Joe Sestak and the Republican Double Standard

58 posts / 0 new

Comments


Actually it was a polite way of saying you’re a bunch of flaming hypocrites.

No, it was your way of saying that you're a Republican hack.
It's one thing to whine and bellow for 6 years to charge Bush for Treason on the mere speculation that "bush lied" with no actual proof or any corresponding law. But it is something entirely different be presented with the LAW, the OFFER, THE Witness's, the Admitting Whitehouse response and the only retort they have is. Reagan Did it. Now come on, that is some really Funny Shit.

That you consider his lies "mere speculation" says it all. So much for the law. What matters to people like yourself is simply having the political power to elbow your way through life. In this nonissue, it's about making a lot of noise over nothing that Republicans also do and want to do, so they will not change the law to make it overtly illegal, as Painter says.
I know you want to diminish it, marginalize people as "Republican Hacks". Whatever.. You’re the one that gets to look yourself in the mirror. “Reagan did it” is not a persuasive argument to any rational, intellectual discussion and borders on childish. If they had any margin of self respect, the proper answer to this even if they believe Obama Admin innocent, is to Investigate it. In the long run would do less damage. By not investigating it they silently support corrupt politics and all the bitching and complaining for the last 8 years is empty rhetoric, at least to the face in the mirror.

That you think that any of us want to diminish it proves that you don't understand the real problem, which is special interest money funding our elections and thus corrupting our politics.

Proof that I'm right will be in the fact that the Republicans will refuse to publically finance elections and will refuse to change the law as Painter says. Deal with that.

jeffbiss's picture
jeffbiss
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm
Quote jeffbiss:

That you consider his lies "mere speculation" says it all. So much for the law. What matters to people like yourself is simply having the political power to elbow your way through life. In this nonissue, it's about making a lot of noise over nothing that Republicans also do and want to do, so they will not change the law to make it overtly illegal, as Painter says.


If you want a chuckle. Read this like paragraph again as if you were me.

That you think that any of us want to diminish it proves that you don't understand the real problem, which is special interest money funding our elections and thus corrupting our politics.

Your on fire today.. Special interest corrupting our politics is the Real Problem. BUT Obama is not a "special interest" so he's not "corrupting our politics". LMAO... mmmmm exchanging a thing of Value for a political favor... DAMN special interest.

Proof that I'm right will be in the fact that the Republicans will refuse to publically finance elections and will refuse to change the law as Painter says. Deal with that.

Heaven forbid a conservative would have a problem with frivolous tax payer spending on something not listed in the Constitution as a Government responsibility. It would be America’s new welfare program as every moron get's the required signatures to get their government handout. I heard that happened a couple time in the local publically financed races. Everyone got a 50” plasma TV.

Roboute's picture
Roboute
Joined:
May. 7, 2010 4:23 pm
If you want a chuckle. Read this like paragraph again as if you were me.

Sorry, but I can't do that.
Your on fire today.. Special interest corrupting our politics is the Real Problem. BUT Obama is not a "special interest" so he's not "corrupting our politics". LMAO... mmmmm exchanging a thing of Value for a political favor... DAMN special interest.

He's not a special interest. The special interests are those that contribute to pols.

You have obviously forgotten that the issue of this thread is Republican hypocrisy/double standards, which you continue to support by down-playing the fact that Republicans have done precisely what you accuse the Obama administration of. Oh well.

Heaven forbid a conservative would have a problem with frivolous tax payer spending on something not listed in the Constitution as a Government responsibility. It would be America’s new welfare program as every moron get's the required signatures to get their government handout. I heard that happened a couple time in the local publically financed races. Everyone got a 50” plasma TV.

Public funding of elections would be in the general welfare and the constitution explicitly supports taxation for that purpose. Keeping special interest money out of our politics should be your primary concern, if you are truly concerned with bad behavior on the part of our politicians.

Remember that the topic of this thread is Republican hypocrisy in accusing the Obama administration of doing what they do and will not end. Don't forget the issue here.

jeffbiss's picture
jeffbiss
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm
Quote jeffbiss:He's not a special interest. The special interests are those that contribute to pols

Clearly you have a narrow view of "special Interest"

special interest. n. A person, group, or organization attempting to influence legislators in favor of one particular interest or issue.

I say Obama is in fact a "special interest" with his own agenda. While politics offers its own set of bribery through legislation. It seems congress at some point wrote a law saying the administration can not influence elections via bribery. I wonder why they did that...

You have obviously forgotten that the issue of this thread is Republican hypocrisy/double standards, which you continue to support by down-playing the fact that Republicans have done precisely what you accuse the Obama administration of. Oh well.

I thought we already covered that the Example shown is not in fact a hypocritical example. So unless you can provide a equivalent example of administration electioneering or get someone to admit that if the roles were revised that the he support Republican administration electioneering then thread title is false.
I wish you luck.

Public funding of elections would be in the general welfare and the constitution explicitly supports taxation for that purpose

Is there literally anything in this world to the point of tyrannical dictatorship that can't be justified by the grossly misapplied and misunderstood phrase "Would be in the General Welfare". I think Rounding up Illegals in a Vast military and civil authority sweep through the country would be in the General welfare of this country. I think Forcing people to Buy American by threat of Jail would be in the General Welfare of this country.

It's not the money in politics that is the problem with Politics. It's the people in politics that is the problem with politics. For the general welfare we should get rid of them too.

Roboute's picture
Roboute
Joined:
May. 7, 2010 4:23 pm
Quote Roboute:
Quote jeffbiss: The Obama adminstration didn't with regards to Sestak. Point us to the law that you think is broken Mr. Smarty Pants.

18 U.S.C. § 600 : US Code - Section 600: Promise of employment or other benefit for political activity 18 U.S.C. § 211 : US Code - Section 211: Acceptance or solicitation to obtain appointive public office 18 U.S.C. § 595 : US Code - Section 595: Interference by administrative employees of Federal, State, or Territorial Governments

This thread was over at this point.

kulak.2.1
Joined:
Mar. 31, 2010 6:39 pm

Shocking. Negotiations among politicians about options and support. What is an "exploratory committee" looking at if not the prospects? With the money required to run, the idea that it is a pure matter of conscience and calling is utterly naive.

The point of the thread is clear and well established. Republicans regularly project what they would do into charges of what Democrats must be seeking to do--as in all the Obama is going to take over everything paranoia. It is what they would like to be able to do.

The same is true in the blame and sin game. Because Democrats criticize the corruption of the K St. Casino crowd, it is hypocritical for them to take corporate money. On the other hand, because Republicans believe in "free enterprise," there are no limits on their corporate funding or votes to serve corporate interests. It is not hypocrisy if they believe this crap.

In the constant "both sides do it" frame, how much "both" sides do of "it" is rarely addressed other than to confuse the facts. Republicans "do it" with religious devotion while some Dems fall and "sin." Corporate Dems do not give enthusiastic testimonies to the wonders of deregulating business and rewarding the "wealth creators" with tax cuts for the rich. They just vote for the policies that do.

There is no Progressive Caucus or Black/Latin Caucus counterpart in the GOP. The Club for Growth and the C St. Family do not represent anything other than the cancer stage of capitalism and the perverse religion of a power cult. There is no "Tea Party Caucus" because there is little content other than rage and race there.

The post-American Century American narrative has to resolve the Civil War instead of continuing it. Neither the North nor the South has the Gospel. There are serious problems involved in a subcultural story as it becomes the dominant narrative because it has to transform its frame as it embraces the responsibilities and obligations of bearing power. When it was the "losers" explaining why God loves them and will redeem them one day, being the more pure people was how their humanity was asserted against second-class cultural status. When they became political, however, it was still the holy people against the heretics in a fallen world. Morality was about the bedroom while the boardroom went unchecked and the Empire ran amok.

This explains for me why a Clinton bj and "lie" means more to them than Bush and Cheney's lies and war crimes. PNAC and Revelation both have America doing "God's work." But only with a President who is "one of them."

DRC's picture
DRC
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm
Quote kulak.2.1:
Quote Roboute:
Quote jeffbiss: The Obama adminstration didn't with regards to Sestak. Point us to the law that you think is broken Mr. Smarty Pants.

18 U.S.C. § 600 : US Code - Section 600: Promise of employment or other benefit for political activity 18 U.S.C. § 211 : US Code - Section 211: Acceptance or solicitation to obtain appointive public office 18 U.S.C. § 595 : US Code - Section 595: Interference by administrative employees of Federal, State, or Territorial Governments

This thread was over at this point.

Not quite yet... Now it is.

Don: Some of your best work. Kudos.

drew013's picture
drew013
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

Currently Chatting

Powered by Pressflow, an open source content management system