Abramof the Villain

[quote]hedo wrote:
Senator Byron Dorgan, the Vice Chairman Of The Senate Panel Currently Investigating Lobbyist Jack Abramoff, received at least $79,300 from Abramoff and his associates and clients.
[/quote]

Which was it, Abramoff, his associates or his clients. They are very different things.

[quote]
Washington State Senator Patty Murray received $14,980 from 2002 to 2004 from the Saginaw Chippewa Indian Tribe in Michigan(?)[/quote]

So, all lobbying directly by Indian tribes is now illicit? Is this supposed to be about Abramoff?

[quote]
Harry Reid has declined to comment on whether he attended any functions there. But, between 2001 and 2004 Reid received $61,000 from donors with links to Abramoff, Reid’s office confirmed.[/quote]

Donors with links? Wow! I thought you said it was money from Abramoff.

Look, I’m not going to say Democrats didn’t also receive funds, but the stuff you are quoting is very obviously playing extreme partisan politics to come up with those numbers and smear people with the word “Abramoff” when it isn’t clear if he is even involved.

Open those eyes man… just look at the wording used!

[quote]JustTheFacts wrote:

So what could possibly have been his goal? Abramoff was a rabid life long Republican who had a history of using radical and controversial tactics.

His contributions to Dems was certainly not intended to help their cause… it was enough however to spread the guilt and create confusion in the event this exact scenerio went down.

We know they aren’t STUPID criminals – to NOT have spread some dirt money to the Dems would have seemed pretty damned amateurish for professional criminals.

That said, I’m sure there are some guilty Dems. The bigger scandal will be the millions of taxpayer dollars laundered through phony defense contractors that were used to fund the record 2004 GOP election campaign.

Bush Campaign Sets Spending Record
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/05/21/politics/main618872.shtml[/quote]

Simply put, Abramoff’s goal was apparently to make as much money as possible for Jack Abramoff. Just look at how he was padding the bills to his American Indian clients. All the sleazy stuff I’ve seen reported w/r/t his contributions, or directed contributions (as opposed to his personal finances) seems aimed at getting stuff passed his clients wanted, or trying to get people “favorable” to his clients in positions to effect what he wanted.

BTW, lobbyists almost always work both sides of the aisle, as that’s the best way to hedge their bets and make sure they have “ins” no matter what the result of the next election cycle.

[quote]vroom wrote:
hedo wrote:
Senator Byron Dorgan, the Vice Chairman Of The Senate Panel Currently Investigating Lobbyist Jack Abramoff, received at least $79,300 from Abramoff and his associates and clients.

Which was it, Abramoff, his associates or his clients. They are very different things.

Washington State Senator Patty Murray received $14,980 from 2002 to 2004 from the Saginaw Chippewa Indian Tribe in Michigan(?)

So, all lobbying directly by Indian tribes is now illicit? Is this supposed to be about Abramoff?

Harry Reid has declined to comment on whether he attended any functions there. But, between 2001 and 2004 Reid received $61,000 from donors with links to Abramoff, Reid’s office confirmed.

Donors with links? Wow! I thought you said it was money from Abramoff.

Look, I’m not going to say Democrats didn’t also receive funds, but the stuff you are quoting is very obviously playing extreme partisan politics to come up with those numbers and smear people with the word “Abramoff” when it isn’t clear if he is even involved.

Open those eyes man… just look at the wording used![/quote]

I know you are just playing naive Vroom. You do know what a lobbyist does for a living right?

“just look at the wording used” may be the funniest thing you have written today.

[quote]JustTheFacts wrote:
hedo wrote:
Abramof gave to both sides. His contributions to BOTH sides were distributed through various channels. The statment that Democrats recieved no money from Abramof is a thinly vieled lie to mislead someone who isn’t willing to read any deeper. It is the core issue of Dean and the Deaniacs for the past week.

So what could possibly have been his goal? Abramoff was a rabid life long Republican who had a history of using radical and controversial tactics.

His contributions to Dems was certainly not intended to help their cause… it was enough however to spread the guilt and create confusion in the event this exact scenerio went down.

We know they aren’t STUPID criminals – to NOT have spread some dirt money to the Dems would have seemed pretty damned amateurish for professional criminals.

That said, I’m sure there are some guilty Dems. The bigger scandal will be the millions of taxpayer dollars laundered through phony defense contractors that were used to fund the record 2004 GOP election campaign.

Bush Campaign Sets Spending Record
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/05/21/politics/main618872.shtml[/quote]

If you only lobby Republicans you probably will not be a very effective lobbyist. That seems like common sense.

[quote]hedo wrote:
Abramof gave to both sides. His contributions to BOTH sides were distributed through various channels. The statment that Democrats recieved no money from Abramof is a thinly vieled lie to mislead someone who isn’t willing to read any deeper. It is the core issue of Dean and the Deaniacs for the past week.

http://gatewaypundit.blogspot.com/2006/01/40-0f-45-democratic-senators-took.html

40 0f 45 Democratic Senators Took Abramoff Money!

Democrats at all levels have attacked Republicans for ties to indicted lobbyist Jack Abramoff and his Indian tribal clients. They do this despite the fact that 40 of the 45 members of the Senate Democrat Caucus have taken money from Abramoff, his associates, and Indian tribe clients.

Senator Byron Dorgan, the Vice Chairman Of The Senate Panel Currently Investigating Lobbyist Jack Abramoff, received at least $79,300 from Abramoff and his associates and clients.

Dorgan even held a fundraiser in an Abramoff Skybox:

The Choctaw tribe, an Abramoff client that was a primary focus of the Senate hearings, sponsored a fundraiser on March 28, 2001, for Dorgan’s political group, the Great Plains Leadership Fund. The event treated Dorgan and his donors to a bird’s-eye view of a professional hockey game from a skybox Abramoff leased in Washington’s MCI Center, while lobbyists got the chance to bend his ear.
Dorgan says he will not step down from the investigating committee. (same article)

That oh, so popular, MCI Skybox…

Tom Harkin paid the tribe for use of its Skybox and he failed to account properly for two fundraisers he held in lobbyist Jack Abramoff’s skybox at Washington??s MCI Center in 2002 and 2003.

Washington State Senator Patty Murray received $14,980 from 2002 to 2004 from the Saginaw Chippewa Indian Tribe in Michigan(?)

Harry Reid has declined to comment on whether he attended any functions there. But, between 2001 and 2004 Reid received $61,000 from donors with links to Abramoff, Reid’s office confirmed.

Capital Eye has the monstrous list of all of the recipients of Abramoff’s funds.

I hope Howard Dean gets this information before he makes any more mistakes.

[/quote]

Again factually false. No Democrat received money from Abramoff, not one. Only Republicans have been implicated in any wrong doing. This has been debunked and explained already. The reason Dean has been debunking this lie for the past week, is because the RNC has been pushing this lie for the past week. It is not illegal or improper in any way (as the RNC well knows) to recieve contributions from lobbyists, etc. It is illegal to do so in return for official actions, which is what republicans have been accused of.

This phrasing is a lie:
“Abramoff and his associates and clients”
This phrasing is also a lie:
“40 0f 45 Democratic Senators Took Abramoff Money!”

Abramoff and his wife have contributed hundreds of thousands of dollars–NONE to Democrats. Did Abramoff give money to various PACs? Yep. And did some of those PACs give money to Democrats? Yes. Is it all perfectly legal? Yes.

The correct headline should read “Not a single democrat recieved money from Abramoff, nor has a single democrat been implicated in accepting bribes in return for official actions!”

or

“0 of 45 Senate Democrats received Abramoff’s money!”

or

“Dems so far not in any way involved in Abramoff/Republican corruption scandal!”

etc.

Considering that the Dem’s are not in power, it would seem that they are somewhat shielded from even being able to offer anything back for the contributions they received…

Kind of funny really!

[quote]100meters wrote:
hedo wrote:
Abramof gave to both sides. His contributions to BOTH sides were distributed through various channels. The statment that Democrats recieved no money from Abramof is a thinly vieled lie to mislead someone who isn’t willing to read any deeper. It is the core issue of Dean and the Deaniacs for the past week.

http://gatewaypundit.blogspot.com/2006/01/40-0f-45-democratic-senators-took.html

40 0f 45 Democratic Senators Took Abramoff Money!

Democrats at all levels have attacked Republicans for ties to indicted lobbyist Jack Abramoff and his Indian tribal clients. They do this despite the fact that 40 of the 45 members of the Senate Democrat Caucus have taken money from Abramoff, his associates, and Indian tribe clients.

Senator Byron Dorgan, the Vice Chairman Of The Senate Panel Currently Investigating Lobbyist Jack Abramoff, received at least $79,300 from Abramoff and his associates and clients.

Dorgan even held a fundraiser in an Abramoff Skybox:

The Choctaw tribe, an Abramoff client that was a primary focus of the Senate hearings, sponsored a fundraiser on March 28, 2001, for Dorgan’s political group, the Great Plains Leadership Fund. The event treated Dorgan and his donors to a bird’s-eye view of a professional hockey game from a skybox Abramoff leased in Washington’s MCI Center, while lobbyists got the chance to bend his ear.
Dorgan says he will not step down from the investigating committee. (same article)

That oh, so popular, MCI Skybox…

Tom Harkin paid the tribe for use of its Skybox and he failed to account properly for two fundraisers he held in lobbyist Jack Abramoff’s skybox at Washington??s MCI Center in 2002 and 2003.

Washington State Senator Patty Murray received $14,980 from 2002 to 2004 from the Saginaw Chippewa Indian Tribe in Michigan(?)

Harry Reid has declined to comment on whether he attended any functions there. But, between 2001 and 2004 Reid received $61,000 from donors with links to Abramoff, Reid’s office confirmed.

Capital Eye has the monstrous list of all of the recipients of Abramoff’s funds.

I hope Howard Dean gets this information before he makes any more mistakes.

Again factually false. No Democrat received money from Abramoff, not one. Only Republicans have been implicated in any wrong doing. This has been debunked and explained already. The reason Dean has been debunking this lie for the past week, is because the RNC has been pushing this lie for the past week.

It is not illegal or improper in any way (as the RNC well knows) to recieve contributions from lobbyists, etc. It is illegal to do so in return for official actions, which is what republicans have been accused of.

This phrasing is a lie:
“Abramoff and his associates and clients”
This phrasing is also a lie:
“40 0f 45 Democratic Senators Took Abramoff Money!”

Abramoff and his wife have contributed hundreds of thousands of dollars–NONE to Democrats. Did Abramoff give money to various PACs? Yep. And did some of those PACs give money to Democrats? Yes. Is it all perfectly legal? Yes.

The correct headline should read “Not a single democrat recieved money from Abramoff, nor has a single democrat been implicated in accepting bribes in return for official actions!”

or

“0 of 45 Senate Democrats received Abramoff’s money!”

or

“Dems so far not in any way involved in Abramoff/Republican corruption scandal!”

etc.[/quote]

or

“Both Republicans and Democrats took money from Abramoff. Democrats try and spin it for politcal advantage.”

Too believe that the Democrats will not be implicated in this scandal is naive.

[quote]hedo wrote:
“Both Republicans and Democrats took money from Abramoff. Democrats try and spin it for politcal advantage.”

Too believe that the Democrats will not be implicated in this scandal is naive.

[/quote]
Again factually speaking, not one democrat took money from Abramoff, so your quote would be false, or a lie–but I’ll assume you just didn’t read the previous posts or check the public record.

for your benefit, and to spare you future embarassment of false statements, you could check all of Abramoff’s personal contributions here:

http://www.opensecrets.org/indivs/search.asp?NumOfThou=0&txtName=abramoff&txtState=DC&txtZip=&txtEmploy=&txtCand=&txt2000=Y&txt1998=Y&Order=N
and,
http://www.opensecrets.org/indivs/search.asp?txtName=abramoff&txtState=DC&txtZip=&txtEmploy=&txtCand=&txt2006=Y&txt2004=Y&txt2002=Y&txt2000=&txt1998=&txt1996=&txt1994=&txt1992=&txt1990=&txtSoft=N&Order=N&Cycles=3&Cycle1=2006&Cycle2=2004&Cycle3=2002&Page=1
or as Bloomberg put it:

"Between 2001 and 2004, Abramoff gave more than $127,000 to Republican candidates and committees and nothing to Democrats, federal records show.

At the same time, his Indian clients were the only ones among the top 10 tribal donors in the U.S. to donate more money to Republicans than Democrats."
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=10000103&sid=aBTFEkGJUbSI&refer=us

Also, to remind you the outrage is that republicans performed official actions in return for contributions/bribes. The outrage IS NOT reciept of contributions.

[quote]100meters wrote:
hedo wrote:
“Both Republicans and Democrats took money from Abramoff. Democrats try and spin it for politcal advantage.”

Too believe that the Democrats will not be implicated in this scandal is naive.

Again factually speaking, not one democrat took money from Abramoff, so your quote would be false, or a lie–but I’ll assume you just didn’t read the previous posts or check the public record.

for your benefit, and to spare you future embarassment of false statements, you could check all of Abramoff’s personal contributions here:

http://www.opensecrets.org/indivs/search.asp?NumOfThou=0&txtName=abramoff&txtState=DC&txtZip=&txtEmploy=&txtCand=&txt2000=Y&txt1998=Y&Order=N
and,
http://www.opensecrets.org/indivs/search.asp?txtName=abramoff&txtState=DC&txtZip=&txtEmploy=&txtCand=&txt2006=Y&txt2004=Y&txt2002=Y&txt2000=&txt1998=&txt1996=&txt1994=&txt1992=&txt1990=&txtSoft=N&Order=N&Cycles=3&Cycle1=2006&Cycle2=2004&Cycle3=2002&Page=1
or as Bloomberg put it:

"Between 2001 and 2004, Abramoff gave more than $127,000 to Republican candidates and committees and nothing to Democrats, federal records show.

At the same time, his Indian clients were the only ones among the top 10 tribal donors in the U.S. to donate more money to Republicans than Democrats."
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=10000103&sid=aBTFEkGJUbSI&refer=us

Also, to remind you the outrage is that republicans performed official actions in return for contributions/bribes. The outrage IS NOT reciept of contributions. [/quote]

You actually are that naive…wow.

100M’s use of the words “factually speaking” should send a clear message to anyone that can actually read that he is as diehard loyal to the left as I am to the right.

That is not to give his ‘facts’ any more believabiliy than I would any of the left’s talking points, but damn it is refreshing to see someone on their side use something besides what fell out of the gaoddamned thinking tree.

Maybe I missed something over the weekend, but I don’t hear anyone from the left screaming for investigations. I wonder why that is? I guess they really don’t want to shit where they sleep, huh?

[quote]bigflamer wrote:
It does appear that there are alot of dems with dirty hands as well. People in glass houses shouldn’t throw stones. I’m not saying that Abromof isn’t real damn dirty, I’m just saying that there are alot of Dems mixes up in this as well. I wonder if these dems intend on giving this money back. Hmmmmmm

Forty of forty five members of the Democrat Senate Caucus took money from Jack Abramoff, his associates, and Indian tribe clients.[/quote]

It sounds good but is very intellectually dishonest.

Indian tribes in general would have to be ‘agents’ of Abramof for your statements to be true.

The vast majority of the donations you listed were not directed by Abramof in any way shape or form.

This is exclusively a GOP scandal.

Get use to it.

The Democrats did it when they were in power and now it is the Republicans turn.

[quote]hedo wrote:
100meters wrote:
hedo wrote:
“Both Republicans and Democrats took money from Abramoff. Democrats try and spin it for politcal advantage.”

Too believe that the Democrats will not be implicated in this scandal is naive.

Again factually speaking, not one democrat took money from Abramoff, so your quote would be false, or a lie–but I’ll assume you just didn’t read the previous posts or check the public record.

for your benefit, and to spare you future embarassment of false statements, you could check all of Abramoff’s personal contributions here:

http://www.opensecrets.org/indivs/search.asp?NumOfThou=0&txtName=abramoff&txtState=DC&txtZip=&txtEmploy=&txtCand=&txt2000=Y&txt1998=Y&Order=N
and,
http://www.opensecrets.org/indivs/search.asp?txtName=abramoff&txtState=DC&txtZip=&txtEmploy=&txtCand=&txt2006=Y&txt2004=Y&txt2002=Y&txt2000=&txt1998=&txt1996=&txt1994=&txt1992=&txt1990=&txtSoft=N&Order=N&Cycles=3&Cycle1=2006&Cycle2=2004&Cycle3=2002&Page=1
or as Bloomberg put it:

"Between 2001 and 2004, Abramoff gave more than $127,000 to Republican candidates and committees and nothing to Democrats, federal records show.

At the same time, his Indian clients were the only ones among the top 10 tribal donors in the U.S. to donate more money to Republicans than Democrats."
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=10000103&sid=aBTFEkGJUbSI&refer=us

Also, to remind you the outrage is that republicans performed official actions in return for contributions/bribes. The outrage IS NOT reciept of contributions.

You actually are that naive…wow.

[/quote]

You were factually wrong and you don’t seem to comprehend the nature of the scandal. I corrected you. Naive has nothing to do with it on my part. Minus a timemachine those are the facts as they stand right now.

[quote]100meters wrote:
hedo wrote:
“Both Republicans and Democrats took money from Abramoff. Democrats try and spin it for politcal advantage.”

Too believe that the Democrats will not be implicated in this scandal is naive.

Again factually speaking, not one democrat took money from Abramoff, so your quote would be false, or a lie–but I’ll assume you just didn’t read the previous posts or check the public record.

for your benefit, and to spare you future embarassment of false statements, you could check all of Abramoff’s personal contributions here:

http://www.opensecrets.org/indivs/search.asp?NumOfThou=0&txtName=abramoff&txtState=DC&txtZip=&txtEmploy=&txtCand=&txt2000=Y&txt1998=Y&Order=N
and,
http://www.opensecrets.org/indivs/search.asp?txtName=abramoff&txtState=DC&txtZip=&txtEmploy=&txtCand=&txt2006=Y&txt2004=Y&txt2002=Y&txt2000=&txt1998=&txt1996=&txt1994=&txt1992=&txt1990=&txtSoft=N&Order=N&Cycles=3&Cycle1=2006&Cycle2=2004&Cycle3=2002&Page=1
or as Bloomberg put it:

"Between 2001 and 2004, Abramoff gave more than $127,000 to Republican candidates and committees and nothing to Democrats, federal records show.

At the same time, his Indian clients were the only ones among the top 10 tribal donors in the U.S. to donate more money to Republicans than Democrats."
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=10000103&sid=aBTFEkGJUbSI&refer=us

Also, to remind you the outrage is that republicans performed official actions in return for contributions/bribes. The outrage IS NOT reciept of contributions. [/quote]

To be clear, all the donations, in and of themselves, are perfectly legal, whether from Abramoff or not.

The alleged – I know you know the word alleged, so I’ll assume you were simply leaving it out due to an oversight – crime is for a claimed quid pro quo, namely, accepting a donation in exchange for some political act or other.

Donations from Indian tribes that resulted in quid pro quo favors would be just as illegal as donations from Abramoff himself that resulted in quid pro quo political favors.

For now, with respect to elected officials, what we have are some allegations. There are no indictments, no convictions, and no evidence has been leaked that would make me think any are forthcoming any time soon (with the possible exception of Congressman Ney). This whole “scandal” is quite ahead of itself.

That said, anyone who took bribes should be tossed under the bus. Not even a hero like Duke Cunningham is above the law.

[quote]100meters wrote:
hedo wrote:
100meters wrote:
hedo wrote:
“Both Republicans and Democrats took money from Abramoff. Democrats try and spin it for politcal advantage.”

Too believe that the Democrats will not be implicated in this scandal is naive.

Again factually speaking, not one democrat took money from Abramoff, so your quote would be false, or a lie–but I’ll assume you just didn’t read the previous posts or check the public record.

for your benefit, and to spare you future embarassment of false statements, you could check all of Abramoff’s personal contributions here:

http://www.opensecrets.org/indivs/search.asp?NumOfThou=0&txtName=abramoff&txtState=DC&txtZip=&txtEmploy=&txtCand=&txt2000=Y&txt1998=Y&Order=N
and,
http://www.opensecrets.org/indivs/search.asp?txtName=abramoff&txtState=DC&txtZip=&txtEmploy=&txtCand=&txt2006=Y&txt2004=Y&txt2002=Y&txt2000=&txt1998=&txt1996=&txt1994=&txt1992=&txt1990=&txtSoft=N&Order=N&Cycles=3&Cycle1=2006&Cycle2=2004&Cycle3=2002&Page=1
or as Bloomberg put it:

"Between 2001 and 2004, Abramoff gave more than $127,000 to Republican candidates and committees and nothing to Democrats, federal records show.

At the same time, his Indian clients were the only ones among the top 10 tribal donors in the U.S. to donate more money to Republicans than Democrats."
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=10000103&sid=aBTFEkGJUbSI&refer=us

Also, to remind you the outrage is that republicans performed official actions in return for contributions/bribes. The outrage IS NOT reciept of contributions.

You actually are that naive…wow.

You were factually wrong and you don’t seem to comprehend the nature of the scandal. I corrected you. Naive has nothing to do with it on my part. Minus a timemachine those are the facts as they stand right now.[/quote]

I understand the nature of the scandal and the facts surrounding it. I disagree with your conclusion.

Are you a moron?

The whole thing is being investigated up the ying-yang. Perhaps you have hear of the fact that Scanlon and Abramoff are cooperating with the Justice Department?

That is part of an ongoing investigation into this issue.

If the democrats provided actions for money they too should be found guilty, and I’m sure if they did, then they will also.

As for the allegedness of this, there is one person who has plead guilty to this whole issue, though it may not be directly attributed to Abramoff, and that is Cunningham. The parties who bribed him may decide to cooperate in order to get at other politicians instead of taking the fall themselves. Time will tell.

However, I’m pretty confident that there will be a few indictments, considering the nature of the leaked information showing the communications between Abramoff and Scanlon or others.

Alleged today, convicted tomorrow, funny how that happens.

Translation…

I have too much cognitive dissonance to accept your statements. It must be a problem equally between democrats and republicans or my head hurts.

Sniff.

[quote]vroom wrote:
I understand the nature of the scandal and the facts surrounding it. I disagree with your conclusion.

Translation…

I have too much cognitive dissonance to accept your statements. It must be a problem equally between democrats and republicans or my head hurts.

Sniff.[/quote]

Vroom

Is 100 one of your alter ego’s?

Your preaching is comical. You lost any sort of credibility you had long ago. Why keep trying?

Stop being a bitch and try and make a point.

[quote]vroom wrote:

As for the allegedness of this, there is one person who has plead guilty to this whole issue, though it may not be directly attributed to Abramoff, and that is Cunningham. The parties who bribed him may decide to cooperate in order to get at other politicians instead of taking the fall themselves. Time will tell.[/quote]

The Abramoff investigation is completely separate from the Duke Cunningham plea.

Cunningham pled guilty to accepting a bribe from defense contractors – he essentially sold them his house in San Diego at a price very much above market value.

JTF’s fantasy posts aside, there has been nothing to link these two together factually.

[quote]vroom wrote:

However, I’m pretty confident that there will be a few indictments, considering the nature of the leaked information showing the communications between Abramoff and Scanlon or others.

Alleged today, convicted tomorrow, funny how that happens.[/quote]

I think you should refer to the end of your previous paragraph – time will tell.

Also, there’s a reason why the word “alleged” exists – sometimes, it goes to “alleged” today to nothing tomorrow. Sometimes, it goes from “alleged” today to “indicted” tomorrow, and then to nothing. And sometimes, it goes from “alleged” to “convicted.” Funny how those can all happen…

Speculation is interesting, but calls for action based on some notion of criminal conduct by legislators are very premature at this juncture.

And again, to reiterate, if you want real reform, give government less power and take away the incentive for people to influence lawmakers. Just think what good we could do by eliminating earmarked pork-barrell spending, or overreaching regulatory powers…

[quote]The Abramoff investigation is completely separate from the Duke Cunningham plea.

Cunningham pled guilty to accepting a bribe from defense contractors – he essentially sold them his house in San Diego at a price very much above market value.

JTF’s fantasy posts aside, there has been nothing to link these two together factually. [/quote]

Boston,

I know you are a lawyer, but do you have to be so damned literal?

I alluded to the fact that this item is not directly related to the Abramoff scandal.

However, to assume that this other scandal related to bribery for action involved nobody else and does not in some way intersect is premature.

Get a few bad eggs here… and a guilty plea really does a good job of that, and it might pry open some more hidden dealings elsewhere.

Honestly, I don’t care whether the people found are republican or not, though I’m sure I’ll crow about it later, but I do deeply care about corruption and undue influence on government.

Of course, you and Rainjack may feel that reforms are not needed, but this is a good opportunity to take a whack and reducing the ability for money to influence government – which doesn’t necessarily mean an end to the ability to contribute to government.

You make me laugh.

My posts are not credible or incredible because I say them.

How biased do you have to be to dismiss what people say because of who they are?

If, and I’d be amazed, but if Rainjack put together a good post that wasn’t biased, for example, then it would be worthy of discussion.

You show an ability to think about and honestly consider the points made by the left and I’ll stop making fun of you for not being able to do so.

Other than that, perhaps you should worry about your own credibility?

There is no preaching involved…