Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 44
  1.    #1  
    During last electing the Dems made a HUGE deal about the Reps being the culture of corruption because they were the ones in charge and taking full financial advantage of it with the lobbies, selling private access to them, accepting special perks, etc... And believe me the Reps were taking all they could get their hands on (along with the Dems doing the same thing but on a smaller scale mostly I think just because they were the minority). The Dems promised they would clean up these unsavory acts if they were to come to power. Did they? Now that they are in power, are the acts that the Dems defined that made up the culture of corruption gone? Or is there little change except simply now it has flipped sides?

    Here is a 6 minute piece from ABC when they decided to follow up on these campaign promises:


    Bottom line.....surprise, surprise ....both parties are just as guilty as the other. The Reps are still laundering perks from lobbies and the Dems are now the ones selling private access to themselves.
  2. #2  
    Jeez. This leads me to wonder about another topic where a certain political party was pilloried. I wonder if the Dems and the Reps are both at parity in their behavior with Congressional pages?
  3. backbeat's Avatar
    Posts
    55 Posts
    Global Posts
    138 Global Posts
    #3  
    Republicans Halt Ethics Legislation - January 17, 2007

    I must've missed the part about Nancy Pelosi being whisked away in handcuffs.

  4. #4  
    I think both parties are corrupt, but not to the same scale.

    It's a bit like saying both PBS and Fox News are biased.
    --
    Aloke
    Cingular GSM
    Software:Treo650-1.17-CNG
    Firmware:01.51 Hardware:A
  5.    #5  
    Quote Originally Posted by aprasad View Post
    I think both parties are corrupt, but not to the same scale.

    It's a bit like saying both PBS and Fox News are biased.
    So are you saying the Dems have tipped the scale now?
  6. #6  
    Maybe not right now. But leave them in power for 6-8 years, with the Congress and the Presidency, then they will.

    As for the Republicans, when the people who hate Government start running the Government, then their only motivation becomes to implement the private sector agenda, thereby enriching themselves and their cronies.
    --
    Aloke
    Cingular GSM
    Software:Treo650-1.17-CNG
    Firmware:01.51 Hardware:A
  7. backbeat's Avatar
    Posts
    55 Posts
    Global Posts
    138 Global Posts
    #7  
    Hobbes - A bit less than honorable a position to take when Republicans insisted upon an unconstitutional line-item veto only 4 months ago within the most wide-ranging overhaul of Lobbying ever proposed that the Dems authored and drove forward, thus killing any possibility to man-up on this cancerous issue until no earlier than late this year.

    Last time I looked, fundraisers were still legal and I personally know of many who have paid thousands for the 'privilege' of rubbing elbows. Something tells me, some on the other side of the aisle in here have done the same, yet continue to plead angelic innocence.

    The real problem in cases like Duke Cunningham is that the Military contractors who were hustling their scams were not much of the storyline. That equates to an acceptance of status quo late Roman Empire-type mentality, whereby the government is clueless of its own vulnerability.
  8.    #8  
    Uhmmmm....let's see. How is this a less honorable position when I put equal quilt on both political parties? I said about:

    Rep:
    • "And believe me the Reps were taking all they could get their hands on"
    • "The Reps are still laundering perks from lobbies"


    Dems:
    • "Dems doing the same thing but on a smaller scale"
    • "both parties are just as guilty as the other".

    I don't see how that is sticking up for the Dems or Reps....I find the acts of both just as dishonest and worthy of living up to the stereotypical ideal of what how a true politician through and through does act.

    As far as fund raiser are concerned, they are legal (which this may be a point of discussion on it's own) but maybe not always ethical....which is the point Nancy Polosi was making against the Reps when they were doing the exact same thing when they were in power. The claim about about selling private access to lobbies was not a point from me, it was an accusation from Polosi against the Reps when they were in power at the time. She said she would stop that. Did she follow through on her promise? It is still going on at the same rate but the instead of the Reps earning 2/3 more money selling private access to key personal in within lobbies when they were in power, the Dems are. Maybe that is for next year's agenda, but at the moment she is doing the same thing she accused the Reps of doing when they were in power. Again this is her point of concern she raised. ABC was simply following up on how they were doing things differently than the Reps she was criticizing.

    This is nothing more than an honest look at the promised made. Just as I stated point blank in the OP, in no way am I putting the Reps on a higher moral plain in any way shape or form. The ONLY point was:
    Quote Originally Posted by HobbesIsReal
    Bottom line.....surprise, surprise ....both parties are just as guilty as the other.
    As far as bribery, scandals, pork feeding, etc... it is totally dispicable. It is ignored by the those in charge and the press more than it is addressed. It needs to stop. But both sides are again just as guilty.

    No source on the vote or the details of the bill you referenced, so I cannot comment on it.
    Last edited by HobbesIsReal; 05/12/2007 at 03:57 PM.
  9. backbeat's Avatar
    Posts
    55 Posts
    Global Posts
    138 Global Posts
    #9  
    The mistake is within your quote ... "both parties are just as guilty as the other." When the Dems bill for overhauling the Lobbying system was torpedoed by Republicans 4 months ago, [and what was heard from you at that time regarding this issue?? ... Cue the crickets ] it changes the real-world picture compared to your softcore revisionist post.

    I won't bother insulting your intelligence by assuming you were not aware of this common knowledge.
  10.    #10  
    Quote Originally Posted by backbeat View Post
    The mistake is within your quote ... "both parties are just as guilty as the other." When the Dems bill for overhauling the Lobbying system was torpedoed by Republicans 4 months ago, [and what was heard from you at that time regarding this issue?? ... Cue the crickets ] it changes the real-world picture compared to your softcore revisionist post.
    I didn't see anyone from either side post on it. If they did, there would have been discussion on it.



    Quote Originally Posted by HobbesIsReal
    No source on the vote or the details of the bill you referenced, so I cannot comment on it.
    Quote Originally Posted by backbeat View Post
    I won't bother insulting your intelligence by assuming you were not aware of this common knowledge.
    Man....who knows everything? Do you? How are you to judge the intelligence or life circumstances to even follow political news every day of the week. If this happened 4 months ago, there is a good chance it happened when I was in the hospital. Please stop with the snide remarks while trying to hold a civil conversation. Since you source very little (and I know you had a source to Duke), except generally when others help you out and provide them when you are questioned on it and still refuse to provide sourcing, any claim of yours can only be taken at face value of your opinion of it. I ask for a source and as usual when anyone on this forum requests a source from you so they can learn more about your comment or claims, you come back with a degrading remark.

    I do not know the details of the bill. Heck I don't even know the name of the bill. I do not know what the Dems proposed in the bill. I do not know what the Reps objected to in the bill. I do not know if there were pork fodder added on that caused an issue. I do not know if there was an additional controversial bill tagged on dealing with a completely different issue big enough for the Reps to hold back. I do know if that bill was going to outlaw all lobbies paying into Washington politics (which I doubt it did) and the Reps were too greedy and shot it down. I don't know without research or a source...which I already stated above before your "not wanting to insult my intelligence" comment. To comment on a claim I do not know the details to would be irresponsible or opinion based only with no factual standing to support the opinion or simply a party line answer, which since I hold not loyalty to any party would be hard to do with a shot in the dark about something I don't know the details to yet. All I know is your claims of the bill.

    I did address it in my last post stating since there wasn't a source I couldn't comment on it. I have no problem stating I am not aware of it, which is why I was not able to comment on it without a source. At face value, if there was a bill to outlawing lobbies playing a roll in Washington and it was shot down with no other extenuating circumstances or conditions tacked on in any way shape or form, that is really bad. I do not know the details and responsibly did not comment on it.
  11. backbeat's Avatar
    Posts
    55 Posts
    Global Posts
    138 Global Posts
    #11  
    OK. I get it. Revisionism is your thing. You mischaracterize the position of those who have the audacity to call bullshyte on your softcore execution of anything having to do with Democrats. That's ok. But, the trouble is ... it's a rather old, tired method of deflecting attention away from the core point(s) being made... even by bottom-dwelling internet standards. Classic Republicanism which glibly paints the opposition negatively in the hopes that the public can't be bothered to know any better.

    The responsible position would have been to do your own homework on this general topic prior to posting an easy pot-shot video report which contains no actual news while you assumed it delivered a complete thought. This is exactly the tactic the Republicans constantly harp on regarding media coverage on themselves, yet it's ok to use it here where there is no responsibility, by your practice.

    In the hospital at the time of the vote? Why? Were you visiting someone and posting your political cartoons [so your posting record here shows] from their bed in the ICU?

    Your use of Nixonian plausible denial is an overly well-traveled road used by those who choose certain areas of uncomfortable discussion they would prefer not to explore. With the past several years, the practice of not being mentally curious in areas which may go against one's grain only sinks this nation ever deeper into oppression. Rise above that and practice what you preach ... OR ... don't and be held responsible.
  12. #12  
    Quote Originally Posted by backbeat View Post
    OK. I get it. Revisionism is your thing. You mischaracterize the position of those who have the audacity to call bullshyte on your softcore execution of anything having to do with Democrats. That's ok. But, the trouble is ... it's a rather old, tired method of deflecting attention away from the core point(s) being made... even by bottom-dwelling internet standards. Classic Republicanism which glibly paints the opposition negatively in the hopes that the public can't be bothered to know any better.

    The responsible position would have been to do your own homework on this general topic prior to posting an easy pot-shot video report which contains no actual news while you assumed it delivered a complete thought. This is exactly the tactic the Republicans constantly harp on regarding media coverage on themselves, yet it's ok to use it here where there is no responsibility, by your practice.

    In the hospital at the time of the vote? Why? Were you visiting someone and posting your political cartoons [so your posting record here shows] from their bed in the ICU?

    Your use of Nixonian plausible denial is an overly well-traveled road used by those who choose certain areas of uncomfortable discussion they would prefer not to explore. With the past several years, the practice of not being mentally curious in areas which may go against one's grain only sinks this nation ever deeper into oppression. Rise above that and practice what you preach ... OR ... don't and be held responsible.

    Let us know when you're in office and fix everything (never), and when you can hold a civil conversation wo resorting to immature responses that usually don't address what was asked (apparently never), and when you become helpful in some way, not just a mouth off (again, prolly never).
  13. backbeat's Avatar
    Posts
    55 Posts
    Global Posts
    138 Global Posts
    #13  
    See how you contribute to this downward spiral, ttrundle?

    Sequence of events:

    -Hobbes posts a disingenuous video report about Dems doing fundraisers/consorting with Lobbyists and calling them hypocritical [my term/his clear implication] for not unilaterally laying down their 'arms'.

    -I present the record showing that it was Republicans who, only 4 months ago killed the most broad-reaching Lobby-reform legislation with their filibuster and poison pill of an unconstitutional line-item veto.

    -My position is misrepresented by Hobbes [and now you too, ttrundle] and I'm simply called names, undignified misconceptions made, and all to 'win'(?) some kind of childish game.

    -'ttrundle' enters only to state dismissive personal attacks, yet does not, in any way, address the issue of this thread which is exactly where I began.

    Keep up the spin-work, if you care to exhaust yourself without anything to gain. But, it's old. It's tired. And no one is foolish enough to be taken in by it.
  14. #14  
    Quote Originally Posted by backbeat View Post
    But, it's old. It's tired. And no one is foolish enough to be taken in by it.
    exactly right, you are all those things
  15. #15  
    What our inimical friend backbeat is referring to are,

    S. 2349, the Legislative Transparency and Accountability Act
    H.R. 4975, Lobbying Accountability and Transparency Act

    Here is a excerpt from a news story about this:

    Sen. Russ Feingold (D-Wis.) plans to introduce a bill to overhaul lobbying laws, joining House Democratic Reps. Marty Meehan (Mass.) and Rahm Emanuel (Ill.), who already have introduced legislation in the House.
    .
    .
    .
    The impetus for the legislation is the Justice Department’s criminal investigation of GOP lobbyist Jack Abramoff and Michael Scanlon, an associate and former aide to then-Majority Whip Tom DeLay (R-Texas). Together, they earned more than $66 million from Indian tribes over three years, encouraged them to make donations to various GOP lawmakers and allegedly paid illegally for trips taken by some lawmakers.
    .
    .
    .
    No Republican lawmaker has signed on to support the bill, although lawmakers in both parties have said there have been discussions.
    And the Democrats’ bill was not referred to the House Administration Committee, which has had oversight of political reform efforts in recent years. Instead, it was sent to the House judiciary, ethics and rules panels.

    House Administration Committee Chairman Bob Ney (R-Ohio), who took a trip to Scotland with Abramoff and tried to insert a provision favorable to Indian gaming into an election-reform bill at Abramoff’s request, is under some political pressure to act. He has not ruled out introducing his own legislation in the near future.

    http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/...005-06-09.html
    This speaks very poorly about Republicans which have certainly elevated corruption to an art form in Washington circles.

    However, for those of you "hyperpartisans" out there, the lack of passage of these bills will not absolve Democrats from responsibility in matters of corruption. If they really believed on the cause, they would still practice abstinence in the abscence of them.
    Have a great one...Doc D.

    Phillips VELO > Palm III > Palm V > Palm 505m > Treo 180 > Treo 300 > Samsung i500 > Treo 700p > HTC 6800 > Treo 800w > Treo Pro > Palm Pre > HTC Evo
  16.    #16  
    Still no source when honestly asked to learn more about it....and only one is provided again by someone else when backbeat chooses to personal attacks while refusing to source. (btw thank you again TreoNewt ) And for honestly admiting I can learn more and asking to learn more, I am guilty of "mischaracterize" and being "disingenuous".
  17. backbeat's Avatar
    Posts
    55 Posts
    Global Posts
    138 Global Posts
    #17  
    ^ For sources, you can start with my first post in this thread. You're a big-boy, right ... and can responsibly handle it from there?

    I've yet to make a single attack in this thread. Drop the bullshyte and move on, please.
  18.    #18  
    Quote Originally Posted by TreoNewt View Post
    What our inimical friend backbeat is referring to are,

    S. 2349, the Legislative Transparency and Accountability Act
    H.R. 4975, Lobbying Accountability and Transparency Act
    Again thank you TreoNewt for providing a source when backbeat refused as I am really am interested in learning more about this. I can't believe it is so hard to get a source sometimes . With that link I was able to know for sure instead of guessing what the reference was. Here is a good comparison between the 3 different bills that were/are being purposed vs the the way the laws stand now in the case of Abramoff:

    http://www.citizen.org/documents/Abramoff_Lobbying.pdf

    In this specific example, it would have made some very nice improvements when compared to the current laws. While in others none of the three bills would have made any difference at all. This bills would have help Harry Reid too in the Abramoff case.

    Quote Originally Posted by TreoNewt View Post
    This speaks very poorly about Republicans which have certainly elevated corruption to an art form in Washington circles.

    However, for those of you "hyperpartisans" out there, the lack of passage of these bills will not absolve Democrats from responsibility in matters of corruption. If they really believed on the cause, they would still practice abstinence in the abscence of them.
    From what I have read about these bills in the last 20-30 minutes I like them all. And at face value so far, I completely agree with your statement.

    I am still trying to find a Rep position on why they did not like it. Most articles I have found so far are a year or so before this vote 4 months ago. I am very interested in why they did want to commit to it. One article insinuated that they were going to offer one more comprehensive bill instead, but couldn't find any follow up on that actually coming to pass. I have to go out now and will Google some more tonight. Thanks again TreoNewt for the pointing me in the right direction!
    Last edited by HobbesIsReal; 05/12/2007 at 08:28 PM.
  19. #19  
    Quote Originally Posted by HobbesIsReal
    No source on the vote or the details of the bill you referenced, so I cannot comment on it.
    Hobbes in all fairness to backbeat, he did post a hyperlink on his first post to an AP article referencing this very issue...perhaps you may have missed thinking it was a simple underline.

    EDIT: Correction, the link was to the Washington Post...my mistake sorry.

    I've yet to make a single attack in this thread. Drop the bullshyte and move on, please.
    BTW, I am not condoning the uncongenial tone of your posts here, not everyone is out to get you all the time.
    Have a great one...Doc D.

    Phillips VELO > Palm III > Palm V > Palm 505m > Treo 180 > Treo 300 > Samsung i500 > Treo 700p > HTC 6800 > Treo 800w > Treo Pro > Palm Pre > HTC Evo
  20. #20  
    Quote Originally Posted by HobbesIsReal View Post
    I am still trying to find a Rep position on why they did not like it. Most articles I have found so far are a year or so before this vote 4 months ago. I am very interested in why they did want to commit to it. One article insinuated that they were going to offer one more comprehensive bill instead, but couldn't find any follow up on that actually coming to pass. I have to go out now and will Google some more tonight. Thanks again TreoNewt for the pointing me in the right direction!
    In my opinion, there is no reason transcendental enough in this world to oppose such legislation in a partisan maner. They argued about the new incarnation of the "line-item veto" but I feel attaching this was a way for the party to justify it's opposition.
    Have a great one...Doc D.

    Phillips VELO > Palm III > Palm V > Palm 505m > Treo 180 > Treo 300 > Samsung i500 > Treo 700p > HTC 6800 > Treo 800w > Treo Pro > Palm Pre > HTC Evo
Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast

Posting Permissions