- 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 ).
Stinger said:Finn I'm an independent an vote Democrat if they have the better candidate.
Finn said:Democrats Are Evil! and Republicans Rock!
aps said:Tell me a democrat you like (besides myself, of course ).
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:
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.
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:
Does anyone remember his race baiting comments during Katrina?
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.
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.
aps said:Tell me a democrat you like (besides myself, of course ).
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.
If you don't think the bar is all that high, then riddle me this Batman,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.
Who are you talking too?Originally posted by Stinger:
If you care to have a discussion with me use a civil tounge
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?"
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.
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.Originally posted by oldreliable67:
Corruption knows no limits, including party lines.
The lesser of two evils is still evil.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.
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.Originally posted by SixStringHero:
And I fdon't think it's my fault that both parties suck.
This is the formula. The only way to get a better government, is if we become a better society.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.