kallend 2,123 #1 February 23, 2008 Congressman indicted: online.wsj.com/article/SB120372725916587297.html?mod=googlenews_wsj... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #2 February 23, 2008 Sooner or later they'll catch up with "Dirty Harry", too...hopefully.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
masterrig 1 #3 February 23, 2008 A dirty politician... what's new! Chuck Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Amazon 7 #4 February 23, 2008 QuoteA dirty politician... what's new! What was new was the AMOUNT and level of corruption during the REpublican Rubber Stamp Congress... The Family values party... I guess this is what passes for republican family values.. over and over the same story.. corruption..infidelity....paedophilia... And I know that really pisses off Mike who wants so bad to be a true believer in what they told him. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
airdvr 210 #5 February 23, 2008 QuoteQuoteA dirty politician... what's new! What was new was the AMOUNT and level of corruption during the REpublican Rubber Stamp Congress... The Family values party... I guess this is what passes for republican family values.. over and over the same story.. corruption..infidelity....paedophilia... And I know that really pisses off Mike who wants so bad to be a true believer in what they told him. Republican, Democrat...makes no difference. There are scumbags on both sides of the aisle.Please don't dent the planet. Destinations by Roxanne Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #6 February 23, 2008 *sigh* STILL no rolling-eyes smiley...Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Amazon 7 #7 February 23, 2008 Riiiiigh.. but WHy are so many of them rePUBICans.. in the party of Family Values? Remember what they told you guys when you voted for them??? Guess they did not bring integrity to Washington after all.. most seem to have jumped right into the Washington DC Pig trough... Hell you had all three branches of government with a white house directing the firings of their own prosecutors who would not indict democrats of sneezing in the wrong place at the wrong time. I am sure there were plenty of other of their appointees who did everything they could to try... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
masterrig 1 #8 February 23, 2008 QuoteQuoteA dirty politician... what's new! What was new was the AMOUNT and level of corruption during the REpublican Rubber Stamp Congress... The Family values party... I guess this is what passes for republican family values.. over and over the same story.. corruption..infidelity....paedophilia... And I know that really pisses off Mike who wants so bad to be a true believer in what they told him. I think, the way everything is in place for corruption, it's just there for the taking. Republican or Democrat. I believe too, too many politicians on either side run for office just to get in on the 'side action'. Chuck Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kschilk 0 #9 February 23, 2008 I always thought that by allowing lobbying, the gov't. was planting huuuuge corruption seeds....I can't understand how it's been allowed to go on. All we can really hope for, is that the crooks that are currently in office, stay in office....for the sake of justice. I mean, face it....we're over the hump and there's no going back. Thing's will get ugly and honestly, it can't be far off. The ones in office, when it all breaks loose....will be the ones that are drug out and hung from the lightpoles. I'm afraid that assuming "It can't happen here", has simply ensured that it will."T'was ever thus." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
masterrig 1 #10 February 23, 2008 To me, lobbying is about the same as baiting a mouse trap! Those greedy politicians just can't pass it up. So much for credibility, honor, honesty amd morality that we hold so dear in our political figures. I wouldn't trust any one of them as far as I could throw a Kenworth! Chuck Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jcd11235 0 #11 February 23, 2008 QuoteTo me, lobbying is about the same as baiting a mouse trap! Those greedy politicians just can't pass it up. So much for credibility, honor, honesty amd morality that we hold so dear in our political figures. I wouldn't trust any one of them as far as I could throw a Kenworth! We set ourselves up for failure when we gave corporations the same rights (in some cases more rights) as people, but without the associated responsibilities.Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
likearock 2 #12 February 23, 2008 Quote*sigh* STILL no rolling-eyes smiley... Here ya go. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
masterrig 1 #13 February 23, 2008 QuoteQuoteTo me, lobbying is about the same as baiting a mouse trap! Those greedy politicians just can't pass it up. So much for credibility, honor, honesty amd morality that we hold so dear in our political figures. I wouldn't trust any one of them as far as I could throw a Kenworth! We set ourselves up for failure when we gave corporations the same rights (in some cases more rights) as people, but without the associated responsibilities. I agree! Seems like more rights as well as 'privilages'. It's the same old deal. You scratch my back... I'll scratch yours. Big business leads the politicians around by the nose. I heard recently on the news, big business is being clamped-down on for hiring illegals and fines and penalties to increase. Maybe, things are turning around. Chuck Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
happythoughts 0 #14 February 23, 2008 Think of all the free time that the Dems must have. They never have to do all the ethics or values discussions. (Of course, a great advantage is that if they do admit to morals, they get to violate them at will.) The basic problem that Dems have is that they confuse "not guilty" with "not proven guilty". Ted "a blonde in every pond" Kennedy Bill "womens rights" Clinton. I hear OJ is running for the Senate as a Dem now. "I haven't run for office, but if I did, this is how I'd do it." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Andy9o8 2 #15 February 24, 2008 QuoteThink of all the free time that the Dems must have. They never have to do all the ethics or values discussions. (Of course, a great advantage is that if they do admit to morals, they get to violate them at will.) The basic problem that Dems have is that they confuse "not guilty" with "not proven guilty". Ted "a blonde in every pond" Kennedy Bill "womens rights" Clinton. I hear OJ is running for the Senate as a Dem now. "I haven't run for office, but if I did, this is how I'd do it." What an incredibly stupid post. Absolutely breathtaking. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
happythoughts 0 #16 February 24, 2008 QuoteWhat an incredibly stupid post. Absolutely breathtaking. Thanks. It's nice to know that a little effort is appreciated. I just point out the obvious parallels of the previous Wall Street Journal articles involving politicians indicted for land deals. Nearly recent history. Hard to forget. WSJ Of course, I point out the confusion about the difference between "being guilty" and "making a deal to get out of prosecution". Quote2001 Jan. 19: In a deal with Independent Counsel Ray, President Clinton admits that he made false statements in the Monica Lewinsky case and surrenders his law license for five years. Mr. Ray declines prosecution of Mr. Clinton for perjury and obstruction of justice. The agreement effectively ends the Whitewater investigation, which began with questions about the Clintons' land dealings in Arkansas but expanded into Oval Office conduct. (He admitted perjury in the deal to get out of prosecution in the other investigation. Nice.) The next day ? Quote Jan. 20: Hours before ending his term in office, President Clinton issues 140 pardons. Included on the list is the Clintons' former Whitewater Development Co. partner, Susan McDougal. Once he is safe from prosecution, he pardons his partner. Convenient. I believe in prosecuting individuals. If this new guy is found guilty, he should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law, regardless of political association. It seems stupid to excoriate the rest of a group (political or otherwise), based on the (alleged, at this point) actions of one member. This is what seems to happen in political discussions here. It is a logical flaw. Otherwise, was anyone critical of all the Dems based on allegations against the Clintons during the Whitewater issues? (Or Filegate, or Travelgate, or...) Same basic concepts all the way through. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kschilk 0 #17 February 24, 2008 Quote Quote Think of all the free time that the Dems must have. They never have to do all the ethics or values discussions. (Of course, a great advantage is that if they do admit to morals, they get to violate them at will.) The basic problem that Dems have is that they confuse "not guilty" with "not proven guilty". Ted "a blonde in every pond" Kennedy Bill "womens rights" Clinton. I hear OJ is running for the Senate as a Dem now. "I haven't run for office, but if I did, this is how I'd do it." What an incredibly stupid post. Absolutely breathtaking. Awww....I thought the "blonde in every pond" line was clever. The Kennedys are likely responsible for far more murders, than the Manson family. As far as parties go....if it doesn't include beer, it isn't a legitimate party!"T'was ever thus." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Zarkon 0 #18 February 26, 2008 I would love to see someone who is 'outside the circle' win office and shape up Washington. Unfortunately the media would never let that happen, just look at what happened to Ron Paul this year. If the MEDIA considers you radical and un-electable then no one will know you are running. Until the system changes we will have the same people with different faces telling us how wonderful the world will be with them in office, only to be taking $$ from lobbiests that they will have to pay back one way or another and leaving us, the American citizens, left with the same shit different day. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,090 #19 February 26, 2008 > I would love to see someone who is 'outside the circle' win office >and shape up Washington. Closest we have to that, unfortunately, is Obama. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Zarkon 0 #20 February 26, 2008 Quote > I would love to see someone who is 'outside the circle' win office >and shape up Washington. Closest we have to that, unfortunately, is Obama. Closest mainstream or potential winner we have is Obama, and even he is not close to what we really need. I agree he's better than McCain, Hillary, and Huckabee though...but I'm going to keep my hopes up that the seas will part and Dr Paul will win Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,090 #21 February 26, 2008 >but I'm going to keep my hopes up that the seas will part and Dr Paul will win. Someone who has been in the Senate for 3 years is more of an "insider" than someone who has been in the House most of the time since 1976 - and continuously for over 10 years now? You may like Paul for many reasons (I do too) but he is as "inside" as they come. Indeed, the most frequent criticism levied against Obama is that he doesn't have enough experience in government and essentially isn't enough of an insider to get things done! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Zarkon 0 #22 February 26, 2008 I disagree, he may have many years in the Senate but that doesn't necessarily make him an 'insider' in the same respect that doesn't mean Obama is not. By insider I mean their position on issues and the way to fix them etc, not necessarily their tenure in congress. I guess I was just avoiding saying they need to 'think outside the box'. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,090 #23 February 26, 2008 >I guess I was just avoiding saying they need to 'think outside the box'. OK, I agree with you there. In terms of basic principles, Paul is farther than most from party orthodoxy. I don't think most of his ideas would work in the real world, but it would be worth trying them - and seeing what a combination of his philosophy and the more traditional philosophies of the house and senate resulted in. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Zarkon 0 #24 February 26, 2008 I'm not sure if they would all work either, but I trust that he knows what he is talking about since his plans aren't filled with the usual 'fluff' you hear everywhere else. He also says that he wouldn't be able to get everything done in 8 years anyhow, but it would be a great start. Some of the simpler things alone would help this country immensely. For example just opening up the media permits and government funded presidential campaigns would put an end to this media circus we call an electoral process as well as eliminate a large part of the lobbyist influence on our candidates(Clinton cough cough). Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
chinagirl 0 #25 February 26, 2008 What's even better is if the people of America would stop associating everything in terms of Democrats or Republican. How about individuals regardless of party affiliation?~Built for Abuse www.skydivethefarm.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
