|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
EFLtrainer
Joined: 04 May 2005
|
 Posted: Thu Mar 15, 2007 3:07 am Post subject: 298 67 10 |
 |
|
Those are the number of Fed investigations on Democrats, Republicans and Independents, respectively from 2001 - 2007.
This in a time of rampant corruption and abuse of power by the Bush Cadre, et. al., and Republicans in general....
This not your father's America. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
gang ah jee
Joined: 14 Jan 2003
Location: city of paper
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 15, 2007 3:20 am Post subject: Re: 298 67 10 |
|
|
| EFLtrainer wrote: |
Those are the number of Fed investigations on Democrats, Republicans and Independents, respectively from 2001 - 2007.
This in a time of rampant corruption and abuse of power by the Bush Cadre, et. al., and Republicans in general....
This not your father's America. |
Couldn't these numbers also show that Democrats have been getting up to a whole lot of dodgy business? A link to provide further context might be nice. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
thepeel
Joined: 08 Aug 2004
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 15, 2007 3:35 am Post subject: |
|
|
It was a major topic on Colbert last night....
http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/030907D.shtml
| Quote: |
Department of Injustice
By Paul Krugman
The New York Times
Friday 09 March 2007
For those of us living in the Garden State, the growing scandal over the firing of federal prosecutors immediately brought to mind the subpoenas that Chris Christie, the former Bush "Pioneer" who is now the U.S. attorney for New Jersey, issued two months before the 2006 election - and the way news of the subpoenas was quickly leaked to local news media.
The subpoenas were issued in connection with allegations of corruption on the part of Senator Bob Menendez, a Democrat who seemed to be facing a close race at the time. Those allegations appeared, on their face, to be convoluted and unconvincing, and Mr. Menendez claimed that both the investigation and the leaks were politically motivated.
Mr. Christie's actions might have been all aboveboard. But given what we've learned about the pressure placed on federal prosecutors to pursue dubious investigations of Democrats, Mr. Menendez's claims of persecution now seem quite plausible.
In fact, it's becoming clear that the politicization of the Justice Department was a key component of the Bush administration's attempt to create a permanent Republican lock on power. Bear in mind that if Mr. Menendez had lost, the G.O.P. would still control the Senate.
For now, the nation's focus is on the eight federal prosecutors fired by Attorney General Alberto Gonzales. In January, Mr. Gonzales told the Senate Judiciary Committee, under oath, that he "would never, ever make a change in a United States attorney for political reasons." But it's already clear that he did indeed dismiss all eight prosecutors for political reasons - some because they wouldn't use their offices to provide electoral help to the G.O.P., and the others probably because they refused to soft-pedal investigations of corrupt Republicans.
In the last few days we've also learned that Republican members of Congress called prosecutors to pressure them on politically charged cases, even though doing so seems unethical and possibly illegal.
The bigger scandal, however, almost surely involves prosecutors still in office. The Gonzales Eight were fired because they wouldn't go along with the Bush administration's politicization of justice. But statistical evidence suggests that many other prosecutors decided to protect their jobs or further their careers by doing what the administration wanted them to do: harass Democrats while turning a blind eye to Republican malfeasance.
Donald Shields and John Cragan, two professors of communication, have compiled a database of investigations and/or indictments of candidates and elected officials by U.S. attorneys since the Bush administration came to power. Of the 375 cases they identified, 10 involved independents, 67 involved Republicans, and 298 involved Democrats. The main source of this partisan tilt was a huge disparity in investigations of local politicians, in which Democrats were seven times as likely as Republicans to face Justice Department scrutiny.
How can this have been happening without a national uproar? The authors explain: "We believe that this tremendous disparity is politically motivated and it occurs because the local (non-statewide and non-Congressional) investigations occur under the radar of a diligent national press. Each instance is treated by a local beat reporter as an isolated case that is only of local interest."
And let's not forget that Karl Rove's candidates have a history of benefiting from conveniently timed federal investigations. Last year Molly Ivins reminded her readers of a curious pattern during Mr. Rove's time in Texas: "In election years, there always seemed to be an F.B.I. investigation of some sitting Democrat either announced or leaked to the press. After the election was over, the allegations often vanished."
Fortunately, Mr. Rove's smear-and-fear tactics fell short last November. I say fortunately, because without Democrats in control of Congress, able to hold hearings and issue subpoenas, the prosecutor purge would probably have become yet another suppressed Bush-era scandal - a huge abuse of power that somehow never became front-page news.
Before the midterm election, I wrote that what the election was really about could be summed up in two words: subpoena power. Well, the Democrats now have that power, and the hearings on the prosecutor purge look like the shape of things to come.
In the months ahead, we'll hear a lot about what's really been going on these past six years. And I predict that we'll learn about abuses of power that would have made Richard Nixon green with envy. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
EFLtrainer
Joined: 04 May 2005
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 15, 2007 5:56 am Post subject: Re: 298 67 10 |
|
|
| gang ah jee wrote: |
| EFLtrainer wrote: |
Those are the number of Fed investigations on Democrats, Republicans and Independents, respectively from 2001 - 2007.
This in a time of rampant corruption and abuse of power by the Bush Cadre, et. al., and Republicans in general....
This not your father's America. |
Couldn't these numbers also show that Democrats have been getting up to a whole lot of dodgy business? A link to provide further context might be nice. |
No, they couldn't, dumbass. Who was in position to sell influence? Who is under scrutiny now for abuse of power with the AsG, dumbass?
Disgusting. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
thepeel
Joined: 08 Aug 2004
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 15, 2007 6:04 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Dude, you are so hostile. What the hell? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
EFLtrainer
Joined: 04 May 2005
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 15, 2007 6:11 am Post subject: |
|
|
I don't like lying. I don't like liars. a 5 - 1 margin? All the lying, subterfuge and bullshit we've seen since the Cadre got into power? And you ahve the temerity to pretend those numbers might mean something other than they do?
You don't have an opinion, you have an ideology. You don't have a question, you have smear to make.
Hostile? WTF do you call raping the constitution? WTF do you call killing thousands of Americans and hundreds of thousands of Iraqis?
Yes, I'm mad as hell, and I'm not taking it anymore. Say something stupid, expect a bat upside your head. It's what the Repukes do. I'm fighting fire with fire, but with truth. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
thepeel
Joined: 08 Aug 2004
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 15, 2007 7:58 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
You don't have an opinion, you have an ideology. You don't have a question, you have smear to make. |
Who? Me? WTF?
Get help. Dude, I posted an article explaining the OP more clearly. You are losin it.
| Quote: |
Yes, I'm mad as hell, and I'm not taking it anymore. Say something stupid, expect a bat upside your head. It's what the Repukes do. I'm fighting fire with fire, but with truth. |
My head? Jumpin Jesus!
Back on thy meds. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bucheon bum
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 15, 2007 8:47 am Post subject: Re: 298 67 10 |
|
|
| EFLtrainer wrote: |
| gang ah jee wrote: |
| EFLtrainer wrote: |
Those are the number of Fed investigations on Democrats, Republicans and Independents, respectively from 2001 - 2007.
This in a time of rampant corruption and abuse of power by the Bush Cadre, et. al., and Republicans in general....
This not your father's America. |
Couldn't these numbers also show that Democrats have been getting up to a whole lot of dodgy business? A link to provide further context might be nice. |
No, they couldn't, dumbass. Who was in position to sell influence? Who is under scrutiny now for abuse of power with the AsG, dumbass?
Disgusting. |
like BJWD said, why the hostility? Why the need to call Gang Ah Jee a dumb ass? He's probably sympathetic to your POV and opinion. Way to alienate people. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
gang ah jee
Joined: 14 Jan 2003
Location: city of paper
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 15, 2007 12:52 pm Post subject: Re: 298 67 10 |
|
|
| bucheon bum wrote: |
| like BJWD said, why the hostility? Why the need to call Gang Ah Jee a dumb ass? He's probably sympathetic to your POV and opinion. Way to alienate people. |
Uh, yeah, exactly. Your approach is so hostile as to appear pathological. Unfortunately this has the effect of a) undermining your position on the rare occasions that you actually have a valid point to make; and b) making it embarrassing to be seen to agree with you.
Anyway, all I was asking for was a link. It's an obvious point that the numbers alone could be interpreted in various ways without additional details to place them in context. Providing all the relevant information at once is just common sense. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
EFLtrainer
Joined: 04 May 2005
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 15, 2007 2:02 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| BJWD wrote: |
| Quote: |
He doesn't have an opinion, he has an ideology. He doesn't have a question, He doesn't smear to make. |
Who? Me? WTF?
Get help. Dude, I posted an article explaining the OP more clearly. You are losin it.
| Quote: |
Yes, I'm mad as hell, and I'm not taking it anymore. Say something stupid, expect a bat upside your head. It's what the Repukes do. I'm fighting fire with fire, but with truth. |
My head? Jumpin Jesus!
Back on thy meds. |
Ah, you're right. That should have been directed at gangajee. It was late and I didn't realize it was two different posters. I've edited above. However, the second bit was using "you" in the general sense. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
freethought
Joined: 13 Mar 2005
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 15, 2007 4:12 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Power corrupts. The rest of the quote isn;t necessary here. Every party in a position of power, whether it be the democrats, the NDP in Canada or the Liberal party inf Britain has the ability to do things wrong that merit investigation. I remember seeing some pretty strange stuff go down on Parliament Hill, and the Canadian system is a lot less prone to this kind of thing due to inherent differences in the political systems, so I can only imagine what goes down on capitol hill. (pun intended, btw).
That said, I think the fact that these numbers are what they are show something is wrong in Washington. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Zoidberg
Joined: 29 Mar 2006
Location: Somewhere too hot for my delicate marine constitution
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 15, 2007 7:24 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| EFLtrainer wrote: |
| BJWD wrote: |
| Quote: |
He doesn't have an opinion, he has an ideology. He doesn't have a question, He doesn't smear to make. |
Who? Me? WTF?
Get help. Dude, I posted an article explaining the OP more clearly. You are losin it.
| Quote: |
Yes, I'm mad as hell, and I'm not taking it anymore. Say something stupid, expect a bat upside your head. It's what the Repukes do. I'm fighting fire with fire, but with truth. |
My head? Jumpin Jesus!
Back on thy meds. |
Ah, you're right. That should have been directed at gangajee. It was late and I didn't realize it was two different posters. I've edited above. However, the second bit was using "you" in the general sense. |
Dude, that would make even less sense.
All gang ag jee wanted was a link to backup what you were saying. I would have asked for the same, and like bucheon bum implied, so would any reasonable person even if they were sympathetic to your POV.
You need to calm down a bit. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
EFLtrainer
Joined: 04 May 2005
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 16, 2007 8:42 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Zoidberg wrote: |
| EFLtrainer wrote: |
| BJWD wrote: |
| Quote: |
He doesn't have an opinion, he has an ideology. He doesn't have a question, He doesn't smear to make. |
Who? Me? WTF?
Get help. Dude, I posted an article explaining the OP more clearly. You are losin it.
| Quote: |
Yes, I'm mad as hell, and I'm not taking it anymore. Say something stupid, expect a bat upside your head. It's what the Repukes do. I'm fighting fire with fire, but with truth. |
My head? Jumpin Jesus!
Back on thy meds. |
Ah, you're right. That should have been directed at gangajee. It was late and I didn't realize it was two different posters. I've edited above. However, the second bit was using "you" in the general sense. |
Dude, that would make even less sense.
All gang ag jee wanted was a link to backup what you were saying. I would have asked for the same, and like bucheon bum implied, so would any reasonable person even if they were sympathetic to your POV.
You need to calm down a bit. |
Again, the response wasn't directed at GAJ. Get a grip. My response was what it was because of the implication of the question. 5 or 6 to one?? That was not a question. It was bullshit.
Maybe you need to get upset. All that need happen for evil to be done is for good men to do nothing. I'm not doing nothing. How about you? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bucheon bum
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 16, 2007 8:54 am Post subject: |
|
|
| sorry, but ranting on a message board doesn't=doing something. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
gang ah jee
Joined: 14 Jan 2003
Location: city of paper
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 16, 2007 2:19 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| EFLtrainer wrote: |
| That should have been directed at gangajee. |
| EFLtrainer wrote: |
| Again, the response wasn't directed at GAJ. |
Come on, man, which was it? Get your head straight before you embarrass your cause any further.
And just asking, but where is the source for the OP? If you got the information from an offline source, fine, but you should at least say so. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
