View Full Version : Are they all corrupt?
Silver
03-02-2006, 01:06 AM
Maybe not. Having said that, I only need one hand to count American politicians that I admire. And I could lose a couple of fingers and still not have to pare down the list.
http://www.antiwar.com/frank/?articleid=8609
Looks like it. Not that I was ever a huge fan of hers, (especially given the nutcases that come out of Republican primaries in CA) but this is pretty damn disgusting.
kinghami3
03-02-2006, 01:16 AM
Agreed, there are very few politicians that I feel I can trust. John McCain isn't perfect, but he is up there, and just about the only Republican I would vote for too.
valve bouncer
03-02-2006, 01:16 AM
Wonderful. At the time when an a credible alternative is needed more than ever you get this.
Very few...very very few. John McCain, Harry Reid...
I'm hoping that Xmission founder (Ever heard of Maddox? Hosts his site) Pete Ashdown can unseat one of Utah's longtime senile senators, Orrin I'm-going-to-blow-up-your-computer-for-downloading-music Hatch. Unlikely, seeing as how Ashdown is running as a Democrat in Utah, but it's a fun fantasy...Utah's population, awaking from their brainwashed slumber...
Changleen
03-02-2006, 03:13 AM
RM PD Forum users for John McCain! :thumb:
MudGrrl
03-02-2006, 07:06 AM
well.....at least she didn't buy a McMansion.
jk
ya can't swing a dead cat around here (DC) without hitting someone who is in it for the money
Old Man G Funk
03-02-2006, 07:29 AM
Henry Waxman has earned my respect for his work in exposing the misuse of science by the current administration. I sincerely hope I never hear about him doing something to tarnish that.
stevew
03-02-2006, 07:37 AM
Very few...very very few. John McCain, Harry Reid...
Harry Reid (http://www.latimes.com/media/acrobat/2003-06/8306315.pdf)
BurlyShirley
03-02-2006, 07:56 AM
So is McCain the ONLY choice we have to be president next? Im ok with that.
Silver
03-02-2006, 11:15 AM
Feingold.
I lost a lot of respect for McCain when he went stumping for Bush last election.
Tenchiro
03-02-2006, 11:39 AM
Are they all corrupt?
Does the pope sh!t in the woods? Of course they are all corrupt.
I am still a firm beleiver that we need to adopt the policies of Starta. Specifically when a politician leaves office, they were immediately put on trial. Every detail of their office was scrutinized and punished appropriately.I think with a loss fo citizenship.
narlus
03-02-2006, 11:40 AM
Feingold.
I lost a lot of respect for McCain when he went stumping for Bush last election.
if he hadn't, he'd have found himself running on the same party ticket as Perot or Nader.
Slugman
03-02-2006, 11:49 AM
if he hadn't, he'd have found himself running on the same party ticket as Perot or Nader.
And that would be bad why?
Because we'd get away from our 2 party system that works so well?
Because it would give people on both sides a choice other than neocon or liberal?
McCain had a choice - do it for the people or for the GOP... :redhot:
jimmydean
03-02-2006, 11:59 AM
Oregon should have open primaries in '08. I think a lot if the issue with the 2 party system is the states that have closed primaries.
It makes it tough to vote for who you think is best unless they happen to fall on your ticket.
On that note, I didn't care much for my choices last time around. But for all I care, it could have been a ham sandwich. It was still getting my vote over gwb.
narlus
03-02-2006, 12:06 PM
And that would be bad why?
Because we'd get away from our 2 party system that works so well?
Because it would give people on both sides a choice other than neocon or liberal?
McCain had a choice - do it for the people or for the GOP... :redhot:
because it will take some time for a 3rd party to gather steam against the entrenched and extremely powerful Dem/Rep parties...ross perot w/ his billions couldn't get more than a smattering of the vote. not saying i don't agree w/ you, just that i can understand where mccain's coming from too.
Changleen
03-02-2006, 02:58 PM
The other weekend we had a big thing on the harbourfront in wellington, all parades and fairs and dancing and stuff, as we do here, and one of the things was 'Chalk the walk' where about a mile of the promenade was littered with boxes of huge multicoloured chalks and various artists were doing chalk murals everywhere on the pavemet and the public was encouraged to do the same.
Anyway, some group of Yanks on holiday over here had got a big red chalk and were writting in big letters at regular intervals:
"MMP for USA"
MMP is the voting system we use here in NZ. It works like this:
http://www.elections.org.nz/mmp/two_ticks_too_easy.html
It basically means small parties get a much better crack of the whip when it comes to getting representation.
Anyway I though that was cool.
narlus
03-02-2006, 03:01 PM
McCain shuld just switch to the democratic party and make it official.
ok N8, i'll bite. in your words (this is important, put away the ctrl-v/ctrl-c reflex for just a bit), what don't you like about McCain?
ok N8, i'll bite. in your words (this is important, put away the ctrl-v/ctrl-c reflex for just a bit), what don't you like about McCain?
*crickets*
spincrazy
03-02-2006, 03:15 PM
ok N8, i'll bite. in your words (this is important, put away the ctrl-v/ctrl-c reflex for just a bit), what don't you like about McCain?
asking N8 to actually put his own thoughts into something AND not tow the party line.....? "Please little chicken, don't lay any eggs"
Slugman
03-02-2006, 03:29 PM
because it will take some time for a 3rd party to gather steam against the entrenched and extremely powerful Dem/Rep parties...ross perot w/ his billions couldn't get more than a smattering of the vote. not saying i don't agree w/ you, just that i can understand where mccain's coming from too.
The only strenght that the Dem/Rep parties have is that there are no GOOD alternatives. So everyone is forced to go one side or the other.
Ross Perot and his money were not enough becasue the guy is a freak. For a 3rd party to become viable it needs a strong candidate first, then try and raise the money. I really think that our best chance for a 3rd party was McCain.
McCain played it too safe by not jumping out on his own, then went on to be George's biotch. I lost all respect for him...
narlus
03-02-2006, 03:42 PM
my view is that he saw the Rep machinery full behind GWB, and figured he'd bide his time and wait for his chance w/ the same machinery.
you know he had to be grinding his teeth to support the guy who actually tried to make his war record an negative against him.
The Amish
03-02-2006, 08:11 PM
So is McCain the ONLY choice we have to be president next? Im ok with that.
I could deal
Not that I was ever a huge fan of hers, (especially given the nutcases that come out of Republican primaries in CA) but this is pretty damn disgusting.
Wait, so because she married a guy long before the war that owns (75% of) a firm that builds cities, which he owned before the war, and the company bid on the contract as any smart company in that business would, and happens to be 7th on the list of contract winners, this is "disgusting?" This is so far down the list of disgusting, it's downright edible. Do we have any insight into their profitability? These were bidded out contracts, unlike the Halliburton no-bids, so it's pretty much impossible to claim they were taking advantage of anyone. It's certainly NOT war profiteering, relative to Halliburton or even in absolute terms.
The implication of the article is that they bought their mansion with money from Iraq. Blum was a billionaire long before Iraq. He bought it with HIS money. This is the same BS that republicans pulled with the Abramoff scandal. Tie the democrats the something similar to the atrocious republican behavior, and even if it's at worst fractional and most likely delusional, it is totally diverting.
edit: spelling.
JRogers
03-03-2006, 10:42 AM
Wait, so because she married a guy long before the war that owns (75% of) a firm that builds cities, which he owned before the war, and the company bid on the contract as any smart company in that business would, and happens to be 7th on the list of contract winners, this is "disgusting?" This is so far down the list of disgusting, it's downright edible. Do we have any insight into their profitability? These were bidded out contracts, unlike the Halliburton no-bids, so it's pretty much impossible to claim they were taking advantage of anyone. It's certainly NOT war profiteering, relative to Halliburton or even in absolute terms.
The implication of the article is that they bought their mansion with money from Iraq. Blum was a billionaire long before Iraq. He bought it with HIS money. This is the same BS that republicans pulled with the Abramoff scandal. Tie the democrats the something similar to the otrocious republican behavior, and even if it's at worst fractional and most likely delusional, it is totally diverting.
But wait, it's from www.antiwar.com- it must be true!
Silver
03-03-2006, 12:41 PM
The implication of the article is that they bought their mansion with money from Iraq. Blum was a billionaire long before Iraq. He bought it with HIS money. This is the same BS that republicans pulled with the Abramoff scandal. Tie the democrats the something similar to the atrocious republican behavior, and even if it's at worst fractional and most likely delusional, it is totally diverting.
edit: spelling.
That part I didn't like either. I notice N8 didn't jump to point that out.
I'm still pissed off at the way the Democrats can't take a stand on anything. "We were deceived by the President! Wah!" Tough ****. There were enough people in this forum who didn't fall for it before the invasion.
The least she could have done is disclosed it.
edit: She also rolled over on the Patriot Act, again. Thanks Diane.
kidwoo
03-03-2006, 01:07 PM
edit: She also rolled over on the Patriot Act, again. Thanks Diane.
That to me is much more inexcusible. Even from a bland party line stance that is BS.
As far as profiteering, I agree with oheeho. We went to war, we leveled the infrastructure of a country, it must be rebuilt. Submitting bids for your line of work for something as mundane as electrical work and getting the contract is much more acceptable than just giving handouts to bechtel et al.
I'd have no problem with building bikes for people in iraq on government money. And I wouldn't call it war profiteering. Peeps gots to get round town ya know.:) Regardless of the situation's underlying cause, there are needs that should be met.
Silver
03-03-2006, 01:27 PM
1. Has she disclosed it?
2. Does she recuse herself from votes that could affect contracts that her husband is bidding on?
Now, the poorly written article doesn't answer that. If she's not, then she's slimy. Maybe just a tiny film of slime, instead of the huge pits of slime that the Republicans wallow in, but that still doesn't make her clean. I'm getting tired of the idea that by being less odious than the GOP the Democrats are a vastly better option. They still stink.
kidwoo
03-03-2006, 01:49 PM
I've got no love for frankenstein. She's definitely slimy. I saw a list of her lobbied income a few years ago and it's disgusting.
As far as disclosure goes I don't know. That article isn't the first I've heard it though.
What constitutes official disclosure and how relevant is transparency when it comes to spouses in CA?
The voting recusal could fall in line with a conflict of interest I suppose.
Old Man G Funk
03-03-2006, 02:00 PM
On the subject...
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/03/02/AR2006030202146.html
DaveW
03-04-2006, 03:41 AM
And another one bites the dust (http://today.reuters.com/news/ArticleNews.aspx?type=topNews&storyid=2006-03-04T012634Z_01_N03197342_RTRUKOC_0_US-CRIME-CUNNINGHAM.xml)
One wonders though.... are the bribers being charged as well as the bribed?
After all for the coruption to occcur both sides of that coin need to be present and if one is guilty, so is the other IMO.
vBulletin® v3.7.1, Copyright ©2000-2008, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.