Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Would you have called for a full bi partisan investigation with S.I Hayakawa and Reagan??
I don't draw the line at who to investigate based upon party affiliation, sorry. If it was wrong now, it was just as wrong then. Perhaps if the Hayakawa incident had been investigated, subsequent administrations wouldn't feel as comfortable engaging in unethical politics, legality aside. Two wrongs never make a right, and pointing out another administration that engaged in similar shenanigans doesn't exonerate this one. Especially since it was Obama who campaigned against this very type of unethical politics. What a freaking liar he turned out to be.
I don't draw the line at who to investigate based upon party affiliation, sorry. If it was wrong now, it was just as wrong then. Perhaps if the Hayakawa incident had been investigated, subsequent administrations wouldn't feel as comfortable engaging in unethical politics, legality aside. Two wrongs never make a right, and pointing out another administration that engaged in similar shenanigans doesn't exonerate this one. Especially since it was Obama who campaigned against this very type of unethical politics. What a freaking liar he turned out to be.
Of course neither what Reagan did or what Obama did is against the law
I don't draw the line at who to investigate based upon party affiliation, sorry. If it was wrong now, it was just as wrong then. Perhaps if the Hayakawa incident had been investigated, subsequent administrations wouldn't feel as comfortable engaging in unethical politics, legality aside. Two wrongs never make a right, and pointing out another administration that engaged in similar shenanigans doesn't exonerate this one. Especially since it was Obama who campaigned against this very type of unethical politics. What a freaking liar he turned out to be.
Two wrongs absolutely do not make a right.
Neither do two rights. But that's neither here nor there.
Both Reagan and Obama were right on this one. There is nothing unethical here in the slightest.
Look, you can debate until the cows come home whether what transpired was legal or not, or what conversations took place and what was offered, etc. THAT's why we need a full bipartisan investigation. All I'm saying is that it makes NO difference whether or not Sestak actually accepted any position as to the guilt or innocence of the actions of the WH. It's the offer, not the acceptance or rejection of the offer that is at question.
Exactly my point.
We have Sestak agreeing that he was offered a high level job by the White house, IF he dropped out of the senate race, and he has since refused to comment further. We have people who think no bribe was attempted if it was not accepted, and since we do not know all the facts yet, and the same people tell us that lack facts negates the need for a trial.
So a man can rob a bank in broad daylight, kill all the people in the bank. People on the street can see the guy leave the bank waving a gun and a sack full of money, they see the bodies bleeding to death at his feet, but... we should not accuse him of committing a crime, because we don't have any witnesses from the bank (all dead), and we do not know if bank money was in his sack (he won't show us), and we don't know if his gun matches the bullets used to kill the bank employees (he says "None 'ya"), and when someone asked him what happened, he says "No comment". Oh well, guess there was no crime.
So if I offer a $20 dollar bill to a police officer to ignore my speeding ticket, its not a bribe if he does not except the money?
ahem accept ahem
The comparison to a speeding ticket is insane. No law indicates that a President is not allowed to offer someone a position if they drop out of a race.
We have Sestak agreeing that he was offered a high level job by the White house, IF he dropped out of the senate race, and he has since refused to comment further. We have people who think no bribe was attempted if it was not accepted, and since we do not know all the facts yet, and the same people tell us that lack facts negates the need for a trial.
So a man can rob a bank in broad daylight, kill all the people in the bank. People on the street can see the guy leave the bank waving a gun and a sack full of money, they see the bodies bleeding to death at his feet, but... we should not accuse him of committing a crime, because we don't have any witnesses from the bank (all dead), and we do not know if bank money was in his sack (he won't show us), and we don't know if his gun matches the bullets used to kill the bank employees (he says "None 'ya"), and when someone asked him what happened, he says "No comment". Oh well, guess there was no crime.
What an absolutely ludicrous comparison. The bank thing is illegal, the Sestak offer just like the Hayakawa offer is not illegal.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
