Why can't you guys see the pattern?

Tom Delay, Ronnie Earle & the spin mac

A certain distinguished individual who posts on this forum (whom I respect greatly) is always talking about seeing the patterns when talking about the “liberal press”, Democrats, etc.

I ask why can’t you right-wingers see the pattern here with Tom Delay & the recent ethics vote to change rules so Delay won’t have to step down if he’s indicted? Do I have to spell the pattern out for you?

- Politician gets elected & gains power
- Politician gets reprimanded by ethics committee - Ethics Reprimand .
- Politician may get indicted so he pressures ethics committee to change the rules that it originally created to get Democrats
- Politician tries to smear the messenger, in the case the prosecutor who may indict him.

Ronnie Earle

Only problem with smearing Earle, is that he has prosecuted just as many or more Democrats than Republicans.

WHY CAN’T YOU GUYS SEE THE PATTERN???

Quote (MidnightToker @ Nov. 23 2004,17:21)
WHY CAN'T YOU GUYS SEE THE PATTERN???






... And how long have you been seeing these patterns, Mike ? :p


AbG :cool:


-

See what I mean - change the subject (and always to something Clinton did). I mean Clinton hasn’t been President for over 4 years & all you can seem to do is bash him.

The only pattern I see is that whichever party is in power twists the rules to suit their agenda. Donkeys OR Elephants. It’s always been that way and probably always will be.

TG

Quote (MidnightToker @ Nov. 23 2004,18:33)
See what I mean - change the subject (and always to something Clinton did). I mean Clinton hasn't been President for over 4 years & all you can seem to do is bash him.




How dare you accuse me of always changing the subject to



I'll have you know that I rarely even bring up !



Or his personal problems ...




I haven't even mentioned






Now aren't you sorry you even brought this up .....

AbG :cool:

MT,

Can’t you see that you are talking to people who refuse to see. It is easier for them to blame than take responsibility. It is like talking to a chimp.



Mike

Quote (DrGuitar @ Nov. 23 2004,20:59)
Can't you see that you are talking to people who refuse to see. It is easier for them to blame than take responsibility. It is like talking to a chimp.

Mike

There ya go Mike ... :)

And I always thought you were this humorless anal stiff ....
Your not humorless at all ...

AbG :cool:




I actually have a wicked sense of humor. Be glad you never get to see it.

:cool:

Mike

There’s use of power, and then there’s abuse of power. The only thing Clinton did wrong during his presidency was lie under oath about having sex with ML. That is a serious crime. He paid a hefty fine and was disbarred, which strikes me as a suitable penalty, given what that means for his career post White House. It is in line with punishment for not-so-famous lawyers.

You want an example of the difference between Bush and Clinton, look at the composition of various committees they set up. E.g., on bioethics issues such as the stem cell issue, Clinton set up a fully bi-partisan, diverse group to explore them. That committee made a set of recommendations that reflected the interests of all, and included all points of view, including those on the extreme religious right. When Bush came into office a new committee was formed, and it was loaded with Christian conservatives. No one else. Not a single voice from across the aisle, not a bit of diversity. That’s the difference between the two - Clinton was and is committed to a truly democratic process, in which all voices are included and heard. Bush’s approach is one of control, exclusion, and silencing. The pattern really is there.

Y’know, in a way, Mike, we’re sort of missionaries here, for reason and compassion. No surprise that many folks don’t like that message. :)

FLH=Fear Lies and hate from the right…Even the pseudo religio political hacks ie Dobson \Falwell \Robertson \Roberts spew hate in a christian name and most christians fall in step with these secular Masons. all are 33 degree masons! Do the Dems lie? yep but not to the extreme degree of the hate filled rhetoric of the right. blatant character asssaaination is their only way to win…If they let people think about it(what they say) they would lose every time. We need to get back to debatable issues like social programs, economy,infrastructure etc. and not this divisivble issue of morals and religion. Morals can’t be legislated and religion shouldn’t even play. I’m a born again christian but I refuse follow any man who hates. no matter how he couches his hatred. Bush hates and so does his vice president and most of his aides…
Cruiser

FLH is also my 78 police special Harley

E.g., on bioethics issues such as the stem cell issue, Clinton set up a fully bi-partisan, diverse group to explore them. That committee made a set of recommendations that reflected the interests of all, and included all points of view, including those on the extreme religious right.
Didn't one of the main players on that committee resign since Bush changed it?

There's no comparison between Clinton & Bush. Clinton was engaged & wanted discourse. With Bush it's the opposite, hence the recent criticism of Rice.

Corruption at it’s best - How DeLay Rakes It In. Right out there, in plain open site.

Quote (MidnightToker @ Nov. 24 2004,10:25)
E.g., on bioethics issues such as the stem cell issue, Clinton set up a fully bi-partisan, diverse group to explore them. That committee made a set of recommendations that reflected the interests of all, and included all points of view, including those on the extreme religious right.

Didn't one of the main players on that committee resign since Bush changed it?

There's no comparison between Clinton & Bush. Clinton was engaged & wanted discourse. With Bush it's the opposite, hence the recent criticism of Rice.
Well, the committees were entirely different - Bush just wiped out the work done by the committee under Clinton. that's presidential perrogative, I guess, but it was the make up of the new committee that I thought was telling. If one of those people actually resigned, wow, that's a conservative protesting an ultra ultra ultra conservative. hmmm.

Actually I think you’re right. There was an article in the Atlantic Monthly by one of the current members & there was a strong rebutal in a letter to the editor by a former member. I don’t remember the names or the points raised but I do remember that I thought it was good that Atlantic published the original article (given the fact that it’s one of those liberally-biased magazines :p ).