• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Abramoff Guilty - Up to 20 congressmen will be indicted

aps

Passionate
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 25, 2005
Messages
15,675
Reaction score
2,979
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Liberal
Stinger said:
Finn I'm an independent an vote Democrat if they have the better candidate.
Tell me a democrat you like (besides myself, of course ;)).
 

oldreliable67

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 3, 2005
Messages
4,641
Reaction score
1,102
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Finn said:
Democrats Are Evil! and Republicans Rock!
[Laughter]

Finn! You finally got it! You have seen the light! Praise the Lord! Hallelujah!

Way to go, big guy! We knew ya' had it in ya'!

[/Laughter]

Don't know if it will turn to a Repub love fest or not, but it will be good to see the sleazebags get their comeuppance regardless of party. But frankly, I'm worried that we may only see wrist slaps instead of something that will set an example, deterrence-wise.
 

oldreliable67

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 3, 2005
Messages
4,641
Reaction score
1,102
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
aps said:
Tell me a democrat you like (besides myself, of course ;)).
I'm not stinger and you know how conservative I am in most things, but I'll mention some Dems that seem pretty capable to me: Mark Warner, Barack Obama, Mitt Romney and Phil Bredesen. And oh, yeah, aps, even if she is a little young and inexperienced. :lol:
 

aps

Passionate
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 25, 2005
Messages
15,675
Reaction score
2,979
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Liberal
oldreliable67 said:
I'm not stinger and you know how conservative I am in most things, but I'll mention some Dems that seem pretty capable to me: Mark Warner, Barack Obama, Mitt Romney and Phil Bredesen. And oh, yeah, aps, even if she is a little young and inexperienced. :lol:
LOL You have no idea how experienced I am, oldreliable. Oops, I guess we're talking about politics, aren't we. :lol:

Mark Warner and Barack Obama--totally agree.

Mitt Romney is a republican.

Don't know that last guy.

Hey, on that Keith O show where they showed a bunch of bloopers--they showed Ted Kennedy announcing Obama and he called him Osama! Hilarious!
 

oldreliable67

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 3, 2005
Messages
4,641
Reaction score
1,102
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
aps said:
Mitt Romney is a republican.
Knew there was some reason I liked him!

Phil Bredesen is Gov. of Tennessee. Has faced a very difficult situation with health care and taxes in Tennessee and is doing a good job in an extremely difficult situation.
 

aquapub

DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 16, 2005
Messages
7,317
Reaction score
344
Location
America (A.K.A., a red state)
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Column Copied From Another Thread:

"WHY CAN'T I GET ARRESTED?

"I'm getting a little insulted that no Democratic prosecutor has indicted me. Liberals bring trumped-up criminal charges against all the most dangerous conservatives. Why not me?
Democrat prosecutor Barry Krischer has spent two years and hundreds of thousands of dollars trying to find some criminal charge to bring against Rush Limbaugh. Political hack Ronnie Earle spent three years and went through six grand juries to indict Tom DeLay. Liberals spent the last two years fantasizing in public about Karl Rove being indicted. Newt Gingrich was under criminal investigation for 3 1/2 years back in the '90s when liberals were afraid of him. Final result: No crime.

And of course, everybody cool in the Reagan administration was indicted. Or at least investigated and persecuted. Reagan's sainted attorney general Ed Meese was criminally investigated for 14 months before the prosecutor announced that he didn't have anything (but denounced Meese as a crook anyway).

I note that nobody ever wanted to indict Bob Dole or Gerald Ford (except, of course, other Republicans).

In the Nixon administration, liberals even brought "Deep Throat" up on charges -- and he was one of you people! What, now I'm not even as hip as "Deep Throat"?

I've done a lot for my country. I think I deserve to be indicted, too. How am I supposed to show my face around Washington if I haven't been "frog-marched" out of my office by some liberal D.A. looking to move to D.C. for the next Democratic administration? What's a girl have to do to become a "person of interest" around here? Mr. Krischer, where do I go to get rid of my reputation?"

End Of Column
Coulter 12-14-04




If....and that's a big IF, these charges ever pan out to anything, the Republicans and Democrats busted by this deal will have to wonder why no one is pursuing the far, far more egregious 2004 campaign finance violations from top to bottom by the Democrats who were openly coordinating efforts with "non-partisan" 527s like MoveOn, and using hundreds of millions of dollars (from the handful of millionaires the Democrat party represents) to illegally fund partisan attacks.

We are not dealing with long overdue charges against a career-felon like Bill Clinton, here. We are witnessing a technicality witch hunt that's way short on evidence.

Lawyers overstate and inflate their case as a standard practice. Just keep in mind that everything here is being based on the word of a guy getting a lesser sentence for pointing fingers at everyone within range.

Not exactly a slam dunk case.
 
Last edited:

SixStringHero

DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 7, 2005
Messages
1,588
Reaction score
133
Location
Southwest
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
oldreliable67 said:
I'm not stinger and you know how conservative I am in most things, but I'll mention some Dems that seem pretty capable to me: Mark Warner, Barack Obama, Mitt Romney and Phil Bredesen. And oh, yeah, aps, even if she is a little young and inexperienced. :lol:
Barack Obama?

He's turning into a pseudo Jesse Jackson protege.
Does anyone remember his race baiting comments during Katrina?

Sorry, I have no respect for race baiting charlatans.
 

oldreliable67

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 3, 2005
Messages
4,641
Reaction score
1,102
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Does anyone remember his race baiting comments during Katrina?
Yeah, he did go down a lot in my estimation, but hey, we're talking Dems here. The bar ain't that high.
 

JustMyPOV

Member
Joined
Sep 5, 2005
Messages
143
Reaction score
0
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
Whether or not the many who accepted money from Abramoff and his associates are indicted for, or found guilty of any wrong-doing, it is still going to deal them a great deal of political damage in their respective localities. Those already being named as recipients like Ney, DeLay, Frist, Hasturt, Blunt, and even Bush, himself are being torn apart by the press, even as they scramble to return the contributions or give them away to charity. It's going to be awfully difficult for them to fend off these charges, even if not in the court, in the public arena, where ultimately, it will be the voters who decide their guilt or innocence at the polls.
 

RightinNYC

Girthless
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 21, 2005
Messages
25,893
Reaction score
12,484
Location
New York, NY
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
Public officials who pander to specific constituencies are not a new phenomenon in Washington or anywhere else. Every day, politicians make their policy decisions based on what they think their constituents and donors will approve of. This naturally leads to politicians voting with whatever issue they think will get them the most money. This is not illegal.

What is illegal is when a congressperson receives assurances beforehand that he will receive X amount of money or gifts in return for supporting a policy that he would not normally support, and then uses his official authority in order to do so. It remains to be seen who has done that in this case.

The easiest cases are when congresspersons personally receive the money, as in the case of the guy who just resigned recently. I don't think they can prove that here.
 

Trajan Octavian Titus

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 17, 2005
Messages
20,915
Reaction score
546
Location
We can't stop here this is bat country!
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
RightatNYU said:
Public officials who pander to specific constituencies are not a new phenomenon in Washington or anywhere else. Every day, politicians make their policy decisions based on what they think their constituents and donors will approve of. This naturally leads to politicians voting with whatever issue they think will get them the most money. This is not illegal.

What is illegal is when a congressperson receives assurances beforehand that he will receive X amount of money or gifts in return for supporting a policy that he would not normally support, and then uses his official authority in order to do so. It remains to be seen who has done that in this case.

The easiest cases are when congresspersons personally receive the money, as in the case of the guy who just resigned recently. I don't think they can prove that here.
Apparently none of this matters it has not been proven that people bought votes with campaign contributions but that doesn't stop the liberal media (UCLA proved it so bite me people) from spinning it to make it look like legal donations are somehow unethical, this is how Washington works people.

There's nothing illegal about lobbyists trying to push the agendas of those groups that hire them that's what they do that's there job:

Lobbyist - people who are associated with groups (like labor unions, corporations, etc.) and who try to persuade members of the government (like members of Congress) to enact legislation that would benefit their group.

Abramoff may have broken the law but that doesn't prove that every person who accepted campaign contributions from him, on the behalf of Native American interest groups, broke the law. Like Right said it's only illegal if promises were made in exchange for these campaign contributions. Sorry to burst your idealistic bubbles here people but this is how Washington works.
 

JustMyPOV

Member
Joined
Sep 5, 2005
Messages
143
Reaction score
0
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
RightatNYU said:
Public officials who pander to specific constituencies are not a new phenomenon in Washington or anywhere else. Every day, politicians make their policy decisions based on what they think their constituents and donors will approve of. This naturally leads to politicians voting with whatever issue they think will get them the most money. This is not illegal.

What is illegal is when a congressperson receives assurances beforehand that he will receive X amount of money or gifts in return for supporting a policy that he would not normally support, and then uses his official authority in order to do so. It remains to be seen who has done that in this case.

The easiest cases are when congresspersons personally receive the money, as in the case of the guy who just resigned recently. I don't think they can prove that here.
I'm just glad some light is finally being shed on this issue and that our representatives are being forced by popular demand to act on it. I have to admit though, I'd be very surprised if the solution they come up with is anything more than a loophole-ridden bill of mind-boggling complexity that's designed to deflect the outrage of the voting public. Saddening as it is to be that skeptical, I lack faith in the legislature to make a change with any sort of backbone to it when it comes to their own sources of payola.
 

Stinger

DP Veteran
Joined
May 3, 2005
Messages
15,097
Reaction score
537
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
aps said:
Tell me a democrat you like (besides myself, of course ;)).
I voted for Don Sieglman for Govenor first time he ran (won't this time since he's under indictment) and the Democrat CJASC (but she has been replaced since I believe)
Lucy Baxly may get my vote this year for Govenor although Riley has done a really good job, and no scandals, I vote for her for Lt. Gov last election.
My state legislature is a Democrat whom I voted for.
I like Liebermann who seems to have a level head.
Voted for Jimmy Carter which was my biggest mistake, but I was much younger then.

Your turn what Republicans do you like and which have you voted for?
 

Stinger

DP Veteran
Joined
May 3, 2005
Messages
15,097
Reaction score
537
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
Deegan said:
We had actual video of the bribes taking place when this was a Democratic problem, Republicans seem to be a tad more careful in their corruption.;)
How about the Democrats caught up in this, they were just more careful this time?
 

Billo_Really

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 6, 2005
Messages
18,930
Reaction score
1,040
Location
HBCA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
Originally posted by oldreliable67:
Yeah, he did go down a lot in my estimation, but hey, we're talking Dems here. The bar ain't that high.
If you don't think the bar is all that high, then riddle me this Batman,
"Why are Republicans so f_cked?"
 

Stinger

DP Veteran
Joined
May 3, 2005
Messages
15,097
Reaction score
537
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
If you care to have a discussion with me use a civil tounge
 

Billo_Really

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 6, 2005
Messages
18,930
Reaction score
1,040
Location
HBCA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
Originally posted by Stinger:
If you care to have a discussion with me use a civil tounge
Who are you talking too?

By the way, its civil tongue!
 

oldreliable67

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 3, 2005
Messages
4,641
Reaction score
1,102
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Billo_Really said:
If you don't think the bar is all that high, then riddle me this Batman,
"Why are Republicans so f_cked?"
Ah, actually, Billo, that was meant as nonserious facetiousness. Apologies to any who were misled by my failure to make that clear. But to try to put your response in perspective, lets start in say, 1994...

> Jim Wright sells his "book" in bulk to the Teamsters

> Tony Coelho becomes (in)famous for "Honest Graft"

> Abscam

> the Keating Five

> Clark Clifford and BCCI

So the media hype that the Abramoff scandal is of "historic proportions" isn't really accurate. Its right up there with the most egregious, but doesn't really break new ground.

Astute (IMO) observations from today's WSJ:

the Abramoff scandal wouldn't resonate nearly as much with the public if it didn't fit a GOP pattern of becoming cozy with Beltway mores. The party that swept to power on term limits, spending restraint and reform has become the party of incumbency, 6,371 highway-bill "earmarks," and K Street. And it's no defense to say that Democrats would do the same. Of course Democrats would, but then they've always claimed to be the party of government. If that's what voters want, they'll choose the real thing.

One danger now is that, rather than change their own behavior, Republicans will think they can hide behind the political cover of "lobbying reform." While this has various guises, most proposals amount to putting further restrictions not on Congress but on "the right of the people . . . to petition the government," as the Constitution puts it explicitly.

Lobbyists per se aren't the problem; most of them are hired to protect Americans from a federal government that wants to take more of their money or freedom. Mr. Abramoff could make so much hay with Indian tribes only because he and they knew that Congress had given Washington the power to make or break fortunes simply by re-discovering "lost" tribes and giving them the power to sponsor casino gambling. The root of the scandal is this Beltway discretion and its misuse, not the lobbyists who attempt to protect their own interests.[emphasis added]

Most "lobbying reform" also accepts the liberal premise that private money is somehow corrupt while government money isn't. More disclosure is fine by us, but any new rules should also apply to AARP, the Sierra Club, Harvard University and "nonprofit" lobbies or foundations, including their grants from the government and George Soros.

Republicans won't escape voter anger by writing new rules but only by returning to their self-professed principles. Gradually since 1994 they've decided they want to reform and limit government less than they want to use government to entrench their own power, and in the case of the Abramoffs to get rich doing so.


Corruption knows no limits, including party lines.
 

Billo_Really

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 6, 2005
Messages
18,930
Reaction score
1,040
Location
HBCA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
Originally posted by oldreliable67:
Corruption knows no limits, including party lines.
Abramoff is just another brick in the wall. I don't know whats worse, the people in office or the people that put the people in office.

I always used to ask, "Who killed more people? Charles Manson or Charles Keating?

Both parties suck and its all our fault.
 

SixStringHero

DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 7, 2005
Messages
1,588
Reaction score
133
Location
Southwest
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Both parties do suck, but it almost seems that any attempt to get another viable 3rd party that I will actually agree with is futile.

We will always be forced to vote for the lesser of two evils in this country if we want our vote to count.
 

SixStringHero

DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 7, 2005
Messages
1,588
Reaction score
133
Location
Southwest
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Oh,
And I fdon't think it's my fault that both parties suck.
 

Billo_Really

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 6, 2005
Messages
18,930
Reaction score
1,040
Location
HBCA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
Originally posted by SixStringHero:
Both parties do suck, but it almost seems that any attempt to get another viable 3rd party that I will actually agree with is futile.

We will always be forced to vote for the lesser of two evils in this country if we want our vote to count.
The lesser of two evils is still evil.

Originally posted by SixStringHero:
And I fdon't think it's my fault that both parties suck.
It is the fault of every American citizen 18 and older. It is the fault of the American voter that puts these people in office. They can't do anything unless we put them in the position to do so.
 
H

hipsterdufus

This scandal could be the best thing that happened in politics in 100 years.
If the people, you and me, pay attention, and rise up against the powerful lobbyists that rule BOTH PARTIES we can take back this country!

It will require serious ethics regulations, media coverage, and pressure from the people. I implore you. Don't sweep this one under the carpet. The government that we might be able to mold after the smoke clears has the possibility of being much closer to what we all want.
 

Billo_Really

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 6, 2005
Messages
18,930
Reaction score
1,040
Location
HBCA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
Originally posted by hipsterdufus:
This scandal could be the best thing that happened in politics in 100 years.
If the people, you and me, pay attention, and rise up against the powerful lobbyists that rule BOTH PARTIES we can take back this country!

It will require serious ethics regulations, media coverage, and pressure from the people. I implore you. Don't sweep this one under the carpet. The government that we might be able to mold after the smoke clears has the possibility of being much closer to what we all want.
This is the formula. The only way to get a better government, is if we become a better society.

P.S. I like your sig. What is that? Uzi-cat? Machine Gun Kitty?
 

Stinger

DP Veteran
Joined
May 3, 2005
Messages
15,097
Reaction score
537
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
I heard one talking-head point out the irony, if true, that the reason the Indian tribes could fork out so much money was because the McCain-Finegold campiagn finance reform bill exempted them from any limits and that the Senator who recieved the most money from the tribes was McCain.

Not verified and no cite available, take it as I posted it.
 
Top Bottom