10-13-2006, 10:43 AM
10-13-2006, 11:29 AM
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20061012/ap_o...indfall_10
Where's Reid's resignation or threat of ouster? Oh yeah, he's got a "D" by his name... never mind.
Where's Reid's resignation or threat of ouster? Oh yeah, he's got a "D" by his name... never mind.
10-13-2006, 12:01 PM
Different rules for Democrats.
10-13-2006, 02:05 PM
Taking bribes in return for favoritism in legislation is far more threatining to the country and the democratic process than profiting from a less than ethical land-sale.
That said...both should be punished by the ethics committee.
That said...both should be punished by the ethics committee.
10-13-2006, 05:52 PM
dwr0109 Wrote:Taking bribes in return for favoritism in legislation is far more threatining to the country and the democratic process than profiting from a less than ethical land-sale.
.
Wouldn't using one's political power to create profit (by forcing zoning changes) put them more in the same ballpark? Or is that covered in the phrase "less than ethical".
10-14-2006, 07:03 AM
Yeah, like Hastert buying land within a few miles of his proposed new highway in Illinois. I am sure it was just an honest purchase and had no idea that his new highway would increase the price of his land. ![[Image: rolleyes.gif]](http://moddb.com/images/smilie/rolleyes.gif)
10-15-2006, 05:15 PM
Hasterts building a highway? All by himself? Do you know, did he buy the land first then make the Congress build a highway, or did he just use his knowledge of the proposed location of the highway to go out shopping for land?
BTW, Robert, we get your point. All Republicans are evil, all Democrats are good, even if they are doing the same things.
BTW, Robert, we get your point. All Republicans are evil, all Democrats are good, even if they are doing the same things.
10-16-2006, 09:34 PM
I wonder if Reid will use the capital gains treatment for his ill-gotten gains? Take the tax break on his graft?
10-17-2006, 07:34 AM
RobertN Wrote:Yeah, like Hastert buying land within a few miles of his proposed new highway in Illinois. I am sure it was just an honest purchase and had no idea that his new highway would increase the price of his land.
So do you agree that both should resign?? Time for Americans to stop playing your politicians are more corrupt then our politicians and just simply clean house.
10-17-2006, 11:26 AM
ShoreBuc Wrote:RobertN Wrote:Yeah, like Hastert buying land within a few miles of his proposed new highway in Illinois. I am sure it was just an honest purchase and had no idea that his new highway would increase the price of his land.
So do you agree that both should resign?? Time for Americans to stop playing your politicians are more corrupt then our politicians and just simply clean house.
I don't think he has anything to say. He threw his rock and ran away.
10-17-2006, 12:56 PM
But wait! There's more!
Reid paid christmas bonuses to his staff out of campaign donations - not a permitted use of campaign donations. he says he will correct it by paying back the money to the campaign fund - about $3300.
1. $3300? That's all he gave his staff for Christmas bonuses? Cheap bastard.
2. "I'll correct it if I get caught". Is this the guiding principle of all lawmakers, or just Democrats, or just Reid? Vote now.
3. Politicians paying Christmas bonuses? Doesn't this violate church/state principles somehow? How can they pay Christmas bonuses but not allow manger scenes? Maybe if they called them Holiday bonuses....
Reid paid christmas bonuses to his staff out of campaign donations - not a permitted use of campaign donations. he says he will correct it by paying back the money to the campaign fund - about $3300.
1. $3300? That's all he gave his staff for Christmas bonuses? Cheap bastard.
2. "I'll correct it if I get caught". Is this the guiding principle of all lawmakers, or just Democrats, or just Reid? Vote now.
3. Politicians paying Christmas bonuses? Doesn't this violate church/state principles somehow? How can they pay Christmas bonuses but not allow manger scenes? Maybe if they called them Holiday bonuses....
10-17-2006, 01:37 PM
OptimisticOwl Wrote:2. "I'll correct it if I get caught". Is this the guiding principle of all lawmakers, or just Democrats, or just Reid? Vote now.Silly question. You know this is for all lawmakers. I understand you are a Republican, but don't let that overwhelm your common sense.
10-17-2006, 01:43 PM
OptimisticOwl Wrote:3. Politicians paying Christmas bonuses? Doesn't this violate church/state principles somehow? How can they pay Christmas bonuses but not allow manger scenes? Maybe if they called them Holiday bonuses....
I wasn't aware that giving Christmas bonuses was a religious belief.
10-17-2006, 04:08 PM
Bourgeois_Rage Wrote:OptimisticOwl Wrote:3. Politicians paying Christmas bonuses? Doesn't this violate church/state principles somehow? How can they pay Christmas bonuses but not allow manger scenes? Maybe if they called them Holiday bonuses....
I wasn't aware that giving Christmas bonuses was a religious belief.
Giving bonuses isn't, but....
How about giving bonuses because it's Christmas?
How about giving bonuses because it's Ramadan?
How about giving bonuses because it is any other religious day of observance for any religion?
There is a connection with Christ's birthday.
Are you saying there is no connection between Christmas and Christianity? True, some Christian sects avoid the celebration of Christmas, but I know of no other religion that goes out of it's way to celebrate it.
As I said, just call them Holiday bonuses. Or year-end bonuses. Or my personal favorite, bonuses for work well done.
I just think the nit-picking that accompanies other Christmas observances like having a creche on public property should extend to this. It seems contradictory for any public official to oppose certain Christmas celebrations on the grounds of separation of church and state and then go back to his office to pass out christmas bonuses at the office christmas party just before they all take off for the christmas holidays. Especially if the christmas party is in government offices.
10-17-2006, 04:11 PM
uhmump95 Wrote:OptimisticOwl Wrote:2. "I'll correct it if I get caught". Is this the guiding principle of all lawmakers, or just Democrats, or just Reid? Vote now.Silly question. You know this is for all lawmakers. I understand you are a Republican, but don't let that overwhelm your common sense.
Bingo. Thank you. Now let's move on to the premise that the reaction should be the same regradless of party affiliation.
10-17-2006, 05:23 PM
I agree with your reaction theory but to me this seems to be the usual scenario.
A. Democrat gets caught with his pants down (literally or figuratively its you choice).
B. Republican come out with a "holier than thou" condemnation of the said Democrat and start intensive medio bliss claiming that the Dems have no morals and you would never here of a Republican doing this. Usually the Democrat gets reelected or loses no status after pulling a Jimmy Swaggert "I have sinned" routine.
C. Republican gets caught with his pants down. Now the Republicans have to do a purge because of how righteously they attacked the Dems. Plus the Reps have to also deal with backlash of their harsh attack on the Dems.
Now that may simplifying the scenario but IMO that is what most of these political situations boil down to.
A. Democrat gets caught with his pants down (literally or figuratively its you choice).
B. Republican come out with a "holier than thou" condemnation of the said Democrat and start intensive medio bliss claiming that the Dems have no morals and you would never here of a Republican doing this. Usually the Democrat gets reelected or loses no status after pulling a Jimmy Swaggert "I have sinned" routine.
C. Republican gets caught with his pants down. Now the Republicans have to do a purge because of how righteously they attacked the Dems. Plus the Reps have to also deal with backlash of their harsh attack on the Dems.
Now that may simplifying the scenario but IMO that is what most of these political situations boil down to.
10-17-2006, 07:00 PM
uhmump95 Wrote:I agree with your reaction theory but to me this seems to be the usual scenario.
A. Democrat gets caught with his pants down (literally or figuratively its you choice).
B. Republican come out with a "holier than thou" condemnation of the said Democrat and start intensive medio bliss claiming that the Dems have no morals and you would never here of a Republican doing this. Usually the Democrat gets reelected or loses no status after pulling a Jimmy Swaggert "I have sinned" routine.
C. Republican gets caught with his pants down. Now the Republicans have to do a purge because of how righteously they attacked the Dems. Plus the Reps have to also deal with backlash of their harsh attack on the Dems.
Now that may simplifying the scenario but IMO that is what most of these political situations boil down to.
A. Dem gets caught with his pants down (Studds)
B. Dems say "No Big Deal, Everybody does it"
C. Repub gets caught with his pants down, similar situation, Dems start squealing and pointing, demanding drastic action.
Amazing how people can have differing viewpoints of the same affair. Yes, i see yours. do you see mine?
BTW, yours was described very well in the earlier thread titled "Be careful what you ask for, democrats." Same scenario, different party.
I guess our only difference is in the use of the "most".
Maybe this covers most of them:
A Somebody gets caught doing something wrong.
B. His party tries to minimize the transgression, save the seat holder.
C. The other party has someone get caught doing the same thing, now try to attack and gain the seat.
10-17-2006, 07:20 PM
OO:
I think you misunderstand some things.
The first amendment applys to restricting one's ability to express their religious beliefs (or forcing beliefs on another). The government can't make laws saying that a company has to give Christmas bonuses, or that they can't give Christmas bonuses. That would be endorsement of a religious viewpoint.
On the other hand, the government can't give a bonus only to Christians during Christmas. A bonus must be given to all, regardless of faith. But they can give a bonus.
As for Creche's on public land (on private land one can do anything they want) the land must be open to all faiths or none at all. If the city council allows a nativity scene, and a Jewish group requests an equal space for a Menorah it must be granted. If you look into seperation cases you'll see that it is almost always about equal access. Yes, you'll run into some that are not, but those generally get shot down in the courts.
My point is that politicians giving christmas bonuses does not violate church /state principles by itself. It would have to discriminate who gets it based on their religious belief to violate that. I wonder if a case liek this has happened?
It is not about opposing Christmas celebrations, it is about opposing government endorsement of religious viewpoints.
I think you misunderstand some things.
The first amendment applys to restricting one's ability to express their religious beliefs (or forcing beliefs on another). The government can't make laws saying that a company has to give Christmas bonuses, or that they can't give Christmas bonuses. That would be endorsement of a religious viewpoint.
On the other hand, the government can't give a bonus only to Christians during Christmas. A bonus must be given to all, regardless of faith. But they can give a bonus.
As for Creche's on public land (on private land one can do anything they want) the land must be open to all faiths or none at all. If the city council allows a nativity scene, and a Jewish group requests an equal space for a Menorah it must be granted. If you look into seperation cases you'll see that it is almost always about equal access. Yes, you'll run into some that are not, but those generally get shot down in the courts.
My point is that politicians giving christmas bonuses does not violate church /state principles by itself. It would have to discriminate who gets it based on their religious belief to violate that. I wonder if a case liek this has happened?
Quote:It seems contradictory for any public official to oppose certain Christmas celebrations on the grounds of separation of church and state and then go back to his office to pass out christmas bonuses at the office christmas party just before they all take off for the christmas holidays.
It is not about opposing Christmas celebrations, it is about opposing government endorsement of religious viewpoints.
10-17-2006, 11:19 PM
BR - thanks for the clarification. I understand what you say, to be sure, a certain amount of what i said was tougue-in-cheek - an extension of the way some people think any combination of religious-connected activity and public properties are verboten.
But just to be clear - is it OK for an elected official to have a Christmas party for his emplyees in his office in the Capitol (state or Federal)? Isn't that public land?
If so, is he then obligated to make said office available for parties celebrating other religions?
Can Congressmen use their franking priviledges to send christmas cards?
Personally, I have no problem with equal access - so why do we always choose to deny all access instead?
Thanks in advance for your response.
But just to be clear - is it OK for an elected official to have a Christmas party for his emplyees in his office in the Capitol (state or Federal)? Isn't that public land?
If so, is he then obligated to make said office available for parties celebrating other religions?
Can Congressmen use their franking priviledges to send christmas cards?
Personally, I have no problem with equal access - so why do we always choose to deny all access instead?
Thanks in advance for your response.
10-18-2006, 07:54 AM
OptimisticOwl Wrote:BR - thanks for the clarification. I understand what you say, to be sure, a certain amount of what i said was tougue-in-cheek - an extension of the way some people think any combination of religious-connected activity and public properties are verboten.I think I understood that it was Tounge in cheek, but there are a lot of people who really misunderstand the church/state issue.
[/quote]But just to be clear - is it OK for an elected official to have a Christmas party for his emplyees in his office in the Capitol (state or Federal)? Isn't that public land?[/quote]
It is public land, but I think that in order for it to be unconstitutional, there would have to be some evidence of relgious overtones on the event. Christmas is tricky because it has many secular images and meaning. Having a Christmas tree or Santa Claus is not strictly Christian anymore, and I think someone would have a hard time convincing a court of that. On the other hand if the event was used to prosetlyze, it could be a violation.
Quote:If so, is he then obligated to make said office available for parties celebrating other religions?That's tricky. I would think it would be easier to just keep it secular. Though it probably could be done carefully.
Quote:Can Congressmen use their franking priviledges to send christmas cards?Again, if it is the family standing in front of a Christmas tree or winter scene, I think that might be acceptable, but if they had a nativity scene, I would say probably not.
Quote:Personally, I have no problem with equal access - so why do we always choose to deny all access instead?I have no problem with equal access either. Lots of time city councils and school boards have the choice of either and they choose to stop all expression of religion. Some people think it is easier, but it can get them into trouble. I'm reminded of the school board that tried to stop some Christians from handing out candy canes with a religious story attached. Those students were told to stop by the administrators. The ACLU came in and defended their right to private expression of belief.
Like I said before some people don't understand their rights and it can get them into trouble. Any government endorement or stifling of specific religious beliefs is a violation.