Abramof the Villain

[quote]vroom wrote:
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.
[/quote]

Yeah, BB! Quit being so mean and making vroom stand by his words. Everyone knows that he is exempt from having to stand by anything - especially when he is proven wrong.

Holy shit vroom - I think you should just shut the hell up and quit trying to play in 100M’s end of the pool. At least he brings something to the debate besides fruit from the great Thinking Tree.

You are laughably sad in your attempts.

[quote]vroom wrote:

Boston,

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.[/quote]

No, I think reform is needed, but, to quote myself, this is how it needs to happen:

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…

That, and a Constitutional amendment addressed at gerrymandering, in order to cut down on “safe” districts so that legislators need to be responsive to constituents.

I’ve more concerns for reform, but those are the simplest ones.

[quote]vroom wrote:
Your preaching is comical. You lost any sort of credibility you had long ago. Why keep trying?

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…[/quote]

Yes there is.

Vroom you really are funny. You actually think I care about what your opinion is of me or any political topic.

Please hold your breath while your waiting for me to change…stop wasting the oxygen.

[quote]hedo wrote:
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.

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

[/quote]

Well, The facts say ZERO (not one literal cent) contributions, and I say ZERO contributions from Abramoff. Also factually (at this time) only Republicans are implicated. That’s my conclusion. How can you disagree?

[quote]rainjack wrote:
vroom wrote:
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.

Yeah, BB! Quit being so mean and making vroom stand by his words. Everyone knows that he is exempt from having to stand by anything - especially when he is proven wrong.

Holy shit vroom - I think you should just shut the hell up and quit trying to play in 100M’s end of the pool. At least he brings something to the debate besides fruit from the great Thinking Tree.

You are laughably sad in your attempts.

[/quote]

Ahhhh…Gee, thanks Rainjack–but these fond feelings can’t last forever…this is the political forum you know.

Here’s some interesting background on the “industry” that Mr. Abramoff was representing. An interesting mix of racial politics and gambling interests intersect with the Indian gaming industry…


Business World
by Holman W. Jenkins, Jr.

Indian Taker
January 11, 2006; Page A15

Jack Abramoff was sui generis – a personality out of control, flamboyantly corrupt, engaged in bizarre antics that your average Zegna-clad Washington lobbyist would never have dreamed of. And yet one of the soggy paper bags that we journalists have a hard time punching our way out of is the notion that any scandal, when it reaches a certain prominence, must be representative. Enron wasn’t the exception but the norm of corporate behavior. Jack Abramoff is just the protruding left toe under a bedsheet of K Street corruption.

In fact, the downfall of the man known in every press account as a “Republican lobbyist” was not remotely the upshot of workaday lobbying on behalf of corporations over this or that tax or regulatory issue. The media is wowed by the numbers in such cases but the millions the government giveth or taketh away are less impressive on corporate income statements, and are usually competed away in the marketplace for a company’s goods or services.

How different when Washington can conjure vast wealth for specific individuals or small groups by granting unique privileges to exploit the public without competition, as in the peculiar case of Indian casinos.

Mystifying, then, is why all hands insist on treating Indians as Mr. Abramoff’s “victims.” Louisiana’s Coushatta Tribe was under no compulsion to pay him $32 million; it did so to foil another tribe’s gambling project and secure its own inflated margins.

“You’re the problem, buddy, in what happened to American Indians,” Sen. Ben Nighthorse Campbell lectured an Abramoff associate two years ago. Huh? Mr. Custer’s, er, Mr. Abramoff’s sole interesting feature, aside from his self destructiveness and his possibly larcenous attempt to get into the gaming business himself, was his chutzpah in asking for such a big piece of change to do the tribes’ dirty work.

Political anthropologists will have to excavate why Mr. Abramoff is a mega-scandal when peeps were barely raised about previous outrages in which the chief actors were public officials who presumably owed a higher standard of conduct. Say, several political appointees in the Bureau of Indian Affairs who, in the waning days of the Clinton administration, tossed aside expert advice and recognized a bunch of new “tribes” just before spinning themselves out the revolving door and into jobs as lawyers for Indian gambling interests.

One of them, Michael Anderson, after he’d officially left his post, continued to sign and backdate documents to help one tribe. Mr. Anderson, an “enrolled member” of the Muskogee Nation, and a deputy, Loretta Tuell, a Nez Perce member, are now partners at the firm of Monteau and Peebles, connected lineally to the very foundation myth of Indian gaming.

No, we’re not referring to the prehistoric “hoop and pole game,” touted on one tribe’s Web site. The beginning traces to the ancestral year of 1983, when an unemployed Connecticut welder, who may or may not have been one-sixteenth Pequot, wangled recognition for his defunct tribe. With backing from a Malaysian billionaire, and over the impotent objections of most of Connecticut, he launched the Foxwoods casino.

Foxwood’s operators felt vulnerable and in need of allies, so another resurrected tribe, the Mohegans, teamed up with another billionaire, South African Sol Kerzner. Swiftly approving their Mohegan Sun casino was Harold Monteau, the Clinton-appointed head of the National Indian Gaming Commission, who ignored opposition from agency staff and from both of his fellow commissioners.

Need we add that Mr. Monteau, a Chippewa-Cree, was eventually shooed from office by congressional critics (mostly Democrats)? His law firm, with the Mohegans as a major client, now serves as a landing place for other fixers on the wing.

Mr. Abramoff was sui generis, all right. He wasn’t an Indian and obviously lacked the discretion to keep his sleaze between even such compendious lines, allowing him to enjoy the fruits thereof undisturbed by prosecutors.

If there’s a lesson for anyone but lobbyist trainees here, it’s not a very original one. Where opportunities for enormous, instant wealth are sloshing around at the discretion of bureaucrats and legislators, invariably is bad policy to be found.

Take the minority and small business “set-asides” that produce indictments and jail sentences with such regularity that it’s hardly noticed anymore. Or take the FCC auctions for wireless spectrum: A Journal front-pager recently detailed how favoritism for “disadvantaged” entrepreneurs allowed an aerobics instructor and others to pocket large fees as fronts for secret investors.

Typical of high-profile scandals, the Abramoff affair is a spectacular bit of flotsam left behind by a tide that has already begun to recede. Dozens of defunct “tribes” still seek recognition, and dozens more have their eyes on reclaiming traditional lands that just happen to be near major population centers and freeway interchanges. But the backlash was already underway. It comes from gaming tribes that don’t want their good thing spoiled, from state governments that covet gambling proceeds for themselves, from a Congress fed up with “reservation shopping” by casino promoters.

We’re still a long way from any senator (John McCain leaps to mind) being willing to say “enough” to the enduring nonsense of Indian “sovereignty” – but even that may come.

Spin and intellectual dishonesty from the freeping right wingnuttery at this site is pathetic.

The National Review Online knows this scandal “is, in its essence, a Republican scandal, and any attempt to portray it otherwise is a misdirection.”

http://www.nationalreview.com/lowry/lowry200601100816.asp

BOOYAH!

[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:
vroom wrote:

Boston,

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.

No, I think reform is needed, but, to quote myself, this is how it needs to happen:

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]

BB has it exactly right. George Will says the same thing in a great short column here:

The GOP’s complete betrayal of fiscal conservatism, part of its very soul, is disgusting. If it weren’t for Iraq, I would be hoping every day for the Republicans to get tossed out of power in 2006 as a lesson. The spirit of that House class of 1994 is dead and buried.

[quote]
Vroom you really are funny. You actually think I care about what your opinion is of me or any political topic.

Please hold your breath while your waiting for me to change…stop wasting the oxygen. [/quote]

Hedo, let me simply say the same back to you (and your posse… lol).

[quote]Marmadogg wrote:
Spin and intellectual dishonesty from the freeping right wingnuttery at this site is pathetic.

The National Review Online knows this scandal “is, in its essence, a Republican scandal, and any attempt to portray it otherwise is a misdirection.”

http://www.nationalreview.com/lowry/lowry200601100816.asp

BOOYAH!
[/quote]

Apparently they haven’t convinced the Justice Department investigators of this fact quite yet:

http://gatewaypundit.blogspot.com/2006/01/abramoff-scandal-democratic-leaders.html

As I have said, it’s way too early to be faulting any particular elected officials on this.

Boston said “And again, to reiterate, if you want real reform, give government less power”


BB - since you have reiterated your desire for less government power, I assume that you are opposed to the current administration. Eavesdropping without warrants - does that sound like restricted government power? Amendments against gay marriage, medical marajuana, and the right to die with dignity? Are these the hallmarks of small government? For God’s sake, Terri Schiavo! The president flying across country, in the middle of the night, to get involved in a domestic issue? Is it safe to say that you favor small government for corporations and social programs, but big government for imposing “morality”?

[quote]dermo wrote:
Boston said “And again, to reiterate, if you want real reform, give government less power”


BB - since you have reiterated your desire for less government power, I assume that you are opposed to the current administration. Eavesdropping without warrants - does that sound like restricted government power? Amendments against gay marriage, medical marajuana, and the right to die with dignity? Are these the hallmarks of small government? For God’s sake, Terri Schiavo! The president flying across country, in the middle of the night, to get involved in a domestic issue? Is it safe to say that you favor small government for corporations and social programs, but big government for imposing “morality”?
[/quote]

Unfortunately, in quoting myself, I truncated my quote – my original statment, which is more in line with my view, is that the government’s power should be limited in areas unrelated to its core functions of providing courts, law enforcement and military.

But, to your examples: 1) I think the eavesdropping program, depending on its parameters, can fit in providing security against foreign threats, a core military function. 2) If we amend the Constitution w/r/t marriage, we’re necessarily letting the people decide a particular policy matter, not empowering the government to decide it for them. Remember, however, that no one would even be considering an amendment to the Constitution were they not upset that the courts, another branch of government, might usurp the decision. 3) Medical marijuana - the Raich case is what you get when you’ve already decided to give Congress way too much power under the Commerce Clause - however, I definitely disagreed with the decision, but then again I disagree with the entire Wickard line of precedents regarding the scope of the Commerce Clause. And, incidentally, I don’t think you can blame that one on the administration… 4) Terri Schiavo – a lot of political grandstanding, but nothing was actually done – and to the extent anything was planned, it was Congress talking about trying to do something (again, see my opinion on the Wickard line of cases). However, that whole situation was a good case for having a living will – there would have been no situation at all if Schiavo had made her wishes known regarding receiving medical treatment, which means the point about the government’s duty to protect its citizen from harm due to actions of others (even if you disagree with that conclusion) would have been moot.

It’s safe to say I support smaller government as a rule, that I support the Constitution as it was written and actually amended (though in some cases I disagree with particular amendments - Senators should not be elected, for instance). I support government providing courts, law enforcement and military above all else in terms of its priorities. I support people’s rights to do what they want (but not to get any particular benefits). But those are general rules, and the facts of any particular given situation may lead to a different conclusion - especially if the respective principles seem to lead in different directions.

And sometimes you need to deal with the realities of how things are when making a decision. For instance, I may be against helmet laws in principle, but if you tell me that I need to pay for someone’s medical care I might change my mind; another example, I may favor open borders in principle, but if you tell me that I then need to provide welfare and other benefits to anyone who comes over, I may change my mind.

[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:
Marmadogg wrote:
Spin and intellectual dishonesty from the freeping right wingnuttery at this site is pathetic.

The National Review Online knows this scandal “is, in its essence, a Republican scandal, and any attempt to portray it otherwise is a misdirection.”

http://www.nationalreview.com/lowry/lowry200601100816.asp

BOOYAH!

Apparently they haven’t convinced the Justice Department investigators of this fact quite yet:

http://gatewaypundit.blogspot.com/2006/01/abramoff-scandal-democratic-leaders.html

As I have said, it’s way too early to be faulting any particular elected officials on this.

[/quote]

Nope. Still a Republican scandal. Why on earth does Moonie Times just make this stuff up? This was debunked almost immediately wasn’t it? (and not just by virtue of being in a Washington Times tabloid) And a classic example of the right making up a lie and promoting that lie as fact.

example:
The National Republican Senatorial Committee on Wednesday promoted the Washington Times article and criticized Reid.

“For assailing the culture of corruption while he is reportedly under investigation by the Justice Department, Senator Harry Reid receives today’s politician award,” one Republican committee statement said.

Reid was totally implicated by this “story” in the minds of sheepish republican voters, and any correction will be dismissed for the most part(liberal media bias don’t ya know!), mission accomplished for the RNC!

[quote]100meters wrote:
BostonBarrister wrote:
Marmadogg wrote:
Spin and intellectual dishonesty from the freeping right wingnuttery at this site is pathetic.

The National Review Online knows this scandal “is, in its essence, a Republican scandal, and any attempt to portray it otherwise is a misdirection.”

http://www.nationalreview.com/lowry/lowry200601100816.asp

BOOYAH!

Apparently they haven’t convinced the Justice Department investigators of this fact quite yet:

http://gatewaypundit.blogspot.com/2006/01/abramoff-scandal-democratic-leaders.html

As I have said, it’s way too early to be faulting any particular elected officials on this.

Nope. Still a Republican scandal. Why on earth does Moonie Times just make this stuff up? This was debunked almost immediately wasn’t it? (and not just by virtue of being in a Washington Times tabloid) And a classic example of the right making up a lie and promoting that lie as fact.

example:
The National Republican Senatorial Committee on Wednesday promoted the Washington Times article and criticized Reid.

“For assailing the culture of corruption while he is reportedly under investigation by the Justice Department, Senator Harry Reid receives today’s politician award,” one Republican committee statement said.

Reid was totally implicated by this “story” in the minds of sheepish republican voters, and any correction will be dismissed for the most part(liberal media bias don’t ya know!), mission accomplished for the RNC![/quote]

Are you saying that 2 of the 5 elected officials being investigated by the Justice Department in this matter aren’t Democrats? Just curious.

[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:
boo-F’ing-hoo![/quote]

This is a Republican scandal.

The Democrats had theirs and now it is the GOP’s turn.

Get over it and stop being a loser.

FYI - The Justice Department just released a statement that said they are not investigating Dirty Harry.

You like to quote NRO when you agree with them but I guess they are looney left wingnuts now?

Whatever you jack@$$…

[quote]Marmadogg wrote:

This is a Republican scandal.

The Democrats had theirs and now it is the GOP’s turn.

Get over it and stop being a loser.

FYI - The Justice Department just released a statement that said they are not investigating Dirty Harry.

You like to quote NRO when you agree with them but I guess they are looney left wingnuts now?

Whatever you jack@$$…[/quote]

Why don’t I just repeat the above question:

Are you saying that 2 of the 5 elected officials being investigated by the Justice Department in this matter aren’t Democrats? Just curious.

BTW, I looked for your Justice Department release, but couldn’t find it – mind linking?

In addition, you should learn some reading comprehension skills. I said it was too early to even call this a scandal with regard to any elected politicians. We’ll see what comes out of it. I don’t recall making any arguments whatsoever based on National Review’s editorial. Of course, if I did disagree, I know that would throw off your worldview, given your aversion for those who think for themselves and don’t fit well within your multi-adjective classification system.

Yes. The Wash. Times story is made up. (Of course)

“But the Justice Department does not have a list of lawmakers who are being investigated,” the source said.

[quote]100meters wrote:
Yes. The Wash. Times story is made up. (Of course)

“But the Justice Department does not have a list of lawmakers who are being investigated,” the source said.

[/quote]

Ah, dueling anonymous Justice Department sources. Another indication that it’s far too early to jump on this w/r/t anyone other than Abramoff and Scanlon (and maybe Rep. Ney…).

[quote]rainjack wrote:

Yeah, BB! Quit being so mean and making vroom stand by his words. Everyone knows that he is exempt from having to stand by anything - especially when he is proven wrong.

Holy shit vroom - I think you should just shut the hell up and quit trying to play in 100M’s end of the pool. At least he brings something to the debate besides fruit from the great Thinking Tree.

You are laughably sad in your attempts.

[/quote]

Why do people feel anyone should read utter shite like this? Go fuck off back to your playground, you crappy-arsed baby. Fuck!

"it’s far too early to jump on this w/r/t anyone other than Abramoff and Scanlon (and maybe Rep. Ney…). "

****Don’t forget David Safavian.