| |
| |
| |
|
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71
Comments:
<0> tabasco doesn't
<1> I wonder if babies taste good with a white sauce...
<2> but Heinz is the best, despite the nutcase who owns it
<2> er, used to own it
<0> ewww
<3> BoobyMan: Jack Abramoff is a REPUBLICAN sleaze bag. not democratic.
<0> Heinz is teh ****
<4> ROFL
<0> Where is ole Duck Cunningham when you really need him?
<4> Yeah, the Democrats are totally clean on the Abramoff scandal.
<5> plusplusc: i voted for kerry, abramoff is a sleaze bag, not republican or democratic.
<4> That's why they're flogging it so hard, eh?
<0> The Duck Of Death.
<3> The real problem is that there are too few men of real integrity in either party like say, John McCain and the late Paul Wellstone
<2> yeah everyone knows Dems are squeaky clean =)
<4> Oh, wait...
<6> plusplusc - I suppose you are another idiot apologist who says he only gave money to republicans, right? What a freakin moron.
<5> plusplusc: agree on integrity
<2> McCain is a crook
<0> He's pretty shifty.
<7> whose talkin about dead babies?
<8> what a two faced bitch!
<0> The_Lad: we were talking about cooking babies
<3> BoogyMan: That is in fact correct. No democratic politician ever took money from Abramoff.
<2> hahah
<1> Pickle: logic says less dems are guilty of Abramoff since they are not in power, but indeed - both parties are ROTTEN to their cores.
<2> now, that's an awfully suspect statement
<6> plusplusc - The money trail makes a liar out of you.
<3> Some did take money from some indian tribes, but that's an entirely separate business
<2> you couls state that no such contributions are *known*
<3> BoggyMan: you're the liar.,
<5> antifed: yup. glad they're not my government.
<2> but you can't logically state that he never did X
<1> Renea: I really need to move to New Zealand someday...
<6> plusplusc - To be branded so by the likes of yourself is a badge of honor
<0> Guess what folks? BOTH parties are irreverably corrupt.
<3> I have no illusions that some democratic politicians wouldn't become corrupt, once back in power and with the chance to do so again.
<0> er irreversably too!
<5> antifed: i refuse to leave my home, despite this miltiary occupation.,
<4> The fact remains that Democrats are not exactly lining up to bitch about the Abramoff scandal.
<3> jhicks: I'll agree and drink to that.
<4> There is a good reason for that.
<4> Reasons that will be revealed as Abramoff spills the beans.
<0> What about Duck?
<0> Cunningham?
<1> Pickle: none of that excuses any republican from selling out our freedoms.
<2> it would be silly for anyone to say person X never gave money to any Democrats
<4> Until then, keep speculating that the Democrats are clean, and remember as well that pride cometh before the fall.
<2> or any Republicans. There are so many of each
<4> antifed: Who's defending the Republicans?
<1> Pickle: or democrat ;)
<0> I hope the entire Congress goes to prison, they deserve it.
<3> Pickle: Perhaps because for once they're smart enough to see the wisdom of not getting in the way while their enemies are busy shooting holes in their foot
<5> jhicks: yup, criminals.
<1> hrm.. i wonder if we have room in prison for congress? ..
<2> naww, they've demonstrated a lack of such "smartness" before
<1> we could let some drug users out of prison first, then replace them with real criminals...
<0> they'll have to appropriate funds first
<2> so that can't be it
<0> antifed: i'm liking this plan
<4> plusplusc: There's no "getting in the way" on this sort of issue. The same such issue is playing out in Canada, with the opposition party rightfully exploiting the issue as they ARE clean.
<0> antifed: let's implement it!
<3> US_Male: So far they are, but give them time. Some of them just won't be able to help themselves by opening their mouths and running them too hard
<4> plusplusc: That's what the Democrats would be doing if they were truly guiltless. You know, the theatrics you were complaining about it all being a matter of, earlier.
<2> ++C: should be very entertaining. Baed on previous such cases, it's likely that he gave money to anyone from whom he thoght he could benefit
<0> I wish they'd take the gag off Sibel Edmonds about the American Turkey thingy
<3> Pickle: the issue will be put in play more prominently here by late spring, as we head into 06 election season. I'm already not looking forward to political ad pollution on the tv and radio
<0> Dennis Hastert is in that one
<2> that is how such ppl usually operate
<5> we'll see just how far the abramoff thing goes. i bet not very far. asking the criminal to be their own judge and jury. perhaps some "ethics rules" will be redefined.
<0> Renea: whoop-de-doo :-/
<4> There will be an anti-incumbency sentiment as a result of the scandal, and it will affect ALL incumbents.
<2> if the case suddenlt disapears, it could mean some Democrats were discovered, and a deal was made
<2> or, it could mean there was nothign much there
<4> Which are mostly Republican.
<3> US-Male: and had Tom Delay not been so successful in shutting off lobbying power access and political influence of the democratic house members, he probably would have given them money and many would have accepted.
<1> US-Male: great, scandel averted and criminals remain in power.. oh joy!
<2> deals are constantly being cut in Washington
<3> US-Male: ironic side effect that, of hardball partisanship excluding the opposition is that you have to take most or all the fall from a scandal such as this.
<1> doesn't it bother anyone here that we're expecting both parties to be corrupted and guilty, and able to get away with it and remain in power
<1> ?
<0> antifed: nope, nobody cares
<2> ++C: nah they can still leak a few names and then let it die
<5> antifed: not my government, we've disowned them since 1861
<1> ... this ought to make a man's blood burn with the white hot intensity of a thousand burning suns!
<4> antifed: It bothers me that I'm not omnipotent, too.
<0> Renea: hehehe
<2> corporate contributors usually give to both parties
<6> ++c - HAHAHAHAHA
<0> US-Male: very true
<1> your government is corrupt, out of touch, and beyond the rule of law...
<3> jhicks: I think people care, mightily. But there's no readily feasible path to overturn the system. That's what's really tragic about Perot imploding and turning out to be too much a flake - it would have made an enormous difference had he succeeded and turned out well.
<1> they must be ejected.. all of them.
<2> simply because, they don't know who's going to win
<2> they hedge their bets
<0> US-Male: I used to work directly for a current Bush "Pioneer", former Amb to Portugal
<4> antifed: Which is different from... When, exactly?
<0> US-Male: he gave bigtime to clinton AND ghwb
<1> Pickle: 1800.
<2> jhicks, all the moderate-big ones do that
<4> Government, at the end of the day, represents the peopel with the firepower to do whatever the **** they want. Which is why it must be limited.
<2> it's just playing the odds
<0> US-Male: he's apolitical
<0> strictly capitalist
<3> boogyman: i have no illusions about the purity of democratic politicans. The prime reason dems lost power in the house so abruptly in 94 was accumulated arrogance and corruption of too many members after so many unbroken years of control
<2> even when they have a preference, they don't want to be on the losing end if the other guy is elected
<0> and he made about $700M that way so it does work.
<4> antifed: Governments did what they wanted back then, too. The feds were already putting down rebellions prior to 1800.
<1> Pickle: in 1800, lobbyists had not become the 4th branch of government.
<4> antifed: Witness the Whiskey Rebellion.
<5> yeah, whiskey and the veterans
<4> antifed: I don't think we can safely say that.
<3> boogyman: what's amazing about the GOP house is that it took only 10 years or less to reach the level of arrogant, rampant corruption it took the dems 30 to 40 years to achieve.
<3> when they had control.
<1> Pickle: hrm, you're right, the federal government began corrupt, we should eliminate it.
<4> antifed: Good luck.
<6> ++c - Another of your many ***umptions, lets see what happens
<2> lol
<1> Pickle: it's been 150 years since the last attempt.. I say we're overdue by Jeffersonian standards.
<2> ++C: they've all been at the same level the whole time
<3> boobyman: what Abramoff did is not an "***umption"
<2> even the minority is corrupt
<5> plusplusc: i disagree about the corruption causing the shift in congress. the GOP simply reached out better. most americans (not us in this room) are idiots. they are one issue voters. god, guns, abortion, crime, business, immigration, defense, etc.
<6> ++c - The ***ignment of complete corruption IS an ***umption, I never disputed the Abramoff charges
<3> US-Male: the minority is far less corrupt than the majority in the house, but mainly only because they have at the moment far less opportunity and influence to get corrupted to an equal degree. I have no illusions about that.
<2> ++C: nah I don't buy that for a moment
<2> they all take money from anyone they can
<0> US-Male: and eat babies
<5> jhicks: with sauces
<0> boiled
<9> awww isn't that nice. Turns out that the real "boston george" from the movie "blow" actually does get visits from his daughter in prison
<2> even the minority party gets a ton of cashola
<1> plusplusc: agreed.. the party in power will always be me corrupt as they will have more temptation by outside forces wanting to abuse the system..
<3> US_Male: I don't think at bottom, we're really very far apart in our impressions - if you state that the democrats in congress are probably nearly as intrinsically corrupt by nature as the GOP is, then I'd be much closer in agreement.
<9> wonder if the movie making her look like a bitch influenced that, or if the writers of the movie just made up that whole thing about her not visiting him
<0> They're all bribed to increase H1B's
<9> prolly the second one
<2> ++C: they all want cash, any way they think they can get away with it
<0> Causing a labor glut is good for america!
<3> US_Male: they aren't as corrupt in momentary practice, because they have less opportunity to practice corruption, if you get my drift
<2> well I don't think a majority gets more contributions
<4> antifed: We're only overdue when such an act would have the mob on our side.
<0> US-Male: i do, the majority is who can make **** happen
<0> it's worth more
<2> jhicks: if you want the minority to retake the seats, you have to give them even *more*
<3> jhicks: exactly
<2> so that cancels jhicks's point
<10> They arent powerful enough to attract heavy bribing in most cases is what ++c is trying to say
<0> US-Male: no, that's not why they get bribes
<0> US-Male: they get bribes for setting up pork, etc
Return to
#politics
or
Go to some related
logs:
#3dsmax
#computers
#computers
#windowsxp
amr diab ojos asi mp3
#computers
krsi.net
penis20
#politics
#delphi
|
|