You are not logged in. Login Now
 0-24   25-49   50-74   75-99   100-124   113-137   138-162   163-186   
 
Author Message
25 new of 186 responses total.
marcvh
response 138 of 186: Mark Unseen   Jan 26 20:48 UTC 2006

There are some regions of the US where there is, or has been in the
past, what effectively amounts to one-party rule because there is only
one viable party.  The old Democratic establishment in Chicago would be
one historical example.
mcnally
response 139 of 186: Mark Unseen   Jan 26 21:48 UTC 2006

 re #136:  
 > Now, do I have to rebut VH's very strange statement implying that 
 > corruption only results from "one-party rule,"

 In my opinion the best way to start would be by getting rid of the
 word "only", which was your own addition to his statement and which
 changes the meaning of what he said substantially.

happyboy
response 140 of 186: Mark Unseen   Jan 26 22:36 UTC 2006

lol!
marcvh
response 141 of 186: Mark Unseen   Jan 26 23:15 UTC 2006

Re #139: it's OK, I'm willing to let kludge have his strawmen to knock down.
I figure it keeps him out of trouble.
klg
response 142 of 186: Mark Unseen   Jan 27 02:29 UTC 2006

So, MM would say that corruption results only from one party rule and
more than one party rule???  Hard to argue with that one!


ery Interesting -- Very Interesting -- Very Interesting -- Very
Interestin

Heard reported yesterday:

Over the past 30 years, the House Ethics Committee has conducted 70
investigations - 55 on Democrats and 15 on Republicans.

resting -- Very Interesting -- Very Interesting -- Very Interesting --
Ver
fitz
response 143 of 186: Mark Unseen   Jan 27 13:25 UTC 2006

I was suspicious of the numbers in #142 so I spent about 30 minutes 
gathering my own statistics and I would say that klg's source and I 
substantially agree.

From the _Biographical Directory of the United States Congress_ and the House
Committe on Standards and Conduct, I find

democrats  54
Republicans 14

This number is from 1976 to the present.  The number reflects allegations of
individuals only:  a few matters brought before the committe were broad
investigations which might or might not have involved members.  Duplicate
names were stricken:  Gingrich almost made the Democrats as good as angels 
all by himself.

I knew that the rhetorical blather about the Republican culture of sleaze 
was not a claim that would look good under scrutiny.  [That was Sen. 
Clinton on MLK Day, wasn't it?]  

marcvh
response 144 of 186: Mark Unseen   Jan 27 15:40 UTC 2006

It would be pretty easy to come up with bazillions of possible expalantions
for these numbers other than the obvious conclusion that kludge wants us to
jump to, yup.
klg
response 145 of 186: Mark Unseen   Jan 27 17:19 UTC 2006

Good job.  Thank you.  I caught the report in passing while in the car, 
so didn't catch the details.  I did spend some time trying to verify 
it, but didn't find anything.

As for VH, the obvious explanation is frequently the correct one 
(except if you're a liberal, I suppose).
marcvh
response 146 of 186: Mark Unseen   Jan 27 17:52 UTC 2006

Yup, the obvious explanation of a randomly chosen fact is indeed
frequently the correct one.  Conversely, the obvious explanation of
a half-truthful talking point spewed by a partisan hack is rarely
the correct one.
klg
response 147 of 186: Mark Unseen   Jan 27 19:59 UTC 2006

VH:  "The gift that keeps on giving."
happyboy
response 148 of 186: Mark Unseen   Jan 27 20:03 UTC 2006

you're gonna get outsourced.
tod
response 149 of 186: Mark Unseen   Jan 27 20:11 UTC 2006

Welcome to MoTown
happyboy
response 150 of 186: Mark Unseen   Jan 27 22:00 UTC 2006

"GM-- We're NUMBER TWO!"
tod
response 151 of 186: Mark Unseen   Jan 28 01:10 UTC 2006

"My EMPIRE is CRUMBLING!!"
johnnie
response 152 of 186: Mark Unseen   Jan 28 04:30 UTC 2006

Going back about 20 years (at which point I got tired of Googling), I'm
seeing about 30 investigations of Dems and about 25 of Republicans.  A
more telling point, however, is that after Newt got nailed several
times, the committee banned complaints by outside groups, and since that
point leaders of both parties have "strongly discouraged" their members
from filing complaints against each other.  The committee has been
completely dead since last spring, with Democrats refusing to
participate in protest of what they see as Republican attempts to neuter
what's left of the committee.
fitz
response 153 of 186: Mark Unseen   Jan 28 11:00 UTC 2006

I forgot to mentioni one additional limitation to the online report from the
House Committee on Standards and Conduct:   It is only updated after the end
of each Session. Hence there might be a few cases that were disposed of and
not in the cummulative report yet.

Johnny's numbers in #152 were what I would have expected, but I found quite
a different number.  Did you exclude repeat offenders?
johnnie
response 154 of 186: Mark Unseen   Jan 30 21:30 UTC 2006

No.  There were multiples of Gingrich, a few of DeLay, a couple/few of a
Dem from Ohio, maybe one or two others.  I wonder, too, if the list
would include members who resigned in disgrace or lost an election
before an investigation got under way (and I have no idea how many that
would be).
fitz
response 155 of 186: Mark Unseen   Jan 31 12:40 UTC 2006

OK.  Then our totals would be different because of different criteria.  It
should be noted that swelling the Republican naughtiness by counting 
Gingrich's separate investigations would sometimes increase the total of 
democrats who had a single investigation of multiple allegations.


johnnie
response 156 of 186: Mark Unseen   Jan 31 13:48 UTC 2006

Certainly.  We could break the numbers down a hundred different ways. 
The only firm-ish conclusion we can probably all agree on is that
Congress doesn't do a very good job of policing itself. 
crimson
response 157 of 186: Mark Unseen   Jan 31 15:37 UTC 2006

Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
twenex
response 158 of 186: Mark Unseen   Jan 31 15:45 UTC 2006

Indeed.
albaugh
response 159 of 186: Mark Unseen   Jan 31 17:53 UTC 2006

Date:         Tue, 31 Jan 2006 11:10:24 -0500
From:         CNN Breaking News <BreakingNews@MAIL.CNN.COM>

-- U.S. Senate votes to confirm Judge Samuel Alito 
   as the 110th Supreme Court justice
nharmon
response 160 of 186: Mark Unseen   Jan 31 18:54 UTC 2006

Break out the cheeseballs to go with all of the congressional whining
we're about to endure.
happyboy
response 161 of 186: Mark Unseen   Jan 31 19:51 UTC 2006

bye bye checks and balances...

hello unitary executive.

tic toc tic toc


gull
response 162 of 186: Mark Unseen   Feb 1 08:44 UTC 2006

Lawmakers in five states have proposed abortion bans, presumably hoping 
the new Supreme Court will uphold them. 
 0-24   25-49   50-74   75-99   100-124   113-137   138-162   163-186   
Response Not Possible: You are Not Logged In
 

- Backtalk version 1.3.30 - Copyright 1996-2006, Jan Wolter and Steve Weiss