Hard Light Productions Forums
Off-Topic Discussion => General Discussion => Topic started by: aldo_14 on January 04, 2006, 04:50:05 am
-
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/4579474.stm
[q]The US justice department has said it intends to pursue senior politicians suspected of taking bribes from prominent lobbyist Jack Abramoff.
Abramoff pleaded guilty to charges of fraud, conspiracy and tax evasion.
Under the terms of a plea bargain, Abramoff will co-operate with a probe into alleged corruption among lawmakers and their staff.
Abramoff had ties to prominent members of the Republican Party and some Democrats are also implicated.
The BBC's Justin Webb in Washington says the case is an unexploded bomb under both houses of Congress.
The lobbyist is accused of using gifts of money, foreign trips and lavish meals to buy political influence. [/q]
Congressmen corrupted bytaking money from big donors, eh? Never saw that coming.......
In other news!
Bear confirms - "Yes, I did **** in woods"
Shock study reveals White is the opposite of Black - faces Zebra protests
Fish declares - "I did not need that bicycle"
-
A corrupt politician. Zeh horror.
-
A corrupt politician. Zeh horror.
And an American Politician at that! What's the world coming to?
-
My God! Next thing you know, multinational corporations will be bank-rolling entire political careers, using their influence to have desireable laws passed, maybe even helping initiate an odd war here or there.
...oh wait.
-
Hope he gets busted. All we need to do now is convict Ted Kennedy for Murder, through Tom Delay in jail, and go back in time and remove Clinton from office.
-
Hope he gets busted. All we need to do now is convict Ted Kennedy for Murder, through Tom Delay in jail, and go back in time and remove Clinton from office.
Ted? Murder? Clinton from office? What?
Here's just hoping that this will somehow result in complete decimation of Republican party and Bush administration (though I'd hate to see Cheney in charge. Just imagine the pure horror his reign would be.)
-
And an American Politician at that! What's the world coming to?
yeah, because only American politicians are capable of being corrupt. That whole Africa thing is a figment of our imagination. :rolleyes:
-
Ted? Murder? Clinton from office? What?
Ted Kennedy was criminally liable, if not manslaughter, for a death of a woman who died in his car when he was driving under the influence. After the accident, he got out of the car and walked home, leaving the woman in the car to drown.(he crashed into a river) Then had the gull to go to her funeral.
-
And an American Politician at that! What's the world coming to?
yeah, because only American politicians are capable of being corrupt. That whole Africa thing is a figment of our imagination. :rolleyes:
I believe the sentiment is in ironic relation to the thought that, for all it's prolesytising about spreading freedom etc etc, the US government seems to many to be one of the most beholden to corporate/donor interests in the world.
-
I believe the sentiment is in ironic relation to the thought that, for all it's prolesytising about spreading freedom etc etc, the US government seems to many to be one of the most beholden to corporate/donor interests in the world.
That's because we're caught between capitalists and idealists. One of the 'freedoms' is the freedom to lie out one's ass. It's only illegal if you get caught (and others are in a position of power to do something about it).
-
this kinda crap has been going on since the 1860's, except then they never got caught. just be happy this guy is getting what he deserves.
-
Bear confirms - "Yes, I did **** in woods"
Shock study reveals White is the opposite of Black - faces Zebra protests
Fish declares - "I did not need that bicycle"
Teen Does Really Stupid Thing!
-
Ted? Murder? Clinton from office? What?
Ted Kennedy was criminally liable, if not manslaughter, for a death of a woman who died in his car when he was driving under the influence. After the accident, he got out of the car and walked home, leaving the woman in the car to drown.(he crashed into a river) Then had the gull to go to her funeral.
:wtf: Where did you hear that one from? Drudge report? Fox?
-
Ha haaa **** YOU.
And it is a well established fact. I thought everyone knew about that.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ted_Kennedy
-
Has the thought ever occured to you that sometimes people make these stories up?
-
Except IT IS NOT MADE UP. Frankly, the only thing "made up" are Kennedys excuses.
Although, upon refresher he suposedly got one of his friends to help but never called the police :wtf: Then later gave up and "swam" to the hotel. :lol:
-
How do you know it isn't made up?
Was the state trooper story about clinton made up?
-
I don't care if that's made up or not, but MUUUUUURRRDEEEERRR? Hells naw.
-
state troopers?
-
and go back in time and remove Clinton from office.
Yeah. Cause if you were going to use a time machine to remove a politician from office, Clinton would be the one to choose :rolleyes:
-
But... but Clinton is so much eviler than teh Hitlars! Rush Limbaugh, Ann Coulter, and my pastor told me so!
-
I would have taken out Kennedy during the CMC so we'd have nuclear war - and would've gotten away with it if it weren't for those pesky kids! Too bad that <CENSORED BY THE THOUGHT POLICE> got to him a year too late.
-
Yeah. Cause if you were going to use a time machine to remove a politician from office, Clinton would be the one to choose :rolleyes:
Yeah. Managing the economy sensibly like that... Bastard.
-
Yeah. Cause if you were going to use a time machine to remove a politician from office, Clinton would be the one to choose :rolleyes:
Yeah. Managing the economy sensibly like that... Bastard.
Not to mention the audacity to actually run a *gasp* budget surplus.
-
"had ties to prominent members of the Republican Party and some Democrats"
Some Democrats? Hell the list of donees is filled with members of both parties.
What's funny is how this guy absolutely fleeced some of his clients (the tribes mostly).
-
(http://www.willisms.com/archives/barrygoldwater.gif)
-
Well, Clinton lied in a taped deposition involving a sexual harassment case. So, yeah, he should have been removed from office. YES, the following impeachment was politically motivated. But so is the current case against Tom Delay. As per "running the economy," he should also give him credit for the following recession, which started toward the end of his presidency. And yes, Bush is also partially culpable as well since he was in charge for the rest of it. But, hey, following the logic giving Clinton credit. The recent economic indicators suggest that the economy is doing better and therefore it must be a result of Bush's economic policies :wtf: Even IF Clinton were the best president ever, that doesn't excuse flagrant disregaurd for the law. I can go and care for the poor my whole life, that doesn't excuse me robbing a bank or breaking any other law.
But... but Clinton is so much eviler than teh Hitlars! Rush Limbaugh, Ann Coulter, and my pastor told me so!
Are you really that acidic in person?
-
Actually he's more base. *ha ha*
-
Yeah, I get the feeling that he is not a very happy person in real life.
-
Abramoff had ties to prominent members of the Republican Party and some Democrats are also implicated.
Damn dirty liberals!
-
How do you know it isn't made up?
So the witnesses to the fact she left with him are all lying? And she was placed already drowned in that car?
-
Even IF Clinton were the best president ever, that doesn't excuse flagrant disregaurd for the law. I can go and care for the poor my whole life, that doesn't excuse me robbing a bank or breaking any other law.
That's the best you can do? He lied in a case? To prevent his wife finding out about an affair. He must be the worst president ever!!!!11111
Don't get me wrong. I think Clinton was a wanker. He's a politician and they're all wankers and they probably should all be in jail for the illegal **** they pull while in charge of the country but for you to say that Clinton was the US president most in need of being deposed shows that you do have an obvious love for the Republican party despite your claims to hate both of them equally. Anyone speaking on the matter from an unbiased point of view would have picked another name.
-
"had ties to prominent members of the Republican Party and some Democrats"
Some Democrats? Hell the list of donees is filled with members of both parties.
What's funny is how this guy absolutely fleeced some of his clients (the tribes mostly).
Oh christ, don't tell me you're preparing to launch into this 'liberal media bias!!111one' pish again.
-
Even IF Clinton were the best president ever, that doesn't excuse flagrant disregaurd for the law. I can go and care for the poor my whole life, that doesn't excuse me robbing a bank or breaking any other law.
That's the best you can do? He lied in a case? To prevent his wife finding out about an affair. He must be the worst president ever!!!!11111
Don't get me wrong. I think Clinton was a wanker. He's a politician and they're all wankers and they probably should all be in jail for the illegal **** they pull while in charge of the country but for you to say that Clinton was the US president most in need of being deposed shows that you do have an obvious love for the Republican party despite your claims to hate both of them equally. Anyone speaking on the matter from an unbiased point of view would have picked another name.
I picked that name because it was most recent. Also, purgery is a VERY serious crime. Taking the oath to tell the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth is very serious and shouldn't be violated. And honestly, you assume too much about Clinton. Meaning this behaviour had been going on for years. I am not sure why, all the sudden, he started to be concerned about his family is questionable at best. And as I said before, the reason Clinton came to mind was the recency effect. Would you like me to replace that with the name LBJ or JFK? I would say more, but I have to go to work.
-
What has shagging an intern got to do with competency running the country, anyways? I mean, shouldn't you be jumping on the back of, I dunno, a president that authorised illegal wiretaps and soforth? That'd seem not only more related to running the actual country, but more urgent and concerning.
-
What has shagging an intern got to do with competency running the country, anyways? I mean, shouldn't you be jumping on the back of, I dunno, a president that authorised illegal wiretaps and soforth? That'd seem not only more related to running the actual country, but more urgent and concerning.
The obvious answer is, because the President must know something that leads him to believe that wiretapping will help stop the spread of terrorism.
-
The obvious answer is, because the President must know something that leads him to believe that wiretapping will help stop the spread of terrorism.
Then why didn't he put it to court judgement - what are they hiding there? I thought the whole US system was supposed to be set up to stop the government acting in such a dictatorial way, to stop it from being able to arbitrarily watch its own citizens? Or is this one of those 'any sin in (quote-unquote) "wartime" ' setups?
-
Well, after that, I'm guessing the reason would be because the people that're the supposed targets of such action (the Terrorists, if you will) would then be able to take action to circumvent it (ie communicate more via mail, try to obtain information on what key phrases and such trigger additional surveillance, come up with better codes for phone communication) whereas by keeping the project in the dark, it would lure such suspected terrorists into a false sense of security and prevent them from taking such measures.
And of course if you then expose those methods in an open trial, to implicate one particular terrorist, then you make circumvention of those same methods easier by others with motive to avoid the surveillance.
All of it makes sense from a law enforcement view. In a way, it's one of those moral questions - is it worth it to break into someone's house if there's the possibility of saving a life? I can probably think hard enough to come up with some tough dilemma, but I think the deal here is that you're faced with a conflict of possibly saving an unknown number of lives while opening civil rights for everyone up to an unknown number of abuses, or possibly securing that unknown number of rights for everyone while sacrificing that unknwon number of lives. And as long as the government doesn't suspect you of anything, and you fit in with society, you don't have anything to fear.
Perhaps you have to suffer some inconveniences from additonal security checks - but what's a few minutes' time? After all, sacrifices have to be made for freedom. If you're dead, it's kind of hard to enjoy your freedom...and the US has one of the higher standards of living in the world.
-
Because, according to the NSA, it takes up to an hour to get a wire tap approval and the NSA was stating that they needed to be able to do this on a moments notice. They still need courts approval for domestic to domestic phone calls and emails.
In regaurds to Clinton, it has nothing to do with running the country, but has to do with the fact the law applies to us all, including our leaders. People constantly make the mistake of confusing the issue with sex which it is not. The issue was that he committed serious crimes.
-
Because, according to the NSA, it takes up to an hour to get a wire tap approval and the NSA was stating that they needed to be able to do this on a moments notice. They still need courts approval for domestic to domestic phone calls and emails.
So the NSA gets carte blanche to spy on US citizens without having to justify it to anyone? Because it says it needs to? I mean, what do you (or the NSA) think judicial oversight is for? ****s and giggles?
In regaurds to Clinton, it has nothing to do with running the country, but has to do with the fact the law applies to us all, including our leaders. People constantly make the mistake of confusing the issue with sex which it is not. The issue was that he committed serious crimes.
What law did he actually break, though? Because he was aquitted of lying and obstructing justice by the Senate. And why the **** did it ever matter? What's important about it? He shagged an intern (well, not technically shagged....)...so? How does this affect his capability to run the nation? I mean, you'll hold an enquiry about shoving a cigar in some tarts snatch, but not about bombing a Sudanese penicillin factory?
-
In regaurds to the NSA, I am not going to defend nor support their activities. I posted that information just as an FYI.
As per Clinton, he wasn't acquitted. He was impeached by the Senate. But, they did not remove him from office. He was in no way acquitted.
It is important because, as I said before, he lied in a sexual harrasment suit against him and obstructed justice, or atleast tried. Both of which are serious crimes. And the law applies to us all. This has nothing to do with running the country. Now you should rephrase your question to say: Does lying under oath, in a matter that was unrelated to his position (or atleast loosly related), justify him being removed from office? That is the real debate. Not, as you so eligantly put it, "shoving a cigar in some tarts snatch" having to do with running the country.
-
In regaurds to the NSA, I am not going to defend nor support their activities. I posted that information just as an FYI.
As per Clinton, he wasn't acquitted. He was impeached by the Senate. But, they did not remove him from office. He was in no way acquitted.
It is important because, as I said before, he lied in a sexual harrasment suit against him and obstructed justice, or atleast tried. Both of which are serious crimes. And the law applies to us all. This has nothing to do with running the country. Now you should rephrase your question to say: Does lying under oath, in a matter that was unrelated to his position (or atleast loosly related), justify him being removed from office? That is the real debate. Not, as you so eligantly put it, "shoving a cigar in some tarts snatch" having to do with running the country.
Why does it matter if he lied about a private, personal matter? why is this important? If I was to have an affair, would I be placed on public trial - by law or media - for it? What exactly was the 'justice' for? What did he lie about that was in the public - i.e. governmental and national - interest with regards to his capability as a president?
Albeit, he wasn't convicted, was he? AFAIK the Senate rejected the 2 charges of impeachment. So surely it's not like he was 'let away with it' or somesuch, if it got that far? In my understanding, facing a court and not being convicted usually amounts to being found innocent (or, in Scots law, 'not proven' as a third option).
And it's probably quite appropriate for me to use the crudest possible terms, because this was basically a fairly sleazy and pathetic affair. Media and show over actual relevance; political points scorting ahead of maybe actually considering the issues of running a country. And here you are dragging this up again, demanding he be punished in some way despite the fact he was put on effective trial anyways. Basically you're saying that you disagree with that verdict, so you're ignoring it?
We've seen far more serious crimes committed by the Bush administration (and probably every other Presidency, this is just my - time - frame of reference here).
-
What were the original investigations started on, actually? I was unaware that an affair was such a serious offense.
-
What were the original investigations started on, actually? I was unaware that an affair was such a serious offense.
I don't know. From what I can tell, the story of the affair was broken, he (Clinton) denied it, and then he was accused of lying and hence perjury. He possibly would have been better off just being honest, but on the other hand, the way - IIRC (it was a while ago) - the republicans went about it hammer and tongs made them look distinctly unsavoury as well. A casual read of the wikipedia stuff (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lewinsky_scandal) makes it look like a lot of ultimately unfounded/unsupportable/thrown out accusations were being made at the time, and this was partially related to that.
-
It is important because, as I said before, he lied in a sexual harrasment suit against him and obstructed justice, or atleast tried. Both of which are serious crimes. And the law applies to us all. This has nothing to do with running the country. Now you should rephrase your question to say: Does lying under oath, in a matter that was unrelated to his position (or atleast loosly related), justify him being removed from office? That is the real debate. Not, as you so eligantly put it, "shoving a cigar in some tarts snatch" having to do with running the country.
So? Bush went AWOL during war time. I don't see you clamouring for his head even though that came to light far more recently than anything Clinton did. Like I said you're showing a very clear bias in all your posts.
And yet again you seem to be assuming I don't think Clinton should be punished. Of course he should but it was your claim that he should be number 1 that I take issue with because it displays a very clear bias and I prefer people who stay neutral and realise that both sides are wankers.
Well, after that, I'm guessing the reason would be because the people that're the supposed targets of such action (the Terrorists, if you will) would then be able to take action to circumvent it (ie communicate more via mail, try to obtain information on what key phrases and such trigger additional surveillance, come up with better codes for phone communication) whereas by keeping the project in the dark, it would lure such suspected terrorists into a false sense of security and prevent them from taking such measures.
And of course if you then expose those methods in an open trial, to implicate one particular terrorist, then you make circumvention of those same methods easier by others with motive to avoid the surveillance.
Sorry but that is a very poor excuse. You're claiming that the NSA would risk giving away the details of their operation if they revealed the details in court. I agree 100%. Telling the terrorists that their phones were likely to be tapped would give away the operation after a few trials revealed that the terrorists had been caught due to wiretaps. What you've missed is that this is true whether the wiretap is legal or not. So even in the case of a legal wiretap the evidence isn't going to be presented in court. The NSA would merely use it as a starting point to gather evidence that they would use.
So now the stumbling block is simply whether you can legally get a wiretap without the suspect learning of it. That's obviously got to be possible otherwise wiretaps would be virtually useless.
-
:yes:
-
So? Bush went AWOL during war time. I don't see you clamouring for his head even though that came to light far more recently than anything Clinton did. Like I said you're showing a very clear bias in all your posts.
And yet again you seem to be assuming I don't think Clinton should be punished. Of course he should but it was your claim that he should be number 1 that I take issue with because it displays a very clear bias and I prefer people who stay neutral and realise that both sides are wankers.
ok, you are obviously not following the conversation. I am not acting like Clinton is Public Enemy No. 1. People were acting like, as usual, that the whole impeachment preceedings were strictly about sex and evil fundamentalists. Really, there were far worse politicians to choose from ie. Bush.
But yes, he is a little jackass for going awol, not in vietnam, but in the Texas National Gaurd.
-
I am following it. It's just tiring hearing you constantly bashing the Democrats. Bash them all instead.
Anyway seeing as you've had a go at Bush now I'll let it lie :)
-
If it will make you happy I can start all my posts with the words Bush Sucks? :p
-
Nah. It would be Bush Sucks but... < 12 paragraph diatribe on the democrat party >
Not really much point is there? :p
-
Bear confirms - "Yes, I did **** in woods"
Shock study reveals White is the opposite of Black - faces Zebra protests
Fish declares - "I did not need that bicycle"
Teen Does Really Stupid Thing!
:lol:
Seriously though... this could shake up Washington in a rather interesting way. My US Government teacher says that this is one of the three biggest stories in American government to have occured during his time teaching the class (something like 8 years or so).
-
Yeah, I get the feeling that he is not a very happy person in real life.
Only when around stupid people :p
-
Bear confirms - "Yes, I did **** in woods"
Shock study reveals White is the opposite of Black - faces Zebra protests
Fish declares - "I did not need that bicycle"
Teen Does Really Stupid Thing!
:lol:
Seriously though... this could shake up Washington in a rather interesting way. My US Government teacher says that this is one of the three biggest stories in American government to have occured during his time teaching the class (something like 8 years or so).
No.
This sort of dirt has always happened.
-
Yea, what's the big deal? Stupid teenager, so what?
-
No.
This sort of dirt has always happened.
I know it's always happened, I'm just saying what my teacher said. And anyway, while this sort of thing has always happened, somebody as big as Abramoff going down and then cooperating with the government to take down other people doesn't happen every day. It could turn out to be a pretty big story, depending on who else gets fingered and actually prosecuted.