Hillary and protection money, er, campaign contributions

GB -- I would be far more comfortable if we went about changing laws from the government side of things rather than the private side. In other words, we should have far tougher laws and regulations about who gets contracts, who gets government work, who gets government jobs -- than we should be restricting each American citizen or corporation's right to freely exprees their opinons, in this case, by who they donate money to. If you cleaned up the other side -- i.e. take decisions on goodies and handouts out of the hands of politicians, you could achieve the same goal.

 

Sure is, Tony. You donate the money to the poor, strong arm them to give it to Hillary then write if off your taxes.

I thought you were seeing that.

 

Actually, ot, after the thread devolved into a pissing match, zag raised the question about campaign finance laws. Apparently you do have reading issues.

Secondly, you never proved anything. In fact the only thing you proved is that you are held captive by your silly syllogistic logic.

 

OT,

I read The Corner at nationalreview.com, I read every George Will column and I visit realclearpolitics.com -- which links to a majority of right-leaning columns/stories -- every day. They make intelligent conservative arguments.

Then there's you. The reason people don't respond to your posts/topics is because pretty much everything you touch turns to shit. Look at your last post. "the lefties", "way to admit it guys" and your calling out of Pastor. You throw crap on the wall and wonder why we don't respond and when we do you change the subject or declare "I'm the winner!" It's as if you try to replicate the talk show "shout them down" format.

You give absolutely no reason for anyone to take you seriously.

 

And so we get into a chicken and egg argument. How is the government going to change these regulations when they are so beholden to the companies that pumped money into their campaigns? You know companies donate to both sides to make sure whomever is elected is on "their side".

 

That being said, Beaker and andyouare, that it is amazing that the American left is so intent on winning it seems more than content to just go back to the Clinton era which will no doubt again be riddled with scandals and questionable ethics and practices (like this one) -- without asking the same kinds of tough questions they have no problem throwing at George W. Bush.

Bill Clinton did some good things while he was the president, but the Clintons were not good for America and the Clinton effect on American politics has been a disaster.

There is more distrust, more finger pointing, a far less civil political debate and a far greater divide than ever and a lot of it has its roots in the era from 1992-2000.

And the frustration among those who aren't on the left lies in the fact that rather than ask tough questions of Clinton and holding her accountable on issues like this -- which are at best questionable -- they'd rather rationalize it, sweep it under the rug and then turn it into a moratorium on her accusers and opponents.

That's a problem.

 

Agreed politicians will never bite the hands that feed them, but by electing the same people every election cycle and by turning a blind eye and excusing all of these abuses, we contribute to the problem.

I really believe we are at a point in this country where we need to start to build a legitimate third party of Americans who are not comfortable with the way the extreme wing of both parties have hijacked our constitution.

 

Yeah, no one responds to my posts/topics. Yet this thread went to five pages in aboot (for the Canadians ) 2 hours.

And Pastor apparently still thinks that campaign contributions are tax deductible.

I admire your pluckiness in trying to defend the indefensible. But even Fenian was smart enough to dodge this topic after one post on the first page.

 

Zag, you have a point about political sniping across the aisles, but hasn't this administration has done more than any other to further the partisan divide?

And regarding ot, I am perfectly willing to admit that people like Norman Hsu are dirty and that people like Randi Rhodes are nutty. I'd respect his posts more if he would ever admit the same about people like Jack Abramoff, Duke Cunningham, O'Reilly, Rush, Hannity, and Coulter.

 

On behalf of Captain Renault and myself, let me just say that I am shocked - shocked - to discover that campaign fundraising is a filthy business.

 

Absolutely, he has, but that's in part because of the political climate he inherited -- which was one of distrust -- and he's managed to make it worse by the fact that he has completely broken his promise to be a uniter because of his authoritarian "I am right, everyone else is wrong" approach to just about every issue.

 

But it doesn't need to be and that is my point. I make the same argument about college athletics -- if a rich guy wants to give $1 million to a kid in order to get him to go to Tech U., why is this anyone's business?

Are we afraid of college athletics becoming an arm's race? Oops, too late....