More Corruption Surfaces...

[nocturnix]

http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/01/03/abramoff.plea/index.html

"WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Former high-powered lobbyist Jack Abramoff pleaded guilty Tuesday to conspiracy, fraud and tax evasion charges, agreeing to cooperate in a federal corruption probe in Washington."

"Abramoff is a longtime associate of several top GOP leaders, including former House Majority Leader Tom DeLay, Americans for Tax Reform director Grover Norquist, and former Christian Coalition chief Ralph Reed. "

"Scanlon, a 35-year-old former aide to DeLay, also is cooperating. His and Abramoff's cooperation deals could have a wide-reaching effect in Washington. (View a report on what Abramoff said and its potential impact -- 2:37)"

"A source close to the inquiry said investigators are looking at about half a dozen members of Congress. Another source, a senior government official told CNN the probe involves about two dozen lawmakers and staffers. "

"Sources told CNN's Ed Henry that Abramoff may have thousands of e-mails in which he describes influence-peddling and explains what lawmakers were doing in exchange for the money he was putting into their campaign coffers."

--------------------------------------------

I say to those die-hard Bush Administration supporters: How much more evidence will it take before you finally come out of that black hole of denail you're in and realize this Administration is run by corrupt, power hungry, greedy, evil, liars that have THEIR OWN interests in mind instead of the American People?

And I'm speaking completely bi-partisan here - throw the dems in jail who are corrupt too.

[Latrinsorm]

I always thought the term "Administration" didn't apply to Congress.

[nocturnix]

"two dozen lawmakers and staffers..."

I had a feeling no bush supporters would reply to this thread...not much they can say except maybe: "I give up, you're right...Bush and his cronies are mad with greed and power"

Or maybe..."that guys is a liar, and so is the other guy...theyre just leftist bleeding heart liberals"

Too bad they ARENT.

[Artha]

And I'm speaking completely bi-partisan here - throw the dems in jail who are corrupt too.
You show it by devoting a whole half of a sentence to them.

[Jorddyn]

Originally posted by Artha

And I'm speaking completely bi-partisan here - throw the dems in jail who are corrupt too.
You show it by devoting a whole half of a sentence to them.

If I am not mistaken, he only devoted one (rather long) sentence of opinion toward the Republicans.

Jorddyn

[Tsa`ah]

There have been no reported ties between Abramoff and Bush or his administration.

That's not to say that there are no connections, but let's see how it plays out before anyone calls for another bonefire to burn Bush on.

Reports have tied Abramoff to Dems and the GOP alike. Not really caring what party a crook is affilaited with, I'd rather see them all in jail.

[Back]

Technically, yeah, this Abramoff stuff is not linked to the administration other than by association.

What the situation with Abramoff, Frist, Delay and Duke Cunningham suggests is that the GOP, the grand old party of family values and the culture of life are full-of-shit crooks who want you to worry about gay marriage while they rape the nation’s bank account.

Sure, there may be some dems involved, and punish them just as harshly. But I haven’t heard of any yet.

[Back]

Bush to Give Up $6,000 Linked to Abramoff (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060104/ap_on_go_pr_wh/lobbyist_fraud;_ylt=Ar3S3lMRh13wtn0.LTNfrOKyFz4D;_ ylu=X3oDMTA5aHJvMDdwBHNlYwN5bmNhdA--)


WASHINGTON - President Bush's re-election campaign is giving up $6,000 in campaign contributions connected to lobbyist Jack Abramoff, who faced more guilty pleas as part of a broad-ranging political corruption investigation.

-------------------------------------------------

I guess there is a link after all.

How dies giving up the money now absolve anyone from knowingly accepting a bribe?

[nocturnix]

Originally posted by Backlash
How dies giving up the money now absolve anyone from knowingly accepting a bribe?

Because Bush supporters like the ones on this board are so deeply in denial that they somehow rationalize his fucked up reasoning and say "Well he maybe corrupt, but he fixed it by giving the money back".

Or they will say, "It's only 6,000 dollars who cares if he accepted such a small bribe". Which just goes to prove anyone who says this's own stupidity.

[Edited on 1-4-2006 by nocturnix]

[Hulkein]

That's hardly a connection.

I could donate 6 grand, get arrested for fraud and they'd do the same thing.

[nocturnix]

Originally posted by Hulkein
That's hardly a connection.

I could donate 6 grand, get arrested for fraud and they'd do the same thing.

You're head is so far up your ass you dont even have a shred of reason left do you?

[nocturnix]

By the way, Bush "Giving up" the 6,000 Abramoff money is just a political public relations stunt.

If there was any cash donated and used in bribes and corruption related to Bush GUARANTEE the actual amount has been hidden and the corresponding documents destroyed.

By returning the 6,000 dollars this is a tricky way of saying "We had no idea about this" and that we're giving back a small amount so it looks like we had little connection, and any connection we did have we had no idea about. Smart move really, lets hope it doesnt work in dodging THIS bullet.

IMO this could be another impeachment worthy issue, however it is DEFINATELY too early to say. And the Administration has proven very effective at subversion, dodging bullets and attacks, and destroying evidence.

[nocturnix]

Just got a chance to read some of the articles...

"Abramoff was among President Bush's Pioneers, who raised at least $100,000 for his re-election in 2004."

He is only giving 6,000 back because that is money that Abramoff donated from his own pocket...which, doesnt really make sense to me...perhaps someone can explain this?

Also notice being a campaign fundraising "Pioneer" means you raise AT LEAST $100,000. This means he could have donated far more than we know.

[Hulkein]

Originally posted by nocturnix

Originally posted by Hulkein
That's hardly a connection.

I could donate 6 grand, get arrested for fraud and they'd do the same thing.

You're head is so far up your ass you dont even have a shred of reason left do you?

Do you know how many people donated ~6 grand to the Bush campaign during the last election? That isn't a 'connection' to the Bush administration. It's someone who is Republican helping the Republican drive for the presidancy.

PS.



Originally posted by nocturnix
IMO this could be another impeachment worthy issue


Originally posted by nocturnix
You're head is so far up your ass you dont even have a shred of reason left do you?

:lol2:

[Edited on 1-4-2006 by Hulkein]

[Warriorbird]

It's more a connection to DeLay than anyone else, but it sure as heck isn't a Democratic connection.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jack_Abramoff

Ralph Reed is practically his best friend. He is not exactly high on the liberal lobbyist list.

[nocturnix]

Originally posted by Hulkein
That isn't a 'connection' to the Bush administration.

Correction. Theyve already connected this corruption to the Bush Administration, we're talking direct connection to Bush himself, in the form of campaign financing.

And as I suspected someone of your intelligence would say, the amount of the "donation" is irrelevant yet somehow this happens to be your only argument.

If I steal 1 dollar from the cash register or 1 million dollars, its still theft. Get the idea?

That being said, since you still cant get it through that thick skull of yours...Abramoff was a Pioneer financer of Bush's Re-election campaign, meaning he raised OVER 100,000. Amount is still irrelevant, but you seem to put importance on this.

[Edited on 1-4-2006 by nocturnix]

[Edited on 1-4-2006 by nocturnix]

[nocturnix]

Originally posted by Warriorbird
It's more a connection to DeLay than anyone else, but it sure as heck isn't a Democratic connection.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jack_Abramoff

Ralph Reed is practically his best friend. He is not exactly high on the liberal lobbyist list.

Interesting link there, thankyou. Theres ALOT of information there, this guy Abramoff was one devious, shady fellow.

Looks like he had his hand in MANY honey jars. Ever heard the term "guilty by association"?

Some of these scandals were public knowledge AFTER donations, and fundraisers had happened. To me, if youre a politician hanging out with a guy who is under investigation for crazy shit like this, youve either got to be corrupt and shady yourself, or you're just plain stupid.

[Hulkein]

Originally posted by nocturnix

Originally posted by Hulkein
That isn't a 'connection' to the Bush administration.

Correction. Theyve already connected this corruption to the Bush Administration, we're talking direct connection to Bush himself, in the form of campaign financing.

And as I suspected someone of your intelligence would say, the amount of the "donation" is irrelevant yet somehow this happens to be your only argument.

If I steal 1 dollar from the cash register or 1 million dollars, its still theft. Get the idea?

That being said, since you still cant get it through that thick skull of yours...Abramoff was a Pioneer financer of Bush's Re-election campaign, meaning he raised OVER 100,000. Amount is still irrelevant, but you seem to put importance on this.

[Edited on 1-4-2006 by nocturnix]

[Edited on 1-4-2006 by nocturnix]

And until there is proof of Bush using his powers in exchange for Abramoff's donation/fundraising, he has done nothing wrong.

Must be fun to talk about due process for terrorists on one hand, and ignore it for the president in the other. :lol: Hypocrite.

[Edited on 1-4-2006 by Hulkein]

[Hulkein]

Just wondering, Noct... How many people are on the level of PIONEER for Bush fundraising?

[Warriorbird]

Rangers are an elite class of fundraisers created for the 2004 election cycle who have bundled at least $200,000 for the Bush campaign. Pioneers are those who have pledged to gather $100,000. For the 2004 campaign, there are 221 Rangers and 327 Pioneers, so far. In the 2000 campaign, 550 fundraisers signed up to be Pioneers, and at least 241 of them reached their goal.

Quite a few Pioneers. With that said, the Tom DeLay connections are a lot less deniable.

[Hulkein]

I searched it out for myself.

Turns out there are 810 PIONEERS for Bush fundraising.

Jack A. Abramoff is at the top of this list in alphabetical order:

Jack A. Abramoff
Sheldon Adelson
Richard B. Ainsworth
Anthony J. Alexander
Thomas A. Allegretti
Jay Allen
Teresa Amend
Cathy Anderson
Hushang Ansary
William A. Antonoplos
Alexander Arshinkoff
Robert H. Asher
Edward G. Atsinger III
Irving W. Bailey II
James A. Baker IV
Jeffrey Ballabon
Lee Bass
Frank E. Baxter
Louis A. Beecherl Jr.
Juan Carlos Benitez
Dee Dee Benkie
Dennis R. Berman
Ron Beshear
Harold Beznos
Bruce L. Bialosky
Eric Bing
John Binkley
Carole L. Bionda
Charlie & Judy Black
Bruce A. Blakeman
Kirk Blalock
James J. Blosser
Herbert F. Boeckmann II
Mollly Bordonaro
Darlene Bramon
Charles L. Branch Jr. MD
David L. Brennan
Tim Bridgewater
Leslie J. Brorsen
Mark Broxmeyer
Michael O. Buchanon
Carl M. Buchholz
Herbert C. Buie
Edward Burr
William G. Burris
William H. T. 'Bucky' Bush
Bill Butler
Anna Cablik
Raymond P. Caldiero
John A. Canning
Wendy Cantor Hales
Alberto R. Cardenas
Alice Clement Carrington
John D. Carswell
Robert Castellini
Michael Castine
James E. Cayne
G.W. "Bill" Ceverha
Wen Pin Chang
Martha Chayet
Cindy Clark
Charles E. Cobb Jr.
Thad Cochran
Robert Edward Coker
Cesar V. Conda
James Michael Connolly
John Connors
Fred E. Cooper
James Courter
Robert Cowles
Joe B. Cox
Ben Crenshaw
Richard T. Crotty
Ted & Heidi Cruz
Alfonse D'Amato
John C. Danforth
William J. Danhof
Peter Davidson
Robert G. Davis
Robert Addison Day Jr.
Dwight W. Decker
Fred Decosimo
Betsy DeVos
Mark B. Dickow
Charles E. Dorkey III
Craig J. Duchossois
Emily Duda
Frank Dulcich
Robert M. Duncan
Dale Dykema
Kenneth M. Endelson
Irl Engelhardt
Melvyn J. Estrin
John Etchart
Itchko Ezratti
Alan B. Fabian
Todd S. Farha
Richard Fink
Julie Hamm Finley
Peter Fitzgerald
David M. Flaum
Kevin F. Flynn
Matt Fong
Richard Fore
Douglas R. Forrester
Edwin G. Foulke Jr.
Tillie K. Fowler
Barbara Hackman Franklin
Bart Friedman
Jose Fuentes
Gay Hart Gaines
Charles P. Garcia
Bruce S. Gelb
Kevin Gentry
Jack N. Gerard
Ronald Gidwitz
George R. Gilmore
Roy Goodman
Steven H. Gordon
Catherine A. Govan
Michael Govan
Bill P. Graves
Fred L. Green III
Charles L. Grizzle
James Grodnick
Stephen L. Guillard
Adele Hall
Kent R. Hance
Steve Hanks
Samuel A. Hardage
David Hart
Beth Halteman Harwell
Malik M. Hasan MD
Hamid A. Hashemi
Gary Heiman
Sandra Heimann
Miriam Hellreich
Thomas O. Hicks
Donald P. Hinson
Mark A. Holman
Ned S. Holmes
James W. Holton
Larry Householder
Tramm Hudson
Gaylord T. Hughey Jr.
P. Nicholas Hurtgen
Todd Huston
Otis B. Ingram III
Frank Jao
Jonathan Javitt
Chris Jenny
Brenda LaGrange Johnson
Mary Kate Johnson
John Willard Johnson
Charles "Chip" N. Kahn III
Jerry Kane
Michael Karloutsos
Ronald C. Kaufman
John Kelly
Kenneth J. Kies
Jerry W. Kilgore
Kelly Knight
Douglas R. Korn
Hersh Kozlov
Edward D. Kratovil
Henry Kravis
Jon Kyl
Joseph Kyrillos
Sharad Lakhanpal
Marc Lampkin
James (& Sandy) C. Langdon Jr.
James H. Lee
Frederick W. Leonhardt
Stephen Lessing Jr.
Edward C. Levy Jr.
Robert Liggett
Jeff B. Love
Debra M. Stillo Lyons
L. Ben Lytle
James P. MacGilvray
John B. Mahaffey
Thomas P. Marinis Jr.
Dell & Marja Marting
David McClanahan
William P. McCormick
William McGuire
Drayton McLane Jr.
Kevin P. McMahon
Jeffrey L. McWaters
Manuel D. Medina
Austin Prather Merritt Jr.
David A. Metzner
Jeff Miller
Barton Mitchell
Robert Mitchell
Arlene Mitchell
Charles Beggs Moncrief
Philip O'Bryan Montgomery III
W. Henson Moore
Michael Moskowitz
Dennis Muchmore
David H. Murdock
Peter J. Murphy
Charles Nailen
John L. Nau III
James Neis
Andres R. Nevares
Andrea Fisher Newman
Louis Nicozisis
Thomas Noe
Erle A. Nye
Robert J. O'Connell
John O'Connor
Walden W. O'Dell
Michael O'Halleran
Kevin & Patty O'Neill
Joseph I. O'Neill III
Michael R. Oestreicher
Ziad Ojakli
C. Patrick Oles Jr.
Duane Ottenstroer
William J. Palatucci
Anthony & Margaret W. Parker
Bill Pauli
Henry M. Paulson Jr.
Tim Pawlenty
Bill Paxon
William Porter Payne
Richard B. Payne Jr.
Don Peay
Jerry Perenchio
Wayne M. Perry
Joseph Carlton Petrone
Fred Pezeshkan
Jerry Pierce-Santos
Lonnie Pilgrim
Alec Poitevint
Robert Portman
William E. Powell
Timothy Powers
Annie Presley
Steven Price
David Pringle
J. Ward Purrington
Paulette L. Pyle
James Quigley
John S. Rainey
John Rakolta Jr.
Narender Reddy
David Rehr
Thomas A. Renyi
J. Christopher Reyes
Harold Reid Reynolds
Corbin J. Robertson Jr.
Mario Rodriguez
James E. Rogers
Hal Rogers
Evans Rose Jr.
Robert B. Rowling
Peter S. Rummell
John "Chip" Saltsman Jr.
Stephen E. Sandherr
Andrew Saul
Mary Beth Savary-Taylor
Susan Schlapp
John Patrick Schmitz
Stephen A. Schwarzman
Ivan Seidenberg
John Sherman Jr.
Allan "Bud" Shivers Jr.
Martin & Audrey J. Silverstein
James P. Simmons
Paul Singer
Samuel K. Skinner
Shawn H. Smeallie
Mary A. Smith
Stephen B. Smith
Frederick W. Smith
David L. Sokol
Timothy Spangler
Ronald P. Spogli
Dorothy Stapleton
Peter Starrett
Mark Stefanek
Glenn Dale Steil
Thomas G. Stemberg
Thomas Stephenson
Nicholas F. Taubman
Thomas R. Tellefsen
William A. Terlato
Robert W. Theisen Jr.
Barron Thomas
William L. Thomas
Michael D. Thompson
Jayne Carr Thompson
John Thrasher
John Mark Tipps
J. Warren Tompkins III
Charles Turlinski
Bob Tuttle
Raghavendra Vijayanagar MD
John R. Vogt
George H. Walker IV
Robert & Carol M. Wallace
Milton J. Wallace
Lew O. Ward
Jonathan Ward
Marilyn Ware
Robert & Nancy Watkins
David C. Weinstein
Ted Welch
Paul F. Welday
Joe M. Weller
Thomas B. Whatman
Robert H. Whilden Jr.
Stanley P. Whitcomb
Brent R. Wilkes
Virgil Williams
George M. Williams
Bradley D. Wine
Ronald D. Wine
Robert Wright
Kay Wyma
Barry D. Wynn
Rodger Young
Mammen P. Zachariah MD
George C. Zoley


http://www.tpj.org/docs/pioneers/pioneers_search_exec.jsp?function=2004Pioneers

That is only the list from 2004. The list from 2000 in addition with that one is the full 810.

According to Noct's logic, if any of them are found to be corrupt in their own personal dealings, it obviously means they are directly linked to Bush and W. is doing whatever they want, after all, TEHY R TEH PIONEERZ!!

[Warriorbird]

Just to add... not all of those fulfilled their pledge amounts.

[Back]

Something else to add...

No one is saying that making a donation to a campaign is out right bribery.

Whats going on is Abramoff has admitted guilt on 4 counts now of conspiracy and wire fraud. Abramoff is connected politically... after all he is a lobbyist. Who has he lobbied, how much has he given them and what sort of benefits has he or those whom he represents gained.

All people are doing now is connecting the dots.

[nocturnix]

Originally posted by Hulkein
According to Noct's logic, if any of them are found to be corrupt in their own personal dealings, it obviously means they are directly linked to Bush and W. is doing whatever they want, after all, TEHY R TEH PIONEERZ!!

You must not be reading my posts, either that or your too daft to understand them.

I am not saying Bush should be thrown in jail for accepting donations from Abramoff, it's far too soon to say regarding that matter.

I am however saying that BY accepting donations, fundraising, etc. for the 2004 elections from Abramoff, after HE WAS ALREADY BEING INVESTIGATED for NUMEROUS crimes of fraud, aiding terrorists, and tax evasion.

Once again, I repeat myself: guilty by association. What you or anyone determines the severety of something like that is, for now, a matter of opinion. And as I said, could EVENTUALLY become another basis for impeachment.

"In 2002 Abramoff worked for the Global Council of Islamic Banks, whose chairman, Saleh Abdullah Kamel, was under investigation for allegedly funding terrorism and terrorists, including Osama Bin Laden. [19]"

"In 2002, Abramoff was retained under a secret contract by the Guam Superior Court to lobby against a bill proposing to put the Superior Court under the authority of the Guam Supreme Court.

The $324,000 was paid to Abramoff through a Laguna Beach, California, lawyer by means of 36 checks of $9,000 each. If done to avoid the federal reporting requirements for payment transfers this would constitute illegal 'structuring' under 31 USC 5324(a). The form of payment might also be illegal if it was used to evade federal contracting rules requiring an open tender for contracts over $10,000.

On Nov. 18, 2002, a grand jury issued a subpoena demanding that the administrator of the Guam Superior Court release all records relating to the contract."

"Ohio Republican Representative Bob Ney promoted the Kidan/Abramoff in the House on several occasions. In March 2000, before the deal was closed, Ney accused the SunCruz management of cheating passengers. On October 26 2000, praised the change of ownership. Ney has since accused Abramoff of duping him."

There are more...read Abramoff's history for yourself: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jack_Abramoff

[Edited on 1-4-2006 by nocturnix]

[Hulkein]

You must not be reading my posts, either that or your too daft to understand them.

If you'd stop back-peddaling, it'd be a whole lot easier for everyone.

You're too fucking daft to recognize the difference between 'your' and 'you're.' Earlier in this thread you told me 'You're head is so far up your ass,' now this. Do me a favor and refrain on questioning peoples intelligence until you have a grasp on basic grammar.


I am not saying Bush should be thrown in jail for accepting donations from Abramoff, it's far too soon to say regarding that matter.

I am however saying that BY accepting donations, fundraising, etc. for the 2004 elections from Abramoff, after HE WAS ALREADY BEING INVESTIGATED for NUMEROUS crimes of fraud, aiding terrorists, and tax evasion.

You're calling me daft and you can't even finish sentences. What exactly are you saying? You never finished your thought.

Also, just to point out, you never once mentioned that this guy was already in legal trouble and therefor it reflects bad on anyone having dealings with him until your 7th post. Again, thanks for the back-pedal, Mr. 'ALL I'M SAYING IS SOMETHING I SAID IN MY 7TH POST.' What you were saying was contained in your first few posts, which are quite different than your new position.

For instance:


I say to those die-hard Bush Administration supporters: How much more evidence will it take before you finally come out of that black hole of denail you're in and realize this Administration is run by corrupt, power hungry, greedy, evil, liars that have THEIR OWN interests in mind instead of the American People?

and


I had a feeling no bush supporters would reply to this thread...not much they can say except maybe: "I give up, you're right...Bush and his cronies are mad with greed and power"

To which people on your own side of the fence replied:


Originally posted by Tsa`ah
There have been no reported ties between Abramoff and Bush or his administration.

That's not to say that there are no connections, but let's see how it plays out before anyone calls for another bonefire to burn Bush on.

Reports have tied Abramoff to Dems and the GOP alike. Not really caring what party a crook is affilaited with, I'd rather see them all in jail.

Grow balls and either stand by your outlandish original claims or shut the fuck up.

[Tsa`ah]

A 6k contribution is really nothing. It doesn't implicate Bush in any way.

When we start reading reports and testimony about significant amounts, then you can start with the line of debate you have opened. Anything else is conjecture at this point.

Lobbyist throw out cash left and right, a 6k donation to a compaign fund is on the same relative field as a 5 dollar contribution to my niece's birthday card ... it's nothing.

Show me considerable amounts of cash tied to Bush from this guy or shut it. Right now this thread is making you look dumb.

[Hulkein]

Exactly how I feel, Tsa`ah.

If Bush is tied to it then let's roast him. Until then, c'mon, it's getting out of hand how far some people will reach.

These are the type of threads that make me feel compelled to go around in every political thread and defend the guy. People can be so over-the-top in their quest to make him look bad that it's sickening.

[nocturnix]

Originally posted by Tsa`ah
When we start reading reports and testimony about significant amounts, then you can start with the line of debate you have opened. Anything else is conjecture at this point.

You look dumb. Read the post. Abramoff raised, or was "tied to" over $100,000 in campaing contributions for Bush.

As for you Hulkein, I've stood by my arguments the whole time. Abramoff is a very shady, evil and corrupt person. He had numerous political ties and influences within the Bush Administration, many of which ive stated already with supporting factual links.

Wether or not Bush was ever directly connected to his dealings we can only wonder at this point. There is no hard evidence except the campaign money he recieved from Abramoff and his work. Is this hard evidence that Bush and Abramoff are directly linked? NO. Is this, however, what has spurred my conversation, speculation, and arguments? YES.

I'm sorry I cant dumb it down anymore for you.

On a side note - I love how you're trying to rationalize why you support Bush all of the sudden. Like maybe you are starting to realize the vast piles of evidence and issues necro, myself and others have presented are finally starting get through to you.

[Edited on 1-4-2006 by nocturnix]

[Edited on 1-4-2006 by nocturnix]

[Hulkein]

<< You look dumb. Read the post. Abramoff raised, or was "tied to" over $100,000 in campaing contributions for Bush. >>

So were hundreds of other people.

You said earlier the amount was irrelevent. Now it isn't?

Choose a side and stick to it.

<< As for you Hulkein, I've stood by my arguments the whole time. >>

Actually, I've already pointed out how you have shifted your main point. Saying otherwise doesn't change that.

<< Wether or not Bush was ever directly connected to his dealings we can only wonder at this point. >>

It's ashame your first couple posts didn't follow this line of thinking, otherwise no one would've had to call you out.

<< Is this, however, what has spurred my conversation, speculation, and arguments? YES. >>

There is a difference between spurring conversation and speculation and what you stated in your first couple of posts.

Backlash always posts things that make you think; he usually makes it clear that he is just speculating for the fun of it, however. You didn't do that. You said:


I say to those die-hard Bush Administration supporters: How much more evidence will it take before you finally come out of that black hole of denail you're in and realize this Administration is run by corrupt, power hungry, greedy, evil, liars

and


not much they can say except maybe: "I give up, you're right...Bush and his cronies are mad with greed and power"


That isn't the innocent 'speculation' for the fun of it, that is using charges against one guy who has no direct ties to Bush to bash Bush and his supporters.

Big difference.

<< On a side note - I love how you're trying to rationalize why you support Bush all of the sudden. Like maybe you are starting to realize the vast piles of evidence and issues necro, myself and others have presented are finally starting get through to you. >>

No, not at all. I read the news from credible sources for myself; articles and conspiracy snippets from MoveOn and other garbage sites that you and anyone else post only reinforce my current opinions.

[Edited on 1-4-2006 by Hulkein]

[Warriorbird]

This paints 28 Republican congressmen (most especially DeLay) and about 4 Democratic congressmen in a bad light. Slam Bush on the stuff we should be slamming him on...this was not very deeply related to him.

[Back]

Bush may not be directly involved, but it does look bad for the GOP as a whole. It sure as hell isn’t helping his image in any case.

[nocturnix]

This is the last time I'm posting in response to your retarded republican argument of: You are wrong, why? Because you flip-flopped what you said. Which by the way is a horrible argument anyways, and in this case just wrong.


Originally posted by Hulkein
You said earlier the amount was irrelevent. Now it isn't?

Choose a side and stick to it.

As I said before, and I will say again(you are making me very tired of having to repeat myself for you)...

The AMOUNT does NOT matter. It is the principal at hand. I was simply correcting mis-information. Abramoff and his close friends and family donated 6,000 that is what Bush is "giving back". Abramoff and his group RAISED over 100k for the administration. These are facts, period. The amount still does not matter either way in my opinion, but if somone else is going to bank their argument on "I piss 6,000 dollars, big whoop" Then I will explain to them what I just stated.


>>It's ashame your first couple posts didn't follow this line of thinking, otherwise no one would've had to call you out.<<

I'm sorry, please point out for me where I stated Bush and Abramoff were directly linked?

>>There is a difference between spurring conversation and speculation and what you stated in your first couple of posts.<<

Once again, when you try and debunk an argument or claim that I am saying or taking a certain stance, it really helps to show me doing it.



How much more evidence will it take before you finally come out of that black hole of denail you're in and realize this Administration is run by corrupt, power hungry, greedy, evil, liars

Please note that I am speaking of the Administration here. Youre entire argument has been based on the fact that I claim that Bush has had corrupt dealings or some such with Abramoff. I have never stated that, only that there is a connection there: the campaign money.

And then yes, I speculated and gave my opinion on it, which was that associating, or accepting dirty money for your campaign is dangerous as a politician. It might make people think you yourself are in kahoots or may have been knowledgeable of these dealings.


not much they can say except maybe: "I give up, you're right...Bush and his cronies are mad with greed and power"


>>That isn't the innocent 'speculation' for the fun of it,<<

No, those statements were my opinions, which I am entitled to.

All that being said, I'm proud to see our baby republican Hulkein is growing up. He's finally learned is first republican political trick: sidetracking arguments with trivial details.

I remain firm: Abramoff is shady as fuck, and has a very vast influence and network of power we are only now starting to learn about. He has ties to both the GoP and Dems, but mostly the GoP.

He has direct ties to former Bush Administration top dog - Tom Delay.

He gave Bush money for his campaign, ~2,000 of his own, and 100,000 that he raised.

Was Bush bribed to do things? No one knows yet, but in a matter of my OPINION I think we may some day find out he did. But hell thats my opnion, the facts will some day speak for themselves, if they are not all destroyed.

As Backlash said we are still connecting the dots.

Also the fact that Bush had accepted donations from Abramoff AFTER Abramoff was already under investigation is something I learned after reading WB's wikipedia link. Stating that I added that later in my argument so its null an void is a really lame attempt at dodging a perfectly good argument. There are no statute of limitations on forum conversations, sorry.

Watch now Hulkein will go look up Statue of Limitations, find out its a court term for how long a case has before it can no longer be brought to court and tell me that is technically incorrect use of the term, showing everyone that he doesnt have any real argument but that he can use "THA INTARNEYT!"

[nocturnix]

Originally posted by Warriorbird
Slam Bush on the stuff we should be slamming him on...this was not very deeply related to him.

Theres too much to slam him on, lol. Its difficult to keep track of it all, hence the reason for http://forum.gsplayers.com/viewthread.php?tid=19408"]this ("[url) thread[/url].

The fact that this incident is tied to him even in the slightest way, is very, very bad IMO. Which is what ive been saying the whole time.

No he has yet to be proven directly linked(in terms of accepting bribes etc.), but please...

LET ME SPECULATE: After reading Abramoff's vast history of corruption and "Lobbying" deals, do you really think he would raise money for Bush if he werent getting something in return? **


** Please note this statement was speculation, drawing from the facts I was able to bring about my own opinion on the matter which as of this posting is still legal per our 1st ammendment rights.

[Hulkein]

My God Nocturnix is not very smart.

It's not a 'Republican trick' saying you backpedal or flip-flop, you're just too stupid to keep a coherent and consistant argument.

[Hulkein]

<< LET ME SPECULATE: After reading Abramoff's vast history of corruption and "Lobbying" deals, do you really think he would raise money for Bush if he werent getting something in return? ** >>

Yes, you fucking idiot.

Believe it or not he wasn't born an evil villain who was Republican just because he's evil, and, well, obviously all evil people are Republicans! He is a Republican because he agrees with Republican stances on various issues. Thus, just like you wanted Kerry to win because he better represents your views, Abramoff wanted Bush to win because he better represents his views, and a GOP win in the executive office helps GOP politicians everywhere.

Jesus Christ stop being so stupid.

[Edited on 1-5-2006 by Hulkein]

[nocturnix]

Easy there pal, lay off the crack rock...calmdown a little, I dont want my favorite poster having a heart attack.

[Back]

Oh just wait...

You’ll get a...

OMG ITZ ALLS A CONSPIRASXYYYYYESSS!!!!!!!

soon enough.

[Hulkein]

Originally posted by nocturnix
Easy there pal, lay off the crack rock...calmdown a little, I dont want my favorite poster having a heart attack.

That's about the response I expected. :lol:


Originally posted by Backlash
Oh just wait...

You’ll get a...

OMG ITZ ALLS A CONSPIRASXYYYYYESSS!!!!!!!

soon enough.

No, that's only after conspiracy theory posts... noxturnix's thoughts are more idiotic and incoherent than conspiracy based.

But I guess you're right, it's a little bit of both.

[Edited on 1-5-2006 by Hulkein]

[Back]

http://americablog.blogspot.com/bushspied.jpg

I just thought it was funny. Not really something I would wear proudly.

[TheRoseLady]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/graphic/2005/12/12/GR2005121200286.html

That's a pretty nice graphic from The Washington Post.

Both Republicans and Dems are involved. More trouble for Ohio Republicans. :lol:

More trouble for DeLay for certain. I saw a guy from The National Review on Hardball tonight talking about their editorial telling DeLay to stop trying to get return as Majority Leader. Rather interesting discussion.

[Hulkein]

TRL, is the Ohio governor with like the 9% approval rating involved in this?

Man, I hope so, haha. That guy is a clown.

[Hulkein]

PS. Thanks for the link, TRL. That page shows that Democrats are pretty heavily involved in that as well... Makes me wonder why this thread was created the way it was by noctornix even moreso than I was.

Glad they all got busted.

[TheRoseLady]

Originally posted by Hulkein
TRL, is the Ohio governor with like the 9% approval rating involved in this?

Man, I hope so, haha. That guy is a clown.

I doubt it. The GOP probably didn't want to be near him. I heard anecdotally that when Bush came to Ohio during the election he didn't spend any time with Taft. I am so not surpised.

[TheRoseLady]

Originally posted by Hulkein
PS. Thanks for the link, TRL. That page shows that Democrats are pretty heavily involved in that as well... Makes me wonder why this thread was created the way it was by noctornix even moreso than I was.

Glad they all got busted.

Yeah, I thought that graphic was pretty telling and it cuts through a lot of spin. I really think that contributions are fairly benign. (That comment could bite me in the ass later.) I mean, if you are running for office and somone writes you a check for 100 bucks, you aren't going to do a background check and ask for references, you know?

I think the telling things will be the relationships, having the wife of DeLay on the payroll for an organization, those sorts of things. All the aides and such. I'm going to wait and see how much unravels. Ultimately I hope this results in reforms.

[Warriorbird]

It isn't really the contributions that are the problem. It isn't a crime being a good fundraiser. The bribes, favors, and influence peddling are where the trouble is. Something on the order of 32 Congressmen (mostly Republican, a few Democrats) have been implicated by Abramoff as having accepted bribes. Now, that doesn't mean there's proof of it all, but that's more of where the problem is. That and the whole casino manipulation scam.

[Back]

That and the whole casino manipulation scam.

To add insult to injury... we took their land, why not their legal tender too?

[Latrinsorm]

Originally posted by nocturnix
many of which ive stated already with supporting factual links. Here's a free tip: wikipedia is not "factual". Wikipedia is information supplied by guys and gals on the Internet with too much time on their hands like you and me.

[Warriorbird]

You like philosophy too much, Latrin. You know that if we go down the slippery postmodern slope, you can declare nothing factual.

This is handily remedied by the physical abuse of philosophy majors, mind you, but is still a slope that can be charged down.

[Gan]

Interesting article about Wikipedia.

http://www.cnn.com/2005/TECH/internet/12/15/wikipedia.ap/index.html

[Latrinsorm]

Originally posted by Warriorbird
You know that if we go down the slippery postmodern slope, you can declare nothing factual. There isn't much of a slippery slope, really. Wikipedia has the same factual standing as "my cousin says he heard Bush takes bribes from Abramoff". I'm not saying your cousin (or Wikipedia) is always wrong, I'm just saying declaring everything he or she says as factual is erroneous.

As for the study: I'd be a little more hesitant if I had only surveyed 42 out of 3.7 million articles. However, I'd be willing to bet wikipedia's strong suits are the harder sciences.

[nocturnix]

Originally posted by Latrinsorm
[quote]Originally posted by Warriorbird
I'm just saying declaring everything he or she[wikipedia] says as factual is erroneous.


You can say that about any source. Not everything in the encyclopedia Britannica is correct either, its about which ones are correct most often. I think wikipedia although new is doing a pretty damn good job at the vast amount of information they are trying to keep. It's the first site really that has tried to be THE RESOURCE for everything. Is it going to always be correct? Of course not, but neither is any other source in the world.

[Edited on 1-12-2006 by nocturnix]

[xtc]

Originally posted by Ganalon
Interesting article about Wikipedia.

http://www.cnn.com/2005/TECH/internet/12/15/wikipedia.ap/index.html

Thanks, good article.

From it:

"Wikipedia, which boasts 3.7 million articles in 200 languages, is the 37th most visited Web site on the Internet, according to the research service Alexa"

"Based on 42 articles reviewed by experts, the average scientific entry in Wikipedia contained four errors or omissions, while Britannica had three"

[nocturnix]

Originally posted by Latrinsorm

Originally posted by nocturnix
many of which ive stated already with supporting factual links. Here's a free tip: wikipedia is not "factual". Wikipedia is information supplied by guys and gals on the Internet with too much time on their hands like you and me.

You are referring to my links of supporting arguments for things Abramoff has done and been involved with. It's not like Wikipedia is some liberal source spreading lies. The information provided had plenty of supporting references from all kinds of sources.

See here:

Jack Abramoff at the Internet Movie Database
Abramoff's secret 20 mil
Abramoff may strike deal with prosecutors; Plea could mean lobbyist would implicate members of Congress, MSNBC, December 21, 2005
www.jackinthehouse.org
"A Lobbyist in Full" New York Times, May 1, 2005.
Transcript of PBS NOW episode with snippets of Senate Indian case testimony
Abramoff's associations with various organizations
Sen. Ben Nighthorse Campbell's statement on Abramoff
Committee on Indian Affairs hearing transcript
A Look at Jack Abramoff's Ties to the South Pacific Island of Saipan... from Democracy Now
"Committee Asks Justice Dept. To Broaden Inquiry of Lobbyist" New York Times.
"Democrats Also Got Tribal Donations" Washington Post
List of Jack Abramoff’s top six associates
"Lobbyist, rabbi talk of tricking the Cosmos"
“Bush removal ended Guam investigation,” The Boston Globe, August 8, 2005.
"Abramoff in Court on Charges of Fraud", Financial Times, August 12, 2005.
Abramoff's Federal Campaign Contributions, NewsMeat.com
Abramoff Tied to Dorgan Donation, Tribe Says, Yahoo News
Dorgan's Response
Abramoff, Scanlon and the Influence of Money -- on Fresh Air/NPR with Terry Gross
Op-Eds for Sale, Business Week
Abramoff and al-Arian: Lobbyist's "Charity" a Front for Terrorism Informed Comment
The Jack Abramoff Story collected news and analysis from the Washington Post
“The Fast Rise and Steep Fall of Jack Abramoff,” The Washington Post, December 29, 2005.
Copy of January 4, 2006, plea agreement
Copy of January 3, 2006, plea agreement

If you can honestly say that you can provide better information and more sources proving that the things stated in the Abramoff wikipedia entry are wrong, by all means, go for it.

[Warriorbird]

Funny thing is, I'm such a damn nerd that I've caught and reported Britannica errors myself, Latrin.

:grins:

[Drew2]

I really wish politics interested me.
These boards would be much more interesting.

Originally posted by Hulkein
My God Nocturnix is not very smart.

It's not a 'Republican trick' saying you backpedal or flip-flop, you're just too stupid to keep a coherent and consistant argument.

Judging by this thread, I feel safe saying that Hulkein probably beat up the retarded kids at school. Show some mercy on the poor guy! He's obviously not that bright.

Funny thread, though. :thumbsup:

[Latrinsorm]

Originally posted by nocturnix
You can say that about any source.That's why you go to primary, attributed sources as opposed to tertiary, anonymous ones. Why do you think confessions can be used as evidence but not hearsay?
It's not like Wikipedia is some liberal source spreading lies.I agree, I doubt very much that a significant portion of Wikipedia is politically biased. It would be very naïve to think that anonymous contributions in a political article can be taken at face value as easily as (for instance) an article about gravity.
If you can honestly say that you can provide better information and more sources proving that the things stated in the Abramoff wikipedia entry are wrong, by all means, go for it.All I said was you have to take Wikipedia (in general) with a grain of salt. I have little doubt that Abramoff is a crook, but wikipedia's (or my cousin's) say-so is not going to factor especially much into my decision.
Originally posted by Warriorbird
Funny thing is, I'm such a damn nerd that I've caught and reported Britannica errors myself, Latrin.I feel your pain. SI is my offender of choice, but for some reason they never reprinted old issues with my helpful corrections. :?:

[Gan]

Originally posted by Tayre
I really wish politics interested me.
These boards would be much more interesting.

Dont Do IT!!!

I've stepped back from the political thread and now food tastes better, I can smell things better, and I have sooo much more time to do things like play with the kid, hang out with the spouse, work on the house, actually dedicate more quality time to work and most importantly I've had more time to play GS and WoW.

[Warriorbird]

Poor poor Ganalon. The plight of the emo conservative.

[Gan]

Originally posted by Warriorbird
Poor poor Ganalon. The plight of the emo conservative.

:lol:

You're just jealous.

Edited to add:
Arguing politics with the same old people on these boards with the same old fanatical mantra is like being a career kobold hunter. After a while you get tired of the same thing, same blah, same old shit.

Take some advice from moveon.org and move on.

[Edited on 1-15-2006 by Ganalon]

[Ravenstorm]

Originally posted by Ganalon
Arguing politics with the same old people on these boards with the same old fanatical mantra is like being a career kobold hunter. After a while you get tired of the same thing, same blah, same old shit.

Took the words right out of my mouth.

Raven

[Warriorbird]

Take some advice from moveon.org and move on.

Of course. That wasn't arguing politics...that was making fun of you.

:D