Abramoff directed any contributions to Democrats. I know the Republican National Committee would like to get the Democrats involved in this. They're scared. They should be scared. They haven't told the truth. They have misled the American people. And now it appears they're stealing from Indian tribes. The Democrats are not involved in this.[/QUOTE]

:applause:
 
And now we have the National Review -- about as right-wing a magazine as it gets -- placing this scandal solely on the Repubs.

http://www.nationalreview.com/lowry/lowry200601100816.asp


Money quote:

Abramoff is a Republican who worked closely with two of the country's most prominent conservative activists, Grover Norquist and Ralph Reed. Top aides to the most important Republican in Congress, Tom DeLay (R., Tex.) were party to his sleazy schemes. The only people referred to directly in Abramoff's recent plea agreement are a Republican congressmen and two former Republican congressional aides. The GOP members can make a case that the scandal reflects more the way Washington works than the unique perfidy of their party, but even this is self-defeating, since Republicans run Washington.



So you can either continue your bamboozlement, PAD, or you can admit there's something wrong with your party and work to get it back to the values that you claim to hold so dear. I'm sure one of those is respect for the law.....
 
[quote name='dennis_t']And now we have the National Review -- about as right-wing a magazine as it gets[/QUOTE]
Search for "The Occidental Quarterly."
 
[quote name='mykevermin']Search for "The Occidental Quarterly."[/QUOTE]

Now THAT's right-wing. :lol:
 
Supposedly there are upwards of 60 congressmen, all Republicans, who are involved with this scandal to varying degrees. This will be a major campaign issue this year.
 
[quote name='coffman']Supposedly there are upwards of 60 congressmen, all Republicans, who are involved with this scandal to varying degrees. This will be a major campaign issue this year.[/QUOTE]

...unless it's all about how Iran had alleged ties with bin Laden, and that's why we needed to go in and bomb them (and why we were there, start work on the oil pipeline between Iraq and Pakistan).

Or they'll use their wildcard again: homosexuals.
 
[quote name='E-Z-B']...unless it's all about how Iran had alleged ties with bin Laden, and that's why we needed to go in and bomb them (and why we were there, start work on the oil pipeline between Iraq and Pakistan).

Or they'll use their wildcard again: homosexuals.[/QUOTE]
Gay Iranian terrorists with nuclear weapons is Dubya's wet dream.

Oops, I meant "nucular".
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top