Page 3 of 6 FirstFirst 123456 LastLast
Results 41 to 60 of 107
  1. #41  
    y: clulup at Yesterday 04:00 PM

    University professors tend to be bright people who are used to observe and judge the world around them in a scientific, unbiased way. I think it is not surprising that most of them turn out to be Democrats.

    I think carter437 said it best as he points out how clulup paints those of an opposing opinion as uneducated, ignorant, brainwashed.

    isn't a point of view like that considered narrow-minded and handicapped in itself?

    simply because one does not agree, doesn't mean they are not educated in the matters in debate.

    I find his tendency in such posts to be quite interesting. its no wonder the majority rejects an attitude such as that vehemently.
    very few people can tolerate such arrogance, and this type of foible is too often reflected by those in the democratic party - hence the rejection of the democratic party in this election.

    they fail to see this. with one case of corruption after the next in the democratic party, is it really any wonder they lost the election? are you honestly surprised by such a result?

    if you gave people a reason to believe you meant what you said, people would get behind you.

    people don't believe in the democrats' character right now - ( even daschle was ousted ) and the effects of the corruption in the party are being seen as one democrat after another are removed DECISIVELY in each subsequent election.

    merit, not arrogance, wins a party the people's hearts and minds. corruption destroys its future. this is what's happened to the democrats.
  2. #42  
    corruption exists in all parties, I'm sad to say. The level of corruption that the Bush administration has is, however, so much worse than anyone before him.
    Remember: You are an unique, individual person...just like everyone else
  3. #43  
    Quote Originally Posted by treobk214
    people don't believe in the democrats' character right now - ( even daschle was ousted ) and the effects of the corruption in the party are being seen as one democrat after another are removed DECISIVELY in each subsequent election.
    It was nice to see that my senator, Barbara Boxer, a fiery SF democrat who wears her liberalism on her sleeve, anihilated her repub challenger and actually earned the third highest vote count in the nation this last election.

    http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmp...unbeaten_boxer
  4. #44  
    that's one case. look at what happened en masse. repubs gained the majority of senate seats. that's my point. sure there will be a few democratic wins here and there - not all dems are corrupt - some are admirable. but there are an awful lot of bribes and such going on in the dem party - look at nj. need I say more?

    sure, both parties have problems. but the rampant bribery going on in the dems' party is staggering, especially for a party that is claiming to fight for "the greater good".

    as far as bush's admin. being the most corrupt - that is your opinion. many, as we saw this election, disagree with you.
  5. #45  
    Quote Originally Posted by treobk214
    as far as bush's admin. being the most corrupt - that is your opinion. many, as we saw this election, disagree with you.
    To me the Bush admin is more incompetent than anything else.

    But are you happy that the repubs in the house changed the rules to allow indicted felons to be majority leader? Regardless of whether Delay is innocent or guilty (and I suspect the latter) it sure looks like a sleazy move to me, and surprising, given your party's moral superiority.

    http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=stor...combativedelay

    Last edited by cellmatrix; 11/19/2004 at 10:22 PM.
  6. #46  
    are you happy with your murderer in a lofty position choosing which candidate will represent your ideology?

    are you happy that your presidential candidate aligned himself with a willful, deliberate, cold - blooded murderer?

    TED KENNEDY?

    how about, GARY CONDIT?
  7. #47  
    ouse Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-San Francisco), among those criticizing the rules change, said, "Clearly, the Republicans do not care about the integrity of their party or the poor example they set for the nation"

    I love that quote. I laughed when I read it. couldn't quite believe I heard a DEMOCRAT speak on behalf of integrity. that was the biggest amusement in the article.

    didn't clinton pardon several convicted felons and individuals of VERY QUESTIONABLE CHARACTER?

    and this clown talks about upholding integrity?

    go sit down and look at your desk.
  8. #48  
    Quote Originally Posted by treobk214
    are you happy with your murderer in a lofty position choosing which candidate will represent your ideology?

    are you happy that your presidential candidate aligned himself with a willful, deliberate, cold - blooded murderer?

    TED KENNEDY?

    how about, GARY CONDIT?
    yes we are all murderers and going to hell. now that we have that worked out, I am going to go have a beer. goodnight.
  9. #49  
    Quote Originally Posted by treobk214
    as far as bush's admin. being the most corrupt - that is your opinion. many, as we saw this election, disagree with you.
    Ok...let's clarify...he may not be THE MOST CORRUPT, but he IS CORRUPT.
    Cheney is probably more corrupt.

    If I give you 5 facts that you can research where his administration is corrupt, would you at least do so? or do you have blind faith on his moral standards?
    How do you measure corruption? illegal activities? deaths? millions of dollars?
    I would even try to keep them on the original topic.

    I'm not saying that other people are not corrupt. I felt that Kerry did owe way too many favors to companies and special interest groups. I felt that Edwards was a better candidate, but inexperienced (my opinion). Kerry was better with Foreign Policy than Bush (my opinion).

    However, Bush and Cheney beat their opponents in corruption, hands down.
    Remember: You are an unique, individual person...just like everyone else
  10. #50  
    treobk I think you are just attacking as your way to avoid conceeding that Bush or the republican house did anything wrong. am I supposed to defend Gary Condit, no he is an *****. By the way, what does go look at your desk mean?
  11. #51  
    corruption - murdering innocents or accepting bribe money from a group so their activities may go unopposed

    murdering of innocents- ie ted kennedy and gary condit.

    - bribery & involvement with special interest groups and underhanded. illegal activities - jim mcgreevey. appointing an israeli POET to nj's STATE SECURITY position! im mean, how many other examples do you really need which illustrates clearly how these people are jeopardizing our very safety?

    - fathering children out of wedlock yet standing for world morals and "doing the right thing" - JESSE "THE JACKASS" JACKSON - The rainbow org. corruption.

    I know your claims of corruption in the bush admin. are going to be the following :

    1) halliburton - ( clinton supported halliburton contracts by the way ) - there has been no announcement of corruption involving cheney or bush in the halliburton controversy.

    2) saudi arabia - bush family in cohoots with the royal family - again - speculation - no formal proof or announcement to connect bush with corruption here.

    corruption - taking money in the form of bribes to allow a certain sequence of events to continue as you turn a blind eye to it.

    wasn't there recently a reporter in rhode island who was indicted for protecting the bribery and corruption of another DEMOCRATIC official - BUDDY CIANCI?

    its one case after another. over and over again.

    cellmatrix, the remark about "the desk" was not directed at attacking you, I was referring to the woman who I quoted from the news article.
  12. #52  
    You could name tons and tons of Democrats...or just one Republican..Bush.
    Sorry...just instigating...My question hasn't been anwered yet. Would you be willing to research 5 issues and find out if I came to the right deductions there?

    ..Halliburton is one of the 5 I was thinking about. I wasn't thinking about Saudi Arabia (though should have). I think you are going to make it easier for me to come up with 5, since you already gave me 2.
    Btw: no announcement of corruption is your argument against Halliburton?
    If I can agree that Clinton's pardons where immoral and could be have been corrupt decisions, than you can agree that Halliburton could be something shady. The FBI thinks so...
    Remember: You are an unique, individual person...just like everyone else
  13. #53  
    well let's put it this way... if the fbi finds out definitively that there WAS corruption involved, then I will concede that.

    but if all you're going to give me is speculation, rumors, he-said, she-said, and conspiracies that dems WANT SO BADLY to be true, then the answer is A QUALIFIED NO.

    Im not going to say anything is or was shady unless there is PROVEN, NOT SPECULATIVE, reason to say it is so.

    "you can name a ton of democrats...." yes I can, and this is my point, don't you see that? the dems seem to be riddled with these types of people. the repubs do not nearly have the level of corruption that the dems have been guilty of in the recent years.

    you want to name bush as corrupt, and so you say the fbi thinks haliburton is interesting... well that's fine.
    but until I SEE proof that there is corruption in all of there 5 instances you claim to have, I am going to continue to regard it as rumors which YOU WANT VERY BADLY TO BE TRUE, as opposed to situations which are PROVEN TO BE TRUE.

    and sure, id be interested in looking into these claims that there are 5 examples. but if they are nothing but conspiracy "theories" and not facts, then no thanks, my friend.
  14. #54  
    and another thing. all those "tons of corrupt democrats" I've mentioned? they were all PROVEN to be corrupt.

    bush has not been proven to be corrupt with anything. these accusations so far have been just that - mere accusations.
    Last edited by treobk214; 11/21/2004 at 07:10 PM.
  15. #55  
    KypDurron and treobk214, you have turned this into a pretty interesting discussion.

    As I see it...

    treobk214 is taking the stance that the Republicans have very few elected to public office that have been "proven" to be corrupt, while the Democrats are riddled with politicians "proven" corrupt.

    KypDurron disagrees in that there are just as many corrupt republicans elected to public office and Democrats and has challenged treobk214 to consider 5 cases in point that kypDurron will present.

    Let the games begin!

    Oh yeh, kypDurron, I would appreciate it if you could include at least one that "proves" Cheney or Bush to be corrupt. You can include it in the 5 or add a six.

    Thanks
  16. #56  
    Quote Originally Posted by johnbdh
    KypDurron and treobk214, you have turned this into a pretty interesting discussion.


    Let the games begin!

    Oh yeh, kypDurron, I would appreciate it if you could include at least one that "proves" Cheney or Bush to be corrupt. You can include it in the 5 or add a six.

    Thanks
    My goal is to give you 5 things that you will agree to research and see whether or not it appears that some corruption may have taken place.
    I cannot "prove" that they are corrupt. If the proof was out there, they never would have been elected.

    What I do believe is that, after you research what I suggest, you will begin to question the Bush administration.
    Or a different spin: After the evidence I present, you would agree that, at the minimum, an independent council, or "special prosecutor", should be investigating Bush and Cheney. Not Kenneth Starr, since I wouldn't wish that on Bush or Cheney, but an independent council nonetheless.

    My disclaimer is that I have absolutely no law background (which all HR director's point out to me everywhere I go ) and no investigation background, so bear with me if I don't eloquently state certain things.
    Agree?
    Remember: You are an unique, individual person...just like everyone else
  17. #57  
    Quote Originally Posted by heberman
    I guess I don't see the difference in how both major political parties use religion. How many black churches did John Kerry/Bill Clinton/Al Gore/Jimmy Carter attend with Jesse Jackson or another prominent black church leader where the congregation was exorted to support the Democrat?
    But democrats didn't try to pass a law that un-did the separation of state/religion, republicans did. Republicans tried to pass a law that would allow churches to endorse a candidate (Bush) and still keep their tax-exemption status. It didn't pass, so they'll try again.
    People hate being in both sides of a fence. So a law tried to be passed so they would remain on the same side of the fence. I don't want to pay taxes, so I can't say I want Bush. I want to say I want Bush AND still not pay taxes. I know, let's pass a law that allows this to happen.
    Remember: You are an unique, individual person...just like everyone else
  18. #58  
    Quote Originally Posted by KypDurron
    My goal is to give you 5 things that you will agree to research and see whether or not it appears that some corruption may have taken place.
    Well I suppose you can do it anyway you want, but if I were moderating this thing I would say that you were hedging your bet. I think treobk214 was quite specific here. He was saying that more elected Democrats are corrupt because he believed that more of them have actually been found to be "guilty" either by law or admission. In other words "proven". If this is not your intent and when investigated by treobk214 he only finds guilt by association, innuendo, conspiracy theory, and here-say, I don't think you are going to convince anyone who is only willing to be convinced by facts.

    But I say bring if on anyway. I for one enjoy listening to the reasoning behind the accusations I here against both sides.

    Quote Originally Posted by KypDurron
    I cannot "prove" that they are corrupt. If the proof was out there, they never would have been elected.
    Hmmm, or is it possible they are not corrupt???

    Since I just threw in my 2 cents, here is 2 more. I think that in reality there is just as much corruption on both sides. I think, however, Republicans tend to ferret out their own much better than Democrats. I also think that democratic/liberal voters tend to be more willing to overlook transgressions of their candidates so long as they remain champions of the liberal agenda.

    I think this is evident in what usually happens when a republican is caught doing anything that resembles being inappropriate or corrupt. They usually, either on their own or under pressure, remove themselves from a race or from office if already elected. Democrats, on the other hand, tend to fight and sometimes win when they get their day in a court of law or public opinion. For example I would venture to say that Al Sharpton, Marion Barry, or Ted Kennedy, to name a few, would not have lasted long in public office had they been republicans. No, they would have gone the way of a Newt Gingrich or Jack Ryan.
  19. #59  
    Quote Originally Posted by johnbdh
    Well I suppose you can do it anyway you want, but if I were moderating this thing I would say that you were hedging your bet. I think treobk214 was quite specific here. He was saying that more elected Democrats are corrupt because he believed that more of them have actually been found to be "guilty" either by law or admission. In other words "proven". If this is not your intent and when investigated by treobk214 he only finds guilt by association, innuendo, conspiracy theory, and here-say, I don't think you are going to convince anyone who is only willing to be convinced by facts.

    Since I just threw in my 2 cents, here is 2 more. I think that in reality there is just as much corruption on both sides. I think, however, Republicans tend to ferret out their own much better than Democrats. I also think that democratic/liberal voters tend to be more willing to overlook transgressions of their candidates so long as they remain champions of the liberal agenda.

    I think this is evident in what usually happens when a republican is caught doing anything that resembles being inappropriate or corrupt. They usually, either on their own or under pressure, remove themselves from a race or from office if already elected. Democrats, on the other hand, tend to fight and sometimes win when they get their day in a court of law or public opinion. For example I would venture to say that Al Sharpton, Marion Barry, or Ted Kennedy, to name a few, would not have lasted long in public office had they been republicans. No, they would have gone the way of a Newt Gingrich or Jack Ryan.
    treobk214 may be correct. There may be more convicted democrats than republicans. My intention has never been about proving who is better, democrats or republicans. I care more about what the candidate does since he has been in public office. I care less about the rhetoric they speak and more about the laws they try to pass. I would have voted for Bloomberg, Republican, in NYC, except I now live in Long Island, so I couldn't.
    I voted for Giuliani (for his first term as mayor. For congress I was also NOT a supported and I am not a supporter anymore). I don't agree with Pataki as our Governor. I think Al Sharpton is a joke. He has undone in a few years what many good people work decades to accomplish. Ted Kennedy may or may not be a drunk. He may or may not be a murderer. Bush may or may not have been an alcoholic. He may or may not have been a cocaine user.

    My intention is to show that there a LOT of issues with Bush and Cheney.
    My intention is to show that George W. is far from the epitome of Moral values that people are suggesting.
    My intention, to try to bring it back to the original topic, is to show why I thought (my opinion) that Most university professors are Democrats because of evidence of lack of values they have seen in the current administration.
    I want to show you why I didn't want Bush to win the election.

    The issue of WHY more democratic officials have been convicted over republicans is another topic, independent of what I'm suggesting. (maybe because republicans have more resources & money to cover up scandals? probably not, but you never know).
    Remember: You are an unique, individual person...just like everyone else
  20. #60  
    Quote Originally Posted by KypDurron
    My intention, to try to bring it back to the original topic, is to show why I thought (my opinion) that Most university professors are Democrats because of evidence of lack of values they have seen in the current administration.
    You don't really believe that Most university professors became Democrats/liberal since George Bush came to office? That's what your statement implies?

    No one should be surprised by the liberal bent of academia. Most university professors are liberal because of in breeding. This is just the nature of the beast. Higher education, outside of the physical sciences, requires the probing of all points of view and it thrives on the free and open discussion of the issues. All good things, but unfortunately, in my opinion, this is fertile ground for progressive liberalism.

    Now consider the Professors in this environment. Many, if not most, have known nothing but an academic life. Too many have little if any practical experience in the real world. They go from under graduate work, to masters studies, to teaching, to doctorate studies, to professorships to academic administrative positions. This in breeding naturally results in Professors with liberal views of the world which can often progress to their emergence as radical leftists. As was earlier pointed out these are the folks doing making the decisions on hiring and tenure of their fellow professors... In-Breeding.

    Even more unfortunate, in my opinion again, is that this liberal bent has in recent history bled into the physical and natural sciences, with professors expressing their political views in classrooms never intended for such discussions.

    Consider the students learning in this environment. Now, realize that many are in fact the next generation of professors and you can see the never ending circle that generates the liberal bent of higher education in this country.

    Anyone for imposing political quotas on academic hiring practices to encourage political diversity in our colleges and univerities???

    Quote Originally Posted by KypDurron
    The issue of WHY more democratic officials have been convicted over republicans is another topic, independent of what I'm suggesting. (maybe because republicans have more resources & money to cover up scandals? probably not, but you never know).
    Hope this doesn't mean you are not going to give us your 5 examples of Republican corruption. I was really looking forward to it.
Page 3 of 6 FirstFirst 123456 LastLast

Posting Permissions