Is it bad to expose Democratic corruption?

Great Debates
21

Vell, panzerman (I always find myself composing threads directed at you in a German accent…) dis vould expose de error of assumink that ve know each udder’s minds, eh?

While there are many among our debate club here who love to think of me as a mindless liberal drone, I ain’t. As I’ve had occasion to point out previously, I am often chastised by my liberal friends for being a closet Republican. My father takes the view that many here do, and I am nothing but an embarassment to my poor mother, who spent the 60’s marching for one thing or another.

I actually look at each issue individually, examine the facts and opinions, and come to a conclusion independent of unrelated issues and the conclusions I have come to about them.

Anyway, back to the soft-left media governed by corporate interests… I’ve always recognized that the media is populated overwhelmingly by lefties. This has been shown to be a fact. I do believe that they try not to let it show, but humans is humans, ya know? It is what it is. It doesn’t mean that mainstream reporting is worthless partisan glurge, by any stretch, only that there is a mild leftward glow to the way things are reported.

And now that most of the information available from “respected mainstream sources” is filtered through the colander of ConglomerateLand, * what * gets reported is suffering.

Which is why I think it behooves everyone who wishes to think of themselves as well-informed to seek information from as many divergent sources as possible, including small presses. The truth does not begin and end with what CNN decides to tell us.

stoid

22

Beautifully put, Gad. :slight_smile:

stoid

23

I ask AGAIN…** identify ** the “corruption” of which you speak. Specifically. Exactly. Precisely.

Or are we talking about depraved blowjobs?

We are all waiting.

24

IANALiberal. But I admire the investigators who got Dan Rostenkowski’s corrupt-as-all-get-out butt in jail. But for all your harping on the issue of the Clintons and their alleged wrongdoing, all I’ve seen is from the “investigators” you admire so much is a bunch of minor-league nonsense over lying about a few tawdry blowjobs. You’ll have to pardon me–and the clear majority of the rest of the country–if I fail to get shrill and self-righteous about that sort of thing.

25

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Stoid *
**

Sorry if I was being unclear. Stoid, I’m offering you any corruption scandal you want. Pick your favorite. Is there any instance at all where you would care to post, “I admire So-and-so for exposing [Stoid’s selected example of] Democratic corruption.”

BTW Stoid, one might read your comment about “depraved blowjobs” to imply that in your opinion there hasn’t ever been any Democratic corruption of note, just trivialities. I don’t want to put words in your mouth. Is that what you meant?

26

Shades of “Billery who” -you remember when you claimed that while Newt Gingrich had to suffer having his name made fun of, no one made fun of Hillary Clinton’s name.

december Yes, Linda Tripp suffered in the media, but, to suggest that Monica did not, is really an amazing feat of ‘selective memories’. She was portrayed as a nymphet, a slut, a mindless twit, then of course, when she gained weight that too was mentioned frequently. SNL made fun of her about the same amount of times (every one that John Goodman was in poking fun at Linda, there was Molly Shannon portraying Monica as a self absorbed nitwit). Monica has attempted to use her ‘fame’ to launch a career in designing handbags, but, I’m unsure it’s been any more successful than her brief stint as a Weight Watchers (or Jenny Craig) spokesperson.

27

I admire the impeachment effort against Democrat Andrew Johnson. Put that in your pipe and sit on it, december. :smiley:

28

Your points are well=taken, wring, but nevertheless, would you not agree that the nedia’s treatment of Linda was more negative than their treatment of Monica?

29

Why should we admire anybody who “exposed” a non-existent “scandal”? C’mon, show us that there’s something worth being scandalized by, then ask us whether we admire the people who exposed it.

30

Still waiting, december. You are the one who thinks there is rife corruption being rooted out. Educate me.

31

Sure. Linda was a manipulative, lying, underhanded, deceitful bitch who used her young friend who trusted her to score points.

Monica was a girl having an affair with an older, married man.

Linda is worthy of such treatment.
Monica is not.

stoid

32

Stoid, you pointing the finger at anyone for trolling is the most amusing thing I’ve seen all weekend.

Thanks.

33

Ah, yes, Linda Tripp, who nobly backstabbed a buddy in the pure-hearted defense of the Republic.

Balderdash, sir! Tommyrot!

She had been attempting to foist off a “what I saw at the White House” book by way of the utterly sleazy aforementioned Luciane G. Trouble was, she didn’t see anything. Then she mentioned her friend Monica. Quicker than you can say “treacherous bitch” LG was on the phone to right-wingers who had contacts with the Starr team. Of course, taping the phone calls was illegal, as well as reprehensible. But no matter: the defense of the Republic and the pursuit of a book contract require stern moral fiber.

More to the point: there was nothing illegal about the Prez getting his Executive Rocks off. Unless, of course, he could be manuevered into denying it in a formal legal setting. Remember, this was allegedly about Paula Jones, and the judge subsequently ruled that Bill’s behavior outside of that was not admissible, which Starr and staff knew full well, being lawyers and all. It was a set-up, pure and simple. My own favorite moment was Rehnquiest, floating in on a cloud of judicial dignity, with his self-designed Chief Justice robes with those simply cunning gold stripes. To die for! Oh, and the relentless intoning of “William Jefferson Clinton”

As to Newt Gangrene: I swoon, I fall to the floor and gibber. If the man were more of a reptile, he would have to sun himself on a rock twice a day to keep his body temperature up. It is difficult to pick a “greatest hit” from his treasure trove of slime. Howzabout when that deranged woman drove her car into a lake and drowned her children? Remember how he remarked that this is what happens when morally corrupt Democrats are in power?

That aside, I agree entirely that your question is offensive in and of itself, as it clearly implies…well, what wring says. And Paula Jones, that innocent waif, the Heidi of the Ozarks?.. A sad little victim, manipulated by power-hungry men who used her and tossed her aside. They are either (a) athiests or (b) have a lot to worry about.

No. Enough. Our polticians are politicians, no virgin is ever elected Queen of the Harlots. I have no illusions about Slick Willy, if I had they would have been shattered entirely when he flew back to Arkansas to sign off on the execution of a brain-damaged man who had no idea what was happening to him. He quite literally killed a man in order to demonstrate to growing skepticism that he wasn’t “soft on crime”. That balances nicely with Lee Atwater/George Sr. and the “Willie Horton” episode, which did so much to demonstrate that there is no shot too cheap, no blow too low for the GOP to contenance.

I vote for the Democrats because I feel an obligation to vote, and they are the best I can get. I am on the conservative wing of the extreme left, but I believe that governance is best from the center. It is only my wish to move that center forward, or “left”, if you insist.

If the full nose-up-your-butt force of a Ken “Savanarola” Starr investigation were applied to the Congress entire, we would be lucky if we ended up with 2 Senators and 10 Reps to conduct business. And you, I suspect, damn well know it.

34

backpeddle much?

First you claim that Linda Tripp was vilified by the press while Monica was “popular”, now that I’ve demonstrated that both were the butt of many, many, many jokes, you want a qualifed assement of which one fared worse? They both were vilified. One for being a fat slutty twit, the other for being a fat bitch. you tell me which characterization you’d like to have.

Bah. you were wrong. Admit it.

35

Charge: trolling and/or disingenuous posting, 2nd degree.

Verdict: Incredibly guilty

Mitigating factors: furious backpedaling

Sentence: Aforementioned december shall be taken to a place of execration, to perform the Ancient Tasmanian Ritual of Self-Abasement, accompanied by a chorus of bitter Virgins intoning dirges of Woe and Humiliation.

So let it be written. So let it be done.

36

Despite the blatantly obvious trolling nature of december’s OP, I will address the issue with a simple quote:

"Linda Tripp announces that George Bush had an affair with one of his secretaries.
No outrage.
Linda Tripp announces that Bill Clinton had an affair with an intern.
Swarms of reporters.

“Linda Tripp’s secret recording of conversations with Lewinsky – which definitely occurred – is, plainly, a felony in direct violation of Maryland state law.
No outrage.
The leaking of the tapes to the media, thereby obstructing justice by preventing the independent counsel from securing Lewinsky’s testimony via standard legal procedures is itself, plainly, a direct violation of federal law.
No outrage.
The President is accused of a sex act which is, plainly, not a crime.
Swarms of reporters.”
–Bob Harris, Steal This Book And Get Life Without Parole

Says it all, I think…

37

Bad show, december. You make two extremely bad assumptions. First you assume causation without evidence. Perchance the general public would have come to same conclusions about Newt, Scaife, etc., even if there had never been a Whitewater? To make your point, you would need both (a) evidence that the people and institutions you list were more popular before Zippergate then they were afterwards, and (b) that the cause of the decline in their popularity was because of Zippergate.
Second, even if you are correct in your assumption that these people are unpopular and that the unpopularity is due to their actions in Zippergate, you assume without evidence that their unpopularity is undeserved. Let’s face it; the “general public” as a whole is moderate to moderate-conservative (right now, the electorate is pretty evenly split between Democratic supporters and Republican supporters, and that’s after the Democrats have moved sharply towards the center). If the general public demonizes these people, perhaps it is because they deserve to be demonized. Your use of the word “demonization” implies that the dislike of these people is unjustified, and therefore the general population are idiots (or mindless absorbers of the evil propaganda of the liberal media). I strongly disagree.

Really, december. This thread is causing me to mildly regret my defense of you in the Pit thread.

Sua

38

No, Stoid, that’s not my point at all. My point is to at least raise the possibility that the following may be true:

Democrats have done a good job of demonizing everyone who has ever contributed to exposing any of their corruption.

One possible bit of evidence for this proposition would be if you were unable to come out in favor of anyone who had ever contributed to exposing Dem. corruption. That’s as clear as I can state my point. If you’re not catching me drift, then I will have to give up.

39

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by SuaSponte *
**

**I should know better than to have a legal debate against a lawyer; I don’t have a chance. :frowning:

Everything you say is correct as a point of pure logic, sua. However, consider the analogue of someone who works with a number of people of somes particular minority. Even if this person had (or claimed to have) a good reason for not respecting each and every cow-orker belonging to that minority, would you not suspect ulterior motives? Similarly, if Stoid fails to respect each and every person who ever uncovered Democratic corruption, I will suspect ulterior motives.

Evidently I need all the friends I can get. I promise to be nice to you, Sua.

40

C’mon, december; you’re not going to give me props for my principled excoriation of Andrew Johnson? :slight_smile: