DIRTY HARRY........BUSTED!

Someone famous said “The more a person talks about his honesty,the faster I count the silver in my pocket”.

That seems to be the story with Democratic Senate Minority leader Harry Reid who took free tickets to boxing matches then comes up with a flimsy excuse justifying his actions.

He said he attended the matches in order to do "research " on proposed legislation regulating boxing...an important industry in his home state of Nevada.

Gosh,what would have happened if he had to do research on proposed legislation that would regulate the state's prostitution industry....would that be free too?

Reid,who doesn't turn down an opportunity to bash Republicans..seems to have gotten caught with his hands down the trunks of a dirty industry.

On the other hand,John McCain (R) Arizona coughed up $1400 for the fight tickets,and Senator John Ensign (R) Nevada who also got free tickets, at least abstained on the voting.

So,this guy seems to be in cahoots with one dirty industry..boxing...and based on his dancing with various tribes on another issue...gambling...may be in cahoots with another.

So much for the corruption free Democratic Party.

Maybe Congressman Jefferson should tell him that the next time someone gives him something for nothing,whatever he does,don't stick it in the freezer!

Posted by Sicilian Eagle at May 30, 2006 4:02 PM
Comments
Comment #152699

This is funny on Harry Reid.

The Dem strategy on corruption is falling apart. They should have waited until closer to the election before starting it. Too much time to find Dem crooks.

BTW - I personally don’t think Reid is a crook. BUT I also don’t think most Republicans are either. We are dealing with perceptions her and Republicans are about to neutralize this issue.

Posted by: Jack at May 30, 2006 4:18 PM
Comment #152706

Jack

Really?Check this out…a whole bunch for ya!

link text

Posted by: sicilianeagle at May 30, 2006 4:24 PM
Comment #152709

For the other side of the story: apparently, nothing Ried did was actually against Senate rules (you might not like them these rules, but then how long have Repubs been in charge of establishing the rules)? Also, Paul Kiel says that actually Reid voted against the bill he was supposedly paid off to favor, and noted that the last Reid “scandal” breached by this reporter had a similar flavor - no trace of a “quid pro quo” in the Reid’s voting record.

Posted by: William Cohen at May 30, 2006 4:29 PM
Comment #152715

William

I am sure you are right. Just the same as happens to many Republicans. This whole culture of corruption thing was overblown (or at least it was bipartisan). Dems have now tripped over their own feet and it will not be a significant factor in November’s elections, or at least for every Dem charge Republicans can mention the cold cash of Jefferson or the knocked cold or Reid.

Posted by: Jack at May 30, 2006 4:37 PM
Comment #152725

Sic Eagle:
“Dems have now tripped over their own feet and it will not be a significant factor in November’s elections,”

You’ve got to be kidding. These enormous corruption scandals concerning Cunningham, Hookergate, Delay and Abramoff are supposed to somehow equate with a single totally crooked Democrat who is being denounced by his party, and Harry Reid taking tickets to a few boxing matches, and then voting against?
Hilarious.
While Dems may have a very sore stubbed toe, the GOP is suffering from massive injuries and horrific hemorrhaging which will keep them totally out of the game for a long, l-o-n-g time to come.

Posted by: Adrienne at May 30, 2006 5:02 PM
Comment #152733


Adrienne

Really?This one will getcha then!


link text

Posted by: sicilianeagle at May 30, 2006 5:13 PM
Comment #152735

Adrienne

I take not joy in saying this (well maybe I do) but it no longer matters. We won this one. Any Republican can create enough doubt about Dems to negate the culture of corruption crap. Partisans will continue to believe what they want, but I doubt most Dems will make it a central part of their strategies, as they seemed set to do only weeks ago.

Posted by: Jack at May 30, 2006 5:16 PM
Comment #152737

Mighty Eagle
Don’t you know the rules by now?
1. It’s not as bad as what the Reps have done.
2. The crimes are worse because they ARE Republicans.

BOTH sides are corrupt and anyone saying one is moreso than the other is a partisan hack.
I just think the Democrats are better at it. I mean, who else would have been wise enough to use a freezer to hide money or the White House to hide documents.

Thank god they are there to tell us how to live our lives.

Posted by: kctim at May 30, 2006 5:25 PM
Comment #152740

Sic Eagle:
“This one will getcha then!”

A Neocon website called noagenda.org? Nah, that doesn’t deserve any sort of a reaction — well, except to remind folks that Neocons always mean the opposite of what they really mean. So, noagenda.org should probably be called bigbadagenda.org.

Jack:
“Any Republican can create enough doubt about Dems to negate the culture of corruption crap.”

But, the enormous problem for the GOP is that too many are no longer in doubt about you guys at this point in time. Everybody already KNOWS how corrupt your party has been.

Btw, sorry I attributed your previous quote to the Sic Eagle.

Posted by: Adrienne at May 30, 2006 5:33 PM
Comment #152743

Whoops. That should have been:
“Neocons always SAY the opposite of what they really mean. So, noagenda.org should probably be called bigbadagenda.org.”

Posted by: Adrienne at May 30, 2006 5:35 PM
Comment #152744

kctim:
“Thank god they are there to tell us how to live our lives.”

Well, we don’t want to tell you how to live Tim, but you are indeed very lucky that there were Democrats in days gone by that fought for the rights you enjoy today. Not that you appreciate that, or any other thing we continue to fight for on behalf of all Americans today.

Posted by: Adrienne at May 30, 2006 5:39 PM
Comment #152747

Whatever! The dems are “fighting for our rights” with no ideas and no agenda; except (of course) if you call name calling the Repubs and bashing Bush every chance they get an agenda.


There’s no way we can turn over this country to the Dems; I mean, the Repubs aren’t doing a good job, yet the Dems are just plain worthless and can’t be trusted. At All!!

Posted by: rahdigly at May 30, 2006 5:45 PM
Comment #152750

Harry’s responses in the newspaper were the perfect storm of liberal answers. “He believed” there was no problem and “he felt” no undue attempt at influence. Typical elitist I’m smarter then they are nonsense. Repubs are held to his and Nancy’s standard of staying away from an appearance of impropriety, they, because of their intellect, their “understanding” are above it all! How does he feel about those across the aisle from him? Why, It’s the culture of corruption! Nobody wins a mudslinging campaign while they are wallowing in the mire.

Posted by: JR at May 30, 2006 5:51 PM
Comment #152754

“Nobody wins a mudslinging campaign while they are wallowing in the mire.”

Exactly my point. The nasty, mudslinging party of Karl Rove and “Family Values” is basically toast. Hoisted on their own petard.

Posted by: Adrienne at May 30, 2006 5:57 PM
Comment #152764

To All Republicans:

The term quid pro quo implies payment for services rendered.

Perhaps you all can enlighten us on what services Harry Reid did in exchange?

As Tom DeLay will tell you, its only bribery if its reciprocated.


Posted by: Aldous at May 30, 2006 6:18 PM
Comment #152765

“There’s no way we can turn over this country to the Dems; I mean, the Repubs aren’t doing a good job, yet the Dems are just plain worthless and can’t be trusted. At All!!”

I think Democrats can be trusted not to shred the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. Or sit and stare into space when a terrorist attack on American soil occurs. Or start wars on lies. Or spend so much money, but not make the country more secure from the risk of terrorist attack. Or say “dead or alive” but not really mean it when it comes to Bin Laden. Or wage war so ineptly, clumsily or stupidly. Or spend us into bankruptcy. Or allow corporations and their lobbyists to write (or buy) important legislation. Or avoid talking to the press. Or plant fake news reporters to ask fake questions. Or consider paperless touchscreen voting machines that can be easily hacked in about a minute flat a fair and accountable way to have elections. Or… well, you get the idea.
Clearly, Democrats can run the country far, far better than the GOP has been. Indeed, no party could possibly do any worse!

Posted by: Adrienne at May 30, 2006 6:19 PM
Comment #152766

“Adrienne

I take not joy in saying this (well maybe I do) but it no longer matters. We won this one. Any Republican can create enough doubt about Dems to negate the culture of corruption crap. Partisans will continue to believe what they want, but I doubt most Dems will make it a central part of their strategies, as they seemed set to do only weeks ago.

Posted by: Jack at May 30, 2006 05:16 PM “

You very funny man, Jack. Seeing DeLay’s mugshot and Karl Rove walk in court for the nth time is something people won’t forget. Smear all you want but its the GOP BigWigs going to jail.

Posted by: Aldous at May 30, 2006 6:32 PM
Comment #152773

Aldous

The only polls that count are those in November. We will see how it plays then.

Posted by: Jack at May 30, 2006 6:47 PM
Comment #152787

Here we go again. The blues are saying, ‘it may be bad but what the reds did was much worse.’ Bad is still bad.
This is the MAIN reason that this nation needs a 3rd party that can make a difference.


“I think Democrats can be trusted not to shred the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.”
Posted by Adrienne at May 30, 2006 06:19 PM

No…they just twist the meanings and use the term, ‘this is what our founding fathers actually meant by this..’ OR ‘if our founding fathers were alive today they would’ve worded this to mean…’

The dems are no different. They just use a different ‘language’.

Posted by: bug at May 30, 2006 7:31 PM
Comment #152790

So this is what we’ve earned.
Both sides are now out to prove that my corruption is better than your corruption.
Have we traded all of our principles in for party politics? I despair of what is yet to come.

Posted by: Ted at May 30, 2006 7:58 PM
Comment #152798

Above the angels of the left, liberal, democrat position have spoken.

Let’s hear it for Hillary (Whitewater and more)
Let’s hear it for Reid (boxing tickets, Indian tribes, and more)
Let’s hear it for Schummer (stealing cc records of Michael Steele)
Let’s hear it for Jefferson (movin’ on in to the freezer)
Let’s hear it for Monahan went from net worth of about $100k to eight million in such a short period of time. I want my money back.

Let’s hear it for all those who want to take our tax dollars and enrich those who do not earn it or have it coming to them.

Do you know why we can’t measure the oil comsumption in this country?

All the dipsticks are in congress.

Posted by: tomh at May 30, 2006 8:25 PM
Comment #152806

Who’s Jefferson and Monahan? Are they as big as DeLay and Ney?

Posted by: Aldous at May 30, 2006 8:52 PM
Comment #152807

As dirty Harry would say,

“The question you have to ask yourself, punk, is, “do I feel lucky?” Well, do you punk?”

Or perhaps more apropiately,” Do you think you can clean the slime off you, by pretending a piece of lint is the same kind of filth?”

Judge Judy wouldn’t buy it, and neither do I.

The Sicilian defense: Attempt to divert the attention off your own stink. Blame the dog. Then claim not to own a dog. Any other tools in your bag of tricks?

Posted by: gergle at May 30, 2006 8:56 PM
Comment #152809

“Who’s Jefferson and Monahan? Are they as big as DeLay and Ney?”
Posted by Aldous at May 30, 2006 08:52 PM

BAD

IS

BAD


Smell the COFFEE???

Posted by: bug at May 30, 2006 8:57 PM
Comment #152816

Usually people boast, “Mine’s bigger than yours.” But the arguments here are, “Yours is bigger than mine.” It’s the same game, only backward. Bug is right!

Posted by: Don at May 30, 2006 9:14 PM
Comment #152820

First off…

Hillary Clinton was found innocent of Whitewater.

Harry Reid voted AGAINST the people who allegedly bribed him.

Posted by: Aldous at May 30, 2006 9:34 PM
Comment #152823

SE / Jack,

The Reid and Abramoff links are bogus. You look desperate when trying to show how bad the Dems are (they took 40 years to reach half the corruption the GOP has managed to reach in 6) and instead need to look openly at the real problems we have.

Besides, you guys are constantly harping on the “not convicted yet” mantra. There isn’t even 1/10 of the evidence on these accusations that you would rightfully dismiss if made against your side.

C’mon, you guys have brains and morals, kick them into gear here.

Posted by: Dave at May 30, 2006 9:39 PM
Comment #152825

What DID happen to Vince Foster? Speaking of big hitters…

Posted by: Rickled at May 30, 2006 9:40 PM
Comment #152832

Foster was murdered. It sure was not suicide.

Posted by: tomh at May 30, 2006 10:18 PM
Comment #152833

When you claim to be the party with superior morals, you have to actually exhibit superior morals. Otherwise, you lose credibility. And the wrong wing has lost all credibility in this arena. Maybe support for the wrong wing is eroding like a beach in a hurricane because more and more people are starting to realize that hypocricy is not a “family value.”

Posted by: ElliottBay at May 30, 2006 10:21 PM
Comment #152836

To say either of the Clintons were innocent is absurd.Bill was guilty of neglect of responsibility of power and cowardness of truth,Hillary is still guilty of no true personality and vindictiveness.She is to be feared for the power she she wants to wield.Anyone who can cover-up insider-trading,homicide,real-estate fraud,and fooling New Yorkers that she cares is,is truly talented.She is a better magician than Blaine to somehow make files disappear,and different ones reappear!

Posted by: Mike at May 30, 2006 10:26 PM
Comment #152840

Mike:

I am so happy you have evidence of Hillary and Bill Clinton’s guilt!!! New evidence that the Justice Department never saw before!!!

What’s that? You DON’T have new evidence?

Why would you bear false witness? That’s a sin!!!

Posted by: Aldous at May 30, 2006 10:45 PM
Comment #152841

bug:
“The dems are no different.”

I get the impression that this how these righties manage to sleep at night despite what their party is doing to this country.
The big difference with Democrats that I see is that we’ve always been willing to acknowlege when things go wrong and aren’t the least bit surprised that a politician — any politician — could easily become a criminal. But then, we’ve never been afraid to face hard, ugly truths, and accordingly, we work for change where and when necessary. Unlike the GOP and their followers who just love to pay lip service to “values” while cobbling together a constant stream of excuses and denials to cover for whatever corruption or problems arise at their hands — no matter how serious or egregious.

“BAD

IS

BAD”

Right. And a blowjob in the oval office is a “high crime” worthy of impeachment and 40 million in tax dollars — while a war based on lies, which has taken lives of 2469 of our soldiers, wounded 17,869, and has cost the country 320 billion is a wonderful thing all “patriots” should be supporting. Despite the fact that it had nothing to do with Al Qaeda, but has now given them a training ground to kill Americans and provided them a place to swell their numbers.

“Smell the COFFEE???”

No. The stench of these corrupt, lying Neocons, bathing the blood of our troops and Big Oil profits atop a mountain of their own sh*t, is overpowering everything else.

Posted by: Adrienne at May 30, 2006 10:45 PM
Comment #152848

“No. The stench of these corrupt, lying Neocons, bathing the blood of our troops and Big Oil profits atop a mountain of their own sh*t, is overpowering everything else.”

Posted by: Adrienne at May 30, 2006 10:45 PM


so, I take it you don’t believe that a 3rd party with enough numbers to make a difference is an option?

Posted by: bug at May 30, 2006 11:04 PM
Comment #152849

Adrienne,

“Well, we don’t want to tell you how to live Tim, but you are indeed very lucky that there were Democrats in days gone by that fought for the rights you enjoy today.”

So what you are saying is I should thank the southern democrats like George Wallace who fought FOR segregation. Those were the same people who thought poll taxes were o.k. “Thank-ya, Masters, for lettin me vote and only askin’ fer a week o pay”

Posted by: lllplus2 at May 30, 2006 11:09 PM
Comment #152852

lilplus2:


It should read “liberals” and not “Democrats.” We all know the history of the parties and where their politics lay. You think Lincoln would be a Republican today? Not.

Anyway, the R’s are desperately trying to run evasive maneuvers here. Raiding Jefferson’s office and attacking “Dirty Harry” are just decoy options. I mean, shall we discuss a million worse examples that the R’s conveniently failed to take notice of? If “bad is bad,” then why haven’t the Cons attacked Cheyney’s hunting trip with Scalia or Roberts’ meetings with the President while hearing a Bush v. case? I’ll condemn Reid and Jefferson no problem if it means the Cons have to own up to *all* of their scandals! Talk about a sucker bet!

Posted by: davidL at May 30, 2006 11:24 PM
Comment #152854

What I am trying to say is did Wallace have a change of heart because he was shot, maybe moral conviction, or could it be he was a politician? When the black people of Alabama stopped voting rep. and started voting dem. he became the black mans best friend. Growing up in Alabama in the 80s I saw him on TV in his wheelchair hugging and shaking hands with the black community and thought he was an OK guy until I saw his bigotry in history class.

To paint all rep. with the bad brush and dem. with the good brush reminds me of jokes from my childhood about fried chicken and watermelon. I dolove both, but not because I am black. People are bad because they are bad and not because of the party they are in.

Posted by: lllplus2 at May 30, 2006 11:42 PM
Comment #152855

Yes, of course party affiliation doesn’t indicate “good” or “bad” (as if there was such a simple thing). But it does often indicate where people place their values and what’s important to them. I think to vote Republican in this day and age speaks plenty.

Posted by: davidL at May 30, 2006 11:50 PM
Comment #152857

The “culture of corruption” is still very much intact, and hopefully it will clean out about 80% of congress from both side of the aisle. The fcat of the matter is, under the current system, no one stays in congress for more than three or four terms without getting at least a little dirty. Term Limits!!!

Posted by: David S at May 31, 2006 12:02 AM
Comment #152860

It’s interesting to see the Democrats defend the likes of Reid and Jefferson while attacking Republicans.
It’s also interesting to see the Republicans defending the likes of Abramoff and Delay while attacking Democrats.
Face it both parties are so full of courrption that only someone with partisan blinders on wouldn’t see it. And I’ll almost bet they see it but are unwilling to admit that their party is corrupt.

Posted by: Ron Brown at May 31, 2006 12:14 AM
Comment #152862

Politicians love it when voters defend them, and re-elect them, and wallow in the partisan warfare, regardless of what they do and say.

Most (if not all) are bought-and-paid-for, but we keep on re-electing them.

Posted by: d.a.n at May 31, 2006 12:16 AM
Comment #152868
I think Democrats can be trusted not to shred the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. Or sit and stare into space when a terrorist attack on American soil occurs. Or start wars on lies. Or spend so much money, but not make the country more secure from the risk of terrorist attack. Or say “dead or alive” but not really mean it when it comes to Bin Laden. Or wage war so ineptly, clumsily or stupidly. Or spend us into bankruptcy. Or allow corporations and their lobbyists to write (or buy) important legislation. Or avoid talking to the press. Or plant fake news reporters to ask fake questions. Or consider paperless touchscreen voting machines that can be easily hacked in about a minute flat a fair and accountable way to have elections. Or… well, you get the idea. Clearly, Democrats can run the country far, far better than the GOP has been. Indeed, no party could possibly do any worse! Posted by: Adrienne at May 30, 2006 06:19 PM

Adrienne,

Thanks. Also, Democrats would never tell the terrorists to “bring it on”, then get caught off gaurd when they do. You’re doing a heckuva job, Republicie!

Posted by: JayJay Snow at May 31, 2006 1:20 AM
Comment #152869

Boxing tickets? Accepted within the senate rules? He voted against the legislation? You guys are really reaching.

Posted by: JayJay Snow at May 31, 2006 1:22 AM
Comment #152871

Really?This one will getcha then!

SE,

Gee, thanks for the link! Here are a couple I found:

Republican Rap Sheet

The scandal sheet 5 whole pages!

Posted by: JayJay Snow at May 31, 2006 1:35 AM
Comment #152872

THE AP……BUSTED

Posted by: JayJay Snow at May 31, 2006 1:52 AM
Comment #152873

Looks like those Republican rap sheets will be growing.

A partner of Abramoff’s at the time, Neil Volz also outlined in U.S. District Court how the Abramoff team received assistance from several Republican congressmen or their aides including, Rep. Bob Ney of Ohio, Rep. Shelley Moore Capito of West Virginia, Rep. Don Young of Alaska and Rep. Steven LaTourette of Ohio.
Posted by: JayJay Snow at May 31, 2006 1:58 AM
Comment #152874

I wrote:
“you are indeed very lucky that there were Democrats in days gone by that fought for the rights you enjoy today.”

IIIplus2:
“So what you are saying is I should thank the southern democrats like George Wallace who fought FOR segregation. Those were the same people who thought poll taxes were o.k. “Thank-ya, Masters, for lettin me vote and only askin’ fer a week o pay””

Wallace was a Dixiecrat, not a Liberal Democrat. When our party threw out that trash, the GOP began collecting it with open arms. But Yes, it was liberals who fought for the Civil Rights Act, the Voting Rights Act, the Integration of the Armed Forces, and Integration in public schools.

But fighting for those things weren’t actually what I was referring to there, although they were extremely important battles we waged and won. I was thinking more about things that people have long taken for granted — like public health laws and regulations and labeling concerning the food we eat and the medicines we take. Even safety standards for so many of the things we buy — such as the cars we drive. And of course, it is liberals who have fought to keep the water we drink and the air we breathe safe for everyone.
Then, there are the enormous contributions of the liberal union workers who fought (and died in many cases) for things like decent wages, overtime pay, the standard eight hour working day, safe working conditions, child labor laws, medical benefits, retirement pensions, paid holidays, vacation time, and unemployment benefits. Hugely important stuff there.

Liberals have given America Social Security, Medicade, Medicare, and oh, so many other things…
How about Womens Sufferage? How about the progressive income tax? Federally funded student loans? Rural electrification? Federally underwritten Fannie Mae mortgages? Liberals fought for all those things and won them for everyone.
In fact, from the very beginning of our country it was Jeffersonian ideals (ie: Liberal) that stood up to protect the Bill of Rights on behalf of the common man against the wealthy Federalists. Liberals fighting for what is right is truly what has made this country the great place it is. We’re justly proud of our past achievements even as we look ahead to those fights yet to be waged and won…
On our radar screen currently: restoring ALL of our Constitutional Rights and removing the unconstitutional provisions within the Patriot Act(s), Bin Laden dead or alive (for real), Securing our country against terrorist attacks (for real), and fighting for full Civil Rights for Gay Americans.

Posted by: Adrienne at May 31, 2006 2:00 AM
Comment #152875

In regard to the boxing tickets that is tiny in comparison to other corruptions including those by Reid that involve 100,000s of dollars and laundered through his children. But right now the uneven press coverage of corruption is hurting the Republicans far less than than the propaganda about Iraq.

That propaganda is all about hurting Bush and Republicans, with no regard to the truth, and its working.

As the report below shows, people are safer in Iraq than Wash DC, Detroit, and Baltimore.

Now if 50% of all news time every day was devoted to reporting every murder in those three cities, with the reports like:

Wolf Blizer here, CNN Headline:
Violence Continues to Sprial out of Control in Democrat Controlled Cites! A report from our Baltimore war correspondant Bill Turner:

Image: bleeding body of child rolled in hostipal.

Turner: Hi Wolf, another multiple murder in the war torn city of Baltimore, this child was playing outside her house when gunfire from a gang war shootoout that left 2 dead hit hit her in her spine. Doctors say she will never walk again.

The Democrat Mayor of this overwelmhing Democrat city seems to have no answers, he keeps staying he will stay the course as the corpses of murder victims are found on the street almost every day.

Wolf: “Thankyou Bill for that troubling report. Now to our national correspondant, Jane Daner. Jane you interviewed Democrat Chairman Howard Dean about the issue that over 90% of murders are commited by Democrats and murder rates are worst in highly Democrat areas govrened by Democrats like Baltimore and Washington DC.

Did he have any explanation why peopel are safer in Iraq today that cities in America under total Democrat control?

Jane: No he did not Wolf, the only thing he would say on the subject is that all felons including murderers should be given back their voting rights. Highly placed unnamed sources at the DNC told me its because Dean is aware almost all murders are commited by Democrats, so its in the DNC’s best interests for them to vote.

Wolf: That is shocking Jane. So is there any hope the murderous civil war on the streets of Democrat controlled areas will be addressed by their Chairman?

Jane: At this point … no.


The below article is not fiction, its real, and by the way university studies have indeed shown almost all murders are commited by Democrats/liberals.

Darp out

With Carl Limbacher and NewsMax.com Staff
For the story behind the story…
Monday, May 29, 2006 1:22 p.m. EDT
Iraq Less Violent than Washington, D.C.

Despite media coverage purporting to show that escalating violence in Iraq has the country spiraling out of control, civilian death statistics complied by Rep. Steve King, R-IA, indicate that Iraq actually has a lower civilian violent death rate than Washington, D.C.

Appearing with Westwood One radio host Monica Crowley on Saturday, King said that the incessantly negative coverage of the Iraq war prompted him to research the actual death numbers.

“I began to ask myself the question, if you were a civilian in Iraq, how could you tolerate that level of violence,” he said. “What really is the level of violence?”

Using Pentagon statistics cross-checked with independent research, King said he came up with an annualized Iraqi civilian death rate of 27.51 per 100,000.

While that number sounds high - astonishingly, the Iowa Republican discovered that it’s significantly lower than a number of major American cities, including the nation’s capital.
“It’s 45 violent deaths per 100,000 in Washington, D.C.,” King told Crowley.

Other American cities with higher violent civilian death rates than Iraq include:


Detroit - 41.8 per 100,000

Baltimore - 37.7 per 100,000

Atlanta - 34.9 per 100,000

St. Louis - 31.4 per 100,000
The American city with the highest civilian death rate was New Orleans before Katrina - with a staggering 53.1 deaths per 100,000 - almost twice the death rate in Iraq.

Posted by: Darp at May 31, 2006 2:07 AM
Comment #152876

The post above about how Iraq is more peaceful and safer than Washington DC was intended to to be a new thread, but did not see how to start one. How can you start a new thread?

Thanks in advance

Posted by: darp at May 31, 2006 2:13 AM
Comment #152879
It’s interesting to see the Democrats defend the likes of Reid and Jefferson

Nobody (except maybe Hastert, who has plenty of skeletons in his Congressional office closet) is defending Jefferson.

Boxing tickets? Accepted within the senate rules? He voted against the legislation? You guys are really reaching.

Exactly. They’re desperate.

I’m glad the press that the Republicans hate so much brought this to our attention. Too bad for Republicans that there’s nothing illegal going on here, but it never hurts to check.

BTW, how’re Cunningham, Lay, Skilling, Abramoff, DeLay, Ney, “Brownie” and Safavian doing? Did Republicans ever rebuild New Orleans? How’s that integrated terrorist watch list coming? And where’s bin Laden?

And this is just classic: Convicted Phone-Jammer Holds GOP Workshop

The Republican operative who came up with the idea of jamming Democratic Party and union get-out-the-vote phone lines on Election Day 2002 is now teaching a “GOP Campaign School”.

Corruption is institutionalized in the Republican Party. They teach it to all their political candidates.

Posted by: American Pundit at May 31, 2006 2:27 AM
Comment #152881

DavidL,

please tell what voting republican says.


Adrienne,

Are you saying liberals are always right?

Posted by: lllplus2 at May 31, 2006 2:32 AM
Comment #152884

thomas jefferson had John Marshall.and they were cousins. and hamilton was born poor.

Posted by: Rodney Brown at May 31, 2006 3:21 AM
Comment #152886

“Adrienne,
Are you saying liberals are always right?”

Not always, but usually we have been right. Probably because our priorities (as well as our hearts) tend to be focused on the rights and liberties of We the People. That’s all of us of course, rather than only some of us.
And when one of us are wrong, we’re usually big enough people to admit that too.
For instance, Jefferson is a crook and we want him gone. No denials or excuses. Because a man like that isn’t good enough to represent the party of Liberal Democrats.

Posted by: Adrienne at May 31, 2006 3:45 AM
Comment #152887

AP, nicely done. :^)

Posted by: Adrienne at May 31, 2006 3:51 AM
Comment #152896

FOR ALDOUS

Ignorous is bliss,to shelter from the truth is dangerous. Listen to your old Guru Dick Morris. He has alot to say. When you can shred documents in someones office at the same time he is off “commiting suicide” is really good timing.Other than that,all other allegations hold self evident. You must mature your thought process enough to come up with a better come-back. Truth is truth. Prove me wrong with facts.

Posted by: mike at May 31, 2006 6:43 AM
Comment #152899

FOR AMERICAN PUNDIT

Who’s looking out for you? Did the Pres. fail in New Orleans? I think not! The residents did.First they elect a mayor that can’t handle a crisis in his own city. Then allow for corruption to negate the completion of their dikes. Then they wouldn’t leave when told of the danger coming.Whine when it happened with out-reaching hands for MY tax-dollar,and blamed everyone else for their misery. Top it all off,they re-elect the one truley responsible! Democratic thinking at its best. Nagin failed in so many ways,but because he can sling it better than recieve it, he gets a pass. IF the truth ever would get to shine,the cost to clean up New Orleans is going to break the bank. Safety of taxpayers starts at a local level.
The resposibility to safeguard the people of New Orleans begins with the Mayor.Where was his disaster pre-plan? Did the first page start with “BLAME BUSH” as it seems all Dems.plans across the board do? WHO IS LOOKING OUT FOR YOU?

Posted by: mike at May 31, 2006 7:09 AM
Comment #152910

Boxing tickets?

So what? This is like when Dawn posted the thing about Senators allowing people to buy them lunches. So what. This is like any business person meeting with any connection or networking and going to events or dinners. Should I be eating this for free? Maybe yes, maybe no, but its not important enough to worry about. Senators can’t worry about taking a stick of gum being offered to them by someone they’re talking to. They have other things to think about.

I think it takes NERVE and a half to claim to the Republicans have “won” on corruption. This is what you didn’t get about Clinton. If a scandal is stupid - it doesn’t matter. If a scandal, like say, lying about the reasons we have gone to war, undermines our country’s values, puts us in debt, and kills our children then it’s unforgivable.

Jaywalking and Murder are NOT equivalent guys, c’mon. When will your party stop reaching?

Posted by: Max at May 31, 2006 8:32 AM
Comment #152911

This post again misses the point, both parties play by Washington politics. Power, money, greed and lobby influence. Both parties do it and you can find players on both sides.

What we are seeing is politics. Right now there are more Republicans in Washington with more power, so there is more corruption with Republicans. SO Democrates play the game of criticizing Republicans when they are just as guilty. There are not just as not as many of them to get caught.

So we should stop this blame game and go right to the core of the problem. Washington Poliics, power, money and working for your donors. This is why you can never cut spending in government.

Posted by: Steve at May 31, 2006 8:33 AM
Comment #152912

darp:

I think you have to be an editor to start threads. There is a process to become an editor—you can look into it.

Posted by: joebagodonuts at May 31, 2006 8:35 AM
Comment #152914

Here’s the point of the post:

There’s plenty of greed and corruption to go around.

Check out the “war hero” Murtha for example.The investigation showed he was an unindicted co-conspirator in the ABSCAM investigation.Go ahead and Google it.

Hillary?Forget it.Whitewater.Travelgate.

Who exactly is Saint Peter over there on the left?

This isn’t going to be the issue in Noverber.

High gas and Iraq will be the two 500 pound gorrillas…everything else is a distant third.

Posted by: sicilianeagle at May 31, 2006 8:59 AM
Comment #152924

Max:

Regardless of the nature of the alleged crimes, there is a public relations side to this whole corruption issue. The Dems have acted as if they are squeaky clean, and the alleged actions of Jefferson, Reid and Mollohan bely that.

The upshot is that the general lackadaisical American voter won’t see any difference between the actions of these three, and the actions of DeLay, Ney and Cunningham. That there are differences in degree won’t matter at all; what matters is the public perception. And that perception is that both parties are crooked. The perception is true, by the way.

In the same way, it didn’t matter if Al Gore was a serial liar, if John Kerry was a flip-flopper, if Dan Quayle was unintelligent, if Howard Dean was unbalanced etc. The perceptions held against each man and hurt them at the ballot box. In politics, perception is at least as important as reality, especially when many voters don’t do enough homework to have anything more than perceptions.

Posted by: joebagodonuts at May 31, 2006 9:44 AM
Comment #152931

The Dems overplayed their hand. Simple and politcal as that. They tried repeating too much that ONLY Republicans were involved. It failed. Now it is a failed strategy.

I can think of dozens of ways to make the issue come back to bite Dems if they try to use it, and I am not even trying very hard.

Dems can be indignant, but they lost the issue. Too bad. Life is hard all over. Maybe next time you will be more careful.

Posted by: Jack at May 31, 2006 10:06 AM
Comment #152937

How many times have we heard that no one is watching the dems because they aren’t the ones in power? That is their excuse for everything.
They are trying to use this to their advantage.
It had been working until now.

Where is it I can win a million for voting? Maybe I’ll move there.

Posted by: bug at May 31, 2006 10:29 AM
Comment #152939

So we have a President who thinks he can supersede the Constitution. A Vice President who shot someone, outed a CIA agent (And if you think she was already outed you have been listening to too much Rush) has an aid who has been indicted, and another Cabinet member who thinks it is ok to steal from Target. This is just the White House. And you Conservatives have the gall to call this equal corruption? Sorry I don’t buy it. But more importantly the public doesn’t buy it either.

Posted by: Vincent Vega at May 31, 2006 10:33 AM
Comment #152940

Corruption is a settled issue between Dems and Reps. It has always been worse under Dems. Especially violent crime like murder. Both at the memeber levels and leadership level.

This is Reps possible strongest point, but they do not take advantage of it. About 90% of crime in USA is commited by Dems, ask a policeman, they know or read the university studies.

Who is the worst mass murderer of all time? Jim Jones (about 900 people) named the 2nd most powerful person in CA Democrat party by SF Chronicle. Jimmy Carter’s wife kissed him in public (BTW she was a good 1st lady, no knock on her) seeking his endorsement for Jimmy. Later that year she shook hands and was photographed with William Gasey (murdered about 60 boys after raping them) and Jeffery Damler who raped, murdered and then ate about 25 boys. Why did she do this?

Because they were both in leadership of Democrat Party while they were on their murder sprees and she met them at Party functions.

Thus never let anyone ever claim that the Dems are cleaner than Reps, the truth is that Democrat Party thinking is the major reason for crime in America. Those that think society owes them and that they are not respondsible for their own actions are the root of our crime problem (and Demo Party)

Posted by: Darp at May 31, 2006 10:37 AM
Comment #152941

Eagle,

“Bill Frist(R Tenn), Tom Delay(R Tex), Henry Hyde(R Ill), Jack Abramoff(K Street), “Duke” Cunningham(R Cal), Dick Cheney(R VP), Tom Noe(R Oh), Mike Dewine(R Oh), Karl Rove(R Mastermind), Scooter Libby(R Aide), Grover Norquist(R Lobbyist), Bob Taft(R Oh), Bob Ney(R Oh), Dennis Hastert(R Speaker), John Doolittle(R Cal), David Safavian(R Procurement Chief for G.W.), Brent Wilkes(R Contributor), James Tobin(R Political operative), Robert Kjellander(R RNC Treasurer), Halliburton, AshBritt, David Sanborn(R Ak), Ted Stevens(R Ak), Ralph Reed(R Ga), Katherine Harris(R Fla), Virgil Goode(R Va)

Thr Republican party has a stranglehold on corruption. I thinks it’s only right that Jefferson have a little “cold” hard cash in the freezer;)
Boxing tickets Vs. billions of dollars(tax payer money) for no-bid contracts.
Boxing tickets Vs. Millions of (tax payer dollars) in missing coins.
Boxing tickets Vs. The loot at the “Dukesters” mansion.
Boxing tickets Vs. millions in kickbacks received by Delay and the Republican party.
Boxing tickets Vs. Insider trading(see. Bill Frist).
Come on Eagle, even you can’t spin this.
What is happening in our government is the result of unwatched capitalism expanding and destroying Democracy. We vote for the candidates but they already belong to those who bought them. They have become so greedy and so power hungry that they no longer fear getting caught.
Writing bribe lists on napkins?

Posted by: Andre M. Hernandez at May 31, 2006 10:40 AM
Comment #152944

Andre

Good hearing from you!

Nice try.

My home state (Massachusetts) is owned lock,stock and barrel by the Democratic Party.

Totally corrupt.

The Big Dig has lined the pockets of every Dem from here to the moon.
Even f you live in California,you pay for it as most of it is Federal dollars.

Thank Kennedy and Kerry for letting the that one go on for 14 years…a convient dumping ground for everyone who they owed a favor too.

Now that another election is coming around,another 100 million or so will go to dredging up the Boston harbor…gotta keep those donors happy,you know….

Posted by: sicilianeagle at May 31, 2006 10:52 AM
Comment #152946

SE,

“Now that another election is coming around,another 100 million or so will go to dredging up the Boston harbor”

Yet another place to look for Jimmy Hoffa.

Posted by: Rocky at May 31, 2006 10:57 AM
Comment #152948

Andre,

We agree! I agree boxing tickets are nothing. But from my post above yours, murder is not nothing. About 90% of murders are commited by Dems or people that agree with Dem party but do not vote. And the worst mass murderes of all time in USA are from the leadership of Democrat Party Jim Jones, Jeff Damler, William Gacy.

In the previous Adm the majority of Bill Clinton’s closest friends were in jail or had been in jail after 6 years in office, literally.

His brother Roger Clinton, twice sent to prison for being major cocaine distributor for Columbian drug lords, his top contributor Dan Lasater (Roger’s boss) the Cocaine kingpin of Akansas, His mentor James McDougal died in prison for stealing $50 million in bank scam, and other things (along with his wife), his golf buddy and #3 in Justice Dept Web Hubble (and wifes law partner) went to prison twice for stealing 100s of thousands, tax cheating, etc, his protege Jim Guy Tucker for Whitewater fraud, on and on and on.

How many of Bush’s closest friends are in prison after 6 years? None.

In your heart you know although the current Reps cloud be cleaner they are saints compared to Dems.

Posted by: Darp at May 31, 2006 11:02 AM
Comment #152957

“How many of Bush’s closest friends are in prison after 6 years? None.”

Would that be because he has no friends?

Posted by: Rocky at May 31, 2006 11:20 AM
Comment #152959
How many of Bush’s closest friends are in prison after 6 years? None.

Really? I seem to recall something about Bush’s best friend and top political contributor “Kenny Boy” Lay being sent to prison for.. was it 40 years(?) for ripping off thousands of people of their life-savings? And this guy, unlike Clinton’s brother (puh-lease) had actual political connections (hundreds) working at the White House. Man, you guys put on the blinders fast, this has been out of the news for what, a day? Why are you focusing on friends and family, when we are giving you real examples of people working right with Bush who are massively corrupt?

Also, this claim that 90% of the murders are committed by Democrats or people that agree with them sounds hilarious to me. Please, post the link to the research, I need a good laugh.

I know when shit is being flung, and I know when it’s sticking to the wall. We threw everything, including the kitchen sink, at Bush and none of it stuck (even though it should have). This time around it’s the same. People are going see right through this.

Oh, and just wait until we have a Democrat president ordering search and seizures of Repulican congressman’s houses. Man! There isn’t going to be one of you left that’s not in jail! That’s not to say there aren’t corrupt Democrats, but I haven’t seen anything with the scale, breathtaking audacity, or horrible repurcussions to the American public like what the Republicans have been dishing out.

I love that you guys are saying we’re “even” now. It means you are completely out of touch with what’s going on in this country.

Posted by: Max at May 31, 2006 11:22 AM
Comment #152960

Hi all,

I’ve been reading nearly everyday without replying. I had to take a break from it for a while, but I can’t keep quiet here.

Since I joined this blog aproximatly 2 1/2 years ago, I have heard NOTHING from Bush supporters but EXCUSES! EXCUSES! EXCUSES! Excuses for the MASSIVE corruption in this administration. I have heard “the dems are making up things again…they have nothing else so they gotta try and “pin” something on the repubs…they are Un-American, unloyal, traitors, Baaaah, Baaaaah, Baaaah” I have been APPALLED at the way anyone desperately trying to open the eyes of the public to the MASSIVE corruption “We the People” have allowed to go on. As long as it was one of your own you were more than happy to turn a blind eye, convince yourselves it was only, “those evil libs trying to bring us down,” and readily defended their actions at every turn. No matter what issue it was or how many more rights were taken away, you swooned like a school girl with a crush over Bush Co., hung on his every word, cheered and praised his corruption all because he was “against” the dems.

Illegal wire-tapping? no problem. Unconstitutional searches…instead of our strong, long-standing policy of DEMANDING we are “innocent until proven guilty, you had the nerve to actually say, “If you have nothing to hide you won’t mind,” or in other words “If you are innocent, Prove it!!”

Now, you have the nerve to chime on with glee that some democrats have tarnish on their armor. I hear you laughing and pointing and exclaiming, LOOK, they are as bad as us!”

HOW DARE YOU!!!!

You will not hear me defending the actions of ANY politician be it republican or democrat who gets caught with their hand in the cookie jar. VOTE THEM ALL OUT!!!! Isn’t that the point? Haven’t you all had ENOUGH of this corruption YET??????

What is the matter with us America? This is ALL of our faults. We got what we settled for, and we settled for SECOND BEST!

someone posted:

who else would have been wise enough to use a freezer to hide money or the White House to hide documents.

Whaaaa?..Seriously…you don’t think those were WISE moves do you? Seems more to me like a BIG amateurish,(is that even a word?) rookie mistake…either that or a move made by someone who has been surrounded by such corruption in DC they have become complacent, and have no worries of being caught. If you watch others (Bush and Co.) blatantly flaunt their corruption, thumb their noses at the population with their “Nah, Nah, NAH, Nah, Nah” attitudes long enough, it is easy to see where one would be tempted to jump on the band wagon.

Thank god they are there to tell us how to live our lives.

HUH??? sorry but it is the far, far righties who are trying to tell the rest how to live their lives.

Have “We the People” become so tainted by partisan politics that all we can do is attack one another for the failings of a Plitical party member? FIX IT AMERICA! VOTE ALL INCUMBENTS OUT!!!

sassyliberal

Posted by: sassyliberal at May 31, 2006 11:24 AM
Comment #152964

sassyliberal
Have “We the People” become so tainted by partisan politics that all we can do is attack one another for the failings of a Plitical party member?

It sure looks like it.


FIX IT AMERICA! VOTE ALL INCUMBENTS OUT!!!

I’m with ya 100!

Posted by: Ron Brown at May 31, 2006 11:37 AM
Comment #152965

“Have “We the People” become so tainted by partisan politics that all we can do is attack one another for the failings of a Plitical party member?”
Posted by: sassyliberal at May 31, 2006 11:24 AM


YES! The big problem is that those that scream the loudest and have their ‘talking points’ memorized don’t even realize what they are doing - BRAINWASHED by their political parties - both sides!

Posted by: bug at May 31, 2006 11:37 AM
Comment #152966

Sassyliberal,

You didn’t know. We have two Americas.
Two seperate groups of people living in two seperate Americas who see Republican corruption as not bad for their team, side or seperate America, but Democratic corruption is detrimental to their America.I guess Democratic corruption doesn’t effect our America but Republican corruption is bad for our America.
Corruption by both parties is detrimental to all of America? No way

Posted by: Andre M. Hernandez at May 31, 2006 11:40 AM
Comment #152976

I, for one, am writing in SassyLiberal for president ;-) Seriously, that was a great post.

Posted by: Max at May 31, 2006 12:23 PM
Comment #152978

Darp wrote:

In the previous Adm the majority of Bill Clinton’s closest friends were in jail or had been in jail after 6 years in office, literally.

His brother Roger Clinton, twice sent to prison for being major cocaine distributor for Columbian drug lords, his top contributor Dan Lasater (Roger’s boss) the Cocaine kingpin of Akansas, His mentor James McDougal died in prison for stealing $50 million in bank scam, and other things (along with his wife), his golf buddy and #3 in Justice Dept Web Hubble (and wifes law partner) went to prison twice for stealing 100s of thousands, tax cheating, etc, his protege Jim Guy Tucker for Whitewater fraud, on and on and on.
How many of Bush’s closest friends are in prison after 6 years? None.
In your heart you know although the current Reps cloud be cleaner they are saints compared to Dems.

Uhhhhh…can you say Savings and Loan Collapse?

here, check it out yourself.

http://www.austinchronicle.com/issues/dispatch/2001-03-16/pols_feature3.html

http://www.debbieschlussel.com/archives/2006/02/somethings_rott.html

http://www.alternet.org/story/29054/

http://www.motherjones.com/news/outfront/1994/03/pizzo.html

http://www.dissidentvoice.org/Nov2004/Pringle1129.htm

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A35297-2003Dec27?language=printer

(These sites were the first ones I came to, but there are many, many more stories I assure you)

Again, I gotta say: It is UNACCEPTABLE by ANY party!!!

sassyliberal

Posted by: sassyliberal at May 31, 2006 12:25 PM
Comment #152979

Sassy

Andre - I think you are making a good point if it is the point I think you are making. Let me expand.

Unfortunately, some level of corruption is endemic to human systems. That is precisely why we have laws and why we put checks and balances in our Constitution.

Neither party behaves better when they are in power than the other. Particular individuals are corrupt and the system itself (any large government system) makes corruption possible.

I point with glee to dirty Dems because I enjoy the game. But I understand it is serious business too. The serious business is that Dems ARE as bad as Republicans and Republicans ARE as bad as Dems and if third parties got in they would be as bad as both. It does not help the fight against corruption to allow yourself to believe it is THEM or that the ALL are alike.

It was wrong for the Dems to try the culture of corruption gambit - and hypocritical. Republican have managed now to defeat it and that is a good thing. Corruption is bipartisans and must be addressed in that manner.

Posted by: Jack at May 31, 2006 12:27 PM
Comment #152983
Liberals have given America Social Security, Medicade, Medicare, and oh, so many other things… How about Womens Sufferage? How about the progressive income tax? Federally funded student loans? Rural electrification? Federally underwritten Fannie Mae mortgages? Liberals fought for all those things and won them for everyone. In fact, from the very beginning of our country it was Jeffersonian ideals (ie: Liberal) that stood up to protect the Bill of Rights on behalf of the common man against the wealthy Federalists. Liberals fighting for what is right is truly what has made this country the great place it is. We’re justly proud of our past achievements even as we look ahead to those fights yet to be waged and won… On our radar screen currently: restoring ALL of our Constitutional Rights and removing the unconstitutional provisions within the Patriot Act(s), Bin Laden dead or alive (for real), Securing our country against terrorist attacks (for real), and fighting for full Civil Rights for Gay Americans.

Now Adrienne, you should know better to tout all kinds of liberal expanses of the constitutional powers invested and then complain against the republican ones…

If you want something to be constitutional when it isn’t you should first make it constitutional with an amendment. When your side does it you can then expect the other side to as well.

I don’t see much chance of either party caring about the constitution any time in the near future. :(

Posted by: Rhinehold at May 31, 2006 12:36 PM
Comment #152987

This thread is getting better.

Both sides agree criminality is important.

The Question Is: Which party has more criminals in it?

Think back to High School. Who were the drug pushers? At my high School it was 100% Democrats. 100%. We all know this inherently, it goes along with being Liberal.

A friend of mine who worked as a prison guard in Chino passed out ballots during a primary in CA, after completeing this, she realized 34 of 34 ballots were Democrat ballots. Think about that, 100% Democrat ballots in a prison.

The 2 parties are not the same on Crime. Both in commision and prevention. Has any Democrat ever reduced crime like Gulliani in NYC or Riodan in LA? No.

When it comes to spending unfortunately the Reps have become like the Dems.

Crime is the big divider.

Reps are too polite to point out Dems are literally murderous.

Of course if the ratio is 10 to 1 (about right) the Dems can point out an example here or there. But even there they fail.

Someone posted about 1 of 5 siblings of George Bush (20%) got fined once for careless business practices.

Okay his counterpart Bill Clinton is himself a known rapist, his only brother Roger is a twice imprisoned major Cocaine dealer, his step sister was convicted of armed bank robbery (while Clinton was govenor) His mother and father are both known to be in organized crime (as is his brother), involved with illegal gambling and prostitution rackets in Hot Springs, and by Bill Clinton public admission his father was serial wife and child abuser and an attempted murderer (he shot at his wife and missed her). 100% of the members are either convicted felons or felons who one have been convicted felons if properly prosecuted.

Bush family, zero convicted or known felons.

And this this the strongest argument that Democrats have, comparing Clinton and Bush???!!!

Posted by: Darp at May 31, 2006 12:56 PM
Comment #152991

joebagodonuts
Al Gore was a liar? I thought he still is. He tells of going to France to study when he was 15.
Al Gore, Sr. says when Jr. was 15 he was working the farm. I believe daddy.

Posted by: tomh at May 31, 2006 1:12 PM
Comment #152992

Bill Clinton is himself a known rapist
Posted by: Darp at May 31, 2006 12:56 PM

That doesn’t compare to GW having been convicted in Georgia for Vehicular Homicide.

Posted by: Dave at May 31, 2006 1:13 PM
Comment #152993

“Bush family, zero convicted or known felons.”

I may be wrong, but I think that DWI and Cocaine use are both considered felonies.

Posted by: Rocky at May 31, 2006 1:14 PM
Comment #152995
Think back to High School. Who were the drug pushers? At my high School it was 100% Democrats. 100%. We all know this inherently, it goes along with being Liberal.

I can’t think of anything more stupid to say or beside the point. I said it before, and I’ll say it again, why are you focusing on what happened (A)in your highschool (B) with family and friends, when we are talking about major corruption that costs taxpayers billions of dollars and comprises this nation’s security? Republicans have no sense of scale, because if they did, they would be forced to admit their party is a cesspool.

Posted by: Max at May 31, 2006 1:33 PM
Comment #152996
Think back to High School. Who were the drug pushers? At my high School it was 100% Democrats. 100%. We all know this inherently, it goes along with being Liberal.

Darp,

Say what? When did high school drug pushers start announcing their party affiliation? Do they wear buttons? When did high schoolers start caring about politics? I’m not sure how drug pushing goes along with being a Liberal. I am a lifelong liberal, know several lifelong liberals, and have never even thought about pushing drugs. It seems more logical that drug pushing goes along with being a conservative, money, greed, and deceit seem to play a big role in the Republican’t Crime Party.

Posted by: JayJay Snow at May 31, 2006 1:34 PM
Comment #153000

Darp,

BTW, if you’re such an upstanding conservative, what were you doing associated with drug pushers? You must have known them pretty well to know their party affiliation.

Posted by: JayJay Snow at May 31, 2006 1:39 PM
Comment #153001

To be convicted,you must appear in court and admit some guilt.That shows responsibility.To run home to daddy and sleep it off while a woman is in the river shows cowardess,and he is a prominent leader of his party

Posted by: Mike at May 31, 2006 1:40 PM
Comment #153003

As hard as I work for my money,I hate the thought of it being wasted on the foolish notions that Dems.have.The only things the gov.should provide is fire protection,emergency health care(ambulance,E.R.),and security.most of these should be done on a local level.National security should be formost important.If they could cut the rest of the junk out of the budget there would be less temptation for wrongdoing both from the lobbying,and the politition looking for a handout.When you look at the government now you still have to ask WHO IS LOOKING OUT FOR YOU???

Posted by: Mike at May 31, 2006 1:51 PM
Comment #153005

This is just the tip of the iceburg jeffersons records will put more than one liberal crook in jail.D.C. police will have to build a new jail to hold all of these liberal crooks.

Posted by: lookingout at May 31, 2006 1:51 PM
Comment #153006

lol Dingy Harry strikes again! The most corrupt party as they have ALWAYS been are the Dems, plain and simple. You keep throwing the Abrahamoff thing out there, he wasnt ONLY helping Republicans.

Who was one of themost powerful men in the House at the time of the Bank Scandal and had to do hard time? Rosty Rostinkowski, remember him? How many Dems kited bad checks?

Get real guys there are bad seeds in both parties, but if you truly want to do a bit of research and find out how many have been bad on both sides then Dems win by a decent margin, do the homework, then do the math, then come and give us your answer.

This notion of the Republicans being the Party of Corruption is just like every other notion, idea, belief and marching orders from the Dems, its simply not true, there are hard facts to prove this, yet the Dems say it so many times that they actually believe it and keep on pushing it with the more then willing Liberal mainstream media.

I actually think its great you guys are basing your whole strategy on retaking the House and Senate on this, bring it on.

Posted by: Brad at May 31, 2006 1:53 PM
Comment #153007

Whats the difference between 1996 and 2006?
The people ignoring what was happening then are screaming about how it all is wrong now.
Just about every complaint the left has today, was ignored by them when it was their “man” in office.

BOTH sides are equal in the corruption game.
BOTH sides are inept at running our govt.
BOTH sides are dragging this country down.

But thank you all for your comical bickering over which side is worse. Got some flowers that will love all the BS you been shoveling.

And Ms. Adrienne :)
Sorry, but telling me who I should feel sorry for and help, when I have to wear my seatbelt or helmet, where I can smoke, if my business can allow smoking, what guns I’m responsible enough to own, what kind of vehicle I should drive, where I should live, where one can thank the Christian God for their success, what I eat, etc… etc…
IS very much telling me how to live my life as someone else thinks I should.

The ONLY difference is that I get pissed when ANY political party takes away my personal choices.

Hey again SassyLib
““If you have nothing to hide you won’t mind,” or in other words “If you are innocent, Prove it!!””

I agree 100%. That damn Brady Bill pissed me off too.

Posted by: kctim at May 31, 2006 1:55 PM
Comment #153008
emergency health care(ambulance,E.R.)

So you support dead beats who use the ER as their personal Doctors office? They don’t pay and the ones who do have medicaid require hundreds, sometimes thousands of dollars worth of care and the state reimberses the hospital a tiny, tiny fraction of that. Hospitals are going bankrupt because of our “emergency health care” system in this country.

Posted by: JayJay Snow at May 31, 2006 1:55 PM
Comment #153009

Wow! you guys sure are working hard trying to mud-sling your way out of this ethics decline in your party, huh?

I recently moved from Austin, TX. I was there when the Corporate donors who funded his campaign ADMITTED to it openly (because they didn’t even understand what they did was WRONG). All the facts establishing the crime are actually a matter of public record. No room for dispute. Delay then comes into town to face the Grand-jury, and promptly spends lots of money on ads portraying the whole mess as nothing more than a political witch hunt, clearly trying to influence the people from which the jury might be drawn. The press then reports the “news” in the form of a “story” entirely composed of Delay’s defense counsel’s statements. HA! objectivity be damned! Liberal media bias is a myth!
…And then, as if that weren’t enough, Delay moves for change of venue because the jury pool had been tainted by the media. GOOD GRIEF!

…And this is only the scandal I’m most readily aware of by virtue of what I have most directly seen and thus feel most confident about commenting on. Now we endure THIS muck about FIGHT TICKETS???? Silly. Very Silly.

…Further, I was in New Mexico a couple of months ago when a talk radio show was aired about New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson. It seems he has claimed to have once been ‘almost’ drafted to play professional baseball. It turns out that the claim was apparently in error. There was some sort of ambiguous letter from the team to Bill Richardson manny years ago expressing interest, but it wasn’t an actual draft. The radio show was trying to make political hay over this by questioning Richardson’s honesty based on his erroneous statement. It is stunning to see the EXTREME lengths you republicans will go to out of ‘LABEL LOYALTY’ to mud-sling your way out of the incredibly long train of corruption scandals surfacing in your party. STOP IT. Who cares about Richardson? He could have said that out of error in his own mind with respect to the letter, or he could have played it up out of shere bragadocio. Who cares? Who cares about some fight tickets or how they were meant to be characterized? These are miniscule, if anything at all. They are tiny, infinitesimal, minute in every way. These things are ESPECIALLY trivial in light of the election fraud, campaign fraud, lobbying scandals and scandals of excercise of undue influence in governments being excercised within the republican party and administration these days.

If we do what is right, if we turn our energies to adress the total issue of corruption regardless of party and do it NOW… it will be near the bottom of the priority list to deal with somebody’s free fight tickets!!! Compared to what we have seen, this is petty political hay making, by comparison. You don’t yet seem to realize it, SE, but you are being used to your detriment more than you know. It is absolutely NOT in your best interest to keep supporting the party you support. I can only assume it is blind pride that keeps you from realizing this reality. I know that sinfully strong pride is practically a cultural value among Sicilians, is it not? Look inward, SE. Consider your motives and consider what is right. If you do this, I can’t see you continuing to support this party.

RGF

Posted by: RGF at May 31, 2006 1:56 PM
Comment #153010

lookingout,

Maybe they can save some money and just add on a wing to the Tom Delay Federal Penitentiary.

Posted by: JayJay Snow at May 31, 2006 1:58 PM
Comment #153011

TO RGF
HYPOCRYSY??

Posted by: Mike at May 31, 2006 1:59 PM
Comment #153014

In regard to posts on High School drug pushers, we had a student legislature to emulate US Senate at my High School for education purposes. So indeed did know party affilations of everyone.

How did I know drug pushers, well with a class of 1000 knew almost everyone, and pushers push, they try to sell you, so you do know.

The #1 pusher (McGowan) was also leader of leftists at school and organized protests etc.

Cheech and Chong, the primary glamourizers of drug pushing, take a honest guess, do you think they are conservatives or liberals, …. duh?

Have noticed the “M” word never gets a response. Everyone inherently knows that. Consevative states like Kansas have low murder rates, and Liberal states like Maryland have high murder rates.

Thanks for comments, will next see if I can find studies on this, and will post

Cheers

Posted by: Darp at May 31, 2006 2:04 PM
Comment #153015

Darp,

I don’t know what kinda school you went to, scary! You’ll have to help me out with the “M” word, I don’t know what you’re talking about. You can probably associate liberals with certain behaviors more than with conservatives, that makes sense. You can also associate behaviors with conservatives more than with liberals, too. Do you think organized crime family mobsters are liberals? Go join the mob and find out how liberal they are. I would also question your statistics on murder. Red states have higher abortion rates than blue ones, I thought you Cons considered abortion murder. Red states also have higher levels of divorce than blue one. I don’t think the worst mass murderer of the last century was a liberal. Hitler seemed like a Con to me.

Posted by: JayJay Snow at May 31, 2006 2:14 PM
Comment #153016

kc,

I guess you think speed limits, drinking ages, voting age, divers licenses, and the entire criminal and tax codes are infringements on your god given right to run your own life too.

Posted by: Dave at May 31, 2006 2:15 PM
Comment #153019

“Red states also have higher levels of divorce than blue one.”
Posted by: JayJay Snow at May 31, 2006 02:14 PM

Those stats will change dramatically when gays are allowed to marry!!

Look at the most liberal city in our nation. San Fran. 75% of households are childless??

Posted by: bug at May 31, 2006 2:20 PM
Comment #153021

How can anyone argue the fact that murder rates in democrat cities is higher (by far) than republican areas? Okay, so nobody can provide an argument against that. So let’s move to the next logical query: Why?

I’ll take the first swing:

People that vote Democrat do so because they vote for protection of their entitlements. Poorer people need entitlements. Thus, poorer people vote democrat. Likewise, poorer people have less control over their living situation, and therefore end up living in poorer, high-density locales. So… why the murders? Poor people, truly poor people, tend to be more likely to get into desperate straits. They are almost literally fighting for their survival. Some take it to the streets. Some do drugs to escape reality. Some steal or do other crimes to support their habit and/or feed their children.

I guess I don’t believe it is an innate action. I believe it is due to a causal relationship between lifestyle and the need to survive.

Posted by: Bruce at May 31, 2006 2:24 PM
Comment #153024

Reply to JayJay below

Darp,

I don’t know what kinda school you went to, scary! You’ll have to help me out with the “M” word, I don’t know what you’re talking about. You can probably associate liberals with certain behaviors more than with conservatives, that makes sense. You can also associate behaviors with conservatives more than with liberals, too. Do you think organized crime family mobsters are liberals? Go join the mob and find out how liberal they are. I would also question your statistics on murder. Red states have higher abortion rates than blue ones, I thought you Cons considered abortion murder. Red states also have higher levels of divorce than blue one. I don’t think the worst mass murderer of the last century was a liberal. Hitler seemed like a Con to me.

Posted by: JayJay Snow at May 31, 2006 02:14 PM

I went to a rich liberal (70% Dem) high school in San Francisco Bay area that indeed had high drug use. Ruined the lives of a lot of my liberal friends.

The “M: word is Murder. About 90% is commited by liberals and the murder capital of America is the Liberal capital of America Wash DC, which has the highest Democrat Party voter %.

And yes JayaJay the Mob is indeed always voted on Democrat side. As Sam Giancani told his mutual mistress with John Kennedy, “I got your boyfriend elected” as he did by stealing votes in Chicago. Of course wher did the Kennedy money come from?, we all known, organized crime. Name a mob town and you name a Democrat city, they do go together.

Liked your post though, you are thinking.

Posted by: Darp at May 31, 2006 2:35 PM
Comment #153025

OFFICIAL STUDY BY LIBERALS CONFIRMS OBVIOUS, DEMOCRATS ARE FAR MORE CRIMINAL THAN REPULICANS:
Note their angle, since Democrats commit almost all crime we need to get felons to vote.


Christopher Uggen and Jeff Manza. 2002. “Democratic Contraction? The Political Consequences of Felon Disenfranchisement in the United States.” American Sociological Review 67:777-803.

Abstract

Universal suffrage is a cornerstone of democratic governance. As levels of criminal punishment have risen in the United States, however, an ever-larger number of citizens have lost the right to vote. We ask whether felon disenfranchisement constitutes a meaningful reversal of the extension of voting rights by considering its political impact. We examine data from legal sources, election studies, and inmate surveys to consider two counterfactual conditions: (1) whether removing disenfranchisement restrictions would have altered the outcomes of U.S. Senate and presidential elections; and, (2) whether applying contemporary rates of disenfranchisement to prior elections would have affected their outcomes. Because felons are drawn disproportionately from the ranks of racial minorities and the poor, disenfranchisement laws tend to take more votes from Democratic than from Republican candidates. We find that felon disenfranchisement played a decisive role in U.S. Senate elections, helping to establish the Republican Senate majority of the 1990s. Moreover, at least one Republican presidential victory would have been reversed even if only former felons had been allowed to vote and at least one Democratic presidential victory would have been jeopardized had contemporary rates of disenfranchisement prevailed during earlier periods.

Posted by: Darp at May 31, 2006 2:39 PM
Comment #153026

All

Looks like the Mighty Eagle hit a nerve today with the lefties.

Here is Massachusetts a favorite motto with the dems is “vote early…and often!”

You guys every hear of Tamminy Hall in NYC?

That THAT was corruption….ah…the good old days….

PLUS we have Adrienne and Sassy Liberal here on this thread today….the lefties musta sounded the alarm…… :)

Posted by: sicilianeagle at May 31, 2006 2:42 PM
Comment #153029
I guess you think speed limits, drinking ages, voting age, divers licenses, and the entire criminal and tax codes are infringements on your god given right to run your own life too.

This may be the stupidest comment I’ve seen in this thread.

The fact that you can’t figure out the difference between the one list and the other is a perfect example of why this country is nothing like the people who gave their lives to found it wanted for us.

Posted by: Rhinehold at May 31, 2006 2:48 PM
Comment #153031

Bruce, Good post you are thinking, not just being partisan.

Here is my crack at what you say is the obvious, why Democrats commit more crime (study above prove it so indeed its a done deal)

First even if people want to be criminal, crime can be dramtically reduced. The first Republican Mayor in NYC in 2 generations dropped crime so much so fast it was breathtaking (Guliani). How? Conservative solutions, zero tolerance of crime, which he got from a conservative think tank book.

2nd Issue Poverty: It is not very related to poverty. in the 1930s San Francisco was truly poor with some hunger and a higher population density so crime was rampant right? No, it was much much lower rate than today. So poverty is not the answer.

3rd and crucial one, Wanting to be a criminal: This is it, some people want to commit crime if they think they can get away with it. They think society “owes” then things they did not earn themselves. Sound familiar? The criminal mentality and the liberal mentalility have much in common. This is the real reason why crime and liberalism go together.

The worst mass murders like Jim Jones and John Gacy were well to do. Another thing they had in common was being officials of the Democrat party and meeting Roslyn Carter at Demo functions. What atrracted them to the Demo party? Liberlism is the answer, criminals are inherently liberal.

BRUCE SAID: How can anyone argue the fact that murder rates in democrat cities is higher (by far) than republican areas? Okay, so nobody can provide an argument against that. So let’s move to the next logical query: Why?

I’ll take the first swing:

People that vote Democrat do so because they vote for protection of their entitlements. Poorer people need entitlements. Thus, poorer people vote democrat. Likewise, poorer people have less control over their living situation, and therefore end up living in poorer, high-density locales. So… why the murders? Poor people, truly poor people, tend to be more likely to get into desperate straits. They are almost literally fighting for their survival. Some take it to the streets. Some do drugs to escape reality. Some steal or do other crimes to support their habit and/or feed their children.

I guess I don’t believe it is an innate action. I believe it is due to a causal relationship between lifestyle and the need to survive.

Posted by: Bruce at May 31, 2006 02:24 PM

Posted by: Darp at May 31, 2006 2:57 PM
Comment #153036

Rhinehold and (kc)Tim,
You libertarians crack me up the way you attack all liberal achievements that have made this country a decent place to live for the vast majority of our citizens, and then bleat on and on about how we don’t understand the Constitution. What a joke.
With practically every statement you make, you inform us that you don’t believe in most of the what the preamble told us what were to be the functions of American government:
Form a more perfect Union? Not even close.
Establish justice? Well, if someone can afford to hire a lawyer.
Insure domestic Tranquility? Far from it. Insure vicious and bloody class warfare, more like.
Promote the general Welfare? Never. Screw the poor. That’s their problem. Tough luck, losers.

When you libertarian-types (or the Neocons, who in many aspects share a similar dog-eat-dog outlook on what the functions of our govt. are) can point to a record of achievements to match that of liberals, and make the barest attempt to take spirit of the Constitution into some sort of account, well, then maybe I’ll begin take a few of your criticisms with more than a grain of salt, and a whoop of laughter.
But thanks for your replies. :^)

Posted by: Adrienne at May 31, 2006 3:09 PM
Comment #153037

You guys are just soo smart. I mean bickering and arguing is going to solve so many problems right? The louder you yell the more you will be heard… that is the theory isn’t it. Both parties need to grow up. This is supposed to be the United States of America… not the divided. Instead of pointing fingers at each other… how about working together?

-Einghf

Posted by: Einghf at May 31, 2006 3:09 PM
Comment #153042

Ha!

Mighty Eagle my painted arse!

You know what happened to all those corrupt dems from yesterday? …they became REPUBLICANS! In the case of one notable corrupt, segregationist sounthern dixiecrat, they became repubs and then died.

Isn’t intersting that same party has given us WATERGATE, IRAN-CONTRA, PLAME GATE, IRAQ, TOM DELAY, ABRAMOFF, ILL-GOTTEN LEGISLATION FOR ENRON, BIDLESS BENFIT TO HALLIBURTON, ETC. ETC. ETC.

You cannot mud-sling your way out of liability for the truth, “mighty-eagle.” If America means a thing to you at all, stop supporting those who undermine its very foundations. Screw your head on straight, se. get shed of the sinful pride and blind label-loyalty.

RGF

Posted by: RGF at May 31, 2006 3:19 PM
Comment #153044

RGF

You mean all those Dems from the early late 1980s and 1990s were Dixiecrats who became Republicans and then died?

And after Jim Wright resigned in 1989 with those ethics problems, he became a Republican and then died? And all those guys around Bill Clinton. Some are still alive and in jail. Maybe they became Republicans, but they still ain’t died.

I have seen this guilty Dem myth so many times on this blog I cannot count. Anyone who does Dem who does something bad is declared not at Dem, so no Dems ever do anything bad. It works well if yo believe it.

Posted by: Jack at May 31, 2006 3:30 PM
Comment #153045
How did I know drug pushers, well with a class of 1000 knew almost everyone, and pushers push, they try to sell you, so you do know. The #1 pusher (McGowan) was also leader of leftists at school and organized protests etc.

In highschool aren’t most of the kids Democrats period? Anyway, you made me Google to find out whether or not you were full of it:

From the American prospect:

Divorce:

In red states in 2001, there were 572,000 divorces. Blue states
recorded 340,000. In the same year, 11 red states had higher
rates of divorce than any blue state.

Teenage Mothers and Births Out of Wedlock:

In each of the red states of Louisiana, Mississippi, and New
Mexico, 46.3 percent of all births were to unwed mothers. In blue
states, on average, that percentage was 31.7. Delaware has the
highest rate of births to teenage mothers among all blue states,
yet 17 red states have a higher rate. Of those red states, 15
have at least twice the rate as that of Massachusetts. There were
more than 100 teen pregnancies per 1,000 women aged 15 to 19 in 5
red states in 2002. None of the blue states had rates that high.
The rate of teen births declined in 46 states from 1988 to 2000.
It climbed in 3 red states and saw no change in another.

Violent Crime:

The per capita rate of violent crime in red states is 421 per
100,000. In blue states, it’s 372 per 100,000. The per capita
rate of murder and non-negligent manslaughter in Louisiana is 13
per 100,000. In Maine, it’s 1.2 per 100,000.

Domestic Violence:

As of 2000, 37 states had statewide policies or procedures to
address domestic violence. All 13 that didn’t were red states.

Alcohol and Drug Abuse:

The 5 states with the highest rates of alcohol dependence or
abuse are red states. The 5 states with the highest rates of
alcohol dependence or abuse among 12- to 17-year-olds are also
red states. The per capita rate of methamphetamine-lab seizures
in California is 2 per 100,000. In Arkansas, it’s 20 per 100,000.
The number of meth-lab seizures in red states increased by 38
percent from 1999 to 2003. In the same time frame, it decreased
by 38 percent in blue states.

Out-of-Marriage Sexual Activity:

Residents of the all-red Mountain States are the most likely to
have had 3 or more sexual partners in the previous year.
Residents of all-blue New England are the least likely to have
had more than 1 partner in that span. Residents of the mid-
Atlantic region of New York, Pennsylvania, and New Jersey were
the most likely to be sexually abstinent. Residents of the all-
red West South Central region (Texas, Oklahoma, Arkansas,
Louisiana) were the least likely. Five red states reported more
than 400 cases of chlamydia per 100,000 residents in 2002. No
blue state had a rate that high. The per capita rate of gonorrhea
in red states was 140 per 100,000. In blue states, it was 99 per
100,000.

Yep. Full of it.

Posted by: Max at May 31, 2006 3:31 PM
Comment #153047

GOSH PEOPLE!!! Quit knocking Halliburton. Think about us shareholders trying to make some money and take our capital gains before the tax rates go back up. Please…leave Halliburton out of this.

Posted by: Greg at May 31, 2006 3:37 PM
Comment #153048

Nice, Max. More proof that red-state policies are not real world effective.

Posted by: David S at May 31, 2006 3:37 PM
Comment #153049

Darp, your posts are completely illogical, therefore, hilarious!

“Think back to High School. Who were the drug pushers? At my high School it was 100% Democrats. 100%. We all know this inherently, it goes along with being Liberal.”

This has got to be one of the funniest things I have ever read on this blog!!! Truly, it is bloody priceless in it’s total warpery and preconceived prejudice.
Hey Darp, at my highschool all of the drug pushers and most of the druggies were the those who had a lot of money. After all, one needs an initial cash outlay when going into business, yes? The rest seemed to have a lot of extra money to burn on buying drugs, in addition to all their toys and clothes and cars and stuff. Now I must admit, I never thought to ask what these kids political affiliations were at the time, but now that I think about it, a lot of their parents had Republican signs on their front lawns before every election…
Of course, the town where I grew up as a middle class kid was simply crawling with powerful old-money families — and those influential folks are usually huge supporters of the GOP from cradle to grave. “We all know this inherently.”
Ha! :^D

Posted by: Adrienne at May 31, 2006 3:39 PM
Comment #153050

People in prison voting Democrat is a no-brainer. Republicans don’t believe that anyone can be reformed while Democrats do. As a result, Red States have more repeat offenders, I’ll bet. More “drug pushers” being locked up for marijuana possession for 5-10 years coming out hardcore criminals.

Posted by: Max at May 31, 2006 3:42 PM
Comment #153051

Max,

I like the fact you quote facts or at least what is suppsed to be facts. The Number one Murder Capital in America, before Katrina was New Orleans, which is overwelmingly Democrat, in fact maybe the only city that has never had a republican Mayor (that is a guess). So thus with Orleans murder rate being about twice the murder rate in Iraq it makes the whole stae appear to have a high crime rate, whereas the crime is concentrated inthe Democrat areas. LA is not 100% Rep.

See original post below.

Liked your post

With Carl Limbacher and NewsMax.com Staff
For the story behind the story…
Monday, May 29, 2006 1:22 p.m. EDT
Iraq Less Violent than Washington, D.C.

Despite media coverage purporting to show that escalating violence in Iraq has the country spiraling out of control, civilian death statistics complied by Rep. Steve King, R-IA, indicate that Iraq actually has a lower civilian violent death rate than Washington, D.C.

Appearing with Westwood One radio host Monica Crowley on Saturday, King said that the incessantly negative coverage of the Iraq war prompted him to research the actual death numbers.

“I began to ask myself the question, if you were a civilian in Iraq, how could you tolerate that level of violence,” he said. “What really is the level of violence?”

Using Pentagon statistics cross-checked with independent research, King said he came up with an annualized Iraqi civilian death rate of 27.51 per 100,000.

While that number sounds high - astonishingly, the Iowa Republican discovered that it’s significantly lower than a number of major American cities, including the nation’s capital.
“It’s 45 violent deaths per 100,000 in Washington, D.C.,” King told Crowley.

Other American cities with higher violent civilian death rates than Iraq include:


Detroit - 41.8 per 100,000

Baltimore - 37.7 per 100,000

Atlanta - 34.9 per 100,000

St. Louis - 31.4 per 100,000
The American city with the highest civilian death rate was New Orleans before Katrina - with a staggering 53.1 deaths per 100,000 - almost twice the death rate in Iraq.

Posted by: Darp at May 31, 2006 3:43 PM
Comment #153052

Adrienne,

You hit the nail right on the head.

Posted by: Max at May 31, 2006 3:44 PM
Comment #153054

Jack,

Strom Thurman was a rascist, segregationist, dixie-crat who became republican. The current Gov of Texas, Perry, who has earned much dissatisfaction lately, from many, as a result of policies and support for things like the controversial private-excercise of emmanent domain, was a dem who is now a republican. He will suffer a political death to Kinky soon, hopefully, and then ultimately he will die. As will we all.

I think it safe to say that all those from the taminy-hall machine alluded to by mightless-eagle, are now dead and gone. Old news. We might as well be talking about the injustice of the whiskey rebellion. That was the point, Jack. Not that spelling it out for you people helps. Sinful pride is a powerful thing.

Posted by: RGF at May 31, 2006 3:48 PM
Comment #153055

Wow, the thread goes to “pot” quickly when the Darp hits the fan!

Bruce and Darp,

How can anyone argue the fact that murder rates in democrat cities is higher (by far) than republican areas? Okay, so nobody can provide an argument against that. So let’s move to the next logical query: Why?
This ranks as one of the most ignorant claims and biggest straw man arguments I’ve ever heard on this blog. What is your definition of a Democrat city? I’ll tell you what it should be—any large city. This definition applies in both red states and blue states. The higher crime and murder rates are due to higher concentration of people, higher cost of living, more displaced people, and countless other factors that have nothing to do with political affiliation. People become more liberal (not necessarily Democrats) by being exposed to the realities of living in close contact with others. What, did you really believe that city folk are born Democrats? Do you think all liberals migrate to cities? No, most liberals are created in cities. Liberals don’t create the problems, they are created by dealing with the problems.

By the way, Darp, everyone in my high school was also aware of who the drug pushers were. Very few high schoolers even know their own political affiliation at that age (few care about politics), and even fewer reveal it to others. However, two of the biggest pushers were also members of the Young Republicans, if that’s any clue.

Posted by: Introspective at May 31, 2006 3:48 PM
Comment #153056

Max,

You are much more fun than most Liberals and do think, your comment is below and my reply here:

Yes, Felons are almost all Democrats, we agree.

“More “drug pushers” being locked up for marijuana possession for 5-10 years coming out hardcore criminals.” I thought you thought prison was good for people and reformed them??

And you will be surprised at this maybe, I do not think drug users should be imprisoned. Caning is much better for everyone.

Cheers


You said:
People in prison voting Democrat is a no-brainer. Republicans don’t believe that anyone can be reformed while Democrats do. As a result, Red States have more repeat offenders, I’ll bet. More “drug pushers” being locked up for marijuana possession for 5-10 years coming out hardcore criminals.

Posted by: Max at May 31, 2006 03:42 PM

Posted by: darp at May 31, 2006 3:49 PM
Comment #153057

Darp et al

I don’t mind trashing the other side when it is appropriate, but this blue/red state thing makes little sense and is statistically invalid. More Californians voted for Bush than live in the whole state of Utah and more Texans voted for Kerry than there are people in voters Vermont.

We don’t need to show that Dems are crooks. We just need to show why their policies are wrong.

Posted by: Jack at May 31, 2006 3:50 PM
Comment #153059

Jack:

“It was wrong for the Dems to try the culture of corruption gambit - and hypocritical. Republican have managed now to defeat it and that is a good thing. Corruption is bipartisans and must be addressed in that manner.”

I agree that corruption is bipartisan - when speaking in generalities. However, today, now, the biggest corrupters are Republicans.

The way we keep corruption in check in the U.S. is by the party out of power screaming that there is a “culture of corruption.” If Democrats did not do this, the whole system would disintegrate.

When people tire of Republican corruption they elect Democrats. It takes them awhile to become corrupt, but when it happens, the Republicans are there to scream “corruption.”

You are not helping the system by proclaiming that both parties are corrupt, thus taking Republicans off the hook.

Posted by: Paul Siegel at May 31, 2006 3:53 PM
Comment #153061

Darp,

Figures released by IBC (Iraq Body Count project) March 9th, updated by statistics for the year 2005 from the main Baghdad morgue, show that the total number of civilians reported killed has risen year-on-year since May 1st 2003 (the date that President Bush announced “major combat operations have ended”):
* 6,331 from 1st May 2003 to the first anniversary of the invasion, 19th March 2004 (324 days: Year 1)
* 11,312 from 20th March 2004 to 19th March 2005 (365 days: Year 2)
* 12,617 from 20th March 2005 to 1st March 2006 (346 days: Year 3).

In terms of average violent deaths per day this represents:

* 20 per day in Year 1
* 31 per day in Year 2 and
* 36 per day in Year 3.

There’s no way Detroit has more people in it than Iraq, and no way there are more than 36 violent deaths a day in Detroit. I don’t know what stats this guy is looking at, but is anyone going to believe that there are more civilian deaths a day in Detroit than in Iraq?

Posted by: Max at May 31, 2006 3:58 PM
Comment #153062

Introspective, you said:
This ranks as one of the most ignorant claims and biggest straw man arguments I’ve ever heard on this blog. What is your definition of a Democrat city? I’ll tell you what it should be—any large city. This definition applies in both red states and blue states. The higher crime and murder rates are due to higher concentration of people, higher cost of living, more displaced people, and countless other factors that have nothing to do with political affiliation. People become more liberal (not necessarily Democrats) by being exposed to the realities of living in close contact with others. What, did you really believe that city folk are born Democrats? Do you think all liberals migrate to cities? No, most liberals are created in cities. Liberals don’t create the problems, they are created by dealing with the problems.


Darp Response: Intro Thank you for making my point!! Believing what you said above (and that is what the media and schools want you to believe) is the PROBLEM. That is what causing crime believing that lame excuse for crime.

Think about it? 80 years ago NYC, SF, etc had more people not less (suburbs and cheap cars and good roads were lacking) and they had more poverty, but much less crime(in NYC until Guliani showed up). Sinapore is much more crowded than New Orleans or Wash DC, yet has practically no crime. NYC crime is down like 75%+ in 10 years.

None of the facts jive with your theory. BUT 80 years ago people did not believe what you said about crime and liberalism and people today in Sinapore do not belive it either.

The key to crime is not believing in individual respondsibility. Which is what you post and Liberalism is all about.

Liked you post though. No cheap shots.

Posted by: Darp at May 31, 2006 4:00 PM
Comment #153063

Paul

I don’t think just shuffling the parties does any good. There are honest Republicans and honest Dems. The people of those districts should figure that out and vote accordingly.

The system also provides too much power. Some things are not the Feds business. Abramoff was only able to be a crook because the congress had extended its power farther than it should have. The Indian tribes that hired him wanted him to influence policy and he did. If we just didn’t deal with that market, there would be no possiblilty for a bribe.

You cannot “bribe” the owner of something to sell you his own property. Bribes are only possible when third parties have power over transactions of others. Give that power to government as little as possible.

Posted by: Jack at May 31, 2006 4:03 PM
Comment #153065

“There’s no way Detroit has more people in it than Iraq, and no way there are more than 36 violent deaths a day in Detroit. I don’t know what stats this guy is looking at, but is anyone going to believe that there are more civilian deaths a day in Detroit than in Iraq?”

Answer Crime rate, not numbers. You have to do apple to apple comparison, murders per 100,000 people per year. That is the only way to do it objectively. And the answer is yes. You are more likely to killed violently in 4 USA cities than Iraq today standing on the street. On the other hand NYC is far safer than Iraq.

Read the statistics in that report above, it will make sense if you reread it.

Posted by: Darp at May 31, 2006 4:05 PM
Comment #153066

Let us not forget Joe Biden’s inability to write a book without copying somebody else’s work.

The top ten mass murders’s in this country were homosexual and most were democrat.

Ho-hum. The more things change the more they stay the same.

Posted by: tomh at May 31, 2006 4:08 PM
Comment #153072

I am leaving on a long road trip now, so will not be able to answer for a while. But trully enjoyed the discussion.

Cheers

Posted by: darp at May 31, 2006 4:22 PM
Comment #153080

Paul:

I don’t know of any specific studies to support my position, but perhaps you do. My position on corruption is that the party in power has more opportunity to be corrupt, and therefore while in power, seems to have more corruption. That means that when Reps are in power, there are more instances of corruption from Reps than from Dems. When Dems are in power, there are more instances of corruption from Dems than from Reps.

We saw more indictments of Dems than Reps during the 8 years of Clinton’s presidency. We see the opposite now under Bush.

I’d be interested if anyone can show documentary evidence of my position. I think its correct, but I don’t have the search engine to document it.

What it truly means is that our government has much corruption in it. Some of it is obvious, as in Duke Cunningham (proven) and William Jefferson (alleged). Some of it is much less so, in the form of gerrymandering, undue influence etc.

Posted by: joebagodonuts at May 31, 2006 4:33 PM
Comment #153086

Jack,

Interesting comment you made: ‘We don’t need to show that dems are corrupt, we need to show there policies ae wrong.

The Dems have shown that some of the republican’s policies were RIGHT…The republicans then responded by shifting away from those policies. We now have stubborn, prideful republicans such as yourself and mightless eagle, who adhere to label rather than to ideas while simultaneously taking issue with abondonned policies of the dems from 30+ years ago!

Get real, Jack.

Posted by: RGF at May 31, 2006 4:50 PM
Comment #153099

Darp,

None of the facts jive with your theory. BUT 80 years ago people did not believe what you said about crime and liberalism and people today in Sinapore do not belive it either.
None of the facts jive with your theory, unless you handpick certain ones. New York has made great progress on crime, that is true. However, New York crime rates—as well as the crime rate of many other cities—began to decrease even before Giuliani’s zero tolerance policy was set up, and even before Giuliani was in office. Many other cities continued to make great progress on crime, zero tolerance or not, without imposing on people’s rights. For example, the Chicago CAPS system is envied by many, and has been responsible for a huge drop in crime in Chicago in the last decade. Community policing such as CAPS is a very liberal idea, by the way, and a great example of personal responsibility. Even London is considering adopting Chicago’s system.
The key to crime is not believing in individual respondsibility. Which is what you post and Liberalism is all about.
That’s not at all what my post—and liberalism for that matter—is about (by the way, I’m going to assume you meant to say that the key to crime is believing in individual responsibility). The idea that liberals do not believe in personal responsibility is one of the biggest conservative myths there is.

Bringing up Singapore as another example is also totally nonsensical. Where is your evidence that Singapore’s low crime rates are due to conservative policies? Where is your evidence that the government or the people are conservative? Before you bring up the death penalty and other draconian laws, keep in mind that Singapore has laws that neither liberals or conservatives in this country would support—for example, guns possession is not just restricted, but totally illegal in Singapore. Zero tolerance and inflicting draconian punishments do not equal personal responsibility. They equal fear.

Posted by: Introspective at May 31, 2006 5:22 PM
Comment #153103

According to this article, Harry Reid was not given free tickets, but instead VIP credentials, which had no cash value. Payment for such credentials is illegal. John McCain paid, but the money could not be accepted by the commission, and ended up going to a charity. The commission also says that where he could pay, he did.

The Republicans have leapt to a conclusion, and jumped clear over the facts.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at May 31, 2006 5:29 PM
Comment #153106

I guess mightless-eagle is lawyer who is not good with facts. How sad for him.

Posted by: RGF at May 31, 2006 5:33 PM
Comment #153112

SE,

If you went into court to prosecute Reid on the boxing tickets, with the evidence you have cited here the judge would throw you out on your ass.

The hyperbole you spew is nothing short of amazing.

Posted by: Rocky at May 31, 2006 5:49 PM
Comment #153121
With practically every statement you make, you inform us that you don’t believe in most of the what the preamble told us what were to be the functions of American government:

You continue to show how you don’t understand the constitution, Adrienne. The preamble is just that, a preamble. It is not a declaration of function or limits on those assigned duties. That would be the rest of the document that you seem to ignore.

It’s read like this: “In order to make a smacking wonderful place for everyone to be free and happy, what follows are the rules and functions of the government and how they should work” and then goes on to detail, quite clearly, those limits and functions.

I have stated to you over and over again, and you continue to ignore or just not care because it doesn’t jive with what your mind has made up is a libertarian, that all of the things that liberals want CAN be constitutional, *IF* they go through th eprocess and change the constitution to allow it. Otherwise, you can’t get past the 10th amendment without choking full on everything you are trying to ram through.

I’m sorry you don’t LIKE it but that doesn’t mean you can IGNORE it. Just as you don’t think that the republicans can ignore it for THEIR agendas.

Hypocrisy makes me sick.

Posted by: Rhinehold at May 31, 2006 6:14 PM
Comment #153122
The idea that liberals do not believe in personal responsibility is one of the biggest conservative myths there is.

Name one liberal platform agenda that requires that people rely upon themselves for solving a problem and not the government. Other than abortion.

You say myth, I say fact. let’s find out who is right?

Posted by: Rhinehold at May 31, 2006 6:17 PM
Comment #153130


We will smear Reid over the tickets and not mention how he voted. This will confuse the voters and they will reelect us.

It won’t work boys and girls. In the eyes of the voters, the party of corruption is the party in power. When the democrats regain power, they will be the party of corruption but not until. Perhaps this is wishful thinking and the voters will be unable to see through the republican campaign of lies which Jack makes clear will be the republican strategy once again as always.

Posted by: jlw at May 31, 2006 6:42 PM
Comment #153133


Stephen D. They could care less about the guilt or innocence of Reid. The republicans can never run a campaign based on truth. If they did, they would never win.

Posted by: jlw at May 31, 2006 6:49 PM
Comment #153134

Rhinehold,

You have bought into a neo-con cultural propaganda that as wrong as it gets.

It iws the conservatives who are now undermining individual responsibility.

Posted by: RGF at May 31, 2006 6:51 PM
Comment #153137

Rhinehold,

Name one liberal platform agenda that requires that people rely upon themselves for solving a problem and not the government.
The liberal platform agenda is for protecting personal freedom, not limiting personal responsibility. The two are not mutally exclusive—the conservative myth is that they are.

Posted by: Introspective at May 31, 2006 7:07 PM
Comment #153168


When I was a young man, in my home town, it was the poor riverrat kids who were selling the nickle and dime bags. It was the rich hill top kids who were bringing in the kilos and making most of the profit. Isn’t that the way capitalism is supposed to work.

Posted by: jlw at May 31, 2006 8:44 PM
Comment #153194

RGF,

No, it is both parties that rae undermining individual responsibility. That’s the dirty little secret.

Introspective,

So you can’t provide a platform stance that supports individual responsibility? As for personal freedom, are the democrats fighting to allow me the choice of wearing a seat belt or not? OR of seeing the doctor of my choice or not? Or of how I choose to plan for my retirement? NO?

I could go on but since all I’ve seen out of the left on the issue are accusations that I’m a mindless shill for the right, I’ll just accept that no argument will be forthcoming.

Posted by: Rhinehold at May 31, 2006 9:58 PM
Comment #153209

Rhinehold,
If the wrong wing believes so strongly in personal responsibility, why are they so busy mudslinging instead of practicing what they preach?

Posted by: ElliottBay at May 31, 2006 10:40 PM
Comment #153210

“Who was that masked mindless shill for the Right?”:-)

Posted by: Tim Crow at May 31, 2006 10:44 PM
Comment #153225

ElliotBay

Do you actually read what I write? They don’t, they are just as bad as the democrats. Just in their own different way.

Posted by: Rhinehold at May 31, 2006 11:45 PM
Comment #153226

Let’s put it plainly for all those to involved in the argument to notice:

Harry Reid:
1)Could not pay for the tickets because
2)They weren’t tickets, but VIP Credentials which
3)the people in question could not accept money for under the law.

Additionally:
1)He paid for all events where he had the choice, and
2)He decided against the people who hosted him on the credentials.

Therefore:
1)There was no corruption here.
2)There are no ethics problems here.
3)The sources for this either couldn’t get their facts straight or
4)They deliberately didn’t get their facts straight. Pick your poison.
5)The Republicans should be a heck of a lot more critical about their sources This is the umpteenth time I’ve unravelled a B.S. story from the right.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at May 31, 2006 11:47 PM
Comment #153230
Name one liberal platform agenda that requires that people rely upon themselves for solving a problem and not the government.

Rhinehold,

Just one? How about freedom of Religion? Liberals believe that people are smart enough to take responsibility for their own spirituality. Cons want to dictate to people what their moral values should be instead of giving that responsiblity to individuals.

How about being responsible for marrying the person you love. Liberals believe that people are responsible enough to know their own sexual orientation. Cons want to dictate who we can and cannot marry.

How about being responsible for your actions, instead of having paranoid Cons listening in on your conversations in an attempt to control your actions.

Oops! I guess that was more than one.

Posted by: JayJay Snow at May 31, 2006 11:59 PM
Comment #153242

JayJay,

I asked about a platform agenda that focused on personal responsibility. You have yet to provide one. Defending a FEW of the rights we are guaranteed in the constitution does not equal that.

I agree that we should protect those freedoms that are guaranteed, but I think that they should ALL be protected, not just the ones I like. It’s a shame that liberals don’t feel the same.

I have a post coming soon that I am working on called LCD, I will try to do a better job of explaining what I mean in that article.

But seriously, you’re on weak ground here talking about protecting rights as a liberal when your party’s platform attempts to walk all over many of those as badly as the republicans do.

Posted by: Rhinehold at June 1, 2006 12:28 AM
Comment #153245

Rhinehold

Well, standing up for the Constitution is still one better than I can say for my Con friends who have put the Constitution under attack.

Posted by: JayJay Snow at June 1, 2006 12:40 AM
Comment #153249

If you all don’t mind getting back to the original topic of this thread, the AP has been BUSTED again making more misleading statements.

Posted by: JayJay Snow at June 1, 2006 12:54 AM
Comment #153250

Rhinehold,

I asked about a platform agenda that focused on personal responsibility.
As I already stated, just because a platform doesn’t focus on personal responsibility doesn’t mean the platform doesn’t believe in it or is against it. In my eyes, the conservative platform doesn’t focus on personal responsibility either.
But seriously, you’re on weak ground here talking about protecting rights as a liberal when your party’s platform attempts to walk all over many of those as badly as the republicans do.
You hit the nail on the head there, Rhinehold. Conservatives and liberals differ in their interpretations of which rights are guaranteed in both the Constitution and the Bill or Rights. Conservatives view liberals as wanting to trample on the conservative interpretation of guaranteed rights. Liberals, likewise, view conservatives as wanting to trample on the liberal interpretation of guaranteed rights.

Both conservatives and liberals trample on rights, in the eyes of the other platform. But conservatives claiming that this means their platform has a monopoly on personal responsibility is just as disingenuous as conservatives claiming their platform has a monopoly on moral or family values.

I don’t claim liberals believe in more personal responsibility than conservatives, but they certainly don’t believe in less just because conservatives don’t agree about which rights are getting trampled on.

Posted by: Introspective at June 1, 2006 1:07 AM
Comment #153261

Rhinehold:
“You continue to show how you don’t understand the constitution, Adrienne. The preamble is just that, a preamble. It is not a declaration of function or limits on those assigned duties.”

Just so we’re clear here Rhinehold, the official definition from my Websters:
preamble 1: an introductory statement; specifically the reasons for and intent of the law 2: an introductory fact or circumstance; especially one indicating what is to follow
So, you’re completely wrong.
Additionally, the preamble has been used too many times to count by the Supreme Court when justices were/are weighing and considering the intent, meaning, and historical record regarding various clauses in the Constitution.
So it is indeed used to determine both function and limits on the rest of the document.

As far as the tenth amendment goes, you’ll have to take that up with the Courts, because they’ve been the entity to render the amendment utterly meaningless, not liberal legislators.

“Hypocrisy makes me sick.”

Yeah, me too. Everyone on the right has benefitted in truly enormous ways from those Liberal achievements I listed yesterday, and yet at every opportunity, they are dismissed as nothing. Nevertheless, if there had been no liberals to make this country the decent place it is, through all our hard work and sweat and blood, the vast majority of you righties would now be living in a cesspool, bowing your heads as poorly educated, exhausted, overworked wage slaves to enrich a brutal and boorish class of wealthy overloads.

Posted by: Adrienne at June 1, 2006 3:07 AM
Comment #153279

Stephen


PSSST….Not only is did he take the tickets…now he is in denial!

Today’s Yahoo featured story.

PS. Keep unravelling.

By JOHN SOLOMON, Associated Press Writer
1 hour, 39 minutes ago


WASHINGTON - Pssst. Senate Democratic leader Harry Reid. What happens in Vegas doesn’t always stay in Vegas after all. A day after The Associated Press reported Reid accepted free ringside seats to boxing matches from a Nevada agency trying to influence him on federal boxing legislation, the senator offered his own ethics justification to a home state audience in Las Vegas.




And he vowed to keep taking such gifts.

But Reid’s comments Tuesday quickly reached Washington, where several ethics experts concluded the Senate leader had misstated the Senate rules to his constituents.

Within hours of being questioned by AP about the ethics experts’ assertions, Reid’s office abruptly reversed course and acknowledged Wednesday night he had misspoken about the ethics rules.

The Senate leader also has decided not to take free boxing seats in the future even though he still believes it was ethical to do so in 2004 and 2005, Reid’s office said.

“In light of questions that have been raised about the practice, Senator Reid will not accept these kinds of credentials in the future in order to avoid even the faintest appearance of impropriety,” spokesman Jim Manley said.

AP reported Monday that Reid accepted the free seats to three fights from the Nevada Athletic Commission as it was trying to influence his support for legislation to create a federal boxing commission. The state agency feared the legislation would usurp its authority to regulate fights and wanted to convince Reid there was no need for a federal body. Reid continued to support the federal body.

Reid told Las Vegas reporters on Tuesday he would continue to accept such tickets and did not believe he did anything wrong even though a fellow senator, John McCain, R-Ariz., who joined him for one of the fights, decided to reimburse $1,400 for his seat.

Reid said he believed it was appropriate to accept the free tickets because the gifts were from his home state and that McCain had to reimburse because he was from out of state.

Senate ethics rules generally allow senators to take gifts from any state, not just their home state. But they specifically warn against taking normally permissible gifts if the giver may be trying to influence official action.

Manley said Wednesday night that Reid “misspoke when he said the rule applies only to senators who represent the state agency.” But he added he believes Reid still could ethically accept the tickets.

“It was therefore entirely permissible for Senator Reid — a senator from Nevada — to have attended a major Nevada sporting event as a guest of Nevada officials,” Manley said.

Several ethics experts disagreed, criticizing Reid’s justification during his Las Vegas news conference that he felt an “obligation” to take the tickets to ensure boxing was being conducted properly in his home state.

“He is no more obligated to go to boxing matches than he is to a Celine Dion concert in Vegas,” said Melanie Sloan, a former Justice Department prosecutor and head of Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington.

Fred Wertheimer, a longtime ethics watchdog, agreed.

“The test under congressional ethics rules in these circumstances is not what state a member is from but whether the gift creates the appearance that the gift is motivated by a desire to influence the member or gain favorable official action,” said Wertheimer, president of the nonpartisan Democracy 21 ground that advocates campaign finance, ethics and lobbying reforms. “If the gift creates such an appearance, it should not be accepted.”

Reid told AP the free tickets did not influence his position, noting he voted for the legislation when it passed the Senate. However, Reid had forced a change in the bill that let the federal commission regulate the TV networks when they promoted fights. After the change, the House never approved the legislation.

Boxing promoter Bob Arum said when Reid did go to boxing matches in earlier years he always paid for tickets.

Ethics experts said the fact that Reid paid for past tickets, then accepted free seats from the commission after he became a Senate leader and was pushing legislation affecting the sport only worsened his ethical picture.

Ellen Miller, head of the Sunlight Foundation, a nonpartisan group studying the ethics and inner workings of Congress, said Reid’s comments in Las Vegas should make voters suspicious.

“Any time a politician starts parsing language and telling different stories, you have to assume they may have something to be ashamed of,” Miller said.

Posted by: SicilianEagle at June 1, 2006 6:44 AM
Comment #153301

rgf,

“You know what happened to all those corrupt dems from yesterday? …they became REPUBLICANS! In the case of one notable corrupt, segregationist sounthern dixiecrat, they became repubs and then died.”

Can you back that up? George Wallace died a democrat and was elected as a dem in the 80s.

Posted by: lllplus2 at June 1, 2006 9:11 AM
Comment #153303

“Do you actually read what I write? They don’t, they are just as bad as the democrats. Just in their own different way”

Hey Rhinehold, any clue why it’s so hard for people to understand that?
Why is it so hard to believe that a person can be pissed off when their 4th Amendment rights AND their 2nd Amendment rights are violated?
You don’t have to pick and choose which rights you support people, just support them ALL.

Just about anytime rights are brought up on here, people automatically dismiss the facts and try to change the direction of the question.

Posted by: kctim at June 1, 2006 9:24 AM
Comment #153346

I didn’t have time to read the responses to this nonsense:

How can anyone argue the fact that murder rates in democrat cities is higher (by far) than republican areas?
Posted by: Bruce at May 31, 2006 02:24 PM
Go see this post evaluating CDC data which shows that in the Reddest states (deep South and Rockies states) you are much more likely to die an intentionally violent death than Blue states.

Adrienne,

I was already under the impression that most Red Staters were already under the oppression of jackbooted overlords”.

Posted by: Dave at June 1, 2006 11:34 AM
Comment #153365

A ditty to Light Horse Harry.
A Dem flag he was to carry.
He went to the Fight
While others paid right.
Now he’s called “Cash and Carry.”

Posted by: political_sniper at June 1, 2006 12:47 PM
Comment #153372

Adrienne:

“…if there had been no liberals to make this country the decent place it is… the vast majority of you righties would now be living in a cesspool, bowing your heads as poorly educated, exhausted, overworked wage slaves to enrich a brutal and boorish class of wealthy overloads.”

You mean, like I’m doing now?! I want to speak to the Management!!

Posted by: Tim Crow at June 1, 2006 1:00 PM
Comment #153382

I have to ask, what is better? To be working for ‘the man’ with the ability to leave my job and still have my basic human rights as I find better employment or working for ‘the state’ without the ability to avoid the repercussions of that action and instead having to submit to the legal use of force that governments are empowered with, subjected to the whims of the majority (or some cases minority) and have to deal with the boorish class of moronic politicians who are only concerned with increasing their power and hold on the captive citizenry…

I’m going to have to say, I’m not sure you’ve done anyone any favors. :P

(and please, I’m not a righty. In one breath you slam me for being a libertarian, which I am, and in the next, when it suits your whims, I’m a righty… It’s obvious you know better but still can’t help yourself. *sigh*)

Posted by: Rhinehold at June 1, 2006 1:14 PM
Comment #153475

Vote ‘em all out, except the good ones.

That’s funny since (18-Dec-2005) Senate Democratic leader Harry Reid called the Republican-led Congress “the most corrupt in history”, and distanced himself from lobbyist Jack Abramoff, at the center of an escalating probe.

Things are so bad, some have received ethics training … as if that is really going to change anything.

Anyone know any good congress persons ?
10, 20, 50, or even 268 (half of 535) in Congress?

Tickets to boxing matches is minuscule compared all the other stuff we have already seen, and the much larger number of things we don’t see … like the Randy Cunninghams, William Jeffersons, Tom Delay, etc., etc., etc. (list too long to show here).

58% of Americans think the federal government is corrupt.

90% of Americans want tough reforms.

Congress always promises reforms, but they never materialize.

If congress and government is doing such a great job, how do you explain the problems growing in number and severity?

Will the image of congress ever emerge as an election topic, with 55% of those polled saying corruption will be either a “very” or the “most important issue” to consider when voting in November 2006, when all 435 House seats, and 33 Senate seats, will be decided ?

I doubt it, because voters are too brainwashed and fond of wallowing in the petty partisan warfare, too fond of demonizing their fellow Americans instead of ever holding their politicians accountable, and too brainwashed to keep re-electing the very same incumbent politicians that use and abuse everyone.

Posted by: d.a.n at June 1, 2006 4:41 PM
Comment #153484

I guess we can finally bury the “liberal media” meme can’t we? John Solomon and the AP have been after Reid for months peddling innuendo and lies even though they found he voted to raise the minimum wage at Delay’s pet Marianas slave labor camps and voted for the federal boxing commission bill the Nevada Commission was trying to kill. It ain’t much of bribery scandal if the recipient does the opposite of what you want but you’d never know that by reading John Solomon.

If anything this ought to prove the difference between Dem leadership and Repub. Just compare how Repubs let their campaign contributors write the energy, bankruptcy and Medicare drug plan bills. Look at thow they take care of bankers by letting them have a cut of student loans. Look at the Iraq and Katrina reconstruction fiascos. US taxpayers are paying almost as much to have a blue tarp thrown up on a house as it costs to reroof it in Louisiana because Repubs are giving those bloated contracts to their cronies who outsource the work
2 or 3 times with everybody taking a cut. Duke Cunningham traded our national defense to his crooked cohorts for a fancy toilet, a Rolls Royce and hookers among other things. Government by people who hate the federal government has got to go. They don’t govern effectively because they don’t want effective government, they want to kill the government and if we die in the bargain so be it. Bush staffs FEMA with incompetents and campaign fund raisers, Hastert thinks it’s more important to pay off Big Pharma than making sure grandma can get her meds and Cunningham just had to have that big house without regard to whether Wilke’s company actually was qualified for any of the contracts it got.

And that’s just the tip of the iceberg. But all you Repub apparatchiks keep whistling past the graveyard, ok? You’ve chosen party over country, greed and lust for power over duty and honor. You’ve proven yourselves incapable and unworthy to lead the nation. It’s time for you to go back to the backbenches where you belong.

Posted by: Mark Garrity at June 1, 2006 5:08 PM
Comment #153499

SE-
The article repeats the mistake: You can’t pay for VIP credentials. It’s simply not legal. John McCain reimbursed the folks money they were forbidden to accept.

The reason he’s backtracking on this is plainly political. He doesn’t want to leave himself open to an attack like this, which while demonstrably false, certainly looks suspicious.

In other words, Harry Reid wishes not only to avoid improprieties, he wishes to avoid the appearance of such.

Contrast this with Dick Cheney’s behavior. He openly employs a company for the reconstruction in Iraq which he lead before being vice president. That is the appearance of impropriety, even if it isn’t in reality a corrupt bargain.

I’m sure we have some bad apples, but we’re more than willing to toss them out of the barrel, rather than let them rot the whole thing. That might have been a good lesson for your folks to have learned a few years back.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at June 1, 2006 5:53 PM
Comment #153528

How are Democrats and Republicans different in a way that it matters ?

I just don’t see the vast differences any more.

With all the corruption on both sides in the last 30+ years, what’s the difference ?

The argument about who is more corrupt is a joke since both are corrupt. If the Republicans are a little more corrupt, it’s only because they are the current “In-Party”. After Democrats get their turn to be the “In-Party”, they will be the more corrupt, and Republicans will start pretending to care about the National Debt again.

How many decades does a person have to observe both parties takin’ turns being irresponsible to finally conclude they are both irresponsible and corrupt ?

The myth of the difference is how both perpetuate their incumbency.

Both are more similar than different, and where they are different, it’s not in any way that matters that much.

And, you can’t go strictly by votes, because one side often will simply vote against what ever the other votes for, proving that both put their partisan bickering above the good of the nation, since problems continue to grow in number and severity.

Posted by: d.a.n at June 1, 2006 6:53 PM
Comment #153577

Rhinehold:
“I’m going to have to say, I’m not sure you’ve done anyone any favors. :P”

Well, I still say that America would have sucked without us. But maybe we’ll still be friends if I tell you I don’t believe in the Federal Reserve and the way that unconstitutional entity is run in secrecy? Or that I think the middle class pays too much in taxes and doesn’t get enough in return for it, while the wealthy obviously doesn’t pay their fair share yet always finds a way to get whatever they ask from government? Or that I believe that politicians on both sides mismanage our money, and should be held to strict account for that?

“(and please, I’m not a righty. In one breath you slam me for being a libertarian, which I am, and in the next, when it suits your whims, I’m a righty… It’s obvious you know better but still can’t help yourself. *sigh*)”

No Rhinehold, I know you’re a Libertarian. But the Libertarians in this blog spend most of their time attacking Liberals rather than those on the right. Indeed, you side with them so frequently that I often wonder where you people actually draw the line.

Posted by: Adrienne at June 1, 2006 9:58 PM
Comment #153605

d.a.n
I’ll start with Mike Pence from Indiana.

JayJay
Democrats for years have been for the definition of marriage as one man united with one woman. It is truly strange that people have become so “wise” that tradition, culture and what God put together, have become so irelevant and moral. God destroyed Sodom and Gomorah for their sinful sexual practices. The lesson has not been learned by all. The long term agenda for the homosexual community is to next legalize polygamy. The ACLU has already ramped up to get the program in motion. Animals are right around the corner. The entire agenda is sick and sinful.

Posted by: tomh at June 2, 2006 12:11 AM
Comment #153612

tomh,

Would you consider becoming a missionary for my church? We need more of your sort here—people that can spread the word!

Posted by: Fred Phelps at June 2, 2006 12:46 AM
Comment #153623

tomh,

You need to go back and read what the bible really says the reason Sodom and Gomorah were destroyed by Jehovah. NOWHERE does the Bible say that Sodom was destroyed by Jehovah because of homosexuality, NOWHERE.

The AP has been BUSTED again, yes again!

Posted by: JayJay Snow at June 2, 2006 2:25 AM
Comment #153695

Yeah, the problem with Sodom and Gommorah wasn’t that folks were gay, it’s that they were a bunch of inhospitable, lawless bastards. To try and force a person to yield his guests up to gang rape (which would have been an intolerable humiliation in that time) was a seriously offensive thing in and of itself. That it was homosexual rape didn’t mean that the people themselves were gay. It was a way to “make a woman” out of a guy, to make him your bitch in modern terms. Where the Sodomites And Gommorans really got into trouble was that Lot’s guests were Angels of God!

So, God destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah because they were a bunch of evil bastards who made a really bad first impression on his personal emmisaries.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at June 2, 2006 11:42 AM
Comment #153756

Stephen,

It is important to note that Jehovah decided to destroy Sodom and three other cities prior to the incident with the angels at Lot’s. Lot lived in the city and certainly would have known if the men in the mob were gay, yet he offers up his two virgin daughters. Why would he do that if he knew the men in the mob were homosexual? Why wouldn’t he have offered up his two future son-in-laws?

The Bible says that the citizens of Sodom went after “Strange Flesh,” the angels were not human. It is more likely that “Strange Flesh” is referring to bestiality, not homosexuality.

Posted by: JayJay Snow at June 2, 2006 2:54 PM
Comment #153869

was the hospitatily of lots new Guests MORE important to him than his daughters safety? or was the MAN the cock of the rock back then? do human beings make bad mistakes? any less or more today? was the role of woman back then less than today? the women today are supposed to be equal are they?

Posted by: Rodney Brown at June 2, 2006 7:49 PM
Comment #153883

Representative Mike Pence (R) Indiana:

  • Voted NO on campaign finance reform banning soft-money contributions. (Feb 2002)

  • Voted YES to import import foreign workers to compete directly with Americans for jobs, which is probably the greatest damage to the wages and working conditions of American workers; although temporary importation of foreign workers does not in itself cause significant U.S. population growth, it usually does because the federal government has done almost nothing to ensure that workers go back home after their work visas expire

  • Voted YES on Constitutional Amendment banning same-sex marriage. (Sep 2004); (This is ridiculous … haven’t they got anything better to do in D.C. ?)

  • Voted YES on constitutional amendment prohibiting flag desecration. (Jun 2003); (I don’t like flag burning, but making it a crime is worse than the flag burning itself.)

  • and they all look the other way.

Posted by: d.a.n at June 2, 2006 9:03 PM
Comment #154050

Mark Garrity:

“Government by people who hate the federal government has got to go. They don’t govern effectively because they don’t want effective government, they want to kill the government and if we die in the bargain so be it. “


I’ve always said that electing people that despise government was a catastrophe waiting to happen. And now it’s happening, and the American people don’t like it.

Posted by: Tim Crow at June 3, 2006 3:24 PM
Comment #157999

Indiana Rep. Mike Pence (R) also promotes a dumb immigration plan that won’t work.

Although Rep. Pence does not include the amnesties or giant green card increases of the Senate immigration bill (S. 2611), his proposal is much closer to the Senate plan (a.k.a. Amnesty) than the House’s enforcement-only bill (H.R. 4437).

Under Rep. Pence’s plan, a guestworker must either return home or begin the process of seeking citizenship after the guestworker’s visa has expired. Does Rep. Mike Pence really believe any guestworker will go home? Of course most will apply for citizenship. That is amnesty. As well, Rep. Pence’s plan doesn’t include any prevailing wage standards, meaning employers can race each other to the bottom of the wage barrel while Americans and legal immigrants get squeezed out of their jobs.

Rep. Pence’s proposal is essentially amnesty.

Congress is FOR SALE.
They don’t give a damn about the American people.
They only care about fillin’ their own pockets.
That is why no one can name 10, 20, much less 268 (half of 535) in congress that aren’t irresponsible and/or crooked.

Congress needs a good flush.

Vote ‘em all out.

Posted by: d.a.n at June 15, 2006 8:29 AM
Post a comment