Well lookee here! Not just a Delay deal

[Pacridge]

I see the mentality developing this way because we're conditioned to go much easier on the politicians we like.

We decry the pork barrel spending in Congress, but every year, every Congressman runs on the platform of how many jobs he's brought to our area, how much money he got for us, etc... We're trained to be angry at waste and impropriety, but to love it when it benefits us.

Tammany Hall was responsible for some of the best loved mayors in NYC, despite the incredible corruption.

If you think about it, most of the best loved politicians are that way because of their ability to schmooze, and get what they want through methods that wouldn't necessarily be acceptable to the general public if presented.

Yep, everybody hates pork barrel spending unless the pork's going into their barrel.

Michael Moore (oh on! not that guy) used to have a TV show on, I think it was called TV Nation. One time he went to some small town and got a bunch of people to do a march against pork barrel spending. Then in the middle of the march he started telling them about the pork spending in and around their own town. The people suddenly didn’t have a problem spending millions of dollars on a recreation center. It helped their town and employed people. It was pure pork, but those people liked the pork spent on them.

Tax payers need to wise up and realize federal dollars aren’t free dollars. How many times, while watching late night TV, have you heard someone hawk a book or a program aimed at connecting you with “free government dollars or grants?” Federal dollars aren’t free-they’re our dollars. We pay for them. You and I. They’re several groups out there that keep tabs on pork spending. CAGW is one here’s link to their site: http://www.cagw.org/site/PageServer

 

[Pacridge]

It is only the Democrats who rally around their scum bags and don't hold them to the same standard as Republicans. Just as they have done in the past, Republicans are starting to cave into pressure about Delay, so it is more like "we know Delay hasn't been charged with anything yet, but we aren't going to overlook it like Democrats do". :roll:

I can always count on you for a good belly laugh.

 

[RightinNYC]

I can always count on you for a good belly laugh.

I'm going to agree that that statement seemed a bit colored.

 

[ShamMol]

1) You do not have to be convicted to be a felon-duh! And Clinton was disbarred for perjury, so he was caught anyway.

2) Evidence? The media recounted the votes every way imagineable and Gore lost by more each time! And when the media called Florida EARLY and INCORRECTLY for Gore, the rigidly conservative panhandle was still voting for over an hour. There was an unusual drop-off of between 10,000 and 32,000 votes cast in the panhandle. Do the math. The media created the debacle. It was never even close. Bush had Gore from go.

3) Democrats are not asking for equal treatment. Persecuting one guy (who happens to be the first Republican Congressional leader to so effectively and consistently kick the crap out of Democrats issue by issue, election by election- must just be a coincidence that they are gunning for him and only him) for something everyone else is doing is not fair treatment.

What makes it worse is you didn't even spell my name right. It means a lot to me. Ill respond to everything but two (and considering you brought it up in the first place, i never had to respond...).

To be a felon, the definition of which is "One who has committed a felony." The only way we know they for sure committed that felony is if they were put in prison for a year, otherwise they are not guilty.

I am a democrat and I am asking for equal treatment for all, which ironically (thanks to rightatnyu for pointing this out) is already in place. however, my problem with the new rules are they are protecting someone who should obviously be investigated, just as I would want any, and i mean any, politician to be. they are gunning for him because he is the biggest target, that makes sense even if it is not right, but i am not them. I just want the rules changed back so his actions can be investigated and if he is found to be in wrong, punished. It is the fair thing to do. I would want it if say...Nancy Pelosi was in trouble as well. It is FAIR.

 

[Squawker]

I can always count on you for a good belly laugh.

:2bow: Just doing my job. :lol:

 

[Fantasea]

Ho hum; still moaning over the 2000 election results?

Try this:

http://archives.cnn.com/2001/ALLPOLITICS/04/04/florida.recount.01/

One question has haunted me ever since the 2000 election brought to prominence the myriad problems with capturing and tallying votes, and reporting results which will be accurate.

We can put men on the moon and bring them back. We have an electronic miracle, the internet, we have slot machines that guarantee that the 'house' will get the exact share that it desires, we have ATMs that permit one to spend his way around the world and not err by one cent, we have credit cards that handle billions of transactions involving hundreds of millions of cardholders spending trillions of dollars and receiving statements right on time every month. Not bad.

So, if we can do all of those things, how come we don't have a system that can capture and tally votes, and report results which are accurate?

I know why, and so does everyone else.

Politicians prefer it that way.