Interesting how the anti republican croud

Discussion in 'Current Events' started by dannyboy, Jan 31, 2006.

  1. dannyboy

    dannyboy From the promised LAND

    were so quick to pull out the name of abrams and the scandals that supposedly involved nothing but republicans, and yet we learn that the democrats have their own scandal brewing with a gent by the name of Harry Reed? It was so interesting that they were salivating at the prospect and posting that Bush would be in jail shortly.

    Funny, I guess we chumps that were too stupid to know, dont make a big deal of the Dem's going to jail.

    It will be interesting to watch how it will be a tit for tat investigation, with only the taxpayer getting the screw.

    Shame

    d
     
  2. Who is Harry Reed? What scandal is he involved in? Please give us some info.
     
  3. Jones

    Jones fILE A GRIEVE! Staff Member

    Have you been drinking?
     
  4. dannyboy

    dannyboy From the promised LAND

    Not enough!


    d
     
  5. scratch

    scratch Least Best Moderator Staff Member

    Politicians are all in it for themselves, they make all their promises before election time and don't keep them. I always vote, lately by absentee ballot, but it usually comes down to voting for the lesser of two evils.JMO

    Yes I am drinking also, my Center went on EDD last week!:tongue_sm
     
    Last edited: Jan 31, 2006
  6. over9five

    over9five Moderator Staff Member

    "...my Center went on EDD last week"

    Your local liquor store owner will soon know you by name...
     
  7. wkmac

    wkmac Well-Known Member

    Dboy,
    What we are seeing in scandals concerns republicans is not new and what the democrat apologist out there may have forgotten are the scandals among many leading democratic Congress leaders in the early 90's that in many ways was the seedbed to the Republican Congress takeover in 1994' and the now dead Contract With America. As ironic as this is to think but the Republicans really had their best years and got more done from Jan. 95' when they took office through about 97'. They stayed on point for the most part and so many democrats point to Clinton and extolling his fiscal virtues when in fact for Americans it was a perfect world of one party controlling the Congress and the other controlling the White House where the ability from a purely partisan political perspective, the seperation of powers doctrine really worked. Whether you agree with the economics or not, to Clinton's credit and his fortune he enjoyed the fruition of many of the Reagan economic policies finally coming to bare and Clinton, even with his tax heavy early legislation, his administration was smart enough to only pull a few apples out of the barrel while still allowing those policies to roll on. Truth is IMO both Clinton and the Republican Congress get equal credit for the good years the bulk of the 90's were because they kept each other honest.

    In a general historical sense, most presidencies experience problems in the 2nd term and corruption sets in as people get comfortable and feeling their oats. Johnson had problems in his 2nd term, everyone knows about Nixon and Carter would likely have had the same had he gotten a 2nd term and Reagan had Iran/Contra. Same could be said for Bush Sr. as was said for Carter. I'll predict right now that whoever is elected after GW and if they serve 2 terms, there will be some controversy during the 2nd term. It's the nature of man and his politics.

    As for the democrats who after so many decades of leadership got corrupt, so now we are seeing it with the republicans. It has nothing to do with party or political beliefs, it's purely human nature. Who's to say Tom Delay isn't payback for Jim Wright or Dan Rostenkowski who went to jail over the Congressional post office scandal. Rostenkowski was the leader of Ways and Means which sets tax policy which is a very powerful position to hold. It's no real secret that the push to impeach Clinton was as much about payback for Nixon as it was anything else. Oh, we'll have the moralist tell us otherwise but as much corruption as seem to flow around the 1990's White House, that was the best you could do? Sorry, I don't buy that at all!

    Corruption and gov't just go hand in hand with human nature. Give a libertarian the same scenario and you'd see the same corruption over time too. None of us are immune, even myself. If a person refuses to wash their hands, over time the body will become infected more and more with germs, the immune system now broken down and at some point the body will die. So to is it with mankind and his eons of forming bodies of governace, many of them great wonders and good things in the beginning but over time mankind's nature comes into play and he/she siezes for themselves more and more power and with it comes the corruption as they attempt to hold on to that power as others position to take it. The founding fathers even with their many faults understood this flaw of man and attempted to form a system that was very small and limited on the national scale as this form of gov't was the greatest distance from the people. Their desire was for the local gov't to be the Go-To guy because this was at the doorstep of the people and allowed the people to react the quickest when corruption naturally at some point ozzzed to the surface. We left that thinking long, long ago I'm sad to say.

    I'm coming to the belief that the most gets done when the executive and legislative branches get shook up by elections and the 2 are divided by political party.
     
  8. tieguy

    tieguy Banned

    yes politicians get corrupted by the power of their positions and often get caught. The government itself does not corrupt. The position itself is the ultimate test of ones character. Will you continue to maintain the mindset of a public servant or will the endless stream of suitors begging for your support corrupt you. Perhaps we should be looking to elect monks to the job.
     
  9. Anti-anti

    Anti-anti Guest

    Are you suggesting a theocracy?
     
  10. moreluck

    moreluck golden ticket member

    No, he meant Adrian Monk.
     
  11. tieguy

    tieguy Banned

    In light of some past scandels perhaps neutered monks.
     
  12. Yeak, ******* a willing intern is a lot more serious than ******* a country.


    BTW-- I believe all monks (as commonly known) are celibate, unless you are referring to an eastern sect. Maybe you meant a eunuch.

    I don't think whether or not a person is a philanderer has much to do with running a country. Thomas Jefferson was known to diddle with the daddle, and I don't see many folks dismissing his contributions to the nation for that.

    You really should move beyond your obsession with Clinton, he's a non-factor until Hillary is elected due to the backlash from Bush. I don't think any of us really look forward to that; but then I can only speak for myself.
     
  13. tieguy

    tieguy Banned

    Gee whiz . A neutered monk is what I said and you come running to the defense of bill Clinton. Perhaps you're a little sensitive about Wild Bill. I don't believe I mentioned the man and yet here you come screaming out of your liberal stronghold to defend the man on the mere chance that I may have somehow referred to him Perhaps you need to let go of whatever obsession you have for him?