And in other news, Iran announced that they’ve unveiled a new self-policing program to monitor their nuclear energy developments.
I dunno, there’s just something about the juxtaposition of the phrases “Republican” and “ethics plan” that just brings a smile to my lips. Oh, well, I’m glad the Republicans are planning to become ethical. It seems to me that most politicians say they are ethical during the campaign process. Isn’t the existence of an “ethics plan” pretty much an admission of ethical bankruptcy.
Looks like ethics are “teh new hotness”.
The APPEARANCE of Ethics is “teh new hotness”:
I stand corrected. 
“The only requirement would be that whenever a lobbyist pays the bill, he or she must also hand the lawmaker a campaign contribution. Then the transaction would be perfectly okay.”
If true, that’s really impressive. They actually make a situation with the appearance of ethics (sort of), and get MORE loot from the lobbyist.
You have to admire that, at some level.
But I’ll bet you had a pretty good idea it’d get there soon. You’re not that naive - or stupid - are you? And no thanks on the offer of intercourse; I’ll take a pass. Sex with orangutans, no matter how well-affected they may be, doesn’t turn me on.
Right. Hence my countering your gripe with the forty years of Democratic Congressional control where those guys failed to enact an effective and enforceable ethics plan, which had it been done properly then, would be unnecessary now. Equally, had the Republicans done something effective and enforceable in the most recently past decade, it would be unnecessary now.
Not well, of course. Pretty much like one would expect. Again though, what about the 4 decades previous?
Yup, one could. But you doing so after implying the Democrats are powerless because they’re the minority party, would be hypocritical.
It might be fun to go back in time a bit and take a look at those presidencies that had major scandals. It would seem to tip more to the R than the L. Off the top of my head I can come up with CREEP, Watergate, Sandanistas, ABSCAM, arms for hostages, Ollie North, a blow job, a couple of hundred R resignations in the Reagan administration, Agnew, Mitchell, Ashcroft. Hmmmm…seems to be a trend here, but I can’t quite put my finger on it. Lessee, who was in charge of the country during most of this? The ethics rules only work if they’re followed. They only need to be shored up if they’re being abused. It seems we now see who most of the abusers are.
And sometimes the kid in the helmet starts beating himself in the crotch with a whiffle bat…
-Joe
Help! Save us from ourselves!
The problem at hand is not that there is too much lobbying-- lobbying is protected by the constitution. The problem is the enormous amount of power the federal government has, and the arcane rules of how bills are pushed thru (things like earmarking). We either fix that (hah!) or develop some kind of sunshine bill that puts it all out in the public domain-- at least then we’d know who was shaking down whom.
Um, actually, no. Better brush up on that telepathy there, Mister Mental. I’ve posted similar threads in MPSIMS before and they haven’t been moved pre-emptively. I had no reason to think that this one would be.
Actually, that was directed to someone else, you illiterate prat.
See, here’s where if I were a slightly meaner person I’d take a gratuitous shot at your wife. But I shall refrain.
As for the rest of your stereotypical reflexive “the Democrats did it too” business, I’ll give it all the consideration that it deserves.
OK, I’m done.
I think your argument makes more sense when directed at someone who posts this:
He’s the one saying Republicans are inherently unethical-- and he’s been spewing that kind of shit for years.
The OP made a swipe at Republicans, and they deserve it this time around.
Knock yourself out. I’m not married. Never have been and in all likelyhood, never will be. But, whatever. Feel free to take shot at my mother.
Oops. You’re right; I booted that one. At least, though, you get one point in this thread.
Actually, I’m saying the reverse. The Democrats didn’t do “it.”
Odd. I thought we were talking about Congress here, not the Executive branch. But if it’s Democratic scandals ya want, how 'bout the S&L fiasco? And ya might wanna take another look at ABSCAM; the first guy ejected from Congress over that sting (since 1861, I should add) was Michael Joseph Myers - a Democrat from PA. Also convicted of accepting bribes were: John Murphy (D. NY), Frank Thompson (D. NJ). Other Democrats convicted were: Harrison Williams, Raymond Lederer & John Jenrette. And let’s not forget Angelo Errichetti, the on-time Democratic mayor of Camden, NJ. The only convictions of a Republican, Richard Kelly, were overturned in 1982.
Sou much for that vaunted memory of yours. It’s not only selective, it’s wrong about things it does store for you.
Remind me, which Bush was it that got caught up in that? Good thing daddy was president so he could walk away from it totally unscathed while all the people who sunk their life savings in his “bank” lost everything.
Actually, generally-speaking, previous politically focused threads of yours in MPSIMS tend not to be simply a link and an insult to one party or another. The ones I’ve seen before tend to have more meat to them; this one, however, was destined to end up in flames.
I don’t remember off-hand. But I’m not sure it makes any difference. Remember, we’re discussing here, the ethical short comings of Congress. Whichever Bush it was, that got caught up in the S&L scandal, he wasn’t a member of Congress at the time. Rather, he took (unethical I will freely admit) advantage of regulatory relaxations of the S&L industry passed by a Democratic Congress (with the full support of the Reagan administration). The guys from Congress most responsible for the mess were the so-called “Keating Five.” Four of which were Democratic Senators; the lone Republican being John McCain. McCain, along with John Glenn, were relatively unharmed politically by their participation in the mess. The three guys who found their political careers abruptly cut short, Alan Cranston, Don Riegle, and Dennis DeConcini, were all Democrats (although Riegle was initially elected to the House as a Republican).
I’m not questioning the decision to move the thread. I didn’t think the OP was particularly Pit-worthy (otherwise I would’ve put it here initially) but I really don’t care one way or the other. What I was responding to was the implication that I deliberately acted improperly by placing the thread where I did, especially when that implication is based on UncleBeer’s 100% wrong assumption about my internal monologue.
And his father, the POTUS, bailed him out with some help from his friends in Congress.
My point, which I guess I should’ve made clearer, is that it’s silly to point fingers at any one party and say they’re more or less ethical than the others, because it’s horse shit. People from both sides of the fence profited off of Abramoff, not just Republicans. Graft would be a lot more difficult to get away with if people would quit rallying 'round party lines and start making individuals responsible for their own fuck ups. I did volunteer work for Tom Ammiano’s campaign trying to make sure Willie Brown (a Dem) didn’t get elected as mayor of SF because I knew what kind of larcenous prick he was. But he was a Democrat, so we HAD to have him. :rolleyes:
Which is the same point I’m arguing. So, I’m not sure why you’re pickin’ on me, when Otto is the guy who seemed intent on making a distinction. Followed by several others, of course.
How broadly do you have to define your terms to make that statement, one which conforms to the current “liberal media” talking points? Every single pol who took money from Abramoff is a member of just one party.
That does reflect that party’s grab for complete power probably more than any inherent ethicality, of course; there’s no reason to bribe somebody with no power to follow through.