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.
So any other favor-currying due to political donations are okay w/ you, as long as it's not giving a pass on criminal charges?
Another moot point....that's NOT what this particular discussion is about.
There are plenty of threads already with Conservatives hammering Obama on his cronyism when it comes to awarding big contracts with Stimulus money to big donors.
Another moot point....that's NOT what this particular discussion is about.
There are plenty of threads already with Conservative hammering Obama on his cronyism when it come to awarding big contracts with Stimulus money to big donors.
Lol... so dealing with the flaw in our political system that allows an administration to play favorites is a moot point?
And speaking of cronyism... how many of Mitt Romney's political appointees from his governorship were also major campaign donors?
And speaking of cronyism... how many of Mitt Romney's political appointees from his governorship were also major campaign donors?
A little more on that point:
The owner of the Pittsburgh Steelers was a big political donor to Obama.
He was then appointed to be the Ambassador to Ireland.
That's quite normal and has happened a million times in US politics.
There is nothing nefarious about that.
Letting CRIMINALS escape prosecution (especially when you base your entire political platform on railing against these types of people) because they are donors is actually criminal in itself when you figure that Holder is SUPPOSED to be the #1 law enforcement officer in the land.
Appointing donors to positions is called "Coattails" and has been happening in American politics since day one.
It's also not CORRUPT.
To allow your big donors to skate on CRIMINAL ACTIVITY smacks of CRONYISM.
Lol... do you even know what cronyism is? You call one thing that ISN'T cronyism, cronyism, and then call the thing that IS cronyism, not cronyism. It's like you live in bizarro world.
But keep defending cronyism based on partisan games. The people that actually understand it are opposed to it, regardless of which party is doing it. "Not corrupt"...
And keep ignoring the central part of the system that even lets cronyism happen -- a pay-to-play political scheme...
It would be nice if you showed ANY concern at all about "giving a pass on criminal charges" instead of trying to cloud the topic at hand.
Obviously, from your posts here....that doesn't bother you at all.
Of course it bothers me, hence me saying we need campaign finance reform. Unlike you, I'm not a political hack. I'm not going to sit here and defend a politician from doing & being wrong b/c he has the right letter after his name. I actually care about how our system functions, regardless of who's in charge.
You're the one sitting here saying pay-to-play politics is not corrupt...
You still only said that in a way of deflecting away from this scandal.
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.
