Baldimo
 
Reply Wed 7 Feb, 2007 02:29 pm
With the mid-term elections done and the people voting for corruption free govt it seems that the Dems have already started falling short of that promise.

Quote:
PHILADELPHIA - A Pennsylvania legislator pleaded not guilty Wednesday to federal charges alleging he used state workers and a nonprofit group for his personal and political benefit, costing taxpayers and others more than $2 million.
State Sen. Vincent J. Fumo, one of the most powerful figures in Pennsylvania politics, was released on $100,000 bail after his plea to 139 counts of fraud and obstruction.
Fumo declined to comment when he entered the federal building for processing.
An indictment handed up Tuesday alleged that Fumo, 63, regularly used state workers to perform personal chores, from overseeing construction at his 33-room Philadelphia mansion to spying on his ex-wife to working his 100-acre farm near Harrisburg.
Fumo misused $1 million in state resources plus $1 million from the nonprofit neighborhood group he controlled, according to the indictment.
The Philadelphia Democrat, a state senator since 1978, was charged with obstruction for ordering his staff to destroy years worth of e-mails on government computers.


Let the games begin!
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Discussion • Score: 0 • Views: 5,184 • Replies: 91
No top replies

 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Wed 7 Feb, 2007 02:32 pm
Yeah, boy, damn those State Senators.

You wanna play the 'see which State Senators are corrupt' game, Baldi? I will warn you in advance that there are many Republicans on this list.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
mysteryman
 
  1  
Reply Wed 7 Feb, 2007 02:37 pm
Cycloptichorn wrote:
Yeah, boy, damn those State Senators.

You wanna play the 'see which State Senators are corrupt' game, Baldi? I will warn you in advance that there are many Republicans on this list.

Cycloptichorn


The amount of repubs on the list means nothing.
The report mentioned a DEMOCRAT.

Now,the dems all campaigned,on both a state and national level,that they were above reproach and not guilty of the corruption they claimed infected the repub party.

Yet,since the elections,many stories have come out about corrupt dems.

You mentioning repubs is that classic strawman you love to mention.
0 Replies
 
Baldimo
 
  1  
Reply Wed 7 Feb, 2007 02:42 pm
Cycloptichorn wrote:
Yeah, boy, damn those State Senators.

You wanna play the 'see which State Senators are corrupt' game, Baldi? I will warn you in advance that there are many Republicans on this list.

Cycloptichorn


Didn't realize it was a game. I thought the dems won the last election based on anti-corruption. If that is so then the dems are already falling behind. I never said the Reps were less corrupt then the Dems, I just find it funny about the corruption issue was listed as a major reason for the election and here we have a dem getting busted for corruption.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Wed 7 Feb, 2007 02:42 pm
Quote:


Now,the dems all campaigned,on both a state and national level,that they were above reproach and not guilty of the corruption they claimed infected the repub party.


Strawman yourself. Dems campaigned that the Republicans were corrupt and that they would work to clean it up. Can you link to specific campaign promises that people who have turned out to be corrupt, said that they weren't during their campaign?

That's what a strawman is - when you make up an argument that other people didn't make and then attack it. When I brought up Republicans, I was changing the subject, not erecting a strawman. Study up on your Logical Fallacies.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
mysteryman
 
  1  
Reply Wed 7 Feb, 2007 02:44 pm
Cycloptichorn wrote:
Quote:


Now,the dems all campaigned,on both a state and national level,that they were above reproach and not guilty of the corruption they claimed infected the repub party.


Strawman yourself. Dems campaigned that the Republicans were corrupt and that they would work to clean it up. Can you link to specific campaign promises that people who have turned out to be corrupt, said that they weren't during their campaign?

That's what a strawman is - when you make up an argument that other people didn't make and then attack it. When I brought up Republicans, I was changing the subject, not erecting a strawman. Study up on your Logical Fallacies.

Cycloptichorn


Why change the subject?
Does it hurt when your dems get caught?
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Wed 7 Feb, 2007 02:53 pm
Baldimo wrote:
Cycloptichorn wrote:
Yeah, boy, damn those State Senators.

You wanna play the 'see which State Senators are corrupt' game, Baldi? I will warn you in advance that there are many Republicans on this list.

Cycloptichorn


Didn't realize it was a game. I thought the dems won the last election based on anti-corruption. If that is so then the dems are already falling behind. I never said the Reps were less corrupt then the Dems, I just find it funny about the corruption issue was listed as a major reason for the election and here we have a dem getting busted for corruption.


What is it you are looking for - perfection? Yes, some Democratic party members are corrupt.

The Dems won the last election based upon the Iraq war. Corruption helped a lot as well, but let's not kid ourselves here- corruption is an issue every election, it's hardly new now.

Quote:


Why change the subject?


For fun. I could say 'to provide balance' but that would be a lie.

Quote:
Does it hurt when your dems get caught?


Not really. I don't really count State Senators as worth getting upset over.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
JTT
 
  1  
Reply Sun 11 Feb, 2007 06:59 pm
mysteryman wrote:
Cycloptichorn wrote:
Quote:


Now,the dems all campaigned,on both a state and national level,that they were above reproach and not guilty of the corruption they claimed infected the repub party.


Strawman yourself. Dems campaigned that the Republicans were corrupt and that they would work to clean it up. Can you link to specific campaign promises that people who have turned out to be corrupt, said that they weren't during their campaign?

That's what a strawman is - when you make up an argument that other people didn't make and then attack it. When I brought up Republicans, I was changing the subject, not erecting a strawman. Study up on your Logical Fallacies.

Cycloptichorn


Why change the subject?
Does it hurt when your dems get caught?


You must have sustained a serious head wound sometime in your life?
0 Replies
 
Bi-Polar Bear
 
  1  
Reply Sun 11 Feb, 2007 07:37 pm
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v288/stevetheq/whatsfordinner.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v288/stevetheq/bawling.jpg
0 Replies
 
kuvasz
 
  1  
Reply Sun 11 Feb, 2007 11:09 pm
Well it looks like the regular creepoziod right wingers are out in force bellyaching about the corruption of a single state legislator who had government employees cut his grass and shovel snow off the guy's pavement.

Well, in the scheme of things it ain't no big deal. but, betrayal of the public trust is state sacrilege, and I hope the guy goes to jail for 20 years; just like I hope George Bush's treasonous state sacrilege lands him dancing on an exectioneer's noose.

The ancient Greeks were smarter than us and allowed banishment from their democracy to those who posed a threat to it, and likely if we had it George Bush would be voted ON TO an island and sent to Saint Helena's or worse.

But, meanwhile as you piss and moan over a corrupt local politician where is your damned teeth-nashing exclaimations of citizen rape by federal government graft when this week Americans found out from our latest "Medal of Freedom" winner Paul Bremmer that he has no earthly idea of where $12,000,000,000 (that's $ billion for the yahoos on the Right who need to count past eleven barefoot) was pissed away on Iraq " reconstruction."

I don't hear $hit from you mouthbreathers on that. So where is your damned sanctimonious outrage from that much money wasted. At least the incompetent co#ksucker you support could give us the damned medal back.

Hello Macflies?

Are you such complete imbeciles, idiots, and partisan bastards who piss and moan over a single guy using government employees as his own and bypass without comment the Republican money-for-free boondoggle that had to use fork-lifts, forklifts, for Christ's sake to distribute our own tax money with no accounting at all.

Your hypocrisy stinks, as usual.
0 Replies
 
mysteryman
 
  1  
Reply Mon 12 Feb, 2007 09:53 am
kuvasz wrote:
Well it looks like the regular creepoziod right wingers are out in force bellyaching about the corruption of a single state legislator who had government employees cut his grass and shovel snow off the guy's pavement.

Well, in the scheme of things it ain't no big deal. but, betrayal of the public trust is state sacrilege, and I hope the guy goes to jail for 20 years; just like I hope George Bush's treasonous state sacrilege lands him dancing on an exectioneer's noose.

The ancient Greeks were smarter than us and allowed banishment from their democracy to those who posed a threat to it, and likely if we had it George Bush would be voted ON TO an island and sent to Saint Helena's or worse.

But, meanwhile as you piss and moan over a corrupt local politician where is your damned teeth-nashing exclaimations of citizen rape by federal government graft when this week Americans found out from our latest "Medal of Freedom" winner Paul Bremmer that he has no earthly idea of where $12,000,000,000 (that's $ billion for the yahoos on the Right who need to count past eleven barefoot) was pissed away on Iraq " reconstruction."

I don't hear $hit from you mouthbreathers on that. So where is your damned sanctimonious outrage from that much money wasted. At least the incompetent co#ksucker you support could give us the damned medal back.

Hello Macflies?

Are you such complete imbeciles, idiots, and partisan bastards who piss and moan over a single guy using government employees as his own and bypass without comment the Republican money-for-free boondoggle that had to use fork-lifts, forklifts, for Christ's sake to distribute our own tax money with no accounting at all.

Your hypocrisy stinks, as usual.


I am not concerned about that 12 billion for one simple reason,IT WASNT OURS!!!

That money was given to the Iraqi govt,what they did with it or what happened to it is their problem,not ours.
Should we have given it to them?
I dont know.
But once we did it was no longer our money to worry about.

Do you demand an accounting of every dollar spent by every country we give money to?

As for corruption by a dem,lets not forget the South Dakota dem that slept with a Senate Page.
The dems did nothing to him,even though what he did was obviously wrong.

http://www.able2know.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=90834&highlight=
0 Replies
 
Baldimo
 
  1  
Reply Mon 12 Feb, 2007 10:16 am
mysteryman wrote:
kuvasz wrote:
Well it looks like the regular creepoziod right wingers are out in force bellyaching about the corruption of a single state legislator who had government employees cut his grass and shovel snow off the guy's pavement.

Well, in the scheme of things it ain't no big deal. but, betrayal of the public trust is state sacrilege, and I hope the guy goes to jail for 20 years; just like I hope George Bush's treasonous state sacrilege lands him dancing on an exectioneer's noose.

The ancient Greeks were smarter than us and allowed banishment from their democracy to those who posed a threat to it, and likely if we had it George Bush would be voted ON TO an island and sent to Saint Helena's or worse.

But, meanwhile as you piss and moan over a corrupt local politician where is your damned teeth-nashing exclaimations of citizen rape by federal government graft when this week Americans found out from our latest "Medal of Freedom" winner Paul Bremmer that he has no earthly idea of where $12,000,000,000 (that's $ billion for the yahoos on the Right who need to count past eleven barefoot) was pissed away on Iraq " reconstruction."

I don't hear $hit from you mouthbreathers on that. So where is your damned sanctimonious outrage from that much money wasted. At least the incompetent co#ksucker you support could give us the damned medal back.

Hello Macflies?

Are you such complete imbeciles, idiots, and partisan bastards who piss and moan over a single guy using government employees as his own and bypass without comment the Republican money-for-free boondoggle that had to use fork-lifts, forklifts, for Christ's sake to distribute our own tax money with no accounting at all.

Your hypocrisy stinks, as usual.


I am not concerned about that 12 billion for one simple reason,IT WASNT OURS!!!

That money was given to the Iraqi govt,what they did with it or what happened to it is their problem,not ours.
Should we have given it to them?
I dont know.
But once we did it was no longer our money to worry about.

Do you demand an accounting of every dollar spent by every country we give money to?

As for corruption by a dem,lets not forget the South Dakota dem that slept with a Senate Page.
The dems did nothing to him,even though what he did was obviously wrong.

http://www.able2know.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=90834&highlight=


How about the SF mayor who slept with his "friends" wife who also happened to be one if his "trusted" political advisors. I guess we are going to redefine what is, is.
0 Replies
 
Asherman
 
  1  
Reply Mon 12 Feb, 2007 10:37 am
1. Politicians, no matter their political affiliations, are humans, not angels.
2. Politicians frequently have no greater need than to be loved and admired by the people whose interests they want to represent.
3. Humans tend to be self-centered and self-serving, regardless of their occupation, or political affiliations.
4. Humans are adept at finding "good and sufficient reason" to justify what ever it is they wish to do.

It should surprise no one that some politicians become "corrupt", or indulge in sexual relationships that are socially frowned upon. No political party in the United States that I know of encourages its politicians to become "corrupt" or embarrass the Party by offending community values. If anything the existing parties have become so politically correct that even innocent slips of the tongue can destroy a career of responsible and effective public service.

The real surprise might be that so few U.S. politicians these days are corrupt, or indulge in socially unacceptable behavior.

It's time that we all, regardless of our political stance, pay more attention to the real effectiveness of our representatives and much less on their private lives. President Clinton did not face impeachment because of his sexual peccadilloes (married to Hillary, who couldn't sympathize), but because he committed perjury, a felony, in a Federal Court. This is not to say that when politicians are found to have violated the law, that they should go unpunished. Scandal alone is enough to punish most "shady" behavior.

Let those without fault cast the first stone.
0 Replies
 
kuvasz
 
  1  
Reply Mon 12 Feb, 2007 01:30 pm
mysteryman wrote:
I am not concerned about that 12 billion for one simple reason,IT WASNT OURS!!!

That money was given to the Iraqi govt,what they did with it or what happened to it is their problem,not ours.
Should we have given it to them?
I dont know.
But once we did it was no longer our money to worry about.


well la dee da. We have here now a rabid right winger who has bent himself in contortions to attack Democrats and to do so thinks giving 12 billion dollars of US tax payer money is inconsequential and who doesn't even care if it falls into the hands of ant-American insurgents who use the money to kill American soldiers, since it is now, "their money.

How many bombs were made from that money? How many American soldiers died because of them

And you don't even care.

So let's be sure here, if you give your kid an allowance and he buys crack with it, well, its his money, and what he does with it is his responsibility?

Two words.... "don't procreate"

mysteryman wrote:
As for corruption by a dem,lets not forget the South Dakota dem that slept with a Senate Page.
The dems did nothing to him,even though what he did was obviously wrong.


um, that was one man's word against another's. If you can't see the difference between that and Foley's admitted Republican proclivity with seeking sex from teenage boys you are not too bright and again are grasping at straws to defend your indefensible positions.

baldimo wrote:
How about the SF mayor who slept with his "friends" wife who also happened to be one if his "trusted" political advisors. I guess we are going to redefine what is, is.


btw two more words... "Rudy" and "Giuliani" since you know certainly that he threw his own wife out of Gracie Mansion and installed his mistress as the woman of the house, and Rudy is running... as a what? what was that? a Republican PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE. Have I heard you attack that? Nope, just the same double standard, and blatant hypocrisy by typical conservatives.

Asherman wrote:
President Clinton did not face impeachment because of his sexual peccadilloes (married to Hillary, who couldn't sympathize), but because he committed perjury, a felony, in a Federal Court.


btw post a pix of your own wife before attacking another man's. Real men don't do that.

and ash, can you ever post things correctly or has your habit of strutting while sitting on your ass befuddled your brain again. Bill Clinton was not charged in the federal courts with perjury.

Clinton did not commit perjury. Most of the illegal leaks suggesting his testimony was perjurious falsely describe his testimony. First of all, the President never testified in the Jones deposition that he was not alone with Monica Lewinsky. Clinton never testified that his relationship with Monica Lewinsky was the same as with any other intern.

To the contrary, he admitted exchanging gifts with her, knowing about her job search, receiving cards and notes from her, and knowing other details of her personal life that made it plain he had a special relationship with her.

Clinton has admitted he had an improper sexual relationship with Monica Lewinsky. In a civil deposition, he gave narrow answers to ambiguous questions. As a matter of law, those answers could not give rise to a criminal charge of perjury. In the face of the Clinton admission of his relationship, the disclosure of lurid and salacious allegations can only be intended to humiliate Clinton and force him from office.

The law defines perjury very clearly. Perjury requires proof that an individual knowingly made a false statement while under oath. Answers to questions that are literally true are not perjury.

Even if an answer doesn't directly answer the question asked, it is not perjury if it is true , no accused has an obligation to help his accuser. Answers to fundamentally ambiguous questions also can never be perjury. And nobody can be convicted of perjury based on only one other person's testimony.

So let's make it easy for you; Can you please quote what part of Clinton's Grand Jury testimony is alleged to be perjury and how it's perjury according to the "Rule of Law"?

Surely such a wise and sage man can be capable of documenting his statement, or perhaps you could STFU and not embarrass yourself again about this.

Get over it and try getting it right next time.

and still no outcry from the traditional fiscal conservatives about $12,000,000,000 pissed away in Iraqi reconstruction......And there is a thread about it on A2K none of you posted to express your anger at being riped off.

But you piss and moan about a guy using government employees cutting the lawn of a state senator? So, as long as Republicans steal like thieves its okay by you folks. No wonder the American voter threw you out of the congressional leadership in disgust.
0 Replies
 
okie
 
  1  
Reply Tue 13 Feb, 2007 02:55 am
Asherman wrote:

It's time that we all, regardless of our political stance, pay more attention to the real effectiveness of our representatives and much less on their private lives. President Clinton did not face impeachment because of his sexual peccadilloes (married to Hillary, who couldn't sympathize), but because he committed perjury, a felony, in a Federal Court. This is not to say that when politicians are found to have violated the law, that they should go unpunished. Scandal alone is enough to punish most "shady" behavior.

Let those without fault cast the first stone.


I did not include all of your post, Asherman, for the sake of brevity, but I agree with virtually all of what you said. I do have one exception, and that is when "party" becomes more important than "country," then we are on a slippery slope. In the case of Clinton, not one Democrat would totally commit to throwing the louse out of office. Any one of several scandals should have been more than enough. In contrast, during the Watergate scandal, besides Democrats, Republicans told Nixon, "Pal, its time to go." Ultimately, where the rubber met the road, country was more important than party. Unfortunately, I don't see that happening anymore. Republicans are better at it than Democrats, as evidenced in the Foley scandal, where he was quickly dispatched. In contrast, Gerry Studds was given honor and a standing O by fellow Democrats.

William Jefferson is still in office, if I am correct. Everybody turns a blind eye to Harry Reid's questionable and apparently common shady land deals with his shady Nevada friends. Nancy Pelosi sang the mantra every day about the Republicans being the party of corruption, but now that she is in the position she coveted, she is so important that she deserves larger aircraft to shuttle her entourage around the country, which serves to illustrate her superior attitude. Pelosi knew good and well her own party was no better. She has no problem with corruption in her own party, turning a blind eye.

Asherman, I agree there are plenty of politicians on both sides of the aisle that grow to feel like they are privileged, and therefore they can abuse the system, however, I do not see an equal application of judgement and standards applied evenly by the press.
0 Replies
 
Asherman
 
  1  
Reply Tue 13 Feb, 2007 01:52 pm
My Kuvasz, you are touchy-sensitive about President Clinton, aren't you?

The point of my earlier post wasn't to point fingers, but to plead for less intrusion into the private lives of elected/appointed representatives searching for "dirty little secrets" that have little, or nothing to do with their public service. Why ruin the reputations and careers of public servants with the revelation that they are no more perfect than any other human? Criminal acts should be sought out by all branches of the Federal government and prosecuted fully, but "moral" lapses shouldn't be pursued unless they are truly monumental. No political party is made up of angels, or devils, so let's be just a little less anxious to point fingers.

This constant focus on private lives and the human failings of political figures may serve to deprive the Republic of dedicated and effective leadership. Most of these scandals have nothing to do with malfeasance, or even misfeasance, yet they discourage otherwise promising candidates from putting themselves and their families under the microscope of public scrutiny. Who is willing to reveal to the world their family skeletons for the dubious privilege of the thankless job of serving the nation? We all need to be far more reluctant to condemn.

The Bill of Impeachment against President Clinton hinged not on his personal sex life, but upon his perjury under oath while sitting as President of the United States. That the perjury was intended to cover up his unseemly behavior was to many of us not relevant. The Congress felt otherwise, and acquitted him of the charges. I don't think many believe that President Clinton didn't lie under oath about his relationships.

Bill of Impeachment of President Clinton

The nation has tried three Presidents for High Crimes and Misdemeanors. The other two are, of course, Andrew Johnson and Richard Nixon. President Johnson defied Congressional legislation by firing his Secretary of War, Stanton. Other charges were tacked on, but the gist of the matter was whether Congress or the President has the right to determine who shall serve in the Cabinet. The vote was close, but Johnson was acquitted by one vote in a Senate filled with radical members of the President's own party.

Bill of Impeachment of President Johnson

President Nixon is the only President successfully impeached, and there never was much doubt that he would be convicted. In the Nixon case, the President clearly used his office and powers to subvert the Constitutional political system. His actions motivated by personal prejudices, and could not be interpreted as within his Constitutional powers.
Bill of Impeachment of President Nixon[/UR]]Bill of Impeachment of President Nixon

Finally, what does the marriage of a private citizen have to do with the topic? Natalie and I have been married for over 40 years. I've never been unfaithful because that just isn't my way of doing business. If I had been unfaithful, would that have had any consequences whatsoever on how well I served the public as a government official? Those who know Natalie would probably testify that she is every bit as much a ball-buster as Hillary. So what?
0 Replies
 
mysteryman
 
  1  
Reply Tue 13 Feb, 2007 03:21 pm
Asherman,

You said
Quote:
President Nixon is the only President successfully impeached, and there never was much doubt that he would be convicted. In the Nixon case, the President clearly used his office and powers to subvert the Constitutional political system. His actions motivated by personal prejudices, and could not be interpreted as within his Constitutional powers.
[URL=Bill of Impeachment of President Nixon[/UR]]Bill of Impeachment of President Nixon


Now,while articles of impeachment were drawn up against Nixon,he was NOT impeached.
He resigned before that happened.

To be impeached means to be accused by the house,it does not mean to be convicted.

Now,President Andrew Johnson and President Bill Clinton WERE impeached,but neither of them was convicted by the Senate.

I just wanted to clarify that for you.
0 Replies
 
kuvasz
 
  1  
Reply Tue 13 Feb, 2007 05:28 pm
asherman wrote:
My Kuvasz, you are touchy-sensitive about President Clinton, aren't you?


'fraid not buddy, unlike you I find lying abhorrent especially in partisan political attacks. You lied and I caught you. Yet you don't even have the cajounes to admit it and audaciously (or autistically) did it again in your very next post.

asherman wrote:
The Bill of Impeachment against President Clinton hinged not on his personal sex life, but upon his perjury under oath while sitting as President of the United States. That the perjury was intended to cover up his unseemly behavior was to many of us not relevant. The Congress felt otherwise, and acquitted him of the charges. I don't think many believe that President Clinton didn't lie under oath about his relationships.



Yet there you go again, lying about Clinton for political expedience.

Look, I don't care if you smear dog $hit all over yourself and dance the Fandango... if you do it alone, but when you enter the marketplace of ideas I do mind that you lie. And you're lying, or too lazy to know better. Two plus two does not equal eleven, so stop trying to convince people that it does.

The challenge stands, show where Clinton committed perjury in Federal Court.

Nevertheless, I wanted Clinton to resign, the stupid, horny a$$hole (and I never ever voted for him), and Jefferson has every right to remain in Congress until he is convicted of a crime. Has he been?

As to your lovely wife, the attack on Hillary Clinton was a classless act, a spousal proxy attack on Bill Clinton; less than manly, compounded by your feigned ignorance of it shows your true colors.

btw okie, Neither Federally incarcerated Republican Congressman, Randy "Duke" Cunningham nor Bob Ney left Congress under similar indictments, so apparently in your rage for "justice" you want only Democratic politicians to be more pure than Cesaer's wife while Republicans get to suck off the goevrernment teat.

And shall you bark and nash our teeth at this?

Today, a federal grand jury handed down indictments

http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2007/02/13/state/n105925S56.DTL

for Dusty Foggo and Brent Wilkes today in a major blow against the systemic corruption that has kept the GOP fat and sassy. Just before noon the A.P. reported that Foggo, Bush's eyes and ears (and grabby hands) inside the CIA- he was a political operative and hack- was charged with fraud, conspiracy and money laundering in conjunction with the ongoing and expanding "Duke" Cunningham case. Wilkes, who had received as much as $100 million in illicit Bush Regime contracts, many through the connivance of Foggo and Cunningham, was charged with conspiring to bribe Cunningham. A third crooked Republican, John Michael, nephew of convicted GOP bigwig Thomas Kontogiannis,

http://downwithtyranny.blogspot.com/2006/04/wanted-photo-of-duke-cunningham-tommy.html

was also charged. The Kontogiannis connection is particularly dangerous to the Bush Regime since Cunningham had brokered a presidential pardon for him (a pardon Kontogiannis claims he paid $400,000 for). Only Bush can grant a presidential pardon and no one has dared to ask him to return the $400,000.[/quote]

With two key GOP operatives in the Republican Culture of Corruption, Brent Wilkes and Kyle (Dusty) Foggo indicted, extreme paranoia is sweeping the Republican congressional caucus. At least two dozen GOP congressmen were on the receiving end of goodies from these two. If either turns state's evidence, you will see crooked congressmen like Virgil Goode, Jr., Jerry Lewis, Duncan Hunter, John Doolittle and many more joining their pals Cunningham and Ney in prison.

Think of this as a farewell gift from Carol Lam, the Republican prosecutor fired by the Bush Regime-- without cause-- in order to derail the investigation which had already nailed Cunningham and is close to ending the political careers of at least 4 California Republican congressmen.

Move along folks, nothing to see here.

Petard anyone?

And okie if I had my way politicians convicted of graft and bribery would be subjected to the same punishment found in Red China; they herd them into a big stadium filled with people, tie them to poles, and execute them as enemies of the state.
0 Replies
 
okie
 
  1  
Reply Tue 13 Feb, 2007 06:40 pm
It is worth mentioning that Nixon got caught involved with knowing about the wiretapping of political figures, which was nothing new at all. This from the following site:

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,879504,00.html?internalid=ACA

"The Senate select committee on intelligence activities last week filled out the dismaying record of Hoover's eagerness to curry favor with Presidents by using agents of the Federal Bureau of Investigation to gather political information. The committee staffs report shows that Hoover willingly complied with improper requests from Presidents Franklin Roosevelt, John Kennedy, Lyndon Johnson and Richard Nixon."

Please note if all of these presidents had been removed from office for such activity, it would be 3 Democrats gone vs 1 Republican, including the hated Richard Nixon along with 3 beloved Democratic icons that are still worshiped and revered by liberal Democrats today.
0 Replies
 
kuvasz
 
  1  
Reply Thu 15 Feb, 2007 05:25 pm
okie wrote:
It is worth mentioning that Nixon got caught involved with knowing about the wiretapping of political figures, which was nothing new at all. This from the following site:

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,879504,00.html?internalid=ACA

"The Senate select committee on intelligence activities last week filled out the dismaying record of Hoover's eagerness to curry favor with Presidents by using agents of the Federal Bureau of Investigation to gather political information. The committee staffs report shows that Hoover willingly complied with improper requests from Presidents Franklin Roosevelt, John Kennedy, Lyndon Johnson and Richard Nixon."

Please note if all of these presidents had been removed from office for such activity, it would be 3 Democrats gone vs 1 Republican, including the hated Richard Nixon along with 3 beloved Democratic icons that are still worshiped and revered by liberal Democrats today.
[/i]

Just when it seemed you were running out of truly stupid remarks you posted that liberals "worshiped and revered" LBJ.

How could you say that with a straight face? Could you get more clueless and ahistoric?

Johnson was revered only for his actions to bring about equal civil rights towards black Americans, which likely you don't agree with anyway.

The lack of support by liberals in 67-68 forced LBJ not to seek re-election. You can't get any more stupid about American history, unless you called Abraham Lincoln the president of the Confederate States of America. But if you want to know, every president since Roosevelt could be considered a war criminal according to the Geneva Convention due to executive actions carried out during their terms. Roosevelt, Truman, Eisenhower, Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon, Ford, Carter, Reagan, Bush (the Greater), Clinton and Bush (the Lesser). That's six Democratic war criminal presidents and six Republican war criminal presidents.

What you and your fellow mouth breathing travelers on the Far Right fail to fathom is that most normal folk don't hold up these guys in some sort of pagan Pantheon of idolatry and worship them. Normal people know they have clay feet and your remark of Democratic adolation is merely transference of the mindless authoritarian streak conservatives exhibit of following leaders through hell, high water, or Iraq

Roosevelt was excoriated by liberals for Japanese internments in the 40's, Truman for seizing the coal mines and steel plants from strikers and both Kennedy and Johnson the same for wiretaps, especially on civil rights leaders, (unless you think it was a good thing to tap Martin Luther King's phone), but anyway, that was done originally under the Eisenhower Administration.

But only Nixon made up an "enemies list" and used the IRS to hound his adversaries.

I am really stunned by your willful and blatant ignorance shown of historical facts and how you cobble together urban myth with political hacksterism to create a world view seen usually only by deranged mental patients or those who ingest massive quantities of psychedelics.

I have dealt with chronic pcp users more lucid about reality.

You really need to read a frigging history book once in a while before you post your awful brain offal and embarass yourself in public; listening to you spout on about history makes as much sense as listening to my two kuvasz about quantum physics.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
GAFFNEY: Whose side is Obama on? - Discussion by gungasnake
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Dem corruption starts now.
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 07/27/2021 at 12:04:59