Mark Foley

[ArlanKels]

Originally Posted by I_Like_Swordchucks

But onto the actual topic, given time in power the Democrats would clearly become just as corrupt.

Democrats are most likely already as corrupt, if not more so. The issue is that you can not readily see this due to the fact that their corruption is not at the forefront of the papers, given the greater number of Republicans in power and how our president currently is a Republican.

I seem to remember one time a while back someone commented to me about how Clinton had done something which was quite corrupt-ish...can't remember what it was, though.
:stressed:
BRAIN NO WORK

[steve11]

@Fith

I think you are taking “extremist” as insult, it’s not. I’m an extreme centrist, and proud to be one. Extreme just means you are on the fringe of said view point, and dedicated to it, There is nothing wrong with it, unless you let it could your judgement and get overly defensive about it. Perhaps if I define my extreme viewpoint you won’t take it as in insult. I fine it’s best for people grasp where they stand.

As an extreme centrist I feel both the left and right have issues, but the truth lies in the middle. It’s best not to pick a party (though I am a democrat) but to pick the politician. Extreme centrists (such as my self) are social liberals, fiscal conservatives, and central foreign policy. That’s text book.

I don’t get offended when people classify me as such because I don’t think it’s a bad mindpoint to have. Call me an ultra extreme centrist and I’m proud to be one, I think my political persuasion is the correct one, and I can defend it. And as such I’m not afraid to defend my standpoint with facts and arguements, however I will point out when somebody takes the ultra left, or ultra right view point on things. It’s a viewpoint and it can be extreme, all political viewpoints can be.

One of the biggest failures in political logic is to ignore the fact that you can be extreme, center, left, right, whatever, it’s all possible.

But I don't consider my extreme centrist debate point, the same person I am. It's not the same issue and I don't attach an ego to it. However in a true and honest debate, you must go with your gut.

[Krylo]

Great example is the current republicans. After decades of a corrupt democrat congress the republicans gained power 12 years ago to "reform" things and straighten it out, under Clinton. And while they did, once they had power they did everything to hold onto it and now are just as corrupt at the democrats were before them.

Um... Clinton was a democrat. The republicans have only been in power for eight years, six of which have been used being corrupted, writing away freedoms, and fighting shitty wars.

Really, the "Once they've been in control so long any party gets corrupted" quasi-defense of the republicans (I say quasi, because it's less defending them and more attempting to denigrate the democrats to the same level) falls apart when you realize that the democrats had power for four years and the worst they did was have sex with an intern, while the Republicans have power for four years and... well, guantanemo bay was already breaking geneva convention before the start of the second term. Not to mention the original write up of the patriot act they tried to push through and... well, everything they've done since Bush was elected, period.

[steve11]

I know Clinton was a democrat. The republicans stormed congress and started their reformation in 1994 that's 12 years ago.

Prior to that we had close to 40 years of democrat power and screw ups.

[POS Industries]

Originally Posted by Meister

Look, would it kill you to not announce "I AM READY TO BECOME A MARTYR FOR THE CAUSE" whenever you're debating with a moderator? All of you? It's annoying, it's unfair debating style, and it won't do shit to protect you from getting banned if you do overstep the lines.

It's one of those ideas that gets spread in dark, hushed corners around here. "Oh, don't try to argue with Shiney/Mashirosen/Krylo/Fifthfiend/Whoever.... They'll ban you just for looking at them funny, they will!" Seriously, if that's the case I don't wanna play anymore.

And have you noticed all the playing I do around here, by the way?

Back on topic....

Originally Posted by steve11

Democrats have rigged elections, sent money to big oil, raped our economy, had affairs with interns/pages, been paid off, supported racism, and taken bribes in the past.

I've highlighted errors here, just to note. The first is minor and I think you meant to say "received money from big oil" rather than "sent money to big oil", because the latter would actually be awful nice of them. Might lower gas prices a bit.

The second point has to do with the fact that, over the past fourty years, it has been largely the democratic party that has taken the most effective steps in reinvigorating the economy, and the rise and falls of our overall economic standing have largely fluxuated with the party in power of the Executive branch, being that things were moreover good after FDR took office up through to Nixon, when things started going haywire during his and Ford's administrations. Ford, if you'll recall, couldn't think of anything to do except produce "Whip Inflation Now" buttons for everyone in America to wear under the idea that inflation would just realize it was unwelcome and go home. Now, the less said about Carter's run the better, because it didn't much matter in the grand scheme of things, but afterword things only got worse during the Reagan and Bush Sr. years. Clinton takes office and we suddenly have a budget surplus and jobs and social programs and the country actually running again. The Dubya comes into power and the economy tanks again. Coincidence? No.

Thirdly, what the hell? Are you thinking of the Civil War era parties here? Because that doesn't fucking count and you know it. The antebellum Democratic party ceased to exist after 1865, leaving only the Republican party in existance. Years when by and the party split into two halves, the stalwarts (conservatives) and half-breeds (liberals), the latter eventually breaking off to form the modern Democratic party.

Originally Posted by steve11

I know Clinton was a democrat. The republicans stormed congress and started their reformation in 1994 that's 12 years ago.

Prior to that we had close to 40 years of democrat power and screw ups.

You know what? See above. Yeah, total screw ups, all of them. I sure hate black folks drinking out of my water fountains, that's for sure....

[Deck Knight]

Originally Posted by POS Industries

The second point has to do with the fact that, over the past fourty years, it has been largely the democratic party that has taken the most effective steps in reinvigorating the economy, and the rise and falls of our overall economic standing have largely fluxuated with the party in power of the Executive branch, being that things were moreover good after FDR took office up through to Nixon, when things started going haywire during his and Ford's administrations. Ford, if you'll recall, couldn't think of anything to do except produce "Whip Inflation Now" buttons for everyone in America to wear under the idea that inflation would just realize it was unwelcome and go home. Now, the less said about Carter's run the better, because it didn't much matter in the grand scheme of things, but afterword things only got worse during the Reagan and Bush Sr. years. Clinton takes office and we suddenly have a budget surplus and jobs and social programs and the country actually running again. The Dubya comes into power and the economy tanks again. Coincidence? No.

Yeah, send my thanks to LBJ (not a Republican) for starting the Vietnam War, which NIXON had to clean up after. You wonder why Nixon's economic troubles were so bad? LBJ left him a fat fricking war to deal with. I find it amusing you think economic policy is dictated by the President, when it is CONGRESS that has the power of the purse. Clinton got his surplus because a fiscally conservative congress kept him in check, not because Clinton wouldn't have spent a fortune of Hillary-care. And things were real bad for taxpayers in the Reagan years, all those taxes "for the rich" decreasing everywhere (and by rich, I mean, everyone who actually paid taxes, meaning those not on welfare living off the aforementioned taxpayers). And of course, forget Carter, he's not important. Nothing to see here folks, no deflection or anything.

Thirdly, what the hell? Are you thinking of the Civil War era parties here? Because that doesn't fucking count and you know it. The antebellum Democratic party ceased to exist after 1865, leaving only the Republican party in existance.

Mighty convenient... but not supported by history. According to wikipedia, the party started in 1828-32, and "Democratic" was first used in 1834. But it sure would be nice if the Democratic Party's racist roots just happened to dissapear into obscurity, wouldn't it?

Years when by and the party split into two halves, the stalwarts (conservatives) and half-breeds (liberals), the latter eventually breaking off to form the modern Democratic party.


You know what? See above. Yeah, total screw ups, all of them. I sure hate black folks drinking out of my water fountains, that's for sure....

Yeah, its not like the first Republican President wrote the Emancipation Proclamation. And it isn't like they didn't try to spearhead every single solitary piece of civil rights legislation.

But you are right, modern day Republicans are ALWAYS playing the Race Card. People like Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson, Hillary Clinton, Cynthia McKinney, Deval Patrick, Ned Lamont's blogging cohorts, those evil Republicans throwing orea cookies at Democrat Michael Steele.

Oh wait, Sorry, all those people above were DEMOCRATS (except Steele, who is running for Senate as a Republican in Maryland), and all those events transpired within the last 365 days or less.

But yeah, Republicans are SO totally racist. Mitt Romney once used the word macaca when referring to the sticky wickit that is the big dig. George Allen swore once I think, and I'm pretty sure Jerry Falwell may possibly hate black people, he's an Evangelical Christian you know.

[Mirai Gen]

I think you are taking “extremist” as insult, it’s not.

Uh, Steve...

No you're not reading the news and looking at the facts, you're looking at both parties with your political blinders on and seeing only what you want to see. Even this response smells of one sided party fanatical behavior.

...

But to grandstand and say "The Republcians are worse across the board and the Democrats are bad" is the same kind of one sided fanatical behavior that the Evangelical Christians have about the Republicans, and it's based of just as little reason and just as much emotion.

As quoted from Fifthfiend's earlier post. You called his actions "Fanatical behavior," twice. I'm almost positive that's the insult in question, and I'm with him on it. I hate being told "Your actions are fanatical." How do you respond?

Anyway.

The rest of what you're saying, Steve, I can't even begin to debate about. As POS has already done, half of your statements are littered with "They've already done this. Just look at history. It's right there," which completely ignores the actual facts in light of your own proudly stated extreme centrist. I'm not going to get involved in that.

So, yeah. Mark Foley.

I'm with Locke on this one (surprise, right?). Of all the things I wanted to see happen when the republican party got shot through the heart, this wasn't one of them. Pedophilia? Hell, it's not even really pedophilia. It's like post-pubescent-philia. How dull.

It is, however, deliciously ironic to have all of the soccor moms and old white rich republicans recoil in horror at one of their political leaders.

[steve11]

You know what? See above. Yeah, total screw ups, all of them. I sure hate black folks drinking out of my water fountains, that's for sure....

you are arware the the democrats were pro white power till it bit them in the ass in elections. they are the original race based party till they had to change.

Yeah, send my thanks to LBJ (not a Republican) for starting the Vietnam War, which NIXON had to clean up after. You wonder why Nixon's economic troubles were so bad? LBJ left him a fat fricking war to deal with. I find it amusing you think economic policy is dictated by the President, when it is CONGRESS that has the power of the purse. Clinton got his surplus because a fiscally conservative congress kept him in check, not because Clinton wouldn't have spent a fortune of Hillary-care. And things were real bad for taxpayers in the Reagan years, all those taxes "for the rich" decreasing everywhere (and by rich, I mean, everyone who actually paid taxes, meaning those not on welfare living off the aforementioned taxpayers). And of course, forget Carter, he's not important. Nothing to see here folks, no deflection or anything.

WOW holy crap another adult that actually understands what happened. Yeah the Regean years were not about him, nor were the good times under Clinton due to him. But all in all a solid 20 years of making money

[Meister]

Uh, take the non-Mark Foley related Republicans vs. Democrats discussion somewhere else, please. I'm sure they both have more than enough on their name.

[Sky Warrior Bob]

Originally Posted by steve11

you are arware the the democrats were pro white power till it bit them in the ass in elections. they are the original race based party till they had to change.

Well yes & no. The party started to take on members who wanted more equality, and this changed the Democratic party from within. I think there were also some defections from the Dem party as a result of this switch. And this change took place over suceeding generations. If you look at either party, Republican or Democrat, you'd find that they've gradually been changing over the years.

(Sorry Meister, I was posting before you made your own post.)

SWB