Forums | MacLife

Chickenhawk wrote:

You make the assumption that

...

b) I'm a democrat

I didn't imply that you were a Democrat; just that you were an apologist for them.

Chickenhawk wrote:

When I saw this, it just screamed to me that the op was trying to make the republicans/bush look better by saying "Look! The Dems are corrupt too!" While the dems may have corrupt members as well, bribery does not equal the wonderful things the republicans have been doing.

Anyhow, if you are not a Democrat apologist, then you will recall that, when in power (ahem...Clinton...ahem) the Dems were all to happy to bomb, cruise missle, sanction, etc. anyone and everyone as well.  Then, there's a little real estate deal, and how many freakin' pardons??

Point being, the only difference, at any given time, between the Democrats and the Republicans is who's wielding most of the federal power.

Last edited by Hank Rearden (2006-05-22 2:10 pm)

Hank Rearden wrote:

Chickenhawk wrote:

You make the assumption that

...

b) I'm a democrat

I didn't imply that you were a Democrat; just that you were an apologist for them.

Chickenhawk wrote:

When I saw this, it just screamed to me that the op was trying to make the republicans/bush look better by saying "Look! The Dems are corrupt too!" While the dems may have corrupt members as well, bribery does not equal the wonderful things the republicans have been doing.

Anyhow, if you are not a Democrat apologist, then you will recall that, when in power (ahem...Clinton...ahem) the Dems were all to happy to bomb, cruise missle, sanction, etc. anyone and everyone as well.  Then, there's a little real estate deal, and how many freakin' pardons??

Point being, the only difference, at any given time, between the Democrats and the Republicans is who's wielding most of the federal power.

In general I do agree. In particular, Clinton was never found guilty of wrong-doing in that little real-estate deal. It may have been shady, but no evidence was found to indict. However, Starr did basically run-roughshod over the other two principles, one of whom was sent to prison for it. The other principal, his former wife, to this day maintains that Starr was a thug and a hoodlum. The others of interest in the case were never charged (e.g., Bill Clinton and Hillary Clinton). I think in part because Starr found other fish to go after. None of which had bearing on the original commision of his investigation, and still eludes me as to what importance any of it had either on the real-estate deal or the Presidency. If Clinton hadn't lied to the Grand Jury, he would not have been impeached. You don't impeach a President for getting a blow job. It just isn't a high crime or misdemeanor.

Cooking intelligence is.

Dont forget bombing asprin factories in Iraq during the BJ Lewenski scandal.

The main difference between Clinton's intelligence failures and that of the current administration is that of intent and scope. Clinton was pursuing a smaller objective, one that was obtainable. Not that his stated goal was much different from Bush's, but you expect a liberal (or radical) to espouse regime change.

How many people expected the grand flip-flop of the Bush administration from "We don't do nation building," to the current policy? As for the quantitative and qualitative differences of the intelligence "used" the Iraq WMD story failed to produce a delivery system that could reach past Israel, at the best.

So we went to war to destroy WMDs that weren't a threat to us, because they were a clear and present danger to the exisitance of the U.S.

Or did I hear it wrong? Did we go to war with Iraq to protect and defend Israel? I think that would have flown like a lead balloon. There is a part of the right wing politcal faction in this country that isn't comfortable being on the same side as Israel, much less defending them.

But I probably digress.

sturner wrote:

But I probably digress.

Nope.  That was perfect.

ShnickyShnack wrote:

I also think it's fair to note that the Republicans ran (and still run) on a platform that emphasizes morality, ethics and "family values."

Are you seriously implying that Democrats run on immorality, dishonsty, and destruction of the family?

JakeTheTall wrote:

Farmerkev wrote:

It will quietly die out and fade away like most other Dem scandals.

Yeah, the doped-up Kennedy story slipped pretty quickly away.

But, again, if its corruption or criminal acts in the White House, that is a little more newsworthy and important, eh ?

I guess we'll have to compare stories over time contrasting the R who got caught taking bribes from the lobbyist with this D.

bedstuy wrote:

I think it's funny to compare the one squirly corrupt Louisiana Democrat congressman with the numerous indicted and/or under DoJ investigation Republicans right now.  Should we start a score card?  Of course, simply comparing the CONTEXT of enriching oneself dishonestly, however atrocious, doesn't quite compare to whoring out defense contracts in what looks like a Republican conspiracy.  Someone in a previous post used the word "systemic" and that's kind of the operative word in this discussion, not the "everybody does it" meme.

Oh, and I love how he froze all the cash.  Hilarious.

I'm sure you see it that way.
I see them all as crooks.
BTW, whatever happened to the illegal campaign contribution stuff with Hillary?

Was Hillary investigated?  Were charges filed?

Isn't that how these things work?

Farmerkev wrote:

bratboy wrote:

Was Hillary investigated?  Were charges filed?

Isn't that how these things work?

He got off.
I'm not supposed to care anymore if something is legal or not though.
That's an excuse apparently.

Well okay...I'm just wondering who to blame if Hillary wasn't properly investigated for doing something wrong (or did she have plausible deniability, anyway).

Hank Rearden wrote:

ShnickyShnack wrote:

I also think it's fair to note that the Republicans ran (and still run) on a platform that emphasizes morality, ethics and "family values."

Are you seriously implying that Democrats run on immorality, dishonsty, and destruction of the family?

Not openly, anyway.

Though frankly one wonders whether they're going to try claiming the moral high ground in the next elex.

bedstuy wrote:

Just because Democrats don't wear morality on their shirt sleeves is not indicative that they espouse the opposite.  What kind of logic is that?  One would hope they don't run on these issues because they realize how open it makes one to charges of hypocrisy.  For some odd reason the Moral Majority never has seemed to grasp this concept, but considering the simplistic reasoning involved in the above posting it's not hard to wonder why.

You don't think Dems run on a moral policy?

Farmerkev wrote:

bedstuy wrote:

Just because Democrats don't wear morality on their shirt sleeves is not indicative that they espouse the opposite.  What kind of logic is that?  One would hope they don't run on these issues because they realize how open it makes one to charges of hypocrisy.  For some odd reason the Moral Majority never has seemed to grasp this concept, but considering the simplistic reasoning involved in the above posting it's not hard to wonder why.

You don't think Dems run on a moral policy?

They do to some extent but generally not with a cross in one hand and brimstone in the other.