Channman 2 #26 March 9, 2006 > Can you say Chappaquiddick? You come up with all the good stuff. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Channman 2 #27 March 9, 2006 > Carole Keaton Strayhorn (I think it's Strayhorn now) She's getting my vote as well. She has a big hill to climb, but she will be far better than Rick Perry. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
funjumper101 15 #28 March 9, 2006 Quote> You voted for Delay? You must be a true red Republican. Trivial issues like ethics and corruption mean nothing to you. Those issues are for the little people. Real Republicans would never find anything shameful about such trivial issues. Unless it involves a Democrat. Then ethics and corruption become important issues. Well, you must believe he is guilty of a crime. I did not buy into charges that were shopped around in Travis County 4 times looking for a Grand Jury that would bring charges, any charges. Also he has his day in court, and if successful will return to the U.S. House to countinue were he left off. When the major network news channels joined in for the kill spoke volumns to the very conservitive votes here in his district. So, following your line of reasoning, if he was charged with a more heinous crime such as lying about a blow job, you still would have voted for him. Pushing further on your line of reasoning, if was was charged with, but had not been tried and convicted of rape, child molestation, or assault and battery, you still would have voted for him. Somehow I don't think that you would have voted the same way in the above situations. The point is, you and your kind have drastically lowered the bar as to what is considered to be acceptable behavior by elected officials. We, the people, need to hold our elected officials to the highest standards of behavior for the system to work. It was not so long ago that being charged with ethics violations was the kiss of death to a political career. An indictment absolutely ended your career. A whiff of this type of behavior got you in trouble, at the very least. That this is no longer the case should be of great concern to every responsible citizen. Are you aware that Delay has been charged with ethics violations over and over again? Here are some documented examples of Delay's actions. Is this really the type of person that you feel should represent you in the House? 1. DeLay obstructed justice for low-paid sweatshop workers on the island of Saipan by taking large campaign contributions from Saipan's chief lobbyist and blocking any Congressional investigation of the appalling conditions there. 2. DeLay obstructed justice by lying to the FBI when he charged that the reporter who broke the Henry Hyde adultery story in the 1990s had been working with the White House to expose Hyde. 3. During a deposition for a lawsuit filed by a former business partner in the pest company in 1994, DeLay lied that he had not been an officer of the company for two or three years. On congressional financial disclosure forms filed in 1995, he listed himself as chairman of the company's board of directors. 4. In 1997, DeLay actually shoved Rep. David Obey [D-Wisconsin] and called him a "chicken shit" on the House floor. That same year, DeLay tried to impeach federal judges he didn't like. 5. In 1998, DeLay said that people with "foreign-sounding names" probably aren't Americans. Here are some links that provide more info about your hero. http://www.alternet.org/story/21509/ http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=05/04/07/1343238 Here is a link that documents some of his earlier violations. http://www.hillnews.com/news/100704/delay.aspx Here is a link to a hilarious spoof of how the Republican Party would investigate Delay. http://www.madguerillabrigade.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=231 Your hero. A real honorable guy. You should be very proud. Just exactly how bad does he have to get before you won't vote for him any more? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
funjumper101 15 #29 March 9, 2006 QuoteCan you say Chappaquiddick? http://www.ytedk.com/intro.htm What connection do you see between Ted Kennedy's drunken partying and car crash in 1969 and Tom Delay's recent actions? Think clearly now. How are they connected? Are you trying to say that one incident of criminal behavior by Ted Kennedy in 1969 is as bad or worse than Tom Delay's ongoing ethics violations? How does that excuse Delay's actions? That is the kind of reasoning that small children engage in. Stuck on stupid? Hmmm Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gravitymaster 0 #30 March 9, 2006 QuoteQuoteCan you say Chappaquiddick? http://www.ytedk.com/intro.htm QuoteWhat connection do you see between Ted Kennedy's drunken partying and car crash in 1969 and Tom Delay's recent actions? Think clearly now. How are they connected? You asked where else a suspected felon would be voted into office. The obvious answer (except apparently to you) is Massachusetts. I would also point out to you that at a very minumum negligent homocide is a far greater crime than a few illegal joyrides. QuoteAre you trying to say that one incident of criminal behavior by Ted Kennedy in 1969 is as bad or worse than Tom Delay's ongoing ethics violations? No. I'm trying to say negligent homocide is worse. Nobody died due to Delays alleged crimes. If you would bother to read (I know, I'm asking too much), the link I provided, you would have known the homocide isn't the only violation of the law Teddy has been "suspected" of. QuoteHow does that excuse Delay's actions? It doesn't and I didn't say it did. QuoteThat is the kind of reasoning that small children engage in. Not surprising you recognize this. QuoteStuck on stupid? Hmmm Or this. Heck, you probably think the only thing Clinton did wrong was get a BJ too. I've never heard of someone losing their law licence over a BJ, have you? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites billvon 2,435 #31 March 9, 2006 >You should be ashamed of yourself for telling others to be ashamed. Agreed. You would never do such a thing! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites lawrocket 3 #32 March 9, 2006 QuoteWhere else in the world would a suspected felon be voted into power? Lots of places. Hell, even convicted felons get voted into power. In places like Washington, D.C. and Florida. My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites warpedskydiver 0 #33 March 9, 2006 QuoteQuoteCan you say Chappaquiddick? http://www.ytedk.com/intro.htm What connection do you see between Ted Kennedy's drunken partying and car crash in 1969 and Tom Delay's recent actions? Think clearly now. How are they connected? Are you trying to say that one incident of criminal behavior by Ted Kennedy in 1969 is as bad or worse than Tom Delay's ongoing ethics violations? How does that excuse Delay's actions? That is the kind of reasoning that small children engage in. Stuck on stupid? Hmmm Don't you mean Ted Kennedy's murder of a young woman with a promising life and loving family? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites funjumper101 15 #34 March 9, 2006 QuoteQuoteQuoteCan you say Chappaquiddick? http://www.ytedk.com/intro.htm QuoteWhat connection do you see between Ted Kennedy's drunken partying and car crash in 1969 and Tom Delay's recent actions? Think clearly now. How are they connected? You asked where else a suspected felon would be voted into office. The obvious answer (except apparently to you) is Massachusetts. I would also point out to you that at a very minumum negligent homocide is a far greater crime than a few illegal joyrides. QuoteAre you trying to say that one incident of criminal behavior by Ted Kennedy in 1969 is as bad or worse than Tom Delay's ongoing ethics violations? No. I'm trying to say negligent homocide is worse. Nobody died due to Delays alleged crimes. If you would bother to read (I know, I'm asking too much), the link I provided, you would have known the homocide isn't the only violation of the law Teddy has been "suspected" of. QuoteHow does that excuse Delay's actions? It doesn't and I didn't say it did. QuoteThat is the kind of reasoning that small children engage in. Not surprising you recognize this. QuoteStuck on stupid? Hmmm Or this. Heck, you probably think the only thing Clinton did wrong was get a BJ too. I've never heard of someone losing their law licence over a BJ, have you? You are mixing up who posted what. I never asked "where else a suspected felon would be voted into office." Wrong poster. I am fully aware that suspected and convicted felons have been voted into office. That doesn't make it right. I do believe that there is a difference between "suspected felon" and "indicted conspirator". Ted Kennedy was charged with and convicted of leaving the scene. Did he get a pass on more serious charges due to family connections? Absolutely. The rich and well connected experience a different kind of "justice" than us common folk. You may not like it, but that is how it is and will continue to be. I spent a fair bit of time on Martha's Vineyard. I have been to Chappy many times (the surf fishing was AWESOME) and walked the entire route he drove. I have walked across the bridge. Ted Kennedy absolutely lied his way out of more serious charges. I have read all about it and actually talked to some of the Vineyarders who were around then. The people of Massachusetts have the same info available as the rest of us. They keep voting him into office. Not right, but that is how the system works. Mary Jo Kopechne went partying with the big boys voluntarily. By all accounts it was a rocking party. Everyone was having a blast. She got into a car with a drunk driver and died when the driver crashed into the water. The drunk was too hammered to save her. That is a far cry from murder. Back in those times drunk drivers were thought of much differently than they are now. Times change. You think no one has died in the Saipan sweatshops? You would be wrong. Delay bears some responsiblity for the deaths. He squashed the investigation and was rather proud of himself for doing so. So his actions have resulted in innocent deaths. Clinton lied under oath about the blow job. For a Rhodes Scholar he can be rather stupid. He never should have been in that position. Once he was forced into it by the rabid assholes, he should have been more like "Hell, yeah. Great blow job. So good she couldn't swallow it all. It went all over her dress. It was awesome. I didn't fuck her though. So, according to the established legal definition of sex, I didn't have sex with her. Piss off." I'll bet the results would have been better than what happened. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites warpedskydiver 0 #35 March 9, 2006 That isn't all clinton lied about Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites funjumper101 15 #36 March 9, 2006 QuoteThat isn't all clinton lied about Examples, please. Please cite the source of your information. The web site, news article, etc Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites warpedskydiver 0 #37 March 9, 2006 money delivered to the white house personal residence by Johnny Chung a person who when questioned by USDOJ indicated he was ferrying the money for Norinco Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Gravitymaster 0 #38 March 9, 2006 I meant, I was responding to the post that said where else would a suspected felon be voted into office. My apologies. The point you keep missing is that politicians from both parties have all kinds of ethic problems and before you start casting stones at one, you better check on the other. Ethics violations have more to do with the character of the individual, rather than that of a Political Party. Would the Washinton Post be an acceptable source for the Johnny Chung "suspected" ethics violations as related to the previous admin? How soon we forget, eh? http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/special/campfin/players/chung.htm Campaign Finance Key Player: Johnny Chung This profile was compiled from Washington Post and washingtonpost.com staff reports. Click on linked names to read other profiles, or see the full list of key players. Johnny Chung, 43, who delivered a $50,000 campaign contribution to the White House and escorted Chinese businessmen to a presidential radio address, is cooperating with the Justice Department's investigation of finance abuses in the 1996 campaign. From The Post: • Liu's Deals With Chung: An Intercontinental Puzzle, May 24, 1998 • Chung Ties Funds to DNC, May 16, 1998 • Chung Makes Deal With Prosecutors, March 6, 1998 • Staffer Took Donation Inside the White House, March 6, 1997 As part of a plea agreement with federal prosecutors in March, Chung was charged with funneling illegal contributions to the 1996 Clinton-Gore campaign by asking friends and employees of his office technology firm to make donations for which they were later reimbursed. Chung was also charged with engaging in a similar "straw donor" scheme to assist the 1996 reelection bid of Sen. John F. Kerry (D-Mass.). As part of the plea, Chung agreed to cooperate with investigators, and soon told them that Chinese army Lt. Col. Liu Chaoying, an executive with a state-owned aerospace company, gave him $300,000 to donate to the Democrats' 1996 campaign. Chung's allegation – hotly denied by Liu and the Chinese government – is the strongest evidence yet of a direct money trail from the Chinese government to Democratic campaign coffers. In 1996, Liu and Chung attended a Los Angeles fund-raiser where Liu was photographed with Clinton. Chung made at least 49 visits to the White House, despite the fact that a National Security Council official concluded that he was a "hustler" seeking to exploit his friendship with the Clintons to impress Chinese business associates. During one visit to the White House, he handed a $50,000 check to Hillary Rodham Clinton's chief of staff, Margaret A. Williams. Williams accepted the check and passed it along to the DNC, even though federal law bars government employees from accepting campaign contributions on government property. From 1994 to 1996, Chung made 12 personal or corporate donations to the DNC totaling $366,000. The DNC returned all of the money last year, stating that it had "insufficient information" about its origins. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kelpdiver 2 #39 March 9, 2006 Quote So, following your line of reasoning, if he was charged with a more heinous crime such as lying about a blow job, you still would have voted for him. Let's all remember the charge was sexual assualt or harassment with Paula Jones. The perjury came up as a result. Quote It was not so long ago that being charged with ethics violations was the kiss of death to a political career. An indictment absolutely ended your career. A whiff of this type of behavior got you in trouble, at the very least. I addressed the Keating 5, funjumper. McCain is running for President. How about a response? How come the past is always viwed with such rosy glasses? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites funjumper101 15 #40 March 9, 2006 QuoteI meant, I was responding to the post that said where else would a suspected felon be voted into office. My apologies. The point you keep missing is that politicians from both parties have all kinds of ethic problems and before you start casting stones at one, you better check on the other. Ethics violations have more to do with the character of the individual, rather than that of a Political Party. Would the Washinton Post be an acceptable source for the Johnny Chung "suspected" ethics violations as related to the previous admin? How soon we forget, eh? http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/special/campfin/players/chung.htm Campaign Finance Key Player: Johnny Chung This profile was compiled from Washington Post and washingtonpost.com staff reports. Click on linked names to read other profiles, or see the full list of key players. Johnny Chung, 43, who delivered a $50,000 campaign contribution to the White House and escorted Chinese businessmen to a presidential radio address, is cooperating with the Justice Department's investigation of finance abuses in the 1996 campaign. From The Post: • Liu's Deals With Chung: An Intercontinental Puzzle, May 24, 1998 • Chung Ties Funds to DNC, May 16, 1998 • Chung Makes Deal With Prosecutors, March 6, 1998 • Staffer Took Donation Inside the White House, March 6, 1997 As part of a plea agreement with federal prosecutors in March, Chung was charged with funneling illegal contributions to the 1996 Clinton-Gore campaign by asking friends and employees of his office technology firm to make donations for which they were later reimbursed. Chung was also charged with engaging in a similar "straw donor" scheme to assist the 1996 reelection bid of Sen. John F. Kerry (D-Mass.). As part of the plea, Chung agreed to cooperate with investigators, and soon told them that Chinese army Lt. Col. Liu Chaoying, an executive with a state-owned aerospace company, gave him $300,000 to donate to the Democrats' 1996 campaign. Chung's allegation – hotly denied by Liu and the Chinese government – is the strongest evidence yet of a direct money trail from the Chinese government to Democratic campaign coffers. In 1996, Liu and Chung attended a Los Angeles fund-raiser where Liu was photographed with Clinton. Chung made at least 49 visits to the White House, despite the fact that a National Security Council official concluded that he was a "hustler" seeking to exploit his friendship with the Clintons to impress Chinese business associates. During one visit to the White House, he handed a $50,000 check to Hillary Rodham Clinton's chief of staff, Margaret A. Williams. Williams accepted the check and passed it along to the DNC, even though federal law bars government employees from accepting campaign contributions on government property. From 1994 to 1996, Chung made 12 personal or corporate donations to the DNC totaling $366,000. The DNC returned all of the money last year, stating that it had "insufficient information" about its origins. And where was the Clinton "lie" in the story? It look more like a case of business as usual for both political parties when it comes to campaign fundraising. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Gravitymaster 0 #41 March 9, 2006 QuoteQuoteI meant, I was responding to the post that said where else would a suspected felon be voted into office. My apologies. The point you keep missing is that politicians from both parties have all kinds of ethic problems and before you start casting stones at one, you better check on the other. Ethics violations have more to do with the character of the individual, rather than that of a Political Party. Would the Washinton Post be an acceptable source for the Johnny Chung "suspected" ethics violations as related to the previous admin? How soon we forget, eh? QuoteAnd where was the Clinton "lie" in the story? It look more like a case of business as usual for both political parties when it comes to campaign fundraising. Don't want to talk about ethics anymore, eh? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kallend 1,649 #42 March 9, 2006 Well, it's established then that both parties have their fill of pond-scum. I find little to choose between pond-scum on the left, pond-scum on the right, or pond-scum in the center. So what can be done about it.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites funjumper101 15 #43 March 9, 2006 QuoteQuoteQuoteI meant, I was responding to the post that said where else would a suspected felon be voted into office. My apologies. The point you keep missing is that politicians from both parties have all kinds of ethic problems and before you start casting stones at one, you better check on the other. Ethics violations have more to do with the character of the individual, rather than that of a Political Party. Would the Washinton Post be an acceptable source for the Johnny Chung "suspected" ethics violations as related to the previous admin? How soon we forget, eh? QuoteAnd where was the Clinton "lie" in the story? It look more like a case of business as usual for both political parties when it comes to campaign fundraising. Don't want to talk about ethics anymore, eh? Here is post # 36 for you again - Begin quoted text >>> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- In Reply To -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- That isn't all clinton lied about -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Examples, please. Please cite the source of your information. The web site, news article, etc <<< end quoted text Please note that warpedskydiver wrote "That isn't all clinton lied about". I asked for specific examples. What was provided was an example of the sleazy and ethically challenged fund raising tactics used by both the Democrats and the Republicans. If you would like to discuss the ethics of political party fundraising we should start up a new thread. Clinton is no hero of mine. He is a scummy dirtbag in his personal life. As far as presidents go he did a pretty good job, overall. If the "Contract on America" had failed he would have done a far better job. Compared to the current adminstration he is one of the best presidents there ever was, hands down. Compare and contrast the relative level of accomplishments between the two. Shrub was born into a rich, politically connected family. He went to the finest schools and had every opportunity to shine as one of America's best and brightest. He hasn't and never will. His accomplishments have all been on the back of his family connections and influence. Clinton was born into modest means. He leveraged a superior intellect and immense personal drive into a first class education (Rhodes scholar) and ended up a two term president against massive opposition. As a human being he has major failings. So do we all. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites JohnRich 4 #44 March 9, 2006 QuoteI'm in Delay's district -- does that give me the right to talk about it? I didn't vote though; I'm saving myself for the ability to sign the gubernatorial petition of either Carole Keaton Strayhorn (I think it's Strayhorn now) or Kinky Friedman. Had I voted, I would have voted in the Republican primary this year just to vote against Delay. But I would have before the indictments, too. He's all about using the power to overpower. There is no thought there of listening to other points of view, compromise, or working with people. As long as he's stronger, he'd rather force you to do what his party wants. And that's not how I want a government to run. None of them is wonderful, but I'd have to say he pretty much exemplifies what I dislike about the power structure in Congress and government in general right now. Fair enough, my dear Wendy. You obviously have actually thought about the issue in detail and articulate good reasons for your point of view. I have no problem with that. That's a far cry above the knee-jerk response: "He's been indicted and therefore he's a crook!" The rest of this is directed at the others whom I've been addressing, and not at you, Wendy. The collective attitude that someone is guilty just because they've been indicted, is probably for more harmful to America than a free golfing trip to Scotland taken by Tom Delay. And I find it shocking how many people are willing to express such a view and condemn a man who has yet to be convicted of anything. There's a saying in the legal profession: "You can indict a ham sandwich." What that means is that an indictment means nothing - you can indict anyone for anything. Proving it is another matter. Some of the original charges brought against Delay have already been dismissed by a Judge. As for the remainder, I'll personally withhold my opinion until I hear the jury verdict. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites rehmwa 2 #45 March 9, 2006 QuoteI find little to choose between pond-scum on the left, pond-scum on the right, or pond-scum in the center. So what can be done about it. fire off small rockets fly around in airplanes argue futile subjects with people you enjoy jump out of airplanes occasionally ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites funjumper101 15 #46 March 9, 2006 [reply That's a far cry above the knee-jerk response: "He's been indicted and therefore he's a crook!" Quote My values indicate that a person with Delay's demonstrated history of questionable ethics and the fact of the current indictment make him unworthy of public service. Your values may differ. It isn't a one off incident. It is a highlight of a long string of ethics violations, capped off with an indicment for conspiracy. Just how bad does a politician have to be before you won't vote for him? If it was an indictment for rape, child molestation, or assault and battery, would you feel the same way? I already proposed this question earlier in the thread. Would still vote for him? By your stated logic, if he hasn't been convicted, you would. That is pretty sad, eh? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kallend 1,649 #47 March 9, 2006 QuoteQuoteI find little to choose between pond-scum on the left, pond-scum on the right, or pond-scum in the center. So what can be done about it. fire off small rockets fly around in airplanes argue futile subjects with people you enjoy jump out of airplanes occasionally Oh, problem solved then.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites champu 1 #48 March 10, 2006 QuoteThe point is, you and your kind have drastically lowered the bar as to what is considered to be acceptable behavior by elected officials. We, the people, need to hold our elected officials to the highest standards of behavior for the system to work. It was not so long ago that being charged with ethics violations was the kiss of death to a political career. An indictment absolutely ended your career. A whiff of this type of behavior got you in trouble, at the very least. That this is no longer the case should be of great concern to every responsible citizen.QuoteIf it was an indictment for rape, child molestation, or assault and battery, would you feel the same way? I already proposed this question earlier in the thread. Would still vote for him? By your stated logic, if he hasn't been convicted, you would. That is pretty sad, eh? I'm having a really difficult time getting my head around your stance on this issue. I understand you think that DeLay is shady, that he has been for some time, and that the negative attention from simply being charged with another ethics crime is but a punctuation mark on his past. That's all well and good, I get it, "If it walks like a duck..." and the like. But forget DeLay for a moment and pay a little closer attention to what you're arguing in a more general sense. It used to be that opponents, the media, or a combination of the two could throw, "A whiff of this type of behavior" at a candidate and stunt his or her career? It no longer is, and that should be of great concern to me? That's dangerous ground. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites SkyDekker 1,147 #49 March 10, 2006 I can't believe that while the US is being run by one of the worst - if not THE worst presidents in recent history....people are still arguing about Clinton. Don't you have bigger problems on your hands? Your government for the first time in history came very close to defaulting on it's debt obligations. Something usually reserved for third world countries.... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites funjumper101 15 #50 March 10, 2006 QuoteQuoteThe point is, you and your kind have drastically lowered the bar as to what is considered to be acceptable behavior by elected officials. We, the people, need to hold our elected officials to the highest standards of behavior for the system to work. It was not so long ago that being charged with ethics violations was the kiss of death to a political career. An indictment absolutely ended your career. A whiff of this type of behavior got you in trouble, at the very least. That this is no longer the case should be of great concern to every responsible citizen.QuoteIf it was an indictment for rape, child molestation, or assault and battery, would you feel the same way? I already proposed this question earlier in the thread. Would still vote for him? By your stated logic, if he hasn't been convicted, you would. That is pretty sad, eh? I'm having a really difficult time getting my head around your stance on this issue. I understand you think that DeLay is shady, that he has been for some time, and that the negative attention from simply being charged with another ethics crime is but a punctuation mark on his past. That's all well and good, I get it, "If it walks like a duck..." and the like. But forget DeLay for a moment and pay a little closer attention to what you're arguing in a more general sense. It used to be that opponents, the media, or a combination of the two could throw, "A whiff of this type of behavior" at a candidate and stunt his or her career? It no longer is, and that should be of great concern to me? That's dangerous ground. Anyone who reads throught the details of the ethics violations the Delay has been censured for should be appalled. He is beyond shady. Why do you feel that it is "dangerous ground" to want to hold all politicians to much higher standards than everyday people are held to? If politicians operate in a moral and ethical way there won't be any scandals. When they don't, and they get caught, they should lose their jobs. When they don't lose their jobs, their behavior is rewarded. Texans take great pride in presenting an image of themselves as upstanding, moral, and ethical people. They are very proud of their state and boast about how great it is and how wonderful the people are. How can people of this caliber keep voting for Delay? It doesn't make any sense. Their standards are that low? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Prev 1 2 3 Next Page 2 of 3 Join the conversation You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account. Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible. Reply to this topic... × Pasted as rich text. Paste as plain text instead Only 75 emoji are allowed. × Your link has been automatically embedded. Display as a link instead × Your previous content has been restored. Clear editor × You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL. Insert image from URL × Desktop Tablet Phone Submit Reply 0 Go To Topic Listing × Sign In Sign Up Forums Dropzones Classifieds Gear Indoor Articles Photos Videos Calendar Stolen Fatalities Leaderboard Activity Back Activity All Activity My Activity Streams Unread Content Content I Started
billvon 2,435 #31 March 9, 2006 >You should be ashamed of yourself for telling others to be ashamed. Agreed. You would never do such a thing! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lawrocket 3 #32 March 9, 2006 QuoteWhere else in the world would a suspected felon be voted into power? Lots of places. Hell, even convicted felons get voted into power. In places like Washington, D.C. and Florida. My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
warpedskydiver 0 #33 March 9, 2006 QuoteQuoteCan you say Chappaquiddick? http://www.ytedk.com/intro.htm What connection do you see between Ted Kennedy's drunken partying and car crash in 1969 and Tom Delay's recent actions? Think clearly now. How are they connected? Are you trying to say that one incident of criminal behavior by Ted Kennedy in 1969 is as bad or worse than Tom Delay's ongoing ethics violations? How does that excuse Delay's actions? That is the kind of reasoning that small children engage in. Stuck on stupid? Hmmm Don't you mean Ted Kennedy's murder of a young woman with a promising life and loving family? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
funjumper101 15 #34 March 9, 2006 QuoteQuoteQuoteCan you say Chappaquiddick? http://www.ytedk.com/intro.htm QuoteWhat connection do you see between Ted Kennedy's drunken partying and car crash in 1969 and Tom Delay's recent actions? Think clearly now. How are they connected? You asked where else a suspected felon would be voted into office. The obvious answer (except apparently to you) is Massachusetts. I would also point out to you that at a very minumum negligent homocide is a far greater crime than a few illegal joyrides. QuoteAre you trying to say that one incident of criminal behavior by Ted Kennedy in 1969 is as bad or worse than Tom Delay's ongoing ethics violations? No. I'm trying to say negligent homocide is worse. Nobody died due to Delays alleged crimes. If you would bother to read (I know, I'm asking too much), the link I provided, you would have known the homocide isn't the only violation of the law Teddy has been "suspected" of. QuoteHow does that excuse Delay's actions? It doesn't and I didn't say it did. QuoteThat is the kind of reasoning that small children engage in. Not surprising you recognize this. QuoteStuck on stupid? Hmmm Or this. Heck, you probably think the only thing Clinton did wrong was get a BJ too. I've never heard of someone losing their law licence over a BJ, have you? You are mixing up who posted what. I never asked "where else a suspected felon would be voted into office." Wrong poster. I am fully aware that suspected and convicted felons have been voted into office. That doesn't make it right. I do believe that there is a difference between "suspected felon" and "indicted conspirator". Ted Kennedy was charged with and convicted of leaving the scene. Did he get a pass on more serious charges due to family connections? Absolutely. The rich and well connected experience a different kind of "justice" than us common folk. You may not like it, but that is how it is and will continue to be. I spent a fair bit of time on Martha's Vineyard. I have been to Chappy many times (the surf fishing was AWESOME) and walked the entire route he drove. I have walked across the bridge. Ted Kennedy absolutely lied his way out of more serious charges. I have read all about it and actually talked to some of the Vineyarders who were around then. The people of Massachusetts have the same info available as the rest of us. They keep voting him into office. Not right, but that is how the system works. Mary Jo Kopechne went partying with the big boys voluntarily. By all accounts it was a rocking party. Everyone was having a blast. She got into a car with a drunk driver and died when the driver crashed into the water. The drunk was too hammered to save her. That is a far cry from murder. Back in those times drunk drivers were thought of much differently than they are now. Times change. You think no one has died in the Saipan sweatshops? You would be wrong. Delay bears some responsiblity for the deaths. He squashed the investigation and was rather proud of himself for doing so. So his actions have resulted in innocent deaths. Clinton lied under oath about the blow job. For a Rhodes Scholar he can be rather stupid. He never should have been in that position. Once he was forced into it by the rabid assholes, he should have been more like "Hell, yeah. Great blow job. So good she couldn't swallow it all. It went all over her dress. It was awesome. I didn't fuck her though. So, according to the established legal definition of sex, I didn't have sex with her. Piss off." I'll bet the results would have been better than what happened. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites warpedskydiver 0 #35 March 9, 2006 That isn't all clinton lied about Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites funjumper101 15 #36 March 9, 2006 QuoteThat isn't all clinton lied about Examples, please. Please cite the source of your information. The web site, news article, etc Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites warpedskydiver 0 #37 March 9, 2006 money delivered to the white house personal residence by Johnny Chung a person who when questioned by USDOJ indicated he was ferrying the money for Norinco Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Gravitymaster 0 #38 March 9, 2006 I meant, I was responding to the post that said where else would a suspected felon be voted into office. My apologies. The point you keep missing is that politicians from both parties have all kinds of ethic problems and before you start casting stones at one, you better check on the other. Ethics violations have more to do with the character of the individual, rather than that of a Political Party. Would the Washinton Post be an acceptable source for the Johnny Chung "suspected" ethics violations as related to the previous admin? How soon we forget, eh? http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/special/campfin/players/chung.htm Campaign Finance Key Player: Johnny Chung This profile was compiled from Washington Post and washingtonpost.com staff reports. Click on linked names to read other profiles, or see the full list of key players. Johnny Chung, 43, who delivered a $50,000 campaign contribution to the White House and escorted Chinese businessmen to a presidential radio address, is cooperating with the Justice Department's investigation of finance abuses in the 1996 campaign. From The Post: • Liu's Deals With Chung: An Intercontinental Puzzle, May 24, 1998 • Chung Ties Funds to DNC, May 16, 1998 • Chung Makes Deal With Prosecutors, March 6, 1998 • Staffer Took Donation Inside the White House, March 6, 1997 As part of a plea agreement with federal prosecutors in March, Chung was charged with funneling illegal contributions to the 1996 Clinton-Gore campaign by asking friends and employees of his office technology firm to make donations for which they were later reimbursed. Chung was also charged with engaging in a similar "straw donor" scheme to assist the 1996 reelection bid of Sen. John F. Kerry (D-Mass.). As part of the plea, Chung agreed to cooperate with investigators, and soon told them that Chinese army Lt. Col. Liu Chaoying, an executive with a state-owned aerospace company, gave him $300,000 to donate to the Democrats' 1996 campaign. Chung's allegation – hotly denied by Liu and the Chinese government – is the strongest evidence yet of a direct money trail from the Chinese government to Democratic campaign coffers. In 1996, Liu and Chung attended a Los Angeles fund-raiser where Liu was photographed with Clinton. Chung made at least 49 visits to the White House, despite the fact that a National Security Council official concluded that he was a "hustler" seeking to exploit his friendship with the Clintons to impress Chinese business associates. During one visit to the White House, he handed a $50,000 check to Hillary Rodham Clinton's chief of staff, Margaret A. Williams. Williams accepted the check and passed it along to the DNC, even though federal law bars government employees from accepting campaign contributions on government property. From 1994 to 1996, Chung made 12 personal or corporate donations to the DNC totaling $366,000. The DNC returned all of the money last year, stating that it had "insufficient information" about its origins. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kelpdiver 2 #39 March 9, 2006 Quote So, following your line of reasoning, if he was charged with a more heinous crime such as lying about a blow job, you still would have voted for him. Let's all remember the charge was sexual assualt or harassment with Paula Jones. The perjury came up as a result. Quote It was not so long ago that being charged with ethics violations was the kiss of death to a political career. An indictment absolutely ended your career. A whiff of this type of behavior got you in trouble, at the very least. I addressed the Keating 5, funjumper. McCain is running for President. How about a response? How come the past is always viwed with such rosy glasses? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites funjumper101 15 #40 March 9, 2006 QuoteI meant, I was responding to the post that said where else would a suspected felon be voted into office. My apologies. The point you keep missing is that politicians from both parties have all kinds of ethic problems and before you start casting stones at one, you better check on the other. Ethics violations have more to do with the character of the individual, rather than that of a Political Party. Would the Washinton Post be an acceptable source for the Johnny Chung "suspected" ethics violations as related to the previous admin? How soon we forget, eh? http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/special/campfin/players/chung.htm Campaign Finance Key Player: Johnny Chung This profile was compiled from Washington Post and washingtonpost.com staff reports. Click on linked names to read other profiles, or see the full list of key players. Johnny Chung, 43, who delivered a $50,000 campaign contribution to the White House and escorted Chinese businessmen to a presidential radio address, is cooperating with the Justice Department's investigation of finance abuses in the 1996 campaign. From The Post: • Liu's Deals With Chung: An Intercontinental Puzzle, May 24, 1998 • Chung Ties Funds to DNC, May 16, 1998 • Chung Makes Deal With Prosecutors, March 6, 1998 • Staffer Took Donation Inside the White House, March 6, 1997 As part of a plea agreement with federal prosecutors in March, Chung was charged with funneling illegal contributions to the 1996 Clinton-Gore campaign by asking friends and employees of his office technology firm to make donations for which they were later reimbursed. Chung was also charged with engaging in a similar "straw donor" scheme to assist the 1996 reelection bid of Sen. John F. Kerry (D-Mass.). As part of the plea, Chung agreed to cooperate with investigators, and soon told them that Chinese army Lt. Col. Liu Chaoying, an executive with a state-owned aerospace company, gave him $300,000 to donate to the Democrats' 1996 campaign. Chung's allegation – hotly denied by Liu and the Chinese government – is the strongest evidence yet of a direct money trail from the Chinese government to Democratic campaign coffers. In 1996, Liu and Chung attended a Los Angeles fund-raiser where Liu was photographed with Clinton. Chung made at least 49 visits to the White House, despite the fact that a National Security Council official concluded that he was a "hustler" seeking to exploit his friendship with the Clintons to impress Chinese business associates. During one visit to the White House, he handed a $50,000 check to Hillary Rodham Clinton's chief of staff, Margaret A. Williams. Williams accepted the check and passed it along to the DNC, even though federal law bars government employees from accepting campaign contributions on government property. From 1994 to 1996, Chung made 12 personal or corporate donations to the DNC totaling $366,000. The DNC returned all of the money last year, stating that it had "insufficient information" about its origins. And where was the Clinton "lie" in the story? It look more like a case of business as usual for both political parties when it comes to campaign fundraising. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Gravitymaster 0 #41 March 9, 2006 QuoteQuoteI meant, I was responding to the post that said where else would a suspected felon be voted into office. My apologies. The point you keep missing is that politicians from both parties have all kinds of ethic problems and before you start casting stones at one, you better check on the other. Ethics violations have more to do with the character of the individual, rather than that of a Political Party. Would the Washinton Post be an acceptable source for the Johnny Chung "suspected" ethics violations as related to the previous admin? How soon we forget, eh? QuoteAnd where was the Clinton "lie" in the story? It look more like a case of business as usual for both political parties when it comes to campaign fundraising. Don't want to talk about ethics anymore, eh? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kallend 1,649 #42 March 9, 2006 Well, it's established then that both parties have their fill of pond-scum. I find little to choose between pond-scum on the left, pond-scum on the right, or pond-scum in the center. So what can be done about it.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites funjumper101 15 #43 March 9, 2006 QuoteQuoteQuoteI meant, I was responding to the post that said where else would a suspected felon be voted into office. My apologies. The point you keep missing is that politicians from both parties have all kinds of ethic problems and before you start casting stones at one, you better check on the other. Ethics violations have more to do with the character of the individual, rather than that of a Political Party. Would the Washinton Post be an acceptable source for the Johnny Chung "suspected" ethics violations as related to the previous admin? How soon we forget, eh? QuoteAnd where was the Clinton "lie" in the story? It look more like a case of business as usual for both political parties when it comes to campaign fundraising. Don't want to talk about ethics anymore, eh? Here is post # 36 for you again - Begin quoted text >>> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- In Reply To -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- That isn't all clinton lied about -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Examples, please. Please cite the source of your information. The web site, news article, etc <<< end quoted text Please note that warpedskydiver wrote "That isn't all clinton lied about". I asked for specific examples. What was provided was an example of the sleazy and ethically challenged fund raising tactics used by both the Democrats and the Republicans. If you would like to discuss the ethics of political party fundraising we should start up a new thread. Clinton is no hero of mine. He is a scummy dirtbag in his personal life. As far as presidents go he did a pretty good job, overall. If the "Contract on America" had failed he would have done a far better job. Compared to the current adminstration he is one of the best presidents there ever was, hands down. Compare and contrast the relative level of accomplishments between the two. Shrub was born into a rich, politically connected family. He went to the finest schools and had every opportunity to shine as one of America's best and brightest. He hasn't and never will. His accomplishments have all been on the back of his family connections and influence. Clinton was born into modest means. He leveraged a superior intellect and immense personal drive into a first class education (Rhodes scholar) and ended up a two term president against massive opposition. As a human being he has major failings. So do we all. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites JohnRich 4 #44 March 9, 2006 QuoteI'm in Delay's district -- does that give me the right to talk about it? I didn't vote though; I'm saving myself for the ability to sign the gubernatorial petition of either Carole Keaton Strayhorn (I think it's Strayhorn now) or Kinky Friedman. Had I voted, I would have voted in the Republican primary this year just to vote against Delay. But I would have before the indictments, too. He's all about using the power to overpower. There is no thought there of listening to other points of view, compromise, or working with people. As long as he's stronger, he'd rather force you to do what his party wants. And that's not how I want a government to run. None of them is wonderful, but I'd have to say he pretty much exemplifies what I dislike about the power structure in Congress and government in general right now. Fair enough, my dear Wendy. You obviously have actually thought about the issue in detail and articulate good reasons for your point of view. I have no problem with that. That's a far cry above the knee-jerk response: "He's been indicted and therefore he's a crook!" The rest of this is directed at the others whom I've been addressing, and not at you, Wendy. The collective attitude that someone is guilty just because they've been indicted, is probably for more harmful to America than a free golfing trip to Scotland taken by Tom Delay. And I find it shocking how many people are willing to express such a view and condemn a man who has yet to be convicted of anything. There's a saying in the legal profession: "You can indict a ham sandwich." What that means is that an indictment means nothing - you can indict anyone for anything. Proving it is another matter. Some of the original charges brought against Delay have already been dismissed by a Judge. As for the remainder, I'll personally withhold my opinion until I hear the jury verdict. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites rehmwa 2 #45 March 9, 2006 QuoteI find little to choose between pond-scum on the left, pond-scum on the right, or pond-scum in the center. So what can be done about it. fire off small rockets fly around in airplanes argue futile subjects with people you enjoy jump out of airplanes occasionally ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites funjumper101 15 #46 March 9, 2006 [reply That's a far cry above the knee-jerk response: "He's been indicted and therefore he's a crook!" Quote My values indicate that a person with Delay's demonstrated history of questionable ethics and the fact of the current indictment make him unworthy of public service. Your values may differ. It isn't a one off incident. It is a highlight of a long string of ethics violations, capped off with an indicment for conspiracy. Just how bad does a politician have to be before you won't vote for him? If it was an indictment for rape, child molestation, or assault and battery, would you feel the same way? I already proposed this question earlier in the thread. Would still vote for him? By your stated logic, if he hasn't been convicted, you would. That is pretty sad, eh? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kallend 1,649 #47 March 9, 2006 QuoteQuoteI find little to choose between pond-scum on the left, pond-scum on the right, or pond-scum in the center. So what can be done about it. fire off small rockets fly around in airplanes argue futile subjects with people you enjoy jump out of airplanes occasionally Oh, problem solved then.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites champu 1 #48 March 10, 2006 QuoteThe point is, you and your kind have drastically lowered the bar as to what is considered to be acceptable behavior by elected officials. We, the people, need to hold our elected officials to the highest standards of behavior for the system to work. It was not so long ago that being charged with ethics violations was the kiss of death to a political career. An indictment absolutely ended your career. A whiff of this type of behavior got you in trouble, at the very least. That this is no longer the case should be of great concern to every responsible citizen.QuoteIf it was an indictment for rape, child molestation, or assault and battery, would you feel the same way? I already proposed this question earlier in the thread. Would still vote for him? By your stated logic, if he hasn't been convicted, you would. That is pretty sad, eh? I'm having a really difficult time getting my head around your stance on this issue. I understand you think that DeLay is shady, that he has been for some time, and that the negative attention from simply being charged with another ethics crime is but a punctuation mark on his past. That's all well and good, I get it, "If it walks like a duck..." and the like. But forget DeLay for a moment and pay a little closer attention to what you're arguing in a more general sense. It used to be that opponents, the media, or a combination of the two could throw, "A whiff of this type of behavior" at a candidate and stunt his or her career? It no longer is, and that should be of great concern to me? That's dangerous ground. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites SkyDekker 1,147 #49 March 10, 2006 I can't believe that while the US is being run by one of the worst - if not THE worst presidents in recent history....people are still arguing about Clinton. Don't you have bigger problems on your hands? Your government for the first time in history came very close to defaulting on it's debt obligations. Something usually reserved for third world countries.... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites funjumper101 15 #50 March 10, 2006 QuoteQuoteThe point is, you and your kind have drastically lowered the bar as to what is considered to be acceptable behavior by elected officials. We, the people, need to hold our elected officials to the highest standards of behavior for the system to work. It was not so long ago that being charged with ethics violations was the kiss of death to a political career. An indictment absolutely ended your career. A whiff of this type of behavior got you in trouble, at the very least. That this is no longer the case should be of great concern to every responsible citizen.QuoteIf it was an indictment for rape, child molestation, or assault and battery, would you feel the same way? I already proposed this question earlier in the thread. Would still vote for him? By your stated logic, if he hasn't been convicted, you would. That is pretty sad, eh? I'm having a really difficult time getting my head around your stance on this issue. I understand you think that DeLay is shady, that he has been for some time, and that the negative attention from simply being charged with another ethics crime is but a punctuation mark on his past. That's all well and good, I get it, "If it walks like a duck..." and the like. But forget DeLay for a moment and pay a little closer attention to what you're arguing in a more general sense. It used to be that opponents, the media, or a combination of the two could throw, "A whiff of this type of behavior" at a candidate and stunt his or her career? It no longer is, and that should be of great concern to me? That's dangerous ground. Anyone who reads throught the details of the ethics violations the Delay has been censured for should be appalled. He is beyond shady. Why do you feel that it is "dangerous ground" to want to hold all politicians to much higher standards than everyday people are held to? If politicians operate in a moral and ethical way there won't be any scandals. When they don't, and they get caught, they should lose their jobs. When they don't lose their jobs, their behavior is rewarded. Texans take great pride in presenting an image of themselves as upstanding, moral, and ethical people. They are very proud of their state and boast about how great it is and how wonderful the people are. How can people of this caliber keep voting for Delay? It doesn't make any sense. Their standards are that low? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Prev 1 2 3 Next Page 2 of 3 Join the conversation You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account. Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible. Reply to this topic... × Pasted as rich text. Paste as plain text instead Only 75 emoji are allowed. × Your link has been automatically embedded. Display as a link instead × Your previous content has been restored. Clear editor × You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL. Insert image from URL × Desktop Tablet Phone Submit Reply 0 Go To Topic Listing × Sign In Sign Up Forums Dropzones Classifieds Gear Indoor Articles Photos Videos Calendar Stolen Fatalities Leaderboard Activity Back Activity All Activity My Activity Streams Unread Content Content I Started
warpedskydiver 0 #35 March 9, 2006 That isn't all clinton lied about Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
funjumper101 15 #36 March 9, 2006 QuoteThat isn't all clinton lied about Examples, please. Please cite the source of your information. The web site, news article, etc Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
warpedskydiver 0 #37 March 9, 2006 money delivered to the white house personal residence by Johnny Chung a person who when questioned by USDOJ indicated he was ferrying the money for Norinco Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gravitymaster 0 #38 March 9, 2006 I meant, I was responding to the post that said where else would a suspected felon be voted into office. My apologies. The point you keep missing is that politicians from both parties have all kinds of ethic problems and before you start casting stones at one, you better check on the other. Ethics violations have more to do with the character of the individual, rather than that of a Political Party. Would the Washinton Post be an acceptable source for the Johnny Chung "suspected" ethics violations as related to the previous admin? How soon we forget, eh? http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/special/campfin/players/chung.htm Campaign Finance Key Player: Johnny Chung This profile was compiled from Washington Post and washingtonpost.com staff reports. Click on linked names to read other profiles, or see the full list of key players. Johnny Chung, 43, who delivered a $50,000 campaign contribution to the White House and escorted Chinese businessmen to a presidential radio address, is cooperating with the Justice Department's investigation of finance abuses in the 1996 campaign. From The Post: • Liu's Deals With Chung: An Intercontinental Puzzle, May 24, 1998 • Chung Ties Funds to DNC, May 16, 1998 • Chung Makes Deal With Prosecutors, March 6, 1998 • Staffer Took Donation Inside the White House, March 6, 1997 As part of a plea agreement with federal prosecutors in March, Chung was charged with funneling illegal contributions to the 1996 Clinton-Gore campaign by asking friends and employees of his office technology firm to make donations for which they were later reimbursed. Chung was also charged with engaging in a similar "straw donor" scheme to assist the 1996 reelection bid of Sen. John F. Kerry (D-Mass.). As part of the plea, Chung agreed to cooperate with investigators, and soon told them that Chinese army Lt. Col. Liu Chaoying, an executive with a state-owned aerospace company, gave him $300,000 to donate to the Democrats' 1996 campaign. Chung's allegation – hotly denied by Liu and the Chinese government – is the strongest evidence yet of a direct money trail from the Chinese government to Democratic campaign coffers. In 1996, Liu and Chung attended a Los Angeles fund-raiser where Liu was photographed with Clinton. Chung made at least 49 visits to the White House, despite the fact that a National Security Council official concluded that he was a "hustler" seeking to exploit his friendship with the Clintons to impress Chinese business associates. During one visit to the White House, he handed a $50,000 check to Hillary Rodham Clinton's chief of staff, Margaret A. Williams. Williams accepted the check and passed it along to the DNC, even though federal law bars government employees from accepting campaign contributions on government property. From 1994 to 1996, Chung made 12 personal or corporate donations to the DNC totaling $366,000. The DNC returned all of the money last year, stating that it had "insufficient information" about its origins. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #39 March 9, 2006 Quote So, following your line of reasoning, if he was charged with a more heinous crime such as lying about a blow job, you still would have voted for him. Let's all remember the charge was sexual assualt or harassment with Paula Jones. The perjury came up as a result. Quote It was not so long ago that being charged with ethics violations was the kiss of death to a political career. An indictment absolutely ended your career. A whiff of this type of behavior got you in trouble, at the very least. I addressed the Keating 5, funjumper. McCain is running for President. How about a response? How come the past is always viwed with such rosy glasses? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
funjumper101 15 #40 March 9, 2006 QuoteI meant, I was responding to the post that said where else would a suspected felon be voted into office. My apologies. The point you keep missing is that politicians from both parties have all kinds of ethic problems and before you start casting stones at one, you better check on the other. Ethics violations have more to do with the character of the individual, rather than that of a Political Party. Would the Washinton Post be an acceptable source for the Johnny Chung "suspected" ethics violations as related to the previous admin? How soon we forget, eh? http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/special/campfin/players/chung.htm Campaign Finance Key Player: Johnny Chung This profile was compiled from Washington Post and washingtonpost.com staff reports. Click on linked names to read other profiles, or see the full list of key players. Johnny Chung, 43, who delivered a $50,000 campaign contribution to the White House and escorted Chinese businessmen to a presidential radio address, is cooperating with the Justice Department's investigation of finance abuses in the 1996 campaign. From The Post: • Liu's Deals With Chung: An Intercontinental Puzzle, May 24, 1998 • Chung Ties Funds to DNC, May 16, 1998 • Chung Makes Deal With Prosecutors, March 6, 1998 • Staffer Took Donation Inside the White House, March 6, 1997 As part of a plea agreement with federal prosecutors in March, Chung was charged with funneling illegal contributions to the 1996 Clinton-Gore campaign by asking friends and employees of his office technology firm to make donations for which they were later reimbursed. Chung was also charged with engaging in a similar "straw donor" scheme to assist the 1996 reelection bid of Sen. John F. Kerry (D-Mass.). As part of the plea, Chung agreed to cooperate with investigators, and soon told them that Chinese army Lt. Col. Liu Chaoying, an executive with a state-owned aerospace company, gave him $300,000 to donate to the Democrats' 1996 campaign. Chung's allegation – hotly denied by Liu and the Chinese government – is the strongest evidence yet of a direct money trail from the Chinese government to Democratic campaign coffers. In 1996, Liu and Chung attended a Los Angeles fund-raiser where Liu was photographed with Clinton. Chung made at least 49 visits to the White House, despite the fact that a National Security Council official concluded that he was a "hustler" seeking to exploit his friendship with the Clintons to impress Chinese business associates. During one visit to the White House, he handed a $50,000 check to Hillary Rodham Clinton's chief of staff, Margaret A. Williams. Williams accepted the check and passed it along to the DNC, even though federal law bars government employees from accepting campaign contributions on government property. From 1994 to 1996, Chung made 12 personal or corporate donations to the DNC totaling $366,000. The DNC returned all of the money last year, stating that it had "insufficient information" about its origins. And where was the Clinton "lie" in the story? It look more like a case of business as usual for both political parties when it comes to campaign fundraising. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gravitymaster 0 #41 March 9, 2006 QuoteQuoteI meant, I was responding to the post that said where else would a suspected felon be voted into office. My apologies. The point you keep missing is that politicians from both parties have all kinds of ethic problems and before you start casting stones at one, you better check on the other. Ethics violations have more to do with the character of the individual, rather than that of a Political Party. Would the Washinton Post be an acceptable source for the Johnny Chung "suspected" ethics violations as related to the previous admin? How soon we forget, eh? QuoteAnd where was the Clinton "lie" in the story? It look more like a case of business as usual for both political parties when it comes to campaign fundraising. Don't want to talk about ethics anymore, eh? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kallend 1,649 #42 March 9, 2006 Well, it's established then that both parties have their fill of pond-scum. I find little to choose between pond-scum on the left, pond-scum on the right, or pond-scum in the center. So what can be done about it.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites funjumper101 15 #43 March 9, 2006 QuoteQuoteQuoteI meant, I was responding to the post that said where else would a suspected felon be voted into office. My apologies. The point you keep missing is that politicians from both parties have all kinds of ethic problems and before you start casting stones at one, you better check on the other. Ethics violations have more to do with the character of the individual, rather than that of a Political Party. Would the Washinton Post be an acceptable source for the Johnny Chung "suspected" ethics violations as related to the previous admin? How soon we forget, eh? QuoteAnd where was the Clinton "lie" in the story? It look more like a case of business as usual for both political parties when it comes to campaign fundraising. Don't want to talk about ethics anymore, eh? Here is post # 36 for you again - Begin quoted text >>> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- In Reply To -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- That isn't all clinton lied about -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Examples, please. Please cite the source of your information. The web site, news article, etc <<< end quoted text Please note that warpedskydiver wrote "That isn't all clinton lied about". I asked for specific examples. What was provided was an example of the sleazy and ethically challenged fund raising tactics used by both the Democrats and the Republicans. If you would like to discuss the ethics of political party fundraising we should start up a new thread. Clinton is no hero of mine. He is a scummy dirtbag in his personal life. As far as presidents go he did a pretty good job, overall. If the "Contract on America" had failed he would have done a far better job. Compared to the current adminstration he is one of the best presidents there ever was, hands down. Compare and contrast the relative level of accomplishments between the two. Shrub was born into a rich, politically connected family. He went to the finest schools and had every opportunity to shine as one of America's best and brightest. He hasn't and never will. His accomplishments have all been on the back of his family connections and influence. Clinton was born into modest means. He leveraged a superior intellect and immense personal drive into a first class education (Rhodes scholar) and ended up a two term president against massive opposition. As a human being he has major failings. So do we all. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites JohnRich 4 #44 March 9, 2006 QuoteI'm in Delay's district -- does that give me the right to talk about it? I didn't vote though; I'm saving myself for the ability to sign the gubernatorial petition of either Carole Keaton Strayhorn (I think it's Strayhorn now) or Kinky Friedman. Had I voted, I would have voted in the Republican primary this year just to vote against Delay. But I would have before the indictments, too. He's all about using the power to overpower. There is no thought there of listening to other points of view, compromise, or working with people. As long as he's stronger, he'd rather force you to do what his party wants. And that's not how I want a government to run. None of them is wonderful, but I'd have to say he pretty much exemplifies what I dislike about the power structure in Congress and government in general right now. Fair enough, my dear Wendy. You obviously have actually thought about the issue in detail and articulate good reasons for your point of view. I have no problem with that. That's a far cry above the knee-jerk response: "He's been indicted and therefore he's a crook!" The rest of this is directed at the others whom I've been addressing, and not at you, Wendy. The collective attitude that someone is guilty just because they've been indicted, is probably for more harmful to America than a free golfing trip to Scotland taken by Tom Delay. And I find it shocking how many people are willing to express such a view and condemn a man who has yet to be convicted of anything. There's a saying in the legal profession: "You can indict a ham sandwich." What that means is that an indictment means nothing - you can indict anyone for anything. Proving it is another matter. Some of the original charges brought against Delay have already been dismissed by a Judge. As for the remainder, I'll personally withhold my opinion until I hear the jury verdict. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites rehmwa 2 #45 March 9, 2006 QuoteI find little to choose between pond-scum on the left, pond-scum on the right, or pond-scum in the center. So what can be done about it. fire off small rockets fly around in airplanes argue futile subjects with people you enjoy jump out of airplanes occasionally ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites funjumper101 15 #46 March 9, 2006 [reply That's a far cry above the knee-jerk response: "He's been indicted and therefore he's a crook!" Quote My values indicate that a person with Delay's demonstrated history of questionable ethics and the fact of the current indictment make him unworthy of public service. Your values may differ. It isn't a one off incident. It is a highlight of a long string of ethics violations, capped off with an indicment for conspiracy. Just how bad does a politician have to be before you won't vote for him? If it was an indictment for rape, child molestation, or assault and battery, would you feel the same way? I already proposed this question earlier in the thread. Would still vote for him? By your stated logic, if he hasn't been convicted, you would. That is pretty sad, eh? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kallend 1,649 #47 March 9, 2006 QuoteQuoteI find little to choose between pond-scum on the left, pond-scum on the right, or pond-scum in the center. So what can be done about it. fire off small rockets fly around in airplanes argue futile subjects with people you enjoy jump out of airplanes occasionally Oh, problem solved then.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites champu 1 #48 March 10, 2006 QuoteThe point is, you and your kind have drastically lowered the bar as to what is considered to be acceptable behavior by elected officials. We, the people, need to hold our elected officials to the highest standards of behavior for the system to work. It was not so long ago that being charged with ethics violations was the kiss of death to a political career. An indictment absolutely ended your career. A whiff of this type of behavior got you in trouble, at the very least. That this is no longer the case should be of great concern to every responsible citizen.QuoteIf it was an indictment for rape, child molestation, or assault and battery, would you feel the same way? I already proposed this question earlier in the thread. Would still vote for him? By your stated logic, if he hasn't been convicted, you would. That is pretty sad, eh? I'm having a really difficult time getting my head around your stance on this issue. I understand you think that DeLay is shady, that he has been for some time, and that the negative attention from simply being charged with another ethics crime is but a punctuation mark on his past. That's all well and good, I get it, "If it walks like a duck..." and the like. But forget DeLay for a moment and pay a little closer attention to what you're arguing in a more general sense. It used to be that opponents, the media, or a combination of the two could throw, "A whiff of this type of behavior" at a candidate and stunt his or her career? It no longer is, and that should be of great concern to me? That's dangerous ground. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites SkyDekker 1,147 #49 March 10, 2006 I can't believe that while the US is being run by one of the worst - if not THE worst presidents in recent history....people are still arguing about Clinton. Don't you have bigger problems on your hands? Your government for the first time in history came very close to defaulting on it's debt obligations. Something usually reserved for third world countries.... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites funjumper101 15 #50 March 10, 2006 QuoteQuoteThe point is, you and your kind have drastically lowered the bar as to what is considered to be acceptable behavior by elected officials. We, the people, need to hold our elected officials to the highest standards of behavior for the system to work. It was not so long ago that being charged with ethics violations was the kiss of death to a political career. An indictment absolutely ended your career. A whiff of this type of behavior got you in trouble, at the very least. That this is no longer the case should be of great concern to every responsible citizen.QuoteIf it was an indictment for rape, child molestation, or assault and battery, would you feel the same way? I already proposed this question earlier in the thread. Would still vote for him? By your stated logic, if he hasn't been convicted, you would. That is pretty sad, eh? I'm having a really difficult time getting my head around your stance on this issue. I understand you think that DeLay is shady, that he has been for some time, and that the negative attention from simply being charged with another ethics crime is but a punctuation mark on his past. That's all well and good, I get it, "If it walks like a duck..." and the like. But forget DeLay for a moment and pay a little closer attention to what you're arguing in a more general sense. It used to be that opponents, the media, or a combination of the two could throw, "A whiff of this type of behavior" at a candidate and stunt his or her career? It no longer is, and that should be of great concern to me? That's dangerous ground. Anyone who reads throught the details of the ethics violations the Delay has been censured for should be appalled. He is beyond shady. Why do you feel that it is "dangerous ground" to want to hold all politicians to much higher standards than everyday people are held to? If politicians operate in a moral and ethical way there won't be any scandals. When they don't, and they get caught, they should lose their jobs. When they don't lose their jobs, their behavior is rewarded. Texans take great pride in presenting an image of themselves as upstanding, moral, and ethical people. They are very proud of their state and boast about how great it is and how wonderful the people are. How can people of this caliber keep voting for Delay? It doesn't make any sense. Their standards are that low? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Prev 1 2 3 Next Page 2 of 3 Join the conversation You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account. Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible. Reply to this topic... × Pasted as rich text. Paste as plain text instead Only 75 emoji are allowed. × Your link has been automatically embedded. Display as a link instead × Your previous content has been restored. Clear editor × You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL. Insert image from URL × Desktop Tablet Phone Submit Reply 0 Go To Topic Listing
kallend 1,649 #42 March 9, 2006 Well, it's established then that both parties have their fill of pond-scum. I find little to choose between pond-scum on the left, pond-scum on the right, or pond-scum in the center. So what can be done about it.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
funjumper101 15 #43 March 9, 2006 QuoteQuoteQuoteI meant, I was responding to the post that said where else would a suspected felon be voted into office. My apologies. The point you keep missing is that politicians from both parties have all kinds of ethic problems and before you start casting stones at one, you better check on the other. Ethics violations have more to do with the character of the individual, rather than that of a Political Party. Would the Washinton Post be an acceptable source for the Johnny Chung "suspected" ethics violations as related to the previous admin? How soon we forget, eh? QuoteAnd where was the Clinton "lie" in the story? It look more like a case of business as usual for both political parties when it comes to campaign fundraising. Don't want to talk about ethics anymore, eh? Here is post # 36 for you again - Begin quoted text >>> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- In Reply To -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- That isn't all clinton lied about -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Examples, please. Please cite the source of your information. The web site, news article, etc <<< end quoted text Please note that warpedskydiver wrote "That isn't all clinton lied about". I asked for specific examples. What was provided was an example of the sleazy and ethically challenged fund raising tactics used by both the Democrats and the Republicans. If you would like to discuss the ethics of political party fundraising we should start up a new thread. Clinton is no hero of mine. He is a scummy dirtbag in his personal life. As far as presidents go he did a pretty good job, overall. If the "Contract on America" had failed he would have done a far better job. Compared to the current adminstration he is one of the best presidents there ever was, hands down. Compare and contrast the relative level of accomplishments between the two. Shrub was born into a rich, politically connected family. He went to the finest schools and had every opportunity to shine as one of America's best and brightest. He hasn't and never will. His accomplishments have all been on the back of his family connections and influence. Clinton was born into modest means. He leveraged a superior intellect and immense personal drive into a first class education (Rhodes scholar) and ended up a two term president against massive opposition. As a human being he has major failings. So do we all. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites JohnRich 4 #44 March 9, 2006 QuoteI'm in Delay's district -- does that give me the right to talk about it? I didn't vote though; I'm saving myself for the ability to sign the gubernatorial petition of either Carole Keaton Strayhorn (I think it's Strayhorn now) or Kinky Friedman. Had I voted, I would have voted in the Republican primary this year just to vote against Delay. But I would have before the indictments, too. He's all about using the power to overpower. There is no thought there of listening to other points of view, compromise, or working with people. As long as he's stronger, he'd rather force you to do what his party wants. And that's not how I want a government to run. None of them is wonderful, but I'd have to say he pretty much exemplifies what I dislike about the power structure in Congress and government in general right now. Fair enough, my dear Wendy. You obviously have actually thought about the issue in detail and articulate good reasons for your point of view. I have no problem with that. That's a far cry above the knee-jerk response: "He's been indicted and therefore he's a crook!" The rest of this is directed at the others whom I've been addressing, and not at you, Wendy. The collective attitude that someone is guilty just because they've been indicted, is probably for more harmful to America than a free golfing trip to Scotland taken by Tom Delay. And I find it shocking how many people are willing to express such a view and condemn a man who has yet to be convicted of anything. There's a saying in the legal profession: "You can indict a ham sandwich." What that means is that an indictment means nothing - you can indict anyone for anything. Proving it is another matter. Some of the original charges brought against Delay have already been dismissed by a Judge. As for the remainder, I'll personally withhold my opinion until I hear the jury verdict. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites rehmwa 2 #45 March 9, 2006 QuoteI find little to choose between pond-scum on the left, pond-scum on the right, or pond-scum in the center. So what can be done about it. fire off small rockets fly around in airplanes argue futile subjects with people you enjoy jump out of airplanes occasionally ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites funjumper101 15 #46 March 9, 2006 [reply That's a far cry above the knee-jerk response: "He's been indicted and therefore he's a crook!" Quote My values indicate that a person with Delay's demonstrated history of questionable ethics and the fact of the current indictment make him unworthy of public service. Your values may differ. It isn't a one off incident. It is a highlight of a long string of ethics violations, capped off with an indicment for conspiracy. Just how bad does a politician have to be before you won't vote for him? If it was an indictment for rape, child molestation, or assault and battery, would you feel the same way? I already proposed this question earlier in the thread. Would still vote for him? By your stated logic, if he hasn't been convicted, you would. That is pretty sad, eh? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kallend 1,649 #47 March 9, 2006 QuoteQuoteI find little to choose between pond-scum on the left, pond-scum on the right, or pond-scum in the center. So what can be done about it. fire off small rockets fly around in airplanes argue futile subjects with people you enjoy jump out of airplanes occasionally Oh, problem solved then.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites champu 1 #48 March 10, 2006 QuoteThe point is, you and your kind have drastically lowered the bar as to what is considered to be acceptable behavior by elected officials. We, the people, need to hold our elected officials to the highest standards of behavior for the system to work. It was not so long ago that being charged with ethics violations was the kiss of death to a political career. An indictment absolutely ended your career. A whiff of this type of behavior got you in trouble, at the very least. That this is no longer the case should be of great concern to every responsible citizen.QuoteIf it was an indictment for rape, child molestation, or assault and battery, would you feel the same way? I already proposed this question earlier in the thread. Would still vote for him? By your stated logic, if he hasn't been convicted, you would. That is pretty sad, eh? I'm having a really difficult time getting my head around your stance on this issue. I understand you think that DeLay is shady, that he has been for some time, and that the negative attention from simply being charged with another ethics crime is but a punctuation mark on his past. That's all well and good, I get it, "If it walks like a duck..." and the like. But forget DeLay for a moment and pay a little closer attention to what you're arguing in a more general sense. It used to be that opponents, the media, or a combination of the two could throw, "A whiff of this type of behavior" at a candidate and stunt his or her career? It no longer is, and that should be of great concern to me? That's dangerous ground. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites SkyDekker 1,147 #49 March 10, 2006 I can't believe that while the US is being run by one of the worst - if not THE worst presidents in recent history....people are still arguing about Clinton. Don't you have bigger problems on your hands? Your government for the first time in history came very close to defaulting on it's debt obligations. Something usually reserved for third world countries.... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites funjumper101 15 #50 March 10, 2006 QuoteQuoteThe point is, you and your kind have drastically lowered the bar as to what is considered to be acceptable behavior by elected officials. We, the people, need to hold our elected officials to the highest standards of behavior for the system to work. It was not so long ago that being charged with ethics violations was the kiss of death to a political career. An indictment absolutely ended your career. A whiff of this type of behavior got you in trouble, at the very least. That this is no longer the case should be of great concern to every responsible citizen.QuoteIf it was an indictment for rape, child molestation, or assault and battery, would you feel the same way? I already proposed this question earlier in the thread. Would still vote for him? By your stated logic, if he hasn't been convicted, you would. That is pretty sad, eh? I'm having a really difficult time getting my head around your stance on this issue. I understand you think that DeLay is shady, that he has been for some time, and that the negative attention from simply being charged with another ethics crime is but a punctuation mark on his past. That's all well and good, I get it, "If it walks like a duck..." and the like. But forget DeLay for a moment and pay a little closer attention to what you're arguing in a more general sense. It used to be that opponents, the media, or a combination of the two could throw, "A whiff of this type of behavior" at a candidate and stunt his or her career? It no longer is, and that should be of great concern to me? That's dangerous ground. Anyone who reads throught the details of the ethics violations the Delay has been censured for should be appalled. He is beyond shady. Why do you feel that it is "dangerous ground" to want to hold all politicians to much higher standards than everyday people are held to? If politicians operate in a moral and ethical way there won't be any scandals. When they don't, and they get caught, they should lose their jobs. When they don't lose their jobs, their behavior is rewarded. Texans take great pride in presenting an image of themselves as upstanding, moral, and ethical people. They are very proud of their state and boast about how great it is and how wonderful the people are. How can people of this caliber keep voting for Delay? It doesn't make any sense. Their standards are that low? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Prev 1 2 3 Next Page 2 of 3 Join the conversation You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account. Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible. Reply to this topic... × Pasted as rich text. Paste as plain text instead Only 75 emoji are allowed. × Your link has been automatically embedded. Display as a link instead × Your previous content has been restored. Clear editor × You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL. Insert image from URL × Desktop Tablet Phone Submit Reply 0 Go To Topic Listing
JohnRich 4 #44 March 9, 2006 QuoteI'm in Delay's district -- does that give me the right to talk about it? I didn't vote though; I'm saving myself for the ability to sign the gubernatorial petition of either Carole Keaton Strayhorn (I think it's Strayhorn now) or Kinky Friedman. Had I voted, I would have voted in the Republican primary this year just to vote against Delay. But I would have before the indictments, too. He's all about using the power to overpower. There is no thought there of listening to other points of view, compromise, or working with people. As long as he's stronger, he'd rather force you to do what his party wants. And that's not how I want a government to run. None of them is wonderful, but I'd have to say he pretty much exemplifies what I dislike about the power structure in Congress and government in general right now. Fair enough, my dear Wendy. You obviously have actually thought about the issue in detail and articulate good reasons for your point of view. I have no problem with that. That's a far cry above the knee-jerk response: "He's been indicted and therefore he's a crook!" The rest of this is directed at the others whom I've been addressing, and not at you, Wendy. The collective attitude that someone is guilty just because they've been indicted, is probably for more harmful to America than a free golfing trip to Scotland taken by Tom Delay. And I find it shocking how many people are willing to express such a view and condemn a man who has yet to be convicted of anything. There's a saying in the legal profession: "You can indict a ham sandwich." What that means is that an indictment means nothing - you can indict anyone for anything. Proving it is another matter. Some of the original charges brought against Delay have already been dismissed by a Judge. As for the remainder, I'll personally withhold my opinion until I hear the jury verdict. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rehmwa 2 #45 March 9, 2006 QuoteI find little to choose between pond-scum on the left, pond-scum on the right, or pond-scum in the center. So what can be done about it. fire off small rockets fly around in airplanes argue futile subjects with people you enjoy jump out of airplanes occasionally ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
funjumper101 15 #46 March 9, 2006 [reply That's a far cry above the knee-jerk response: "He's been indicted and therefore he's a crook!" Quote My values indicate that a person with Delay's demonstrated history of questionable ethics and the fact of the current indictment make him unworthy of public service. Your values may differ. It isn't a one off incident. It is a highlight of a long string of ethics violations, capped off with an indicment for conspiracy. Just how bad does a politician have to be before you won't vote for him? If it was an indictment for rape, child molestation, or assault and battery, would you feel the same way? I already proposed this question earlier in the thread. Would still vote for him? By your stated logic, if he hasn't been convicted, you would. That is pretty sad, eh? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kallend 1,649 #47 March 9, 2006 QuoteQuoteI find little to choose between pond-scum on the left, pond-scum on the right, or pond-scum in the center. So what can be done about it. fire off small rockets fly around in airplanes argue futile subjects with people you enjoy jump out of airplanes occasionally Oh, problem solved then.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites champu 1 #48 March 10, 2006 QuoteThe point is, you and your kind have drastically lowered the bar as to what is considered to be acceptable behavior by elected officials. We, the people, need to hold our elected officials to the highest standards of behavior for the system to work. It was not so long ago that being charged with ethics violations was the kiss of death to a political career. An indictment absolutely ended your career. A whiff of this type of behavior got you in trouble, at the very least. That this is no longer the case should be of great concern to every responsible citizen.QuoteIf it was an indictment for rape, child molestation, or assault and battery, would you feel the same way? I already proposed this question earlier in the thread. Would still vote for him? By your stated logic, if he hasn't been convicted, you would. That is pretty sad, eh? I'm having a really difficult time getting my head around your stance on this issue. I understand you think that DeLay is shady, that he has been for some time, and that the negative attention from simply being charged with another ethics crime is but a punctuation mark on his past. That's all well and good, I get it, "If it walks like a duck..." and the like. But forget DeLay for a moment and pay a little closer attention to what you're arguing in a more general sense. It used to be that opponents, the media, or a combination of the two could throw, "A whiff of this type of behavior" at a candidate and stunt his or her career? It no longer is, and that should be of great concern to me? That's dangerous ground. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites SkyDekker 1,147 #49 March 10, 2006 I can't believe that while the US is being run by one of the worst - if not THE worst presidents in recent history....people are still arguing about Clinton. Don't you have bigger problems on your hands? Your government for the first time in history came very close to defaulting on it's debt obligations. Something usually reserved for third world countries.... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites funjumper101 15 #50 March 10, 2006 QuoteQuoteThe point is, you and your kind have drastically lowered the bar as to what is considered to be acceptable behavior by elected officials. We, the people, need to hold our elected officials to the highest standards of behavior for the system to work. It was not so long ago that being charged with ethics violations was the kiss of death to a political career. An indictment absolutely ended your career. A whiff of this type of behavior got you in trouble, at the very least. That this is no longer the case should be of great concern to every responsible citizen.QuoteIf it was an indictment for rape, child molestation, or assault and battery, would you feel the same way? I already proposed this question earlier in the thread. Would still vote for him? By your stated logic, if he hasn't been convicted, you would. That is pretty sad, eh? I'm having a really difficult time getting my head around your stance on this issue. I understand you think that DeLay is shady, that he has been for some time, and that the negative attention from simply being charged with another ethics crime is but a punctuation mark on his past. That's all well and good, I get it, "If it walks like a duck..." and the like. But forget DeLay for a moment and pay a little closer attention to what you're arguing in a more general sense. It used to be that opponents, the media, or a combination of the two could throw, "A whiff of this type of behavior" at a candidate and stunt his or her career? It no longer is, and that should be of great concern to me? That's dangerous ground. Anyone who reads throught the details of the ethics violations the Delay has been censured for should be appalled. He is beyond shady. Why do you feel that it is "dangerous ground" to want to hold all politicians to much higher standards than everyday people are held to? If politicians operate in a moral and ethical way there won't be any scandals. When they don't, and they get caught, they should lose their jobs. When they don't lose their jobs, their behavior is rewarded. Texans take great pride in presenting an image of themselves as upstanding, moral, and ethical people. They are very proud of their state and boast about how great it is and how wonderful the people are. How can people of this caliber keep voting for Delay? It doesn't make any sense. Their standards are that low? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Prev 1 2 3 Next Page 2 of 3 Join the conversation You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account. Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible. Reply to this topic... × Pasted as rich text. Paste as plain text instead Only 75 emoji are allowed. × Your link has been automatically embedded. Display as a link instead × Your previous content has been restored. Clear editor × You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL. Insert image from URL × Desktop Tablet Phone Submit Reply 0
kallend 1,649 #47 March 9, 2006 QuoteQuoteI find little to choose between pond-scum on the left, pond-scum on the right, or pond-scum in the center. So what can be done about it. fire off small rockets fly around in airplanes argue futile subjects with people you enjoy jump out of airplanes occasionally Oh, problem solved then.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
champu 1 #48 March 10, 2006 QuoteThe point is, you and your kind have drastically lowered the bar as to what is considered to be acceptable behavior by elected officials. We, the people, need to hold our elected officials to the highest standards of behavior for the system to work. It was not so long ago that being charged with ethics violations was the kiss of death to a political career. An indictment absolutely ended your career. A whiff of this type of behavior got you in trouble, at the very least. That this is no longer the case should be of great concern to every responsible citizen.QuoteIf it was an indictment for rape, child molestation, or assault and battery, would you feel the same way? I already proposed this question earlier in the thread. Would still vote for him? By your stated logic, if he hasn't been convicted, you would. That is pretty sad, eh? I'm having a really difficult time getting my head around your stance on this issue. I understand you think that DeLay is shady, that he has been for some time, and that the negative attention from simply being charged with another ethics crime is but a punctuation mark on his past. That's all well and good, I get it, "If it walks like a duck..." and the like. But forget DeLay for a moment and pay a little closer attention to what you're arguing in a more general sense. It used to be that opponents, the media, or a combination of the two could throw, "A whiff of this type of behavior" at a candidate and stunt his or her career? It no longer is, and that should be of great concern to me? That's dangerous ground. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SkyDekker 1,147 #49 March 10, 2006 I can't believe that while the US is being run by one of the worst - if not THE worst presidents in recent history....people are still arguing about Clinton. Don't you have bigger problems on your hands? Your government for the first time in history came very close to defaulting on it's debt obligations. Something usually reserved for third world countries.... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
funjumper101 15 #50 March 10, 2006 QuoteQuoteThe point is, you and your kind have drastically lowered the bar as to what is considered to be acceptable behavior by elected officials. We, the people, need to hold our elected officials to the highest standards of behavior for the system to work. It was not so long ago that being charged with ethics violations was the kiss of death to a political career. An indictment absolutely ended your career. A whiff of this type of behavior got you in trouble, at the very least. That this is no longer the case should be of great concern to every responsible citizen.QuoteIf it was an indictment for rape, child molestation, or assault and battery, would you feel the same way? I already proposed this question earlier in the thread. Would still vote for him? By your stated logic, if he hasn't been convicted, you would. That is pretty sad, eh? I'm having a really difficult time getting my head around your stance on this issue. I understand you think that DeLay is shady, that he has been for some time, and that the negative attention from simply being charged with another ethics crime is but a punctuation mark on his past. That's all well and good, I get it, "If it walks like a duck..." and the like. But forget DeLay for a moment and pay a little closer attention to what you're arguing in a more general sense. It used to be that opponents, the media, or a combination of the two could throw, "A whiff of this type of behavior" at a candidate and stunt his or her career? It no longer is, and that should be of great concern to me? That's dangerous ground. Anyone who reads throught the details of the ethics violations the Delay has been censured for should be appalled. He is beyond shady. Why do you feel that it is "dangerous ground" to want to hold all politicians to much higher standards than everyday people are held to? If politicians operate in a moral and ethical way there won't be any scandals. When they don't, and they get caught, they should lose their jobs. When they don't lose their jobs, their behavior is rewarded. Texans take great pride in presenting an image of themselves as upstanding, moral, and ethical people. They are very proud of their state and boast about how great it is and how wonderful the people are. How can people of this caliber keep voting for Delay? It doesn't make any sense. Their standards are that low? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
