Originally posted by normbenignNot true. In fact, Reagan didn't get connected to Nixon even after being one of his most steadfast defenders. It's a crying shame, because the pair of them (especially Reagan) have damaged the country immeasurably.
It is fair and unfair. Republicans in general always get tagged when one of theirs is caught red handed.
Good for the goose, good for the gander.
The Chicago machine politics is infamous. Detroit's is much the same, and in general one party political power is a bad thing. Politicians in power become arrogant and believe they are untouchable, like another Chicagoan, Elliot Ness.
Originally posted by randolphToo!? If you actually lived in Chicago, Detroit, Washington DC, or many of the one party cities or States, you'ld know Democrats are the masters of the art.
http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/12/09/illinois.governor/index.html
Just goes to show that Dems can be corrupt bastards too.
Originally posted by karnachzNixon and Reagan can hardly be mentioned in the same breath, except that whatever either did, they did for their country.
Yes, it does. The Democrats have a much better platform than the Republicans do at the moment, and Nixon's and Reagan's presidencies brought corruption into the Republican Party's platform, but that doesn't mean that the Democrats are above corruption either.
Nixon resigned rather than drag the country through the type of mess that Bill Clinton put it through, and Nixon did so out of a misplaced sense of loyalty to his underlings. How many Democrats fell on their swords to hide Clinton's misdeeds, most of which were about his own frivolous hedonism.
Reagan's alleged "corruption" was that he overstepped his authority in assisting rebels against a Communist regime. Oliver North a true American hero, fell on his sword, but not to save the non existing honor of a woman abusing philanderer.
I don't see on any ethical or moral grounds how the Democratic platform is better than that of Republicans. What has been wrong with the Republican party is the lack of any consistent platform of principle, except that of doing everything Democrats wanted only not enough of it for Democrats.
The list of morally and ethically challenged people in Bill Clinton's cabinet, and those who failed to be confirmed because of corruption is without equal.
Originally posted by zeeblebotSame story in Detroit. Kwame Kilpatrick was a clone of Coleman Young but without the sophistication.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chicago_machine
The Cook County Democratic Organization is one of the most powerful political machines in American history. Commonly called the "Chicago Democratic machine", the organization has dominated Chicago politics since the 1930s. It relies on a tight organizational structure of ward bosses and precinct captains to maintain discipline, as well as patronage and graft to reward supporters.
Originally posted by no1marauderNot if they presented probably cause and properly got a warrant. What I question is why they terminated the investigation so quickly instead of letting it go forward. No lives or bodily harm were in the works.
Does anyone else have a problem with the Federal Government tapping the phones (including official Illinois ones) of a State Governor?
Originally posted by uzlessFair enough question.
how do "Democrats" somehow get lumped into this garbage?
He's a corrupt politiican...end of story.
Why do Americans insist on moving the blame from the individual to the party they represent????
😕
There is a double standard, usually. Let a Republican get caught with his pants down, and it is portrayed as a "culture of corruption", as when that Florida Congressman was caught sending "romantic" emails to pages.
A decade or so before a Democrat actually confessed to homosexual relations with numerous underaged Congressional pages, and wasn't even centured. Some in his party praised his actions.
Barny Frank still sits in Congress decades after his live in boyfriend was caught using Barney's house as a brothel.
Republicans perhaps deserve harsher criticism for moral failures because part of their platform is morality.
However when the violations involve manipulation, bribery, utter disregard for process, voters rights, the Constitution, etc. you have to look as the one party system of Chicago, Detroit, etc. and draw conclusions from it.
Originally posted by uzlessIf anything, today's democracy in America has become too direct. Most States regularly hold referendums on hot issues, and it is pretty easy to get a ballot proposal on the ballot.
pffft.
Never in history has the electorate been more distanced from the political parties that pretend to represent them.
Democracy today can best be described as "the freedom to discuss an issue without having the power to influence the outcome".
The Federalist papers had much to say on the matter of destructive factions, and how they could diminish liberty, and harm a fledgling country.
Pure democracy is best represented by a wolf, a cougar and a sheep voting on what's for dinner.
Originally posted by no1marauderIs that the entire text of the intercepted phone calls?
Does this sound like a crime?
Ata, subsequently and by prior arrangement with
Rezko, brought a check in this amount to Rezko’s offices on Elston Avenue in Chicago.
After he arrived at Rezko’s offices, Ata was greeted by Rezko to whom he handed the check
in an envelope. Rezko, carrying the check, ushered Ata into a conference room wh ...[text shortened]... ed to State jobs if the candidate they support wins then those who support the losing candidate.
Originally posted by uzlessChicago politics isn't a two party system, any more than a two party system existed in the Soviet Union.
No one said anything about a dictorship.
your curent 2 party system doesn't ensure "honesty"
Instead, you have both parties looking out for their own interest, rather some moral high ground upon which they can show they are the party that looks after the interest of the entire country.
It's all just "gotcha" politics where one side waits for the oth ...[text shortened]... "look look, those guys did this bad thing so you should vote for us next time!!"
😕
Originally posted by karnachzShows how differently we can view things.
Not true. In fact, Reagan didn't get connected to Nixon even after being one of his most steadfast defenders. It's a crying shame, because the pair of them (especially Reagan) have damaged the country immeasurably.
Mine is that Ronald Reagan was probably the best President in US history. From the malaise of the Carter administration, double digit inflation, inflation, and unemployment, embassy hostages held for nearly two years, and a nation in recession, Reagan policies began the longest peace time prosperity in our history, toppled the Soviet Union, and made most Americans proud of their country.
Even Nixon wasn't all that bad. Yes he mistakenly tried wage and price controls, but he opened up diplomacy with China. What he resigned over was a minor crime committed by supporters apparently without his knowledge.
Originally posted by normbenignYes, he fixed the recession which would end anyhow by building mountains of debt and moving the problems to future generations.
Shows how differently we can view things.
Mine is that Ronald Reagan was probably the best President in US history. From the malaise of the Carter administration, double digit inflation, inflation, and unemployment, embassy hostages held for nearly two years, and a nation in recession, Reagan policies began the longest peace time prosperity in our his ...[text shortened]... at he resigned over was a minor crime committed by supporters apparently without his knowledge.
And since when is being proud of your country a good thing? Try a youtube search for "Bill Hicks patriotism". 😉
1 edit
All I can say is, I am glad that the Republicans all got voted out. Now if we can only vote out the other lot.
I heard on the radio today that the Democrats are in a delimma surrounding the Democratic governor of Illinios. They said that the Dems are pushing him to resign, but he will not. If he does not and he is impeached, this would put the Senatoral seat up for election at a time when the Democrats appear as corrupt as ever. In fact, I heard that the Republicans are egging him on to continue to be defiant and fight to the bitter end so as to give the Republicans a shot at the seat.
Originally posted by normbenignReagan didn't topple the Soviet Union; the Soviet Union had long been on a trajectory to collapse due to its excessive military spending, and Reagan has started the US on a similar trajectory. Fortunately, President Clinton reversed it and Obama no doubt will do the same, though the national debt is still over $10 trillion.
Shows how differently we can view things.
Mine is that Ronald Reagan was probably the best President in US history. From the malaise of the Carter administration, double digit inflation, inflation, and unemployment, embassy hostages held for nearly two years, and a nation in recession, Reagan policies began the longest peace time prosperity in our his ...[text shortened]... at he resigned over was a minor crime committed by supporters apparently without his knowledge.
Reagan probably didn't have much to do with the solutions to the economic problems of the 1970s, either. Carter appointed Volcker in 1979 and Volcker's controversial solution was to fix the stagflation crisis by sending the country into a deep recession in the short term. This would almost certainly have worked irrespective of whether Reagan made his economic changes (which were by no means consistently fiscally conservative, incidentally).
For all his complaining about welfare beneficiaries, Reagan himself was a huge bludger who used his acting skills to jump credit for things that had virtually nothing to do with him, including the breakup of the Soviet Union.
Of all the things you mention, the one which Reagan may actually have had something to do with was sabotaging the release of the Iranian hostages until the day of his inauguration. If he did do this, then surely it's treason rather than something to be commended.
Reagan also hijacked Carter's good work on alternative energy (which may have contributed to the US getting entangled in oil-rich Middle-Eastern countries, and this may have been Reagan's intentions), promoted global warming denial, helped create al-Qaeda, pushed terrorism in Nicaragua and illegally sold arms to Iran while also selling biological weapons to Iraqi President Saddam Hussein at the same time during the Iran-Iraq war (1980-1988). He visited a Nazi cemetery (as president) to pay his respects to the fallen SS soldiers, and kicked the homeless out on the street while increasing military spending by a much greater amount.
That's just off the top of my head.