I sure as hell don't want no tribal taint.
Or patty murray taint.
T'aint right.

Patty Murray can kiss my taint.

I think Mark Twain said "His money is twice tainted: taint yours and taint mine."

Get the trolls all a-twitter? Or get the twits all a-trolling?

Well, prove us trolls and twits wrong. Democrats were already getting money from Indians before Abramoff came on the scene; this is factually, verifiably true. After Abramoff started dealing, this amount stayed pretty constant, even decreasing slightly. The Republicans, on the other hand, had an increase of over 300% in donations from indian tribes. 300% is a lot more than -1%, is it not? Yet conservatives insist they are equal. Must be fuzzy math.

It's like if you have two bank employees living next to each other making $48,000 a year. Suddenly, the bank is robbed of ten million dollars, and one of the employees is found to have ten million dollars in his house. The obvious conclusion is that this one robbed the bank, but the conservative conclusion is that they both robbed the bank, because they both got $4000 checks in the mail that month. Never mind that they've both been getting these checks for years, all money from the bank is now tainted.

Seriously, I don't see how this logic is different.

"If the Indians want to give you money, don't ask them why, ask them only where they got it in the beginning."

- Andrew Jackson

I just felt that was interesting.

scarshapedstar,

You are a true innovator in making the argument that dirty money is only a dirty if it represents a percentage increase in payola over money made from other sources over previous years.

Perhaps the feds should go back over those old mob cases where the mob took over formerly clean industries, and compare the mob payola to what was payed out before the mob arrived. If those payouts to knowing parties represent a percentage decrease, well magically they are not guilty of taking money from the mob! An interesting and innovative idea.

Blah, blah, only Republicans can sin, blah . . .
Posted by scarshapedstar at January 21, 2006 11:21 PM

So, what you're saying is that the Democrats were getting all of the crooked Indian money, until the Republicans beat them all out of office. Now, the Republicans are enjoying the crooked Indian money and you're mad because the Dems are missing out on all of that crooked Indian money.

What a piece of shit you are, scarshapedfruitcake.
I mean, we had a wonderful taint thing going, and then you come in and go all poindexter serious on us, 'Rethuglicans, Halliburtoncheneybushitler'.
Stick to the taint, freak.

She could donate the money to OBL so that he could buils daycare centers in Afghanistan.

"So, what you're saying is that the Democrats were getting all of the crooked Indian money, until the Republicans beat them all out of office."

Q. Why is all Indian lobbying money crooked?

A: It's not.

Abramoff bilked, swindled, cheated them out of millions, and if you read his email, he calls them morons and troglodytes.

The RNC talking points include confusing the public about the difference between crimes like Abramoff's, and all lobbying.

The tactic is working, thanks in part to tools like you.

Scarshapedtubino,
So as I understand it, before Abramoff the Indian lobbyist was a democrat and the dems were getting the bulk of the money. Then along comes Abramoff and the Repubs numbers go up. Imagine that, a Repub lobbyist giving money to Repubs! It must be a crime after all the Repubs went from getting 1% percent of Indian money to getting 30%. Since the dems were getting a steady percentage until Abramoff then their money is clean, makes sense to me.

Turdshapedstar wrote:

Seriously, I don't see how this logic is different.

That's because you're not very bright. Allow me to fix your analogy.

Two bank vice-presidents live side by side. Mr Arr's house is nice but Mr Dee's house is lavish. Mr Dee has a lot more influence at the bank, and for decades has supplemented his income with gifts from the bank's clients and vendors.

Hardworking Mr Arr gets promoted. Dee tells his rich friends it's only temporary, so they wait a bit. Over the next few years, Arr gets promoted again and again. Dee's old buddies decide it's time to court the new guy, and begin sending him toasters and wristwatches.

Did either of them do anything wrong? We don't know yet. If they both acted within the bank's guidelines, and didn't show inappropriate favoritism to their rich friends, then maybe not.

By the way, turdshape, have you found those 'verbatim quotes from Power Line' about creationism yet?

"Did either of them do anything wrong? We don't know yet."

Right, and those GUILTY PLEAS by Abramoff can all be safely ignored.

Good grief, is the news coverage so bad that you don't even know about the guilty pleas?!?!?

I guess I know the answer to that one.

Does any rightwinger here understand the difference between bribery and money laundering on the one hand, and legal lobbying on the other?

The Indian tribes were the victims here, not the criminals.

Oh, and Saddam Hussein had no connection to 9-11, but that didn't keep the rightwing noise machine from convincing a majority of the population of a falsehood helpful to Republicans.

Deja vu. The right owns the MSM.

Tubby,

Please learn to read. The hypothetical characters represented elected officials, not lobbyists.

Jack Abramoff is not an elected official. He's a lobbyist.

The question is whether there was large-scale bribery and corruption, and we don't know yet. We have to see who violated guidelines and committed crimes.

If an elected official could be convicted for receiving contributions from an unsavory sources, Bill Clinton would have served time alongside his successor, Jim Guy Tucker. He would be serving time now for campaign donations from Chinese military intelligence.

But that's not the way it works.

Tubino-

This is a little long but please read it. I want to know if you had the same level of outrage during the clinton years.

DAN SMALTZ: Smaltz did an outstanding job investigating and prosecuting charges involving illegal payoffs to Agriculture Secretary Mike Espy, yet was treated with disparaging and highly inaccurate reporting by the likes of the David Broder and the NY Times. Espy was acquitted under a law that made it necessary to not only prove that he accepted gratuities but that he did something specific in return. On the other hand, Tyson Foods copped a plea in the same case, paying $6 million in fines and serving four years' probation. The charge: that Tyson had illegally offered Espy $12,000 in airplane rides, football tickets and other payoffs. In the Espy investigation, Smaltz obtained 15 convictions and collected over $11 million in fines and civil penalties. Offenses for which convictions were obtained included false statements, concealing money from prohibited sources, illegal gratuities, illegal contributions, falsifying records, interstate transportation of stolen property, money laundering, and illegal receipt of USDA subsidies. Incidentally, Janet Reno blocked Smaltz from pursuing leads aimed at allegations of major drug trafficking in Arkansas and payoffs to the then governor of the state, WJ Clinton. Espy had become Ag secretary only after being flown to Arkansas to get the approval of chicken king Don Tyson.

You can find much more interesting facts on the clinton's and their administration here http://prorev.com/legacy.htm

Is it ok if we stop with the culture of corruption and most corrupt administration ever crap cause its making you luck, whats the word, dumb.

"How may times have I told you guys, take the Indian's LAND, not money. I've got all the beads I need."

-Stuff Jefferson Said, Vol. 4

Lyle, please learn to think.

"If an elected official could be convicted for receiving contributions from an unsavory sources, ..."

Thanks for making my point about the ignorance on this thread.

The Republican talking points indicate that the Indian money needs to be painted as "unsavory" or tainted. You are suggesting the same thing.

Yet there is no reason to believe that all money from Indian tribes was anything but legal lobbying. The Indians were the victims.

I am repeating myself, because you didn't get it the first time.

JackStraw, the left (the real left) was all over Clinton's dealings, including bipartisan efforts. I was outraged then too.

But this administration is much, MUCH worse for corruption, corporate welfare, and cronyism. The revolving door of legislator-lobbyist is even worse than it was under Reagan, and you can look at the prescription drug bill for evidence.

The big difference between this admin and previous is not just the scale and breadth of corruption. It's the systematic claim of privilege to do it, from writing funding legislation that precludes investigation and prosecution (example: war profiteering in Iraq funding bills), to insistence on a right to unprecedented secrecy.

They stonewall and declare they are in the right to do so, and that we have no right to see what they are doing with our money and their positions.

The K street project is a 20 year project creating a culture of corruption for republicans. The state of Ohio shows the effects of the repub culture of corruption, but this has come to light largely because of the investigative reporting of the Toledo Blade. Otherwise... it would remain unproven allegations.

Worst administration ever. Two more scandals erupted just last week, lots more to come.

You said, "Is it ok if we stop with the culture of corruption and most corrupt administration ever crap cause its making you luck, whats the word, dumb."

Do I need to respond to someone who can't tell luck from look? I think not.

Does any rightwinger here understand the difference between bribery and money laundering on the one hand, and legal lobbying on the other?
Posted by tubino at January 22, 2006 09:22 AM

Tubino, please. We're just yanking your chain. Of course we understand legal lobbying and that not all Indian tribal money is tainted. The problem is that we (Republicans) realize that much lobbying money is tainted and a large percentage of Congress is corrupt.

Democrats' pockets are full of the same corrupt money, from many different sources, and they always have been. Way too many politicians on both sides have been selling favors. We want all corruption to end, even from our own side. You don't care about corruption, unless it can be used as a tool against us.

Your false piety has gone from humorous to annoying.

Next person to say "talking points" gets a UFIA.

Tubinladen, please show me the poll that supports this claim. Thanks.

Oh, and Saddam Hussein had no connection to 9-11, but that didn't keep the rightwing noise machine from convincing a majority of the population of a falsehood helpful to Republicans.

For someone who doesn't need to respond you sure wasted a lot of bandwidth responding. Tubino one thing the left never seems to get is just because you keep saying something, it doesn't mean its true.

I'm not denying there are some scumbags in Congress, on both sides of the aisle. It appears that there are some Republicans in CONGRESS who do NOT work for Bush and were NOT appointed by Bush who may have done some scummy if not illegal things. I hope they are ferreted out and appropriately punished.

But this has nothing to do with Bush even though you keep trying to make that link. The link I provided you wihich you obviously did not read or were unable to comprehend, clearly links actions of the Clinton administration to various crimes and factually lays out the links to Clinton and his lovely wife. To say that the left was outraged over Clinton is a joke. The far left, unlike where you put yourself I guess, including the nuts at NOW and the like, were not only not silent when Clinton was accused of raping one woman, groping another, harrassing an employee while governor of AK, having a "consensual" relationship with a much younger employee (you know that old whine about "its not consensual its a power thing when its a male employer and a female employee") but they were among his most strident defenders. Do you not remember Johnny Chung? The Chinese Gov't? Buhdist Temples? Using the IRS against political enemies? The Travel Office firings? Losing billing documents only to find them in the office? Democrat outrage? Please. Give it a rest.

Its a shame that Joe Kennedy is dead and can't buy any more elections. Too bad that the Daley machine is dead in Chicago. But hey the Democrats can keep taking, illegally, you can look it up, campaign money from union dues. Can keep exploiting blacks by using their race baiting "leaders" like Sharpton and Jackson. Can keep playing cozy with the teachers unions which clearly are more interested in their own wallets than serious education reform. Etc., etc., etc.. While you whine about Republican corruption as if your party is the party of the angels. What a maroon.

I like facts. You appear to like unsubstantiated whinning. Which is why your party is not in power and gainning zero traction in the polls. The right doesn't need Karl Rove as long as geniuses like you continue doing the analysis.

Oh and if you find any spelling mistakes or if I wrongly typed one word when I obviously meant another please point it out. I waste enough time beating you about the head. Proof reading for the likes of you is just not worth the energy.

Tubby: Yet there is no reason to believe that all money from Indian tribes was anything but legal lobbying. The Indians were the victims.

As I pointed out in the comment with which you disagreed: 'The question is whether there was large-scale bribery and corruption, and we don't know yet. We have to see who violated guidelines and committed crimes.'

If your reading skills were better, you might not have missed it.

Obviously, 'unsavory' referred to Abramoff. He was the source in the sense that the Indian contributions materialized according to his say-so.

But if you're not talking about contributions directed by Jack Abramoff from Indian tribes to public officials, then what the hell are you talking about? His $1,000 to $2,000 personal donations?

I was never persuaded to do anything by Jack Abramoff for the $131,000 Indian casino money.

You just prove otherwise. Punk.

What does it say that 60% of Abramoff money went to (R)'s while (D)'s took 50% more paid 'trips'?

Just that (D)'s can be bought... cheaper.

The difference between bribery and money laundering on the one hand, and legal lobbying on the other, seems to be who is getting the money...

Now, I know Harry Reid can't be bought, 'specially with that measly $68,000+, 'cause he told us so himself. And Patty Murray for a lousy $40,000? Out of the question!

As a former public employee subject to "offers of appreciation" (I was a building inspector), I can tell you I never got an "offer of appreciation" that wasn't meant as a notice of things to come, either requests or better perks. I never took one, was never tempted to, but then, compared to the money bandied by major-league lobbyists, the offers weren't even peanut shell chaff.

I would personally be in favor of banning any payments of any kind for any reason at any time while a person is running for public office, while in office, or for ten years afterword. The SCOTUS has held that unconstitutional. As an alternative, I would like to see any payment of any kind recorded for public consumption within 24 hours of such payment (meals, trips, rugs, Chinese campaign contributions - you know, all the regular and irregular stuff). Then it would be up to the public to make up its mind on just how crooked each politician is.

And if a person wishes to be a lobbyist, then their bank account ought to be public record, too, with full accounting daily for every penny that goes through it.