Forums | MacLife

bedstuy wrote:

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.

Ahh, morality is ok as long as religion isn't mentioned.

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?

Not some much on a policy of morality.  Certainly they advocate for policies that they believe to be moral, but that's not what we are talking about here.

kb5zhh wrote:

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?

Not some much on a policy of morality.  Certainly they advocate for policies that they believe to be moral, but that's not what we are talking about here.

That's a razor thin difference.

kb5zhh wrote:

Farmerkev wrote:

kb5zhh wrote:

Not some much on a policy of morality.  Certainly they advocate for policies that they believe to be moral, but that's not what we are talking about here.

That's a razor thin difference.

I'm sure you want to see it that way.

Not want, I do see it as two sides of the same coin.

Everybody does it!

Hank Rearden wrote:

ShnickyShnack wrote:

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

That shouldn't be hard, seeing as the "high ground" now starts at the elevation of a flea's ankles.

True dat. Although there's plenty of political hot air that, to my astonishment, people continue to buy.

Nefarious Bidding wrote:

Some leaders of both Republican and Democratic parties in the Congress question the legality of the search of Congressman Jefferson's congressional office. http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/05/23/jefferson/

Heh, smurf are nervous aren't they.
Odds that several of them are scrambling to find new hiding places?

KingFred wrote:

OR they might feel the search was illegal.

Nah, read the article. Crap about separation of powers and precedent. Blowing smoke.

I know. But it was just a thought. A passing thought. It's passed now.

Ribtorus wrote:

Brings me back to the Abscam days.

Big hair, bad music, good times.


I think it was seven elected representatives convicted; six Democrats and one Republican.

Or the Keating 5.

Yeah, and if you don't get a catchy nickname in the press, you don't get any real air/media time.

Seems Speaker Pelosi has asked Jefferson to quit key Ways & Means committee.  I wouldn't be surprised if this a signal for him to resign.

Pelosi isn't speaker.