 |
|
| Browse | Ask | Answer | Search | Join/Login |
|
|
||||
|
CBS actually investigated this Friends of Angelo scandal last week, but notice what they inserted in the last paragraph:
Democrats are blocking a Republican effort to subpoena Countrywide documents. For now, it's not clear whether there was anything illegal about the loan arrangements or whether Countrywide was able to fend off regulations by currying favor with the right people.
|
||||
|
||||
|
Time for an update...
"Transparency and the rule of law will be the touchstones of this presidency." -Barack Obama "I have been fighting alongside ACORN on issues you care about my entire career." -Barack Obama "Frankly, it's not something I've followed closely. This is not the biggest issue facing the country. It's not something I'm paying a lot of attention to." -Barack Obama on ACORN scandals Barack "the big ACORN" Obama has distanced himself from both ACORN and transparency. Shortly after his "transparency" promise, Obama's Dept. of Labor began rolling back financial disclosure requirements - transparency established by the Bush administration - that required unions to report their political activities with groups like ACORN. Previously, unions could hide these activities from the feds and from the workers they claim to represent and whose dues were used for such. That's right, big unions gave bid money to big corrupt organizations like ACORN - including the very NY office involved in the recent scandal - and one of the Obama administration's first items of business was to help them cover up such activities. Ethics and transparency, just words. |
||||
|
||||
 Originally Posted by speechlesstx
It's WORSE than that... Obama said "my Administration will work with Congress to develop an appropriate legal regime (for preventative detention) so that our efforts are consistent with our values and our Constitution". Instead he decided to just go with the Bush doctrine. He KNOWS he can't get a law making unconstitutional stuff, constitutional. So, his words, ARE just words. excon PS> By the way, the charges against ACORN and the two perps are going to be thrown out. I guess the little prostitute and her pimp didn't check the state law about recording someone WITHOUT their permission.. Guess what? |
||||
|
||||
|
Originally Posted by excon
There's plenty of other evidence of ACORN's corruption from within their own books and records. A trial will take place... several of them in fact... and ACORN will not survive in its current form. But the point of the videos wasn't to nail ACORN in court. It was to make the public aware of what ACORN really is... a criminal enterprise. And in that sense, the makers of the videos succeeded perfectly in their goal. ACORN as a major organizing arm of the DNC is done. No candidate or sitting politician will ever allow their names to be associated with ACORN again. No politician will sign a bill granting ACORN federal or state money. The DNC won't want to be associated with ACORN. Even if ACORN is not found culpable in court, they are finished as a major player in national politics. Elliot |
||||
|
||||
|
Time for an update on both the "Demcrat culture of corruption" and "the name that party" game.
Eight Dems Arrested in Bell, CA 'Corruption on Steroids' - Not a Single Mention of Party Affiliation From Media
Today, eight city council members were arrested in Bell, California for what Los Angeles County District Attorney labeled "corruption on steroids." Thus far, every major news outlet that has reported on the story has omitted the fact that all eight individuals arrested are Democrats. These glaring omissions come only weeks after NewsBusters reported that of the 351 stories on the then-brewing controversy, 350 had omitted party affiliations, and one had mentioned they were Democrats only in apologizing for not doing so sooner. ABC, CBS, the Los Angeles Times, the Associated Press, Bloomberg, USA Today, CNN, MSNBC, NPR, and the San Francisco Chronicle all reported on the arrests today without mentioning party affiliations. |
||||
|
||||
|
Originally Posted by tomder55
Charlie Ragel ....corrupt ? Who'da thunk it.
 His best defense is that he doesn't understand the tax laws his committee writes. I guess they were convinced by Charlie's wrangling defense that whatever his misdeeds, he was not corrupt. |
||||
|
||||
|
Wesley Snipes didn't fare as well today . AP - A federal judge ordered actor Wesley Snipes to surrender to authorities Friday so he can begin serving a three-year prison sentence for tax-related crimes. Wesley Snipes ordered to surrender in tax case - Yahoo! News You see... the problem was that Snipes didn't think of the 'Turbo Tax' or 'sloppy book keeping ' defense . |
||||
|
||||
|
Or Maxine Waters... after the Ethics committee exhausted themselves giving Rangel's wrists a slap they decided to cancel their trial of Waters.. But Ragel let the opportunity to do some good go to waste. He should've made a statement to the effect that he now understands how complex and convoluted the tax system he helped construct all these years truly is... He should've vowed to devote his remaining time in the House to simplfy the codes. But nah... too many rent subsidized apartments to appropriate yet to be bothered actually acting like a public servant . |
||||
|
||||
|
If Delay is guilty, he should pay the price .But he is old news ; the Republican party is purging themselves of the Delays of the party . He's gone . Democrats on the other hand celebrate their crooks. I am not big on Texas court system .But as I understand it the process in Travis County is dominated by vindictive Democrats . From what I hear Ronnie Earl will have a very Happy Thanksgiving. |
||||
|
||||
|
Guess we'll find out in the appeal. I have not followed the Delay case closely... but as I understand it, he basically was found guilty of committing ex post facto law violation of a state law that SCOTUS already decided at the Federal level is a violation of the 1st amendment right to free speech. |
||||
|
||||
|
Hello again, tom: Then you understand more than me. Texas has had a law on the books since 1903 that corporations CANNOT give money to political candidates. He was found guilty of violating that proposition, cause he DID. Now, I agree that the prosecution was novel, and so is his defense on appeal. We'll see how it turns out. excon |
||||
|
||||
|
See ;I haven't really been following it . Now I read the prosecutor searched hard for a law violation he could pin on Delay ;and when he did paraded a small army of witnesses introducing vague circumstantial evidence. Are you sure this has nothing to do with vindictiveness because Delay was instrumental in the redistricing in Texas ? Nahh ! He'll beat in on appeal because the money was obtained legally and it can be proved that the money given to the Texas candidates did not come from corporate sources because the RNC kept a firewall between corporate and private donations. |
||||
Not your question?
Ask your question
View similar questions
| Question Tools | Search this Question |
Add your answer here.
Check out some similar questions!
Ideal culture vs. Real culture
[ 5 Answers ]
How does ideal culture differ from real culture in U.S. society from other countries?
What do you understand by the terms mainstream culture and counter culture in referen
[ 1 Answers ]
What do you understand by the terms mainstream culture and counterculture in reference to the 1960s, was there one counter culture or were there may different counter cultures, what were the characteristics of the counter movements, was there a straightforward distinction between mainstream culture...
The Democratic "culture of corruption"
[ 39 Answers ]
In the 2006 election (and beyond), Democrats campaigned hard on the "Republican culture of corruption" using Mark Foley as the poster child for its campaign. It turns out Tim Mahoney, the married man that ran against Foley promising "a world that is safer, more moral," apparently "agreed to a...
Tackling corruption
[ 3 Answers ]
How are female candidates in Africa tackling corruption in their campaigns
Product corruption
[ 6 Answers ]
didn't want to retort but I feel it necessary. a certain person has chosen to write things about which me which are irrelevant and untrue - fair enough. to misguide a whole board - a no go. I have been in contact with various internet scam fraud prevention authorities, in time people who...
View more questions Search
|
