No to Murtha as Majority Leader - Page 3

lendaddy · 11-15-2006, 08:41 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Rodeo

How sad. This legacy that Mr. Rove/Bush have left us.

There is a lot of truth in that. I can see in myself for instance that it's my previous blind faith and loyalty to Rove that made me see anything inappropriate in that video.

I look at it now with a clear mind and soul and I see nothing wrong with it at all. In fact it only fortifies my current belief in Murthas character as he turned the money down. Whatever reason he was in that room, I'm sure he had pure intentions.

I'm in a healing phase right now Rodeo, go easy on me.

Rodeo · 11-15-2006, 08:45 AM

I guess you missed this.

Quote:

Originally posted by Rodeo
***There's the AMSCAM thing, where although he was never charged, his conduct was marginal at best. And perhaps more importantly, he's the king of earmarks, trading political favors for money for home districts. While there is nothing illegal about his horse trading, the Congress needs to overhaul that system. Murtha's not the guy to do it.

So thanks to him for his courage, but no thanks to his leadership bid.

I don't think I'll make the mistake again of acknowledging that the Dem leadership has done anything wrong.

The consequences of candor are to be seen on this thread.

lendaddy · 11-15-2006, 08:48 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Rodeo
I guess you missed this.

I don't think I'll make the mistake again of acknowledging that the Dem leadership has done anything wrong.

The consequences of candor are to be seen on this thread.

No, it was my fault. I'm sorry.

the · 11-15-2006, 09:15 AM

I think it's quaint that some people still believe there is any significant difference between the 2 parties as far as graft, influence peddling, dishonesty, or ethics is concerned. They all obtain and maintain power the same way, they are 2 subsidiaries of the same corporation.

It's cute, though. Like when my old uncle (rest his soul) used to believe his Buick was superior to a Chevy, because his salesman Gil at the Buick/Chevy/Pontiac/GMC dealership told him so. Gil wouldn't lie! Unckie was so proud cruising Calle Ocho in his new Buick.

Tim Hancock · 11-15-2006, 09:22 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by the
I think it's quaint that some people still believe there is any significant difference between the 2 parties as far as graft, influence peddling, dishonesty, or ethics is concerned. They all obtain and maintain power the same way, they are 2 subsidiaries of the same corporation.

It's cute, though. Like when my old uncle (rest his soul) used to believe his Buick was superior to a Chevy, because his salesman Gil at the Buick/Chevy/Pontiac/GMC dealership told him so. Gil wouldn't lie! Unckie was so proud cruising Calle Ocho in his new Buick.

I do not doubt corruption on both sides, I just agree with the core values of the republican party over the democrats. Always have always will.

Rodeo · 11-15-2006, 09:29 AM

If you are talking about me, you misunderstand my positon. I like the Dems now because the Repubs have been in power too long, and thus are seriously corrupted.

The Dems will get that way too, at which time we sweep the decks again.

I'm with the Dems on most social issues, and on civil rights. I want the government out of my life, whether its sex, abortion, spying, etc. I used to be with the Repubs on fiscal responsibility, but that has gone the way of the doo doo bird. The Dems now promise it, we will see if they deliver.

Rodeo · 11-15-2006, 09:31 AM

If Goldwater was alive today, he'd be labeled a "liberal" by most of the Repubs/Bushies on this board.

Moneyguy1 · 11-15-2006, 10:19 AM

The "Tipster" stepped in all those years ago and quashed the iinvestigation. I can respect an individual's "war record", but not his brand of politics. Murtha is a very poor choice. But then, look who's back on the other side of the aisle...Trent Lott!! A paragon of virtue and straight shooting....

There is no morality inherent in politicians.

widgeon13 · 11-15-2006, 11:30 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Rodeo
I started this thread because I wanted people to know that I make decisions on their merits, not based on what the party leadershp wants. That would be a refreshing change for the Bush followers.

If that was infact your intention then why did you not state that up front? From my perspective you were nogotiating a response from the OT, ready to strike out in rage or extend an olive branch depending on the replies from the peanut gallery. Given your behavior toward the conservatives (or whatever) for the last x000 posts you got basicly what you probably expected. Rants!

I have observed this circus (PPOT) behavior by a few people and fail to understand where the anger comes from, it seems it would be so much more productive to have a logical exchange of ideas than spewing name calling back and forth. It compare favorably to road rage.

It would be interesting if when someone posted a topic, they were required to explain or expand on their position rather than just make a post to see what kind of rant they got in return. You actually did that but had you been speaking with complete candor I think it would have been better received if you clearly stated you were ready to demonstrate that you do not walk lock step with the party and (you) were an independent thinker. With all due respect, this is the first time that seems to be the case at least in the posts I have read.

I think that if the idea exchabge was more civil, others would participate but it is hard to walk in when someone immediately shlts on your head. I'm here for the entertainment value, frankly, nothing I do here is going to change the world. If you or others here think that is the case then I believe you need to expand your horizons a little.

So pile on, my comments were intended to be constructive but that doesn't seem to carry much weight here.

lendaddy · 11:38 AM

We used to have much better discussions a couple years ago. Sup and I used to go at it all the time and yet be civil. Something changed.

But I should admit that I don't usually try to have serious discussions with Rodeo, I've found it impossible so I just play. The problem now is that others see these exchanges and think that's what I'm like, also incapable of rational discussion.

I'm my own worst enemy.

Rodeo · 11-15-2006, 11:48 AM

The Dems haven't made any decisions for the last 6 years, that's why you have not seen me or anyone else criticizing their decisions. The Dems have not had any executive authority for the last 6 years, that's why you have not seen me or anyone else criticizing their executive actions.

The Repubs have had all the power. Yet they take none of the responsibility. If you try to assign any responsibility to them for the sorry state of our country, the response is to call you a "Bush hater," and then go on to bash Dems.

This thread demonstrates a pack mentality that has somehow become acceptable in our country for the last six years.

A guy comes here and outright lies about something on a videotape, makes a really slanderous statement, and NOBODY says he is out of line except me. Instead, they pile on me for denouncing the blatant lie. I don't understand how people can do that, but "Swift Boat" proved me wrong.

I just hope that we as a country have moved beyond that.

lendaddy · 11-15-2006, 12:03 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Rodeo

A guy comes here and outright lies about something on a videotape, makes a really slanderous statement, and NOBODY says he is out of line except me. Instead, they pile on me for denouncing the blatant lie. I don't understand how people can do that, but "Swift Boat" proved me wrong.

I just hope that we as a country have moved beyond that.

It's everyone else man, not you.

Rodeo · 11-15-2006, 12:15 PM

I don't unerstand how you can quote a guy saying he won't take a bribe because it's not enough money, when you know that's a lie.

The man is a human being. Whether you agree or disagree with his politics, what you said about him is morally wrong. It's in the Ten Commandments. It's just plain wrong. You put words in his mouth that he did not say, and that you know he did not say.

It's awful discouraging that discourse has been reduced to slandering opponents based on lies, and no one bats an eye.

Tim Hancock · 11-15-2006, 12:23 PM

Hypocracy is a b!tch.

Nice touch with the "human being" part

Truly unbelievable

lendaddy · 12:28 PM

Ok, a chance to educate Rodeo.

I made a statement in jest about Murtha that has a spirit of truth to it. I made this to be funny, to rib you, to get your goat. you left a convenient opening where I could use your quote to mock him and also to shed light on the corrupt style of Murtha. The idea that he wasn't there knowing damn well it was a tit for tat arrangement is silly. The guy is a sleaze.

You take it to the extreme and claim I am being slanderous.

You are the undisputed king of hyperbole and exaggeration here, we usually just let it go. I don't cry slander or scream lies! lies! lies! every time you mis-characterize me or my statements. For instance, earlier in this thread from you:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Rodeo
In daddy's twisted world, a Dem turning down 50 large is corrupt, while bilking taxpayers out of billions is "free enterprise."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Now certainly I have never made any such claim, but I let it go as I know you're exaggerating for effect. Do you see how that works now? No big deal, I know what you meant and what your point was.

Should I have screamed slander? No, I'm an adult.

Rodeo · 11-15-2006, 12:27 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Tim Hancock
Hypocracy is a b!tch.

Nice touch with the "human being" part

Truly unbelievable

You are part of the problem.

When bearing false witness not only is accpeted, but defended, there is no morality left. I hear you talk about dishonest politicans all the time. Yet when it is in your interest (i.e., attacking the left, defending the right), you are right there with the worst of them.

Murtha did not refuse a bribe because it was not enough money. Murtha refused a bribe. The rest is vile slander.

the · 11-15-2006, 12:29 PM

Try chillin a bit, you're too easy.

lendaddy · 11-15-2006, 12:29 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Rodeo
You are part of the problem.

When bearing false witness not only is accpeted, but defended, there is no morality left. I hear you talk about dishonest politicans all the time. Yet when it is in your interest (i.e., attacking the left, defending the right), you are right there with the worst of them.

Murtha did not refuse a bribe because it was not enough money. Murtha refused a bribe. The rest is vile slander.

Rodeo has found salvation!

lendaddy · 11-15-2006, 12:32 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Rodeo

Murtha did not refuse a bribe because it was not enough money. Murtha refused a bribe. The rest is vile slander.

Hmm, then what ethical problem do you have with him then? You make his actions sound honorable.

Tim Hancock · 11-15-2006, 12:33 PM

Suddenly I feel so vile!