Democrats and Ethics

elprincipe

elprincipe

CAGiversary!
Feedback
60 (100%)
Just wanted to get some response from the liberal members of this board (meaning most of it!) on how hypocritical the Democrats have become in the whole ethics thing. Every time they open their mouths, Harry Reid and especially Nancy Pelosi spout off about a "culture of corruption" in Washington. Not that there isn't plenty of corruption, but when they are part of it that seems a little hypocritical...

http://washingtontimes.com/national/20050405-123505-7189r.htm
House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi helped secure $3 million last year for a nonprofit transportation-research organization whose president gave money to her political action committee as the group was paying for a European trip for one of her policy advisers.
Click to expand...

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2005/4/14/223831.shtml
The Howard Hughes Corp. alone paid $300,000 to attorney and son-in-law Steven Barringer to push a provision allowing the company to acquire 998 acres of federal land near booming Las Vegas. According to the Times, other provisions of Reid's legislation were intended to benefit a real estate development headed by a senior partner in the Nevada law firm that employs all four of the Senate minority leader's sons.
Click to expand...

Of course these are on top of Pelosi's multiple failures to file required reports on time and Reid's ties to Jack Abramoff. What about Democratic hero Jack Murtha?

http://www.spectator.org/dsp_article.asp?art_id=9359
Who is "Kit" Murtha? He's John Murtha's brother -- a Washington lobbyist whose firm reeled in more than $20 million for its defense contractor clients in the 2004 Defense appropriations bill. And the Pennsylvania congressman is the ranking Democrat on the Defense appropriations subcommittee, which he also chaired for six years before Democrats lost the House in 1994.
Click to expand...

Just brought these up because I'm surprised someone like PAD hasn't already. But I just wanted to see who will be the first partisan to excuse these are somehow unlike the Republican ethics problems and somehow acceptable.
 
What is the point in responding if you've made up your mind already? The fact that you buy Reid's ties to Abramoff, shows that you aren't interested in the real story only "TeH corruptin is Teh equal" angle. Seriously, I don't know if you have kids but I am sure you wouldn't let "everyone else is doing it" fly, now would you?

Are dems 100% ethical? No. Does that mean that vast majority of ethics scandal aren't Republican? No as well. Simple logic dictates that the Party in power has more power to give and therefore is more corruptable.

I am so tired of the fake equality we try to adhere to. Conservatives finding, tit for tat so that they can feel good that they are just as bad as the other guy. We could play hypocrite "pong" all day. Grow up. There are degrees of unethical behavior.

Also remember; when we are talking about Abramoff and Randell Cuningham, we simply aren't talking ethics; we are talking crimminal behavoir.
 
[quote name='usickenme']What is the point in responding if you've made up your mind already? The fact that you buy Reid's ties to Abramoff, shows that you aren't interested in the real story only "TeH corruptin is Teh equal" angle. Seriously, I don't know if you have kids but I am sure you wouldn't let "everyone else is doing it" fly, now would you?[/quote]

It's people like you who have already made up their mind about corruption being only a Republican phenomenon. The fact that you think you have the "real" story about Reid shows your blind eye. El isn't saying "everyone does it" as much as he is saying "you're an idiot if you don't realize your idols are devils." Case in point in your next sentence:

Are dems 100% ethical? No. Does that mean that vast majority of ethics scandal aren't Republican? No as well. Simple logic dictates that the Party in power has more power to give and therefore is more corruptable.
Click to expand...

See, your mind is already made up. Do you think that when the dems regain control of the houses they won't be as corrupt? Probably. I doubt you're old enough to remember when the democrats were in control of both houses. You have very shallow history to reflect upon.

I am so tired of the fake equality we try to adhere to. Conservatives finding, tit for tat so that they can feel good that they are just as bad as the other guy. We could play hypocrite "pong" all day. Grow up. There are degrees of unethical behavior.
Click to expand...

Of course there are degrees. Republicans are vastly more corrupt than democrats, as you've already stated because you already know the "real" story.

Also remember; when we are talking about Abramoff and Randell Cuningham, we simply aren't talking ethics; we are talking crimminal behavoir.
Click to expand...

I get it. Favors aren't criminal when they are comitted by democrats, they're called helping your constituency. Only republicans are the criminals becuase they are more apt to be corrupted. We aren't simply talking ethics.... mmmmmmkay.
 
[quote name='bmulligan']It's people like you who have already made up their mind about corruption being only a Republican phenomenon.[/QUOTE]

Answering an argument no one made.

How much of an illogical scumbag can you be Mullet?
 
[quote name='usickenme']What is the point in responding if you've made up your mind already? The fact that you buy Reid's ties to Abramoff, shows that you aren't interested in the real story only "TeH corruptin is Teh equal" angle. Seriously, I don't know if you have kids but I am sure you wouldn't let "everyone else is doing it" fly, now would you?

Are dems 100% ethical? No. Does that mean that vast majority of ethics scandal aren't Republican? No as well. Simple logic dictates that the Party in power has more power to give and therefore is more corruptable.

I am so tired of the fake equality we try to adhere to. Conservatives finding, tit for tat so that they can feel good that they are just as bad as the other guy. We could play hypocrite "pong" all day. Grow up. There are degrees of unethical behavior.

Also remember; when we are talking about Abramoff and Randell Cuningham, we simply aren't talking ethics; we are talking crimminal behavoir.[/QUOTE]

Next time I'd suggest reading my entire post instead of making up your mind based on the subject. If you can show me where I excuse Republican ethical lapses, I'm all ears.
 
[quote name='bmulligan']It's people like you who have already made up their mind about corruption being only a Republican phenomenon. The fact that you think you have the "real" story about Reid shows your blind eye. El isn't saying "everyone does it" as much as he is saying "you're an idiot if you don't realize your idols are devils." Case in point in your next sentence:



See, your mind is already made up. Do you think that when the dems regain control of the houses they won't be as corrupt? Probably. I doubt you're old enough to remember when the democrats were in control of both houses. You have very shallow history to reflect upon.



Of course there are degrees. Republicans are vastly more corrupt than democrats, as you've already stated because you already know the "real" story.



I get it. Favors aren't criminal when they are comitted by democrats, they're called helping your constituency. Only republicans are the criminals becuase they are more apt to be corrupted. We aren't simply talking ethics.... mmmmmmkay.[/QUOTE]

No you don't get it.

I am not sure I need to rebutt as my original post does the job. First of all, you presume far too much about me. That I'm a kid (I'm not), that I think the Dems are perfect(I didn't in my OP), that I excuse any dem behavior (didn't mention it but it makes your "point") and on. Weak sauce, dude. You're whole argument is based on flawed assumptions. Like many of your posts.

As far as Reid, I was talking about the part of the story where Reid opposed what Abramoff wanted. A fact you ignored.. that is the "real story" I was talking about. It was specific to Reid.

By the way, Crime is crime no matter who does it. That is the difference between the two I mentioned and "ethics".

Corruption is not limited to a party but to deny that the GOP has much more right now is fucking moronic.

However, if the orginal intent was to show that there is hypocrisy in politics, it might have well be titled "No shit sherlock"


[quote name='elprincipe']Next time I'd suggest reading my entire post instead of making up your mind based on the subject. If you can show me where I excuse Republican ethical lapses, I'm all ears.[/QUOTE]


only if you show me where I said that you did. Also what is with both of you stealing my line. Get your own. :p
 
[quote name='usickenme']only if you show me where I said that you did. Also what is with both of you stealing my line. Get your own. :p[/QUOTE]

Stealing what line?

And you say I've made my mind up already, which seems to imply that.
 
[quote name='usickenme']I am not sure I need to rebutt as my original post does the job. First of all, you presume far too much about me. That I'm a kid (I'm not), that I think the Dems are perfect(I didn't in my OP), that I excuse any dem behavior (didn't mention it but it makes your "point") and on. Weak sauce, dude. You're whole argument is based on flawed assumptions. Like many of your posts.[/quote]

The weak sauce, dude, is that you'll gloss over ethical lapses in behavior of your chosen ones and choose to highlight the republican ones who got caught. Just becuase one person gets caught for stealing, doesn't mean there isn't theft taking place during the absence of the one who got caught. And it doesn't mean the police aren't stealing as well.

As far as Reid, I was talking about the part of the story where Reid opposed what Abramoff wanted. A fact you ignored.. that is the "real story" I was talking about. It was specific to Reid.
Click to expand...
And you neglect the facts that Reid has met with Abramoff numerous times, taken money from his firm and his clients on many occasions. But you pretend this is not part of "the" real story as if your real story is all that exists. Denial of reality is considered to be a mental disorder. You really should talk to a professional.

By the way, Crime is crime no matter who does it. That is the difference between the two I mentioned and "ethics".
Click to expand...

That's nice. But abramoff isn't an elected representative and those he gave money to aren't all criminals. You want so much to associate abramoff as a representative of that nasty party you hate so that it reinforces your belief, yet he is not, and your argument has no merit based on your imaginary associations. You seem to have a problem with power, as do I. You think the problem originates from republicans while I think it oringinates from power, not party affiliation.

Corruption is not limited to a party but to deny that the GOP has much more right now is fucking moronic.
Click to expand...

To steal another one of your lines - show me where I ever said that. You can't. You really are the one with the reading problem. Since you're not a kid anymore, I'd try to get my money back from any education for which you may have previously paid.
 
There are corrupt politicians on both sides of the aisle but right now I don't trust most Republicans. The blind loyalty they have expressed to Dubya's administration is very troubling. At best the White House is incompetent, at worse totally corrupt. Members of Congress should not be falling all over themselves to stick up for such a sad administration and fortunately some are finally asking tough questions. Right now, Dems are proposing tougher ethical standards than the GOP and that's a smart strategy. But I don't think even those would end all corruption in Washington. It's the ever-maddening rush for campaign funds that creates the slipperly slope for corruption.
 
[quote name='bmulligan']


And you neglect the facts that Reid has met with Abramoff numerous times, taken money from his firm and his clients on many occasions. But you pretend this is not part of "the" real story as if your real story is all that exists. Denial of reality is considered to be a mental disorder. You really should talk to a professional.



That's nice. But abramoff isn't an elected representative and those he gave money to aren't all criminals. You want so much to associate abramoff as a representative of that nasty party you hate so that it reinforces your belief, yet he is not, and your argument has no merit based on your imaginary associations. You seem to have a problem with power, as do I. You think the problem originates from republicans while I think it oringinates from power, not party affiliation.

.[/QUOTE]

Bmug you truly are a dipshit.

[quote name='usickenme'] Simple logic dictates that the Party in power has more power to give and therefore is more corruptable.[/quote]

as for Reid he never met with Abramoff. However abramoff staff did meet with Reid because he was opposed to what the Abramoff lobbyist wanted and **gasp** the lobbyist was trying to persude Reid to change his position. Which Reid never did. The rest of Reid's "transgrations", sorry to disappoint you but that money was 100% legal. There is a difference between accepting contributions from groups linked to Abramoff, which is legal and proper, and taking contributions in exchange for official actions, which is illegal. I am quite sure many Republicans have taken legal contributions from Abramoff or his clients and I don't care., that's is not the issue.

Now if you want the standard of unethical behavoir to be money from Abramoff or his clients, the GOP is in a hell of a lot of more trouble.

Now obviously the tread wasn't entirely about Reid's link to Abramoff but when I see bullshit, I'm going to call the OP on it
 
Bmulligan is a firm believer that if something is said enough times, it eventually becomes true.
 
[quote name='E-Z-B']Bmulligan is a firm believer that if something is said enough times, it eventually becomes true.[/QUOTE]

Maybe he should start with "I am smart, I really am"
 
[quote name='MrBadExample']There are corrupt politicians on both sides of the aisle but right now I don't trust most Republicans.[/QUOTE]

I've never trusted them, and especially not when they control the two elected branches of government. But the point of the topic was to point out facts that indicate Democrats aren't all saints and saviors, either, regardless of what they'd have you believe.
 
[quote name='usickenme'] as for Reid he never met with Abramoff. However abramoff staff did meet with Reid because he was opposed to what the Abramoff lobbyist wanted and **gasp** the lobbyist was trying to persude Reid to change his position. Which Reid never did. The rest of Reid's "transgrations", sorry to disappoint you but that money was 100% legal. [/QUOTE]

And you believe that 100% thing. I may be dipped in shit but I'm not 100% full of it up to my eyeballs so that it blinds me. My pecker has more intelligence than your cranial regurgitation engine you call a brain.
 
Well without indictments or charges, I'll go with the 100% legal. It is legal for groups to give contributions to candidates, ya know.

Your jumping from excuse to excuse when I destroy your arguement is pretty damned funny.

But if your litmus test for corruption is an Abramoff tie..the GOP is in serious trouble.

http://www.capitaleye.org/abramoff_recips.asp?sort=R

but someone more intelligent than you, my 4 year old for example, would know that the corruption is simply not a link to abramoff but what was done for the money.
 
[quote name='usickenme']Well without indictments or charges, I'll go with the 100% legal. It is legal for groups to give contributions to candidates, ya know.

Your jumping from excuse to excuse when I destroy your arguement is pretty damned funny.

But if your litmus test for corruption is an Abramoff tie..the GOP is in serious trouble.

http://www.capitaleye.org/abramoff_recips.asp?sort=R

but someone more intelligent than you, my 4 year old for example, would know that the corruption is simply not a link to abramoff but what was done for the money.[/QUOTE]

Your belief that becuase he gave more money to republicans than democrats it makes the republicans more corrupt is a critical error which invalidates your argument that it is a majority or exclusively republican scandal.

It's an Abramoff scandal and has nothing to do with republicans in general. Your article puts the focus squarly on Jackster as being accused of trying to corrupt a US lawmaker. A few individual republicans may have been involved criminally, but that hasn't been proven yet. If it is, fine. Hopefully they'll get what they deserve and we'll all be better off becuase of it. But your glee that it's the downfall of teh republican party and their world is going to cave in shows how much of an idiot you are. Not just becuase you hate republicans for the sake that they're republicans, but that you hold out your heart for those backstabbing democrats. You're the perfect dem voting dupe. Bravo!

I'm sure your 4 year old is already more intelligent than you as well. He must have gotten that from his mom, becuase he sure didn't get the smart gene from you.

And since we've brought the family into the fray, My 6 year old's dick is bigger than yours and he could most assuredly take you in a fight.


edit: fixed the double, double post.
 
one thing..

it is because


seriously, you've got to be an alter ego or some loser with nothing better to do. No one intentionally writes as bad as you. If you aren't, whoa!

also, when I said 4 year old, I meant my 4 year old airdale terrier, you pretentous jerk.
 
Oximoron:
n- (Ox-E-mOr-on)

Ethical politician.


Party alignment really has nothing to do with ethics or the lack thereof.
 
[quote name='usickenme']one thing..

it is because


seriously, you've got to be an alter ego or some loser with nothing better to do. No one intentionally writes as bad as you. If you aren't, whoa!

also, when I said 4 year old, I meant my 4 year old airdale terrier, you pretentous jerk.[/QUOTE]


oooh, a typing error. You're really on some stable ground there. If you don't want someone to be a jerk to you, you need to control your anger and forego the 'dipshit' comments and other name calling like this:

[quote name='usickenme']...but someone more intelligent than you, my 4 year old for example, would know that the corruption is simply not a link to abramoff but what was done for the money.[/QUOTE]

You see, corruption has to be proven, like a taped phone call or some other evidence to that effect, not just the fact that money was given and it was a republican. Your fanatical giddiness that a republican may be charged with corruption is not allowing you to see the situation objectively.
 
[quote name='Kayden']Oximoron:
n- (Ox-E-mOr-on)

Ethical politician.[/QUOTE]

and how about:

civil servant

Limits of two terms for federal congressmen would solve alot of this problem. It would also be nice if we could figure out a scientific way of stopping the gerrymandering. Multiple parties would be the ideal solution.
 
[quote name='camoor']and how about:

civil servant

Limits of two terms for federal congressmen would solve alot of this problem. It would also be nice if we could figure out a scientific way of stopping the gerrymandering. Multiple parties would be the ideal solution.[/QUOTE]

Just go by town, or a 5x5 mile strait line grid.
 
[quote name='usickenme']bmug..you're fake and I know it.[/QUOTE]
I assure you I'm a real person. I even represent myself with my real name instead of hiding behind a handle designed to insult people.

It's funny, sometimes you're on the verge of a breakthrough to become part of the human race, but then you slip and fall back onto your instincts of fear like an animal. I wish I could believe you weren't a real person. It would give me hope for the future of humanity.
 
[quote name='Kayden']Just go by town, or a 5x5 mile strait line grid.[/QUOTE]

Well, the 5x5 mile grid wouldn't work because of population density, and it's getting hard to define what a 'town' is in our ever shifting work and residential areas.

But hell, we got to the moon, we should be able to get some bean-counter to come up with a scientific system of adjusting political districts fairly. The problem is that the ruling power makes the rules, and no ruling party wants to introduce a system that will make them lose power, even if it is the right thing to do. It's the 'win at all costs' America.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top