In addition to having short memories, we're suckers for appearances
J.D. Hayworth's relationship with sleazy lobbyist Jack Abramoff won't be more than a blip on the radar, according to E.J. Montini, who reminisces about another Arizona politician once tainted by ties to a corrupt lobbyist.
Do you remember 15 years ago, when Sen. McCain announced that he was handing over to the U.S. Treasury $112,000 in contributions that he had received from Charles H Keating Jr. and his associates? Of course you don't.McCain has reinvented himself since then. He may be known as Mr. Campaign Finance Reform these days, but back in the late 1980s and early '90s he was known as a member of the "Keating Five," five senators who were suspected of improperly intervening with federal regulators looking into Keating's Lincoln Savings and Loan Association. The failure of Keating-controlled businesses wound up costing taxpayers billions of dollars.
Comments
Second, no DIRECT Abramoff money went to Democrats. Yes, indirectly, money went to both Republican and Democrat sides, albeit weighed much more heavily (by a 2 to 1 ratio) to Republican side. Of course, that makes sense, considering that Republicans control the Senate.\
http://www.qando.net/detail...
1. Direct bribes=not OK.
Indirect bribes=OK.
2. Majority party bribes=not OK.
Minority party bribes=OK.
This makes sense.
Just because Democrats are tainted with the stench of lobbyist payola, doesn't mean that this particular scandal isn't predominately centered on Republicans.
I appreciate the paraphrasing attempt, but please, don't put words in my mouth.
While the Democrats are no angels in these matters, the Abramoff scandal is a Republican deal. If the condition of Congress was something other than a one-party state that it reflects at the present time, perhaps the Democrats would indeed be up to their eyeballs in an Abramoff style sleaziness of their own.
Dems taking bribes=somewhat regrettable. Should be evaluated by different standards.
That makes sense.
I seriously question your lack of debating ability.
Naum commonly uses the same fallacious tactics as you do, and I have called him on it more than once.
Again you attack the source, Naum, ignoring the crime. Naum and the other regulars here will be familar with this term: You are also guilty of what is called a "red herring" fallacy of logic. Since other people may be guilty of the same crime, that somehow excuses the guilt of the Republicans.
==Quote==
One of the most common forms of ignorantio elenchi (Irrelevant Conclusion) is the “Red Herring.” A red herring is a deliberate attempt to change the subject or divert the argument from the real question at issue;
For instance, “Senator Jones should not be held
accountable for cheating on his income tax. After all, there
are other senators who have done far worse things.”
Another example: “I should not pay a fine for reckless driving.
There are many other people on the street who are dangerous
criminals and rapists, and the police should be chasing them,
not harassing a decent tax-paying citizen like me.”
Certainly, worse criminals do exist, but that it is another issue! The question at hand is, did the speaker drive recklessly, and should he pay a fine for it?
http://www.livejournal.com/...
==End of quote===
I beleive that if Republicans are guilty, they should be punished, if Democrats are guilty, they should ALSO be punished. Republicans culpability (guilt) is not dependant on the seperate actions of the Democrats. Democrats culpability (guilt) is not dependant on the actions of the Republicans.
Imagine if I killed my wife and at trial said that x amount of people got off last year scot free so I should be let off scot free too. Would the jury accept this? Absolutly not.
Your fallacious reasoning is the same. You somehow absolve the Republicans of all wrong doing because the Democrats are tainted by Abramoff too. I have seen Naum do this too, and I sometimes catch myself doing the same thing, this does not absolve you of your own irrational falacies of using a red herring fallacy of logic, because ironically, if you claimed that this does abcolve you this would be using a red herring to forgive/jusftify your red herring.
I have seen Naum use Red herring fallacies of logic too, and I sometimes catch myself doing the same thing.
BUT this does not absolve (forgive) you of your own irrational falacies of using a red herring fallacy of logic.
Ironically, if you claimed that our own red herring fallacies of logic absolve you of using red herring fallacies of logic, this would be using a red herring to forgive/justify your red herring!
And Bob, stick around on this site, there's only a couple of Conservatives constantly hanging around here. A third is definitely welcome.
I guess this is the new "azplace.net" initiation, to get "Herringed" by me. Welcome to the club Bob.
http://thinkprogress.org/20...
In addition to the fiscal hanky panky, he is a hypocrite embroiled in adulterous affairs, a man who left his wife on a hospital bed w/cancer all the while denouncing Clinton for his adulterous behavior (even though Clinton did the right thing and worked it out w/family unlike Mr. Newt).
Yeah, a moral giant…
>>We need someone in the mold of Mr Gingrich to kick the Republicans in the ass and put them back into action.
Newt didn't lie on the stand, encourage others to lie, hide evidence, etc. But that's another story, and another issue long gone, and long discussed.
Worked it out with his family. Maybe his daughter, but he and Hillary are still married for one readon only-it looks good in the public eye.
Newt did put the Contract into action, and provided Clinton with a pretty decent set of legislation he signed in his last term. I consider that pretty good.
Thats because Americans want to be lied to. Politicians can't survive by telling the hard truth.
Its like our media, a reflection of America.
Add Comment