Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : FREE AMERICA -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Bill who wrote (3197)	4/12/2006 9:15:13 AM
From: epicure	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 14758

I threw out the scandals that involved mixed groups. I figure if both parties are in on it, it counts against everyone. But what I said in my earlier post was that it's not a slam dunk. I was just looking up some of the figures on Reagan's buds- 138 folks either resigned or indicted. We could argue all day about who has the edge (in terms of immorality), but we'd only be arguing about edges. I think, after looking at about 30 links on corruption, both comparative, and administration specific, that it's difficult to say who was most corrupt, either by party over many years, or by administration, and the judgment of who is most corrupt will finally come down to partisan politics, and how you rank what is important (which also influence one's politics).

To: Bill who wrote (3197)	4/12/2006 7:14:06 PM
From: Brumar89	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 14758

IMO its not merely a matter of enumerating numbers of scandals. People all being fallable, scandals will always happen. All parties are composed of human beings. The big problem with Democrats is that so much that should be scandalous isn't. Why is the Democratic Senate leader a former KKK recruiter? That would be an outrageous for a Republican but because Byrd is a Democrat, its okay. Democrats don't care that he's a lifelong racist. He's considered a damn statesman! Why is Teddy Kennedy in the Senate at all? Everyone knows he killed a girl by driving off a bridge drunk. Then he failed to notify authorities till the next afternoon - and the alcohol was out of his blood. He didn't even try to get assistance to her asap the night of the wreck. Not a problem for the Democratic party. And of course, Clinton. In addition to continuing his sleazy womanizing after he got in the White House, he committed a more serious offence for the nation by lying repeatedly about - to the nation as a whole, and under oath. If he'd had the gumption to admit it from the getgo, he wouldn't have had to put the nation through the impeachment process. If he'd had concern for his party, he'd have resigned to clear the path for his veep to run as an incumbent and without him and his scandals hanging around his neck. Yet Democrats don't hold anything against him. If he could run again, they'd vote for him again.