Scandals involve all top Republican leaders

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Amoung other things, President Bush has the continuing investigation of Karl Rove.
Vice President Cheney's chief of staff Libby was indicted.
Senate Majority Leader Frist is being probed by the SEC
recent House majority Leader DeLay has been indicted
and now....

Speaker of the House Hastert is also involved with the Abramoff scandals that DeLay is involved with.
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2005/11/6/115626/557

Republicans: All of your leaders are a bunch of crooks. Show that you don't support corruption, by changing parties.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Republicans: All of your leaders are a bunch of crooks. Show that you don't support corruption, by changing parties.

OK, you convinced me.  I'll change parties on one condition: if any Democrat is ever suspected of any wrongdoing, then you promise to become a straight-ticket Republican voter.

The Republicans are all a bunch of crooks. One Democratic crook doesn't change much. Of course, the Democrats should kick crooks out of the party.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

And Frist's "Scandal" is a joke.



Courtesy of jfern.com

Inside trading isn't a joke. And I didn't mention his company getting fined somewhere around $1 billion for Medicare (or was it Medicaid?) fraud.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

As far as I'm concerned, it's more than likely that the Democrats are just as dirty.

Proof?

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

As far as I'm concerned, it's more than likely that the Democrats are just as dirty.

Proof?

Well, we can start with the entire state of New Jersey.  Then we can slide on to Mario Cuomo, his mob connections and his dealings with the Long Island Lighting Company and their Shoreham nuclear power plant.  After that we can jump to Clinton and his administrations travel scandal, Tyson Foods scandal, fundraising scandals and various other scandals which were not deemed worthy of investigation by Janet Reno, which is another scandal in and of itself.  I could mention Hillary's scandals involving fund raising and, in fact, just did.

NJ Republicans are curropt too. How about Ohio? Kentucky? Texas? California?

Why didn't Ken Starr investigate, huh? He only spent $70 million of taxpayer money to find nothing but a lie about a blow job.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

As far as I'm concerned, it's more than likely that the Democrats are just as dirty.

Proof?

Well, we can start with the entire state of New Jersey.  Then we can slide on to Mario Cuomo, his mob connections and his dealings with the Long Island Lighting Company and their Shoreham nuclear power plant.  After that we can jump to Clinton and his administrations travel scandal, Tyson Foods scandal, fundraising scandals and various other scandals which were not deemed worthy of investigation by Janet Reno, which is another scandal in and of itself.  I could mention Hillary's scandals involving fund raising and, in fact, just did.

NJ Republicans are curropt too. How about Ohio? Kentucky? Texas? California?

Why didn't Ken Starr investigate, huh? He only spent $70 million of taxpayer money to find nothing but a lie about a blow job.

Oh, NJ Republicans are corrupt, to be sure, but I was responding to your request for proof.  If you ask for proof of Republican scandals I can find plenty of them.  I'm sorry that I was able to answer your request and did not just buy into your little delusion that the republicans have the market cornered on crooked politicians.  You should spend more time at Kos and less here if you don't want people to actually answer your ludicrous assertions with proof to the contrary.

Seriously, do you ever stop to wonder why the majority of democrats around here want nothing to do with you? 

Democrats usually ostracize their crooks, like Condit and Traficant, and those are the so called moderates. Seriously, you can't claim that the number of Democratic crooks comes anywhere close to the number of Republican crooks.

As for your personal attacks, at least I don't tell people that they're wrong when they say that a 94% correlation can be statistically significant. You live in a delusional fantasy world where mathematical fact is false.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Oh, NJ Republicans are corrupt, to be sure, but I was responding to your request for proof.  If you ask for proof of Republican scandals I can find plenty of them.  I'm sorry that I was able to answer your request and did not just buy into your little delusion that the republicans have the market cornered on crooked politicians.  You should spend more time at Kos and less here if you don't want people to actually answer your ludicrous assertions with proof to the contrary.

Seriously, do you ever stop to wonder why the majority of democrats around here want nothing to do with you? 

Democrats usually ostracize their crooks, like Condit and Traficant, and those are the so called moderates. Seriously, you can't claim that the number of Democratic crooks comes anywhere close to the number of Republican crooks.

As for your personal attacks, at least I don't tell people that they're wrong when they say that a 94% correlation can be statistically significant. You live in a delusional fantasy world where mathematical fact is false.

You, sir, are an endless source of comedy, and I thank you for it.

For those not laughing, read the second paragraph closely.

Finally, I know of no study that tries to count the number of crooks in each party.  Could be very interesting.  I would not want to claim that either party has a majority without looking.

For this study, how far back should we go?  2000?  1980?  Founding of each party?  What do we count as a criminal?  Conviction only?  How does a later overturning of a conviction count?  Presidential pardon?  How would Nixon count since he was pardoned before there was any resolution?
[/quote]

So when the Democrats last controlled all 3 branches (1993-1995), were there seperate major scandals involving the President, the Vice President, the Senate Majority Leader, the House Majority Leader, and the Speaker of the House? I think not. How the time before (1977-1981)? Nope.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

So when the Democrats last controlled all 3 branches (1993-1995), were there seperate major scandals involving the President, the Vice President, the Senate Majority Leader, the House Majority Leader, and the Speaker of the House? I think not. How the time before (1977-1981)? Nope.

Almost.  Only Senate Majority Leader George John Mitchell allows them to avoid it.  He was a class act and both parties could use more men like him.

So, ummm, explain the scandals, wise-guy.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

So when the Democrats last controlled all 3 branches (1993-1995), were there seperate major scandals involving the President, the Vice President, the Senate Majority Leader, the House Majority Leader, and the Speaker of the House? I think not. How the time before (1977-1981)? Nope.

Almost.  Only Senate Majority Leader George John Mitchell allows them to avoid it.  He was a class act and both parties could use more men like him.

So, ummm, explain the scandals, wise-guy.

Certainly.

Gore had some connection to the fundraising scandals from the campaign.  Clinton already had scandals in his appointees to his cabinet.  Plus he had fundraising scandals, whitewater was brewing and I can't remember if the Tyson foods scandal was underway.  The whole House was dealing with the banking scandal.

What scandals in his appointees? What fundraising scandals? Did the House banking scandal directly involve the House Majority leader and the Speaker of the House? Was the House Majority leader and the Vice President's chief of staff indicted? Was the President's top political aide under investigation? Did the President and the House Majority leaders have a bunch of other scandals?

Sorry, this isn't measuring up.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

This thread is a comedy goldmine. Keep up the good work fernie, we need more dinnertime laughs.

So you don't care about Republican scandals?