Lucky... 0
Recommended Posts
Lucky... 0
Quote
Some Dems who learned that their money came from Abramoff decided to voluntarily return teh money, other didn't and some are giving it to charity. Some have probbaly spent it and considered it into their campaign funding, so it would put them in arrears if they had to give it back.
You keep dodging the issue that there is no proof that any Dems knew or it would be curtains - this is a Republican scandal, deal with it.
______________________________________
Whoa, there! Let's look a bit closer at what you said.
"SOME have probably spent it and considered it into their campaign funding, so it would put them in arrears if they had to give it back." Right there, you are saying that 'some' of the dems kept the money and tried to hide it as 'campaign contributions'. That makes them a part of 'a Republican scandal.'
Those who gave it to charities, 'accepted' the money and tried to make themselves look good by giving it to charities. SO, it is NOT just a 'Republican scandal'. I don't care how you slice it, dice it or spin it. 'SOME dems took money from the guy! Thus supportng the contention the dems that took money are dirty.
Chuck
Whoa, really? Whoa dude, let's grandstand since there is no other argument.
QuoteRight there, you are saying that 'some' of the dems kept the money and tried to hide it as 'campaign contributions'. That makes them a part of 'a Republican scandal.'
Let's break it down so you cannot convolute things. As per the evidence, no dems knew that the money was tainted as they legally received it. After knowledge that the Indian groups were associated with Abramoff, the Dems that received the money has 3 basic options:
1) Return it
2) Keep it, or in some cases they already spent it
3) Donate it to charities
Since they had no former knowledge that the money was tainted, it wasn't considered illegal contributions. If they already spent it they would have to raise money to pay it back. Either way in order to be part of the Republican scandal they would have to have had prior knowledge that the money was somehow associated with the sleezy Republican Party - they did not.
QuoteI don't care how you slice it, dice it or spin it.
Yes I know, you've closed your mind to it in order not to exonerate your party, but to pull the other side into the sleeze that is the Republican Party.
Quote'SOME dems took money from the guy! Thus supportng the contention the dems that took money are dirty.
No, some Dems took money from people that were associated with Abramoff, no Dems took money from him directly or had knowledge of anything criminal.
Funny how Republicans fail to defned their party, but rather they try to make theother side as sleezy as they are. Really sad for them
![[:/]](/uploads/emoticons/dry.png "[:/]"){kind=small}
Like I said, I don't care how you word it, twist it, spin it or flip it... SOME dems are dirty. I don't care if, they took money through a dis-interested third party... they damned well knew where it originated from!!! I'll bet, in this whole nation, there isn't a handfull of politicians that are totally, absolutely 'clean'! That's all I'm saying.
Grand-stand? You're the one grandstanding.
They didn't know where the money came from! Yeah right! You mean to tell me, they just accepted a big wad of money and didn't give it a second thought? Bull-fucking-shit! They're politicians!
My party? You tell me... what is my party? I said it before and I'll say it again, I don't trust politicians... not one! I don't care if they are republicans, democrats or plutocrats... I don't trust them. Your precious Dems? They're dirty too! They are all out for what they can get to feather their own nests and they don't give a rats ass about you or me. You go on thinking what you want and I'll do the same but, don't try to tell me the dems are clean!!!
That's my last word on this matter.
Chuck
Grand-stand? You're the one grandstanding.
They didn't know where the money came from! Yeah right! You mean to tell me, they just accepted a big wad of money and didn't give it a second thought? Bull-fucking-shit! They're politicians!
My party? You tell me... what is my party? I said it before and I'll say it again, I don't trust politicians... not one! I don't care if they are republicans, democrats or plutocrats... I don't trust them. Your precious Dems? They're dirty too! They are all out for what they can get to feather their own nests and they don't give a rats ass about you or me. You go on thinking what you want and I'll do the same but, don't try to tell me the dems are clean!!!
That's my last word on this matter.
Chuck
kallend 2,150
This is a silly argument. The corruption is rife and extends both sides of the aisle. The party in power ALWAYS has most opportunity, and right now it's the Republicans. The pendulum, in due course, will swing the other way.
...
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
Quote
This is a silly argument. The corruption is rife and extends both sides of the aisle. The party in power ALWAYS has most opportunity, and right now it's the Republicans. The pendulum, in due course, will swing the other way.
_______________________________
You got that right and I couldn't agree with you more! (especially the 'silly' part)
Chuck
Ney is criticized by Republicans and forced to resign. Now contrast that to the protection given to William Jefferson by Democrats.
OK, lesson 1 from Justice 101:
Strict liability = only requirement is Actus Reas (act)
Most criminal = culmination of Actus Reas (act) and Mens Rea (evil intent)
Point is, you must know or be reasonably aware that property is stolen to be convicted. If you buy off EBAY or go a tax guy that doesn't meet you in an alley you should be ok as far as not being tried for a crime. Let's be a little aware of what we're talking about before we jump in, k?
As for the knowledge of tainted money, I think it comes to a case by case basis. Many times the administartion for the politician handles all that and even then it is often thru several people. The Republicriminals that were tried had enough evidence against them to establish that they knew or should have known.
Share this post
Link to post
Share on other sites