🚀 go-pugleaf

Sagarmatha <saga@buyansuv.com> wrote in message
news:DJEU3993150ko090iJUF83@seeaiffe.com...
> Democrats abandoned Traficant, & stuck by Condit for one reason:
> political expediency.
>
> Democrats needed a quick political 'kill' to show they are in the
> fore of their new found panic over bribes and shady business deals.
> And  where better to find such a shyster than in their midst? That
> part they got right.
>
> Traficant was a scapegoat to show that Democrats are really against
> graft -- despite Rubin and McAuliffe and Hillary. Condit was kept
> on to show that having sex with interns was okay. Ethics have
> nothing to do with Democrats, looking consistent on TV does.
>

You forgot Bill Clinton's "Good friend", Dan Rostenkowski.

Sagarmatha wrote:

> Democrats abandoned Traficant, & stuck by Condit for one reason:
> political expediency.
>
> Democrats needed a quick political 'kill' to show they are in the
> fore of their new found panic over bribes and shady business deals.
> And  where better to find such a shyster than in their midst? That
> part they got right.
>
> Traficant was a scapegoat to show that Democrats are really against
> graft -- despite Rubin and McAuliffe and Hillary. Condit was kept
> on to show that having sex with interns was okay. Ethics have
> nothing to do with Democrats, looking consistent on TV does.

Actually, the Dems lost twice on that deal. Traficant, a Democat, was
convicted and tossed and his ONLY proponent was none other than Gary
Condit, yet another Democrat loser that the party would very much like
to see go away. That things worked out for the Dems this way is
hilarious.

Jim

In article <DJEU3993150ko090iJUF83@seeaiffe.com>,
Sagarmatha <saga@buyansuv.com> wrote:
>Democrats abandoned Traficant, & stuck by Condit for one reason:
>political expediency.
>
>Democrats needed a quick political 'kill' to show they are in the 
>fore of their new found panic over bribes and shady business deals.
>And  where better to find such a shyster than in their midst? That 
>part they got right.
>
>Traficant was a scapegoat to show that Democrats are really against
>graft -- despite Rubin and McAuliffe and Hillary. Condit was kept
>on to show that having sex with interns was okay. Ethics have 
>nothing to do with Democrats, looking consistent on TV does.
>

Condit did nothing wrong, including the alleged sex with interns.
What Condit wants to do with his dick with a consensual partner is
his (and probably his wife's) business.  That people slammed him
and made allegations that he was involved with the death of Levy
is the only thing unfair.  Now, he's out of a job because he didn't
want to expose too much information about his and Levy's little
fling.

Traficant, from what I've read, actually did commit crimes.

Seems like Democrats are capable of distinguishing between right and
wrong, between legal and illegal.  Republicans, on the other hand,
are quick to look askance when needed and then plead, "I don't
recall."  And if pressed further, will bring down the "My country,
right or wrong" hammer.  Save me the polemics.

EDEW

> Condit did nothing wrong, including the alleged sex with interns.
> What Condit wants to do with his dick with a consensual partner is
> his (and probably his wife's) business.  That people slammed him
> and made allegations that he was involved with the death of Levy
> is the only thing unfair.  Now, he's out of a job because he didn't
> want to expose too much information about his and Levy's little
> fling.


Frankly, I think that you can't separate people's personal lives from
the way they act publically.  Condit was a sleaze for cheating on his
wife, abusing his power to get sex (Traficant did the same thing to
get a barn built and got kicked out of congress), and then not owning
up to the truth when it became public knowledge.  His actions on his
personal issue cannot be that different from his actions as a
congressman.  If he makes poor decisions like this in his personal
life, how can we honestly expect this sleaze to make decent decisions
about running our country?  Maybe what traficant did with his personal
life is none of our business either?  Would you argue that?
 


> Traficant, from what I've read, actually did commit crimes.

As I just said, Traficant used his power to get money and a barn. 
Condit used his power to get laid.  They're both criminals and should
not be honored with the responsibility of helping run this country.


 
> Seems like Democrats are capable of distinguishing between right and
> wrong, between legal and illegal.  Republicans, on the other hand,
> are quick to look askance when needed and then plead, "I don't
> recall."  And if pressed further, will bring down the "My country,
> right or wrong" hammer.  Save me the polemics.
 

I will not take up for republicans, either.  There are crooks on both
sides of the aisle.  If Bush bailed out on his dealings with his
energy company, will he bail out on Isreal?  Our economy?  Our
protection?  Possibly.  I won't blindly defend either party.

It seems that your decision to defend and victimize Condit, while
calling Traficant a crook is OBVIOUSLY FLAWED.  Just because someone
receives money or physical items, we say he's a crook.  When they
receive sex, it's OK.  What a crock of crap.  Clinton should have been
impeached.  And every congressman who sells out the American public
for gifts or side money of influencial positions should be jailed. 
It's ruining this country.  From BOTH sides.

In article <886c066.0208020655.7b1549dc@posting.google.com>,
justin <justin@cjteam.com> wrote:
>> Condit did nothing wrong, including the alleged sex with interns.
>> What Condit wants to do with his dick with a consensual partner is
>> his (and probably his wife's) business.  That people slammed him
>> and made allegations that he was involved with the death of Levy
>> is the only thing unfair.  Now, he's out of a job because he didn't
>> want to expose too much information about his and Levy's little
>> fling.
>
>
>Frankly, I think that you can't separate people's personal lives from
>the way they act publically.  Condit was a sleaze for cheating on his
>wife, abusing his power to get sex (Traficant did the same thing to

I'm sorry, was there any evidence that he abused his power to get sex,
or was he just being smarmy with enough women to get laid once in a
while?  I think we can very easily separate people's personal
lives with their professional lives.  We do that for virtually all
athletes, most office holders (as long as their personal lives don't
involve some sexual whatevers), virtually all business people (or
are you claiming at all those upright citizens and bastions of
society, paragons of business don't ever fake an expense report or
get a little something when the wife isn't tagging along on a business
trip?).


>get a barn built and got kicked out of congress), and then not owning
>up to the truth when it became public knowledge.  His actions on his
>personal issue cannot be that different from his actions as a

Why's that?  Do congresspersons legislate based on their personal
preferences, or do they represent their constituents?

>congressman.  If he makes poor decisions like this in his personal
>life, how can we honestly expect this sleaze to make decent decisions
>about running our country?  Maybe what traficant did with his personal
>life is none of our business either?  Would you argue that?

Depends on why people voted for him.  Condit and Traficant are members
of congress.  They don't run the country, not by a country mile.  They
legislate (at least that's the official duty).  Their actual duty is
to get reelected, and to do that, they need to placate their constituents,
which means bringing home the bacon, if need be.  And to do that, they
need to wheel and deal, which means if they have the skills to wheel
and deal, they will be successful, based on them being reelected.

If part of wheeling and dealing means doing some willing intern, what
the hell do the constituents care?

My understanding is that what Traficant did in his off hours was criminal.
What Condit did in his off hours was (possibly) immoral.

>
>> Traficant, from what I've read, actually did commit crimes.
>
>As I just said, Traficant used his power to get money and a barn. 
>Condit used his power to get laid.  They're both criminals and should
>not be honored with the responsibility of helping run this country.

Getting laid is not a criminal activity, unless it involved rape, or
sexual harrassment techniques.  I don't recall that Condit sexually
harrassed his female subordinates.  He might have wined and dined them
to get into their pants.  If so, there's no crime in doing so.  Thus,
Condit is hardly a criminal, and even more, his intentions and goals
(in terms of his sexcapades) are not even criminal or even unseemly.


>> Seems like Democrats are capable of distinguishing between right and
>> wrong, between legal and illegal.  Republicans, on the other hand,
>> are quick to look askance when needed and then plead, "I don't
>> recall."  And if pressed further, will bring down the "My country,
>> right or wrong" hammer.  Save me the polemics.
> 
>
>I will not take up for republicans, either.  There are crooks on both
>sides of the aisle.  If Bush bailed out on his dealings with his
>energy company, will he bail out on Isreal?  Our economy?  Our
>protection?  Possibly.  I won't blindly defend either party.
>
>It seems that your decision to defend and victimize Condit, while
>calling Traficant a crook is OBVIOUSLY FLAWED.  Just because someone
>receives money or physical items, we say he's a crook.  When they
>receive sex, it's OK.  What a crock of crap.  Clinton should have been

Look if someone voluntarily gave Traficant money, I can't call it a
crime.  If someone voluntarily gave Condit sex (and in the case of
Levy, it appears to be very consensual, as she indicated that she
has a boyfriend (Condit) who she loves very much, blah, blah... I can't
verify what other women he boinked thought of him).

Again, it appears that you can't distinguish between a criminal act
and personal choice.  If Traficant shook people down for money, it's
a crime.  If people donated money or just gave it to him out of good
will, it's not.  If Condit got sex by holding a person's career or
goodname in blackmail, that's a crime.  If he got some booty because
the woman thought he's cute and charming, and my, what a darling little
winky ya got, that's not a crime.

Lots of guys wish they can get gals to do that.  Some succeed, and none
of them have committed any crimes.

>impeached.  And every congressman who sells out the American public
>for gifts or side money of influencial positions should be jailed. 
>It's ruining this country.  From BOTH sides.

You need to be able to distinguish between selling out and being
gifted.  Of course, there's a lot of gray in that.  Both the giver
and the recipient can claim that it's nothing but a token of affection
(although it's much easier to determine that in the case of sex
being the fungible medium as opposed to money).  If Chandra Levy
only kissed Condit on the cheek, would you ask for his seat in Congress?

Traficant returned favors for the "gifts" he received.  Was there
evidence that Chandra Levy would have gotten some position somewhere
that she would not otherwise obtain on her own, because of Condit's
influence?  Did Lewinsky get any cushy job because Clinton pulled
some strings for her?

EDEW

"John Smith" <John@cox.com> wrote in message news:<_OH49.24707$5E1.21875@news2.central.cox.net>...
> "SD Anderson" <102250.1425@compuserve.com> wrote in message
> news:ad847902.0208082013.38f094c9@posting.google.com...
> > justin@cjteam.com (justin) wrote in message
>  news:<886c066.0208080718.508c8@posting.google.com>...
> > >
> > > Let me ask you this.  If it is noone's business that Condit sleeps
> > > with women outside of his marriage, then why the HELL is it any of
> > > your business what Bush and Cheney did with their stock in their
> > > respective comanies?  What's the difference there?  It's their
> > > personal business, right?
> >
> 
> Sleeping with women outside of his marriage wasn't illegal, but it was
> immoral.  Insider trading and accounting fraud IS illegal as well as
> immoral.
> 
> THAT is the difference!!
> 
> >
> > > See, the problem is, you think you can
> > > honestly separate a man's personal character from his political
> > > actions.  Yet you cannot.  If a congressman is a sleazy bastard in his
> > > personal life, he is likely to be a sleazy businessman or congressman.
>  
>  
> > > If he has no morals, and will sleep with someone else, why wouldn't he
> > > sell secrets to the chinese or take money under the table from special
> > > interest groups?
> 
> Because he hasn't!  One can't condemn someone for doing something that he
> hasn't done "yet" merely on the speculation that he might do it.  If your
> premise were correct, how do we know Bush won't go on another alcoholic
> bender (he's admitted that he's an alcoholic - in his words "was", but once
> an alcoholic always one) and destroy the world thinking he's playing
> nintendo?

   Alchohol is legal for adults.  let's go to white powder from
Columbia for a bit.

   Bush's statement about not doing cocaine had a qualifier, something
like 'not since 1974' rather than 'never'.  Even the hard core
Republican fanboys I know or have posted with tend to read that as "I,
George W. Bush, used cocaine back in the early 70s."

   Using Justin's argument, we don't know that a man who broke drug
laws wouldn't refuse to sell secrets to the Chinese.

   Justin, the phrase you ought to look up in law books is "Presumed
Innocent".

justin@cjteam.com (justin) wrote in message news:<886c066.0208080526.e5118e@posting.google.com>...
> Do you really believe this horse shit you're spewing out of your
> mouth, or are you just taking up for Clinton and Condit because you're
> a facist liberal like them?  I think you're making this issue a
> partisan one.  Honestly, if this were a Republican, you'd be calling
> for impeachment or removal from office.  That's how blind you are.  If
> a republican is caught doing this kind of crap, I'd want him gone just
> the same.  I'm sick of self-serving politicians doing no good for the
> American people while they screw everyone and everything in sight.

   Well let's see now.  Rep. Henry Hyde had a 'Youthful Discretion'
when he was in his forties.  Since you say you'd call for removing of
'morally weak' Republican legislators, why not stand up and publicly
denounce this high ranking Elephant Party house leader?  Demand he
leave public office?

SD Anderson (102250.1425@compuserve.com) wrote:
: justin@cjteam.com (justin) wrote in message news:<886c066.0208080718.508c8@posting.google.com>...

...
: > See, the problem is, you think you can
: > honestly separate a man's personal character from his political
: > actions.  Yet you cannot.  If a congressman is a sleazy bastard in his
: > personal life, he is likely to be a sleazy businessman or congressman.

:    You seem able to separate Cheney's business dealings from his
: personality.

     I think that kind of misses the point.  What has sleeping
around got to do with treason?  Why not say that anybody who
double parks or spits on the sidewalk is ineligible for public
office because who knows what that kind of a sleazeball would do
given the opportunity?  I see no reason whatever to think that
a person who has an affair is more or less likely to commit a
crime than someone who has not.
     Do you have any reason for so thinking except dislike for the
person who has an affair?

: > If he has no morals, and will sleep with someone else, why wouldn't he
: > sell secrets to the chinese or take money under the table from special
: > interest groups? That's the point.  Perhaps, and sadly, there is a
: > difference in the eyes of the law.  But there is no difference morally
: > and frankly, I'm glad to see Condit's political career ruined by this.
: >  He brought it upon himself.

:    There are consequences.  It's unreasonable to expect the girl
: you're having an affair with will be murdered.  Even less reasonable
: to expect the girl would be killed under conditions that would tie you
: to it.

:    The expected consequences of having an affair with a consenting
: adult were much smaller than that.

:    The expected consequences of trying to sell secrets to a foriegn
: power are...
: JUST A WHOLE LOT GREATER.  Besides, Congressmen generally don't have
: access to the technical DETAILS espionage agents want.

     Again I think this misses the point.  If you have some rational
reason to believe that a person who has an affair, or who double 
parks or speeds or spits on the sidewalk, is more likely to be
unpatriotic or treasonous, I would like to hear it.

Merlin Dorfman <dorfman@rahul.net> wrote in message news:<aj41bm$lv4$1@samba.rahul.net>...
> SD Anderson (102250.1425@compuserve.com) wrote:
> : justin@cjteam.com (justin) wrote in message news:<886c066.0208080718.508c8@posting.google.com>...
> 
> ...
> : > See, the problem is, you think you can
> : > honestly separate a man's personal character from his political
> : > actions.  Yet you cannot.  If a congressman is a sleazy bastard in his
> : > personal life, he is likely to be a sleazy businessman or congressman.
>  
> :    You seem able to separate Cheney's business dealings from his
> : personality.
> 
>      I think that kind of misses the point.  What has sleeping
> around got to do with treason?  Why not say that anybody who
> double parks or spits on the sidewalk is ineligible for public
> office because who knows what that kind of a sleazeball would do
> given the opportunity?  I see no reason whatever to think that
> a person who has an affair is more or less likely to commit a
> crime than someone who has not.
>      Do you have any reason for so thinking except dislike for the
> person who has an affair?
> 
> : > If he has no morals, and will sleep with someone else, why wouldn't he
> : > sell secrets to the chinese or take money under the table from special
> : > interest groups? That's the point.  Perhaps, and sadly, there is a
> : > difference in the eyes of the law.  But there is no difference morally
> : > and frankly, I'm glad to see Condit's political career ruined by this.
> : >  He brought it upon himself.
>  
> :    There are consequences.  It's unreasonable to expect the girl
> : you're having an affair with will be murdered.  Even less reasonable
> : to expect the girl would be killed under conditions that would tie you
> : to it.
>  
> :    The expected consequences of having an affair with a consenting
> : adult were much smaller than that.
>  
> :    The expected consequences of trying to sell secrets to a foriegn
> : power are...
> : JUST A WHOLE LOT GREATER.  Besides, Congressmen generally don't have
> : access to the technical DETAILS espionage agents want.
> 
>      Again I think this misses the point.  If you have some rational
> reason to believe that a person who has an affair, or who double 
> parks or speeds or spits on the sidewalk, is more likely to be
> unpatriotic or treasonous, I would like to hear it.

   Technically, **I** don't have any such reason, rational or
otherwise, to believe this.  Justin, the poster I was responding to
apparently does have such a reason, though I can't say it's rational. 
;)

   Use of the word 'you' and placement of your reply indicates you
were responding to me rather than to him.

SD Anderson (102250.1425@compuserve.com) wrote:
: Merlin Dorfman <dorfman@rahul.net> wrote in message news:<aj41bm$lv4$1@samba.rahul.net>...
: > SD Anderson (102250.1425@compuserve.com) wrote:
: > : justin@cjteam.com (justin) wrote in message news:<886c066.0208080718.508c8@posting.google.com>...

...

: >      Again I think this misses the point.  If you have some rational
: > reason to believe that a person who has an affair, or who double 
: > parks or speeds or spits on the sidewalk, is more likely to be
: > unpatriotic or treasonous, I would like to hear it.

:    Technically, **I** don't have any such reason, rational or
: otherwise, to believe this.  Justin, the poster I was responding to
: apparently does have such a reason, though I can't say it's rational. 
: ;)

:    Use of the word 'you' and placement of your reply indicates you
: were responding to me rather than to him.

     Sorry to be so careless.  I should have been clearer that
while I thought your answer, though correct, missed some points
that should have been made, it was indeed Justin who made the
comments you were responding to and who seems to believe that
an adulterer is a likely traitor.