The dem's do not care about criminal charges as much as Republicans!

[SlantedFacts]

Even though DeLay has not been convicted of anything, the rules for the Republican Caucus in the House are different from those of the Democrats, and the mere indictment is sufficient for a Republican member to step aside from a leadership role.

This was mentioned in an article titled "Republicans Abandon Ship on Another Leader"

Do Dem's maintain this level of credibility in their politics? :eek:

ANY and Every politician should have that level of integrity to be worthy of our vote. NO??? :rolleyes:

[Mr.Vicchio]

Why are you shocked? Look at the people that support the Democrats...

[RickSp]

You are making a distinction wholly without a difference. Both the Dems and the Repubs are whores. Power corrupts. The GOP has been in power longer so their "culture of corruption" is beginning to stink to high heaven. Time will tell how many will be caught up in the current investigations. Time will tell. In the mean time, this partisan ranting is just foolish.

[SlantedFacts]

One's values (or lack of) will dictate which process a person sides with.

Truth be told - there aren't any political parties worth 2-bit's!

NONE! Nada!

Every one has sold it's soul to one demon or another!

If every political side can just raise the bar on their own parties honor and core value's - our country may get back to being as great as it once was!

. . . . I know - that kind of thinking is more like fatasy than what MOST Americans are willing to attempt!

People rather sit on boards like this and bicker than get out there and stand up to those they elect and DEMAND the qualities every voter deserves!

[tilefish]

Quote by: SlantedFacts Even though DeLay has not been convicted of anything, the rules for the Republican Caucus in the House are different from those of the Democrats, and the mere indictment is sufficient for a Republican member to step aside from a leadership role. This was mentioned in an article titled "Republicans Abandon Ship on Another Leader" Do Dem's maintain this level of credibility in their politics? :eek: ANY and Every politician should have that level of integrity to be worthy of our vote. NO??? :rolleyes:

Let me get this straight. You are suggesting that because the GOP has gone into damage control mode they are somehow better than the DEMS? It wasn't the DEMS that rechanneled campagin funds back to his Delays buddies.

[underbear1]

PURE RUBISH!
Republicans voted to have the ethic rules changed to accomadate Delay who they were pretty sure would be indicted, they changed the rules to say a leader had to step down if CONVICTED of a crime, then after a huge stink in the country the Republicans back-peddled and said if indicted.
The Majority party sets the ethic rules, so this is the Republican version of ethics, and they made sure it's almost impossible on an evenly divided ethics committee that neither Party will have rule infractions.

[Milton Bradley]

Quote by: SlantedFacts One's values (or lack of) will dictate which process a person sides with. Truth be told - there aren't any political parties worth 2-bit's! NONE! Nada! Every one has sold it's soul to one demon or another!

To which demon has the Libertarian party sold its sole?

[Scribbler1]

Quote by: SlantedFacts People rather sit on boards like this and bicker than get out there and stand up to those they elect and DEMAND the qualities every voter deserves!

How do you know? Maybe we do BOTH!

[Apeman81]

Quote by: Milton Bradley To which demon has the Libertarian party sold its sole?

Shoe or Fish?

[phoenix_fire]

I rather imagine both parties are about equally corrupt. After all, in a predominately two-party system, the probability of one party being "virtuous" and one being wholly corrupt is very slim. The thing is that since the dems (or at least the most vocal ones) unabashedly endorse behaviors that the reps generally find scandalous, dem corruption is ignored as par for the course. Since the reps choose to be self righteous, however, everyone loves to see them squirm.

[SlantedFacts]

Quote by: Milton Bradley To which demon has the Libertarian party sold its sole?

GREAT QUESTION!

It is a personal issue to me - I am not in agreement to allowing drug user's and hooker's free run of our streets.

Kid's learn through the action of others (a village raises the child) - they hang out with BAD KIDS and get in trouble - they replicate the actions of others.

Until they establish what is right or wrong for themselves - that exposure shows them an option that is parentally unacceptable.

My seven year old kid does not need to be exposed to those traits!

Do your's?

[SlantedFacts]

Quote by: tilefish Let me get this straight. You are suggesting that because the GOP has gone into damage control mode they are somehow better than the DEMS? It wasn't the DEMS that rechanneled campagin funds back to his Delays buddies.

Let me ask you this:

Which is easier to clean up?

A firm stool or a loose stool?

the straight fact is: They are BOTH crap - but one isn't an uncontrolled smudge of sludge!

BESIDES THAT: At least they have damage control of some sort!

[Osborn F Enready]

Slanted Facts said:
It is a personal issue to me - I am not in agreement to allowing drug user's and hooker's free run of our streets.

I say:
So your authoritarian, and are against personal choice when talking of ones own body?

1 Strike against the Constitution.

Slanted Facts said:
Kid's learn through the action of others (a village raises the child)

I say:
And the village to raise a child theory, that is socialist.

2 Strikes against the Constitution.

Slanted Facts said:
- they hang out with BAD KIDS and get in trouble - they replicate the actions of others.

I say:
Ok, so you want to offset your parental responsibility to the state? More socialist/authoritarian theory.

3 strikes against the Constitution.

Slanted Facts said:
Until they establish what is right or wrong for themselves - that exposure shows them an option that is parentally unacceptable.

I say:
Now you want to have morals defined in law? So you are Socialist, Authoritarian, AND Theist?

Wow, we are zooming now..... 4 strikes against the Constitution.

Slanted Facts said:
My seven year old kid does not need to be exposed to those traits!

I say:
Wow, a shred of personal responsibility coming through? Perhaps if you were concentrating on being a good parent, and not on trying to parent the nation, you could focus on raising YOUR child right, and not worrying about how others CHOOSE to raise theirs?

Slanted Facts said:
Do your's?

I say:
I don't have kids yet, because wanting to be a responsible parent, I believe we should have our house in order before I burden a youth of my own with a nation distraught with people who exhibit ANTI-constitutional sentiment, such as yourself. Once we clean house, then I will have a child, and concentrate on being a GOOD PARENT, and not trying to raise the entire nations kids.


I say:
People like you truly make me want to puke.

You think because you had kids, the whole nation should now become a PC, child-safe playground with no thoughts that might be intercepted that don't display peace, bliss, or the lies of promised security that NEVER existed.

You probably have a V-Chip in your cable box, but write the cable companies complaining of matter to adultish to be on TV because it endangers your kids.

Spare us your ideals of a PC future, I am not buying.

“It is my right to be uncommon...if I can; I seek opportunity...not security. I do not wish to be a kept citizen, humbled and dulled by having the state look after me. I want to take the calculated risk; to dream and to build, to fail and to succeed. I refuse to barter incentive for a dole. I prefer the challenges of life to the guaranteed existence; the thrill of fulfillment to the stole calm of utopia. I will not trade freedom for beneficence nor my dignity for a handout. I will never cower before any master nor bend to any threat. It is my heritage to stand erect, proud, and unafraid; to think and act for myself; enjoy the benefits of my creations and to face the world boldly and say, This I have done, and this is what it means to be an American.”
-Dean Alfrange


Wow, nothing in there about PC, nanny-statism, socialism, welfare, or any of that. Golly, garshk. Must be wrong, huh?

[lsbskins1]

Osborn-

If I may, I would like to express how I believe you are wrong about so many things, while being partially right about so many things. You seem to have trouble with the concept of degrees.

I say:

One does not have to refuse all help in order to be defined as self-seficient .
One does not have to be free of all encumberence to be free.
The government does not need to be enfeebled to be non-oppressive.
Society can attempt to limit certain behaviors without surrendering all individuality.
One can be concerned with the actions of others without seeking to destroy their freedom.
There are almost always more than two choices.

You seem to be willing to pay the costs on one extreme to avoid the costs of the other extreme. Neither is a wise course.

[Osborn F Enready]

Isbskins said:
One does not have to refuse all help in order to be defined as self-seficient .

I say:
I agree. Charitable help and help of individual volition is always welcome if truly necessary.

Isbskins said:
One does not have to be free of all encumberence to be free.

I say:
Never said that. One has to live within an agreed to level platform of justice, for which I say we have not since the late 1800's early 1900's.

Isbkins said:
The government does not need to be enfeebled to be non-oppressive.

I say:
I agree. It only has to do what is asked of it, within limitations emplaced upon it. It shall assume no power not specifically granted, nor shall it assume such power if granted unless Constitutionally provided for if conflict shall arise in the case of powers place. The overall system is based on a system of checks and balances, so with any new power in one branch, a balancing of power is required in the two others. Concentration of power is the essential point of concern here.

Isbskins said:
Society can attempt to limit certain behaviors without surrendering all individuality.

I say:
Only if those behaviours are limited or regulated through a legal, provided process of doing such, with exception to the rights of the individual and the rights of property, that define our system. I do not contest the ability of regulation, I contest the lines of where regulation can and cannot go.

Isbskins said:
One can be concerned with the actions of others without seeking to destroy their freedom.

I say:
Concern is always a welcome gesture. Intervention is another thing entirely.

Isbskins said:
There are almost always more than two choices.

I say:
Dont ask a Republican or a Democrat that, or a major media network news source, or a lobbyist, or a corporatist, etc, when concerning political party choices.

[tilefish]

Quote by: SlantedFacts Let me ask you this: Which is easier to clean up? A firm stool or a loose stool? the straight fact is: They are BOTH crap - but one isn't an uncontrolled smudge of sludge! BESIDES THAT: At least they have damage control of some sort!

Slanted Facts: Qestion: How many shots do you have in that martini?

[SlantedFacts]

Quote by: tilefish Slanted Facts: Qestion: How many shots do you have in that martini?

I am a FREE THINKER not a drinker!

Can you honestly disagree that both predominant parties in the USA are NOT full of dung?

As I have said many times all over the net - We as Americans are massively screwed and REALLY have no decent choices!

Our choices are to step in cow patties or bull chips - both are STILL crap! :rolleyes:

[Osborn F Enready]

No, you can boycott and stop supporting both major parties, and inform and educate all you know on the reasons they should do the same. Then you can analyze what is important, and if you decide the constitution, the bill of rights, the rights to property and the concept of liberty and justice are what you deem important, you could join the Libertarian or Constitutionalist parties.

You have a choice, it's just the media, and current seated politicians, and corrupt corporate assholes that don't want YOU to know about that choice. That would be bad business for them, since it would mean eradication of their corrupt practices.

[brien]

Quote by: SlantedFacts GREAT QUESTION! It is a personal issue to me - I am not in agreement to allowing drug user's and hooker's free run of our streets. Kid's learn through the action of others (a village raises the child) - they hang out with BAD KIDS and get in trouble - they replicate the actions of others. Until they establish what is right or wrong for themselves - that exposure shows them an option that is parentally unacceptable. My seven year old kid does not need to be exposed to those traits! Do your's?

Osborn, a great response. I like your strike 1,2, 3 and 4 ideas. Great. And MB, thanks for writing what I would have written as well.

Now: to slanted facts.

Whether you know it or not, the drug suppliers/ users and pimps run the streets now. Just not in your back yard. So since you aren't affected by it in your neighborhood, it is ok, correct? A double standard in my book. Legalize it, and it will be off the "streets", and operate as a legitimate business, instead of an underground one like liquor was during Prohibition. I am not aware of whores hanging on the street corners in Las Vegas. Are you?

You make it sound like ALL kids are bad news. Parents and kids have a choice in society. What about all of the kids who choose GOOD KIDS? Far more kids do this than the opposite. Villages don't raise children, parents do this. Maybe in communes this happens, but certainly not in America. This concept is just a misguided theory raised by OL Hillary to keep her name in the news. It reflects her penchant for Socialism and Communism. My kids were raised by myself and my wife of 27 years. I never expepected, nor wanted, anyone else's help. Those who do require aid will find charity from me, and others, with no strings attached, not like welfare from the government.

The Government Welfare Program has done more to destroy the African American family than any other organization I can think of in the last 40 years. It forces the woman, and their children, to be dependent upon the government and encourages men to flee the responsibilities of their families because they know their dependents will be taken care of by the government. Ever been to the projects in the Bronx, Roxbury, or Watts? Some village! That is where you will find your drug kingpins and whores! but you don't go there so it doesn't affect you now, does it?

Children, at the ages you state, look to their parents as the most important guiding element in their young and impressionable lives. To turn them over to anyone else, like a village, is asking for results that you may not like, and may result in having to spend much time trying to correct what they learn in that village. Trust yourself and your family. Get some confidence in yourself and your family values.

The only traits your seven year old will be exposed to, that stick in his mind, are the ones you encourage and foster. Any others that they bring in the house at age 7, that you and your family disagree with, should be discouraged by you and your family through LOGIC and EXAMPLE. If you can't do this, then you probably aren't ready for the job of being a parent. Otherwise, "teach your children well."

Individuals are responsible for themselves, and their children, until those children reach an age where they can responsible for their own actions. Self sufficient and self supporting families are the key to the success of our society. I fail to see what a "village" has to do with what you can correct, if you want to, from the effects of that "village" you so willingly trust in some instances and not in other instances.