jfuh said:
I can only answer by asking you, why did you edit out the immediately proceeding sentence? Two wrongs don't make a right.
I posted my full statement with nothing edited, why do you dodge?
I'm not ignoring that both parties are doing it.
I'm not eitherm, the OP did, I pointed it out, you get upset. Seems to me you WANT to ignore both parties are doing and are doing your best to quash and mention that the Dems are doing too.
However two facts
1) Abramoff was by far a Republican lobbiest
That's not a fact, he doesn't work for the Republican party or any of it's affiliates. He is a voter who votes Republican perhaps, he raises money for Republicans and he may even be registered as one, but to affiliate him in any offical manner is bogus. So that being said as far as being a LOBBIST he is an opportunist and works both sides, a fact you want to ignore.
2) Republicans are singing the song of honor and dignity when they are anything but.
No more or less than Dems.
It might surprise you that I could care less about the dems.
Absolutely the way you jumped to thier defense and objected to the mere mention that they too are tying to Abramhoff and lobbying issues.
Both parties are corrupt.
There is corruption in each party, but :shootif you mention that little fact.
However it is undeniable that one by one the republicans are getting indicted from the top down.
Sure it deniable, no more so than Democrats with Jefferson and Conyers both facing indictment.
Also I dispise of those whom assume of me when they know not what I think.
I know what you say. Do you say what you think?
With regards to Abramoff? Well, it isn't the dems. The majority are Repubs, and even so,
Not by much when it comes to the illegal Indian money.
the Repubs are hiding about saying, I never met the man, I don't know who he is. Of course only later we find several of thier cheery photos.
No more of less than the Dems, have you seen Reid uttering his phoney denials?
Hardly. Let's start from the top. The article was about how the republicans are hiding about denying knowledge of Abramoff and then Abramoff comes out with evidence showing who was invovled and how much they were involved with his "lobbying".
Let's view the very first response you post in this thread:
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Stinger
WASHINGTON -- Disgraced lobbyist Jack Abramoff has advised friends that he has no derogatory information about former House Majority Leader Tom DeLay and is not implicating him as part of his plea bargain with federal prosecutors.
Abramoff's guilty plea on fraud, tax evasion and conspiracy charges requires him to provide evidence about members of Congress. That led to speculation that this would mean trouble for DeLay, who faces money laundering and conspiracy charges in Texas.
http://townhall.com/opinion/columns/...25/191300.html
Protecting your fellow republicans immediately.
First I'm not a Republican and second I have no power to protect Delay but it looks like the primary accused by the Democrats may not have anything to do with anything illegal. That's called a salient point.
Originally Posted by
Stinger
It is notable the Hip left our any of the Democrats who also recieved money through Abramhoff.
Yes it was another salient point.
So without the slightes acknowledgement of how corrupt the republicans are, you immediately and only point the finger at the fact that some democrats are also involved.
Did I deny what the OP had posted? No. I added to the list no need to point another finger.
Again, two wrongs do not make a right.
Correct it is doubly wrong and better that we face just how bad it is by not ignoring the fact that both parties are involved and not single out the one as the OP did and you seem intent on.
So what if the dems did it?
So what if the Republicans did it? It's just as serious for the Democrats and it is for the Republicans is it not? Should we only be concerned about Republicans?
So in your response to Galenrox, instead of admitting that the Repubs are indeed corrupt you post this
Since I never denied I had nothing to admit, I agreed by default. YOU are the one trying to limit discussion to one side not me.
So, simply put your argument up to this point has been this.
Look at the dems, look at the dems, they're doing it too!
I tell you what I'll make my arguement and you make yours.
Now perhaps you skipped over this bit in my response to you in post #9.
Originally Posted by jfuh
Now just so that you don't falsely assume any more about my stance on this topic, I've long maintained that any governmental official involved with corruption should be tried for treason.
But you just don't want mention of the Democrat side of the story.