Political Crossfire Forums

ScanIAm · Joined: 01 Nov 2006 Posts: 46 Location: Florida

Free Thinkr wrote: homerjay_s wrote: I'm curious as to why the focus is on Democrats when the majority of people named by Abramoff are Republicans.
Because, this was supposedly a Republican problem, and the Dems ran largely on corruption, yet, here is a Dem top-dog being implicated.

It was supposedly a republican problem because it would be nigh on pointless for someone to bribe the minority party. I know it's been a week and you've been trying to forget it, but the republicans USED to be in power :)

Free Thinkr wrote:
Quote: You neocon appologists are f***ing digusting. As if Harry Reid being corrupt makes it okay for your whole party to have run under one big tent of back scratching quid pro quo legislation fire sale.
Who said it made anything ok? It just shows that the Dems running on a house-cleaning platform is a joke.

I think you'll be quite suprised. Murtha had tenuous (and explainable) links at best to corruption and he lost today, so perhaps we should wait and see what happens.

If we find a crook, we'll kick his butt out. All of us, repubs and dems.

Free Thinkr wrote:

Quote: It's quite sad how you all want to make a big joke of the fact that our government is corrupt.

Let the investigations proceed.
Gotta laugh to keep from crying.
I find it rather interesting.

Let's see if the ability to purge corruption from one's own party is rewarded with re-election...

If it works for the dems, maybe the repubs could try it out :)

Free Thinkr · Posted: Thu Nov 16, 2006 5:01 pm Post subject:

ScanIAm wrote: Free Thinkr wrote: homerjay_s wrote: I'm curious as to why the focus is on Democrats when the majority of people named by Abramoff are Republicans.
Because, this was supposedly a Republican problem, and the Dems ran largely on corruption, yet, here is a Dem top-dog being implicated.
It was supposedly a republican problem because it would be nigh on pointless for someone to bribe the minority party. I know it's been a week and you've been trying to forget it, but the republicans USED to be in power :)
So, what exactly are you saying? That, in reality, it was never a Republican problem at all, but simply a result of the fact that Republicans happened to be in power at the time? Yeah, thanks for making my point for me.

Quote: Free Thinkr wrote: Quote: You neocon appologists are f***ing digusting. As if Harry Reid being corrupt makes it okay for your whole party to have run under one big tent of back scratching quid pro quo legislation fire sale.
Who said it made anything ok? It just shows that the Dems running on a house-cleaning platform is a joke.
I think you'll be quite suprised. Murtha had tenuous (and explainable) links at best to corruption and he lost today, so perhaps we should wait and see what happens.

If we find a crook, we'll kick his butt out. All of us, repubs and dems.
Who's "we?" Who's been kicked out?

Quote: Free Thinkr wrote: Quote: It's quite sad how you all want to make a big joke of the fact that our government is corrupt.

Let the investigations proceed.
Gotta laugh to keep from crying.
I find it rather interesting.

Let's see if the ability to purge corruption from one's own party is rewarded with re-election...
Who's been purged?

Quote: If it works for the dems, maybe the repubs could try it out :)
LOL. The party who is epitomized by Ted Kennedy can hardly be praised for its ability to purge corruption. :lol:

GTTofAK · Joined: 09 Jan 2005 Posts: 5968 Location: Alaska

If Reid resigns control of the senate changes.

I predict that every democrat senator implicated that comes from a state with a democrat governor will resign and everyone one from a state with a republican governor like Reid will not. Just goes to show where their true priorities are.

Anti-Federalist · Joined: 04 Sep 2005 Posts: 776 Location: Texas

There must be occassional actions by national leadership that prove to the populace that they are powerless, they have no voice, and that leadership has the power to do bad things to them at any time for no reason.

This is one of those.

Reid's corrupt. He, like others, accepted money from Abramoff. Others were penalized, he wasn't.

Just be happy you're alive and stop worrying about it.

Richard Owl Mirror · Joined: 28 May 2006 Posts: 9002

Moracca wrote: Reid's spokesman wrote: "We have no idea what Abramoff is telling prosecutors to save his skin, but I do know that these kind of old allegations are completely ridiculous and untrue," Sen. Reid's spokesman Jim Manley told ABC News.

Whoppers That Fart? How is Abramoff "saving his own skin" when he's been sentenced already? Was Abramoff going to be tried once for links to neo-cons and once for ties to leftists or something? :lol: Typical liberal spin.

Anyway, down goes The Man even before his ascension.

Okay Dems, who's the majority leader going to be now? Robert Byrd? Ted Kennedy?

:rotf:

It's apparent you do not know what Abramoff was convicted of and sentenced to prison for.

Convicted Lobbyist Jack Abramoff Reports to Prison
"... his six-year sentence for a fraudulent Florida casino deal."

On Jan. 4, 2006, Abramoff pleaded guilty to conspiracy to commit wire fraud and mail fraud, in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 371, and wire fraud, in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 1343 (Counts 1 and 3 of the Indictment). Co-defendant Kidan had previously pleaded guilty on Dec. 15, 2005 to similar charges (Counts 1 and 4 of the Indictment).

:lol: Typical Republican conduct.

Sands · Joined: 01 Nov 2006 Posts: 882

GTTofAK wrote: If Reid resigns control of the senate changes.
No it doesn't. They just pick a new Democrat as Senate Majority Leader.

GTTofAK wrote: I predict that every democrat senator implicated that comes from a state with a democrat governor will resign and everyone one from a state with a republican governor like Reid will not. Just goes to show where their true priorities are.
Wow ! Do you predict earthquakes too?

Heinz · Joined: 30 May 2006 Posts: 1636 Location: Philadelphia

Quote: They just pick a new Democrat as Senate Majority Leader.

Not so fast....

The Governor of Nevada would first have to pick Reid's replacement or elect to have a run-off election. If he picks a Republican or one wins the election, there goes the majority.

Sands · Joined: 01 Nov 2006 Posts: 882

Heinz wrote: Quote: They just pick a new Democrat as Senate Majority Leader.

Not so fast....

The Governor of Nevada would first have to pick Reid's replacement or elect to have a run-off election. If he picks a Republican or one wins the election, there goes the majority.
Reid could feasibly resign the Senate Leadership post (ala Trent Lott), but he would never resign from the Senate... nor should he.

I hear ol' Jack has some more dirt on Rove that the Feds are talking to him about too.

Refrozen Seabass · Joined: 19 Apr 2005 Posts: 2899

homerjay_s wrote: I'm curious as to why the focus is on Democrats when the majority of people named by Abramoff are Republicans.

For the same reason McCain and Lieberman were the guests on MTP the weekend after the Democrats cleaned up in the election: American news backs the Republicans. The real news will work at maiking the Republicans look good, whereas Fox will work at making Democrats look bad.

Heinz · Joined: 30 May 2006 Posts: 1636 Location: Philadelphia

Quote: Reid could feasibly resign the Senate Leadership post (ala Trent Lott), but he would never resign from the Senate... nor should he.

What if he is found guilty of illegal activity? Should he not resign then?

Quote: I hear ol' Jack has some more dirt on Rove that the Feds are talking to him about too.

Good....If Rove is guilty he should share a cell with Reid.

Sands · Joined: 01 Nov 2006 Posts: 882

Heinz wrote: Quote: Reid could feasibly resign the Senate Leadership post (ala Trent Lott), but he would never resign from the Senate... nor should he.

What if he is found guilty of illegal activity? Should he not resign then?
I guess we'll have to wait and see...so far there hasn't even been an indictment and I don't see one forthcoming anytime soon.

Heinz wrote: Quote: I hear ol' Jack has some more dirt on Rove that the Feds are talking to him about too.

Good....If Rove is guilty he should share a cell with Reid.
Naw...Rove should share a cell with a big black guy from Sparks Nevada....I'm sure Rove remembers Sparks. :lol:

GTTofAK · Joined: 09 Jan 2005 Posts: 5968 Location: Alaska

Sands wrote: Heinz wrote: Quote: Reid could feasibly resign the Senate Leadership post (ala Trent Lott), but he would never resign from the Senate... nor should he.

What if he is found guilty of illegal activity? Should he not resign then?
I guess we'll have to wait and see...so far there hasn't even been an indictment and I don't see one forthcoming anytime soon.

Heinz wrote: Quote: I hear ol' Jack has some more dirt on Rove that the Feds are talking to him about too.

Good....If Rove is guilty he should share a cell with Reid.
Naw...Rove should share a cell with a big black guy from Sparks Nevada....I'm sure Rove remembers Sparks. :lol:

Rove is not an elected official entrusted by the people to represent them.

Sands · Joined: 01 Nov 2006 Posts: 882

GTTofAK wrote: Sands wrote: Heinz wrote: Quote: Reid could feasibly resign the Senate Leadership post (ala Trent Lott), but he would never resign from the Senate... nor should he.

What if he is found guilty of illegal activity? Should he not resign then?
I guess we'll have to wait and see...so far there hasn't even been an indictment and I don't see one forthcoming anytime soon.

Heinz wrote: Quote: I hear ol' Jack has some more dirt on Rove that the Feds are talking to him about too.

Good....If Rove is guilty he should share a cell with Reid.
Naw...Rove should share a cell with a big black guy from Sparks Nevada....I'm sure Rove remembers Sparks. :lol:

Rove is not an elected official entrusted by the people to represent them.
Who said anything about Rove being an elected official???

He's worse than that...he's the party appartchik

GTTofAK · Joined: 09 Jan 2005 Posts: 5968 Location: Alaska

Sands wrote:
Who said anything about Rove being an elected official???

He's worse than that...he's the party appartchik

Someone missed the point.

el_hombre_de_Dios · Posted: Fri Nov 17, 2006 1:10 pm Post subject:

Moracca wrote: Reid's spokesman wrote: "We have no idea what Abramoff is telling prosecutors to save his skin, but I do know that these kind of old allegations are completely ridiculous and untrue," Sen. Reid's spokesman Jim Manley told ABC News.

Whoppers That Fart? How is Abramoff "saving his own skin" when he's been sentenced already? Was Abramoff going to be tried once for links to neo-cons and once for ties to leftists or something? :lol: Typical liberal spin.

Anyway, down goes The Man even before his ascension.

Okay Dems, who's the majority leader going to be now? Robert Byrd? Ted Kennedy?

:rofl:
:tu: But don't people see? One of the primal premises of modern liberalism is that we peons are too stupid to know what's best for us. We need our altruistic and benevolent government filled with the elite and enlightened cream of the intellectual crop to lead us and tell us what to think. We're too stupid to know otherwise.

Good spot! :lol:

Mr. Sunshine · Joined: 06 Oct 2006 Posts: 1324

When a "D" gets caught, they deny it; when an "R" gets caught, they resign. Which party is more "ethical"? :roll:

homerjay_s · Joined: 07 Oct 2005 Posts: 5605 Location: unknown

Mr. Sunshine wrote: When a "D" gets caught, they deny it; when an "R" gets caught, they resign. Which party is more "ethical"? :roll:

Right, because all the Republicans that are guilty of corruption have stepped down before they were forced to.

If Harry Reid is guilty, I hope he twists in the wind. Why is it that the Republicans are so happy at the thought of a Democrat being corrupt? Is it that misery loves company? Don't worry, the Republicans were spreading misery far and wide.

Mr. Sunshine · Joined: 06 Oct 2006 Posts: 1324

homerjay_s wrote: Mr. Sunshine wrote: When a "D" gets caught, they deny it; when an "R" gets caught, they resign. Which party is more "ethical"? :roll:

Right, because all the Republicans that are guilty of corruption have stepped down before they were forced to.

If Harry Reid is guilty, I hope he twists in the wind. Why is it that the Republicans are so happy at the thought of a Democrat being corrupt? Is it that misery loves company? Don't worry, the Republicans were spreading misery far and wide.

I can speak only for Conservative Independents, and I want all corrupt politicians to resign and spare the country. Democrats should not be above the law because they are protected from the liberal media not covering a story. 8:)

blockhead · Joined: 29 Oct 2006 Posts: 597 Location: SouthWest

Seems odd that Abramoff would wait til the day before he goes to prison to "implicate" democrats. After they won the election.

homerjay_s · Joined: 07 Oct 2005 Posts: 5605 Location: unknown

Mr. Sunshine wrote: homerjay_s wrote: Mr. Sunshine wrote: When a "D" gets caught, they deny it; when an "R" gets caught, they resign. Which party is more "ethical"? :roll:

Right, because all the Republicans that are guilty of corruption have stepped down before they were forced to.

If Harry Reid is guilty, I hope he twists in the wind. Why is it that the Republicans are so happy at the thought of a Democrat being corrupt? Is it that misery loves company? Don't worry, the Republicans were spreading misery far and wide.

I can speak only for Conservative Independents, and I want all corrupt politicians to resign and spare the country. Democrats should not be above the law because they are protected from the liberal media not covering a story. 8:)

I agree with your premise, that Democrats should not be above the law, but it is a complete myth that the main stream media has a liberal bias.

Does it not seem as though Republican partisanship allowed a culture of corruption to fester and grow unchecked for 6 years?

They did have total control of the federal government. They could have done a lot of good things. They didn't even maintain their duties of oversight.

To imply that Democrats are complicit in allowing their own to get away with it when they don't yet have the subpoena and investigative powers that the Republicans have ignored is quite disingenuous.

We'll see what Abramoff's information really leads to. Clearly he had a very easy time buying favorable legislation for his clients while the Republicans were in control.