wHERE IS THE LIB OUTRAGE OVER THIS?

[CSM]

Milberg Weiss gave top Democrats funding:

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Milberg Weiss Bershad & Schulman LLP, the securities class action law firm indicted last week on fraud charges stemming from corporate lawsuits it filed, made large political contributions almost exclusively to Democrats since 1999, records show.

The firm and individuals there made $2.78 million in campaign donations to Democrats since 1999 compared to about $22,000 to Republicans, according to the Center for Responsive Politics, which tracks money in politics.

Among the recipients were New York Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, who is a possible 2008 presidential candidate, senior New York Senator Charles Schumer and Sen. John Kerry, the Democratic presidential candidate in 2004.

MORE:

http://today.reuters.com/news/newsA...TRUKOC_0_US-CRIME-MILBERGWEISS-POLITICS-1.xml

 

[Mr.Conley]

Here's the difference:
Abramoff did something bad. To do it, he donated money to politicians to gain influence in the democratic process in hopes of enriching himself and his clients.

This firm also did something bad. It also donated money to a major political party. However, there is no proof (at least none presented in the article) that the company used these donations to gain leverage in the mechanisms of government in order to enrich itself and its clients.

Saying the democrats are guilty of fraud (based on the information in the article) is like saying that the Green Party is murderous and corrupt because one of its donors murdered someone. Sure, he may have been a murderer and he may have donated to the Green Party, but that doesn't mean the Green Party assisted him commit the murder.

 

[manu1959]

Here's the difference:
Abramoff did something bad. To do it, he donated money to politicians to gain influence in the democratic process in hopes of enriching himself and his clients.

This firm also did something bad. It also donated money to a major political party. However, there is no proof (at least none presented in the article) that the company used these donations to gain leverage in the mechanisms of government in order to enrich itself and its clients.

Saying the democrats are guilty of fraud (based on the information in the article) is like saying that the Green Party is murderous and corrupt because one of its donors murdered someone. Sure, he may have been a murderer and he may have donated to the Green Party, but that doesn't mean the Green Party assisted him commit the murder.

hang on it was reasoning like this that allowed you to extrapolate that there are little green men on other planets.....

 

[Mr.Conley]

hang on it was reasoning like this that allowed you to extrapolate that there are little green men on other planets.....

A lack of proof that something does exist is not in itself proof that it doesn't exist.

And besides the fact that my reasoning in logical and realistic, do you have a problem with it?

 

[dilloduck]

A lack of proof that something does exist is not in itself proof that it doesn't exist.

And besides the fact that my reasoning in logical and realistic, do you have a problem with it?

This is true. About God and aliens. And other "stuff".

 

[Rico]

Milberg Weiss Bershad & Schulman LLP did do something "bad". They foolishly wasted contributions to a political party on the outs. I thought Dems 'hated" big business. Guess only if that business is Haliburton or any compny that doesn't contribute to the Dems. Damn they are a bunch of hypocrites.

 

[manu1959]

A lack of proof that something does exist is not in itself proof that it doesn't exist.

And besides the fact that my reasoning in logical and realistic, do you have a problem with it?

your reasoning is yours....whatever works for you is fine with me....but just because you so it is so does not make it so

 

[Diuretic]

Quite so, just because someone says something, doesn't make it so, they have to be able to point to some evidence for their argument.

 

[Mariner]

outraged about. Many law firms support primarily Democratic candidates, just as many oil companies support primarily Republican ones. If an oil company breaks a law, and happens to have made all its contributions to Republican candidates, that in no way implicates the Republican party in the law-breaking.

The difference between this situation and Abramoff, as Mr. Conley correctly points out, is that Abramoff sought to alter government policy by wining and dining lawmakers. The fact that numerous high-ranking Republicans were willing to wined and dined, and then to change their votes, constitutes influence-peddling, which is illegal.

Mariner.

 

[CSM]

You all missed the point.

It isn't whether there is anything illegal being done; it is the APPEARANCE of influence peddling and bribery. Libs are all over "big oil" and the influence they supposedly have over the Republican party or conservatives yet replies like the ones above are the norm for Dems/libs when the ball is on their side of the net. No outrage...only dismisssal that there could be any impropriety.
Some would call that hypocracy!

 

[Mr.Conley]

You all missed the point.

It isn't whether there is anything illegal being done; it is the APPEARANCE of influence peddling and bribery. Libs are all over "big oil" and the influence they supposedly have over the Republican party or conservatives yet replies like the ones above are the norm for Dems/libs when the ball is on their side of the net. No outrage...only dismisssal that there could be any impropriety.
Some would call that hypocracy!

There is only impropriety!

The firm may have donated money to the Democratic Party, but that doesn't mean Democrats assisted them in filing fradulent lawsuits. There is nothing to be outraged about. The firm is in huge legal trouble, and the Democrats are returning their donations. End of story.

The difference between this case and the supposed oil influence in the Republican party is immense. The Democrats claim that the oil companies are donating money to Republicans in hopes of influencing the party to enact new legislation infavor of the oil companies. This claim, if true, is huge.

The claim that the democrats recieved money from a law firm that was later indicted for filing fradulent lawsuits is irrelevant. The law firm didn't donate money to the Democratic party so that the Democrats would assist them in planning out the law suits, and the Democrats didn't starting enacting new laws in favor of the firm.

Finally, as to hypocracy. Lets pretend that the Democrats were beholden to this firm, and that the Republicans were controlled by the oil companies. Even though both parties were influenced by some outside group, does that discredit their efforts to expose the others corruption? Although each may have been motivated purely out of self-interest and the effort hypocritical, does that justify both sides corruption? No, any movement to produce good government should be heard, even if they themselves are on the verge of corruption. Of course that movement should also be purged of corruption...

 

[CSM]

There is only impropriety!

The firm may have donated money to the Democratic Party, but that doesn't mean Democrats assisted them in filing fradulent lawsuits. There is nothing to be outraged about. The firm is in huge legal trouble, and the Democrats are returning their donations. End of story.

The difference between this case and the supposed oil influence in the Republican party is immense. The Democrats claim that the oil companies are donating money to Republicans in hopes of influencing the party to enact new legislation infavor of the oil companies. This claim, if true, is huge.

The claim that the democrats recieved money from a law firm that was later indicted for filing fradulent lawsuits is irrelevant. The law firm didn't donate money to the Democratic party so that the Democrats would assist them in planning out the law suits, and the Democrats didn't starting enacting new laws in favor of the firm.

Finally, as to hypocracy. Lets pretend that the Democrats were beholden to this firm, and that the Republicans were controlled by the oil companies. Even though both parties were influenced by some outside group, does that discredit their efforts to expose the others corruption? Although each may have been motivated purely out of self-interest and the effort hypocritical, does that justify both sides corruption? No, any movement to produce good government should be heard, even if they themselves are on the verge of corruption. Of course that movement should also be purged of corruption...

Wow!!! You really dont see what I see in what you just said, do you? I am in awe. Truly not being sarcastic and without any vitrol. Do you reallythink this firm donated the amount of cash to the DNC and others purely for altruistic reasons? You honestly believe they were NOT trying to influence anything?

I am in agreement that corruption in government (no matter what party) is abhorent and absolutely unequivically should not be tolerated. I was merely pointing out that many libs are very vocal about the "climate of corruption" supposedly fostered by the Republicans (proven or not) yet strangely silent about the corruption (or possibility thereof) within the Democratic side. This board is a good example...show me one post by a lib/Dem criticizing/ denigrating or in any other way disparaging the Hon. Jefferson (who has been in the news of late). If it were a Repub in those shoes the screams of glee from our regular lib/Dem posters would be overwhelming. Where is Bully's post calling the guy a monkey/moron? Where are Jillians scathing remarks about Howard Dean's stewardship of the DNC and criticism of Democratic leadership that allows such corruption to fester in the hallowed halls of Congress?? Mariner's silence regarding Jefferson is notable as well. Those are just a few examples and not meant to single the individuals out per say.

Get what I am saying?

 

[Mr.Conley]

Wow!!! You really dont see what I see in what you just said, do you? I am in awe. Truly not being sarcastic and without any vitrol. Do you reallythink this firm donated the amount of cash to the DNC and others purely for altruistic reasons? You honestly believe they were NOT trying to influence anything?

Well Duh.
Of course they are influencing the political process. By donating money, they increase the Democrats chance of winning the next election, and in general, the Democrats share similar political views as lawyers. Thats a GIVEN.

When I say influence, I mean they try to dictate what bills will say and how Congressmen will vote, even to the point that it isn't what's best for their constiuents.

Now, while the first example is inherently true and quite alright. Neither the Democrats nor the Republicans are responsible for what their donars do unless they assists them. There is no proof that the Democrats assisted and the illegal influence occured. If it had, then the Democrats should be kicked out of office.

However, a lot of people are claiming that the oil companies exert the second form of influence on the Republican party. If this were true, then the Republicans have to be kicked out of office. However, I personally I never seen any evidence to qualify this view, and until I do, I think it's just liberal showmanship.

 

[Mr.Conley]

I am in agreement that corruption in government (no matter what party) is abhorent and absolutely unequivically should not be tolerated. I was merely pointing out that many libs are very vocal about the "climate of corruption" supposedly fostered by the Republicans (proven or not) yet strangely silent about the corruption (or possibility thereof) within the Democratic side. This board is a good example...show me one post by a lib/Dem criticizing/ denigrating or in any other way disparaging the Hon. Jefferson (who has been in the news of late). If it were a Repub in those shoes the screams of glee from our regular lib/Dem posters would be overwhelming. Where is Bully's post calling the guy a monkey/moron? Where are Jillians scathing remarks about Howard Dean's stewardship of the DNC and criticism of Democratic leadership that allows such corruption to fester in the hallowed halls of Congress?? Mariner's silence regarding Jefferson is notable as well. Those are just a few examples and not meant to single the individuals out per say.

Get what I am saying?

Now as to your overall point, liberal hypocracy.

First let me apologize. I think that the first example you used to demonstrate you point doesn't work, and I have been so focused on showing as such that put off you underlying point.

Yes, I believe you are absolutely correct. There is a noticeable silence concerning Rep. Jefferson. I have heard a few voices, but nothing compared to the "climate of corruption" speeches.

I believe that this stems from human nature. No one likes to go around saying, "Hey, I'm a hypocrite." I think all of these people admit that Jefferson is corrupt, but have either too loyal to the party or are too blinded by partisanship to make the effort to criticize their own party. For professonal liberal and conservative writers and politicans, they can't attack their own without putting their neck on the line. I think the Democrats will get rid of Jefferson just like the Republicans will get rid of Abramoff's friends, quietly. They'll take care of the problem while minimizing the damage.

Ultimately, is it wrong to be hypocritical? Yes. But we shouldn't ignore what could be genuine arguments of corruption from against the Republilcans (or vice-versa) because the opposing party has a few sheep who strayed from the herd as well.

 

[CSM]

Now as to your overall point, liberal hypocracy.

First let me apologize. I think that the first example you used to demonstrate you point doesn't work, and I have been so focused on showing as such that put off you underlying point.

Yes, I believe you are absolutely correct. There is a noticeable silence concerning Rep. Jefferson. I have heard a few voices, but nothing compared to the "climate of corruption" speeches.

I believe that this stems from human nature. No one likes to go around saying, "Hey, I'm a hypocrite." I think all of these people admit that Jefferson is corrupt, but have either too loyal to the party or are too blinded by partisanship to make the effort to criticize their own party. For professonal liberal and conservative writers and politicans, they can't attack their own without putting their neck on the line. I think the Democrats will get rid of Jefferson just like the Republicans will get rid of Abramoff's friends, quietly. They'll take care of the problem while minimizing the damage.

Ultimately, is it wrong to be hypocritical? Yes. But we shouldn't ignore what could be genuine arguments of corruption from against the Republilcans (or vice-versa) because the opposing party has a few sheep who strayed from the herd as well.

Obviously, I do not espouse that corruption within the government be ignored. What I do want is the same sense of outrage over a Democrat's corruption as we get over a Republican's. I want justice to be served fairly and impartially. I want non-partisan outrage over this type of situation. Otherwise, those who scream and wail against just the Repubs or just the Dems are mere hypocritical, pseudo-moralistic, arrogant jackasses.

 

[T-Bor]

Ummm...there are plenty of repubs that I know that are all over big oil as well..it isnt just libs my nieve little poster. Regardless of dem or lib some people...SOME...know the difference between right and wrong.

You all missed the point.

It isn't whether there is anything illegal being done; it is the APPEARANCE of influence peddling and bribery. Libs are all over "big oil" and the influence they supposedly have over the Republican party or conservatives yet replies like the ones above are the norm for Dems/libs when the ball is on their side of the net. No outrage...only dismisssal that there could be any impropriety.
Some would call that hypocracy!

 

[CSM]

Ummm...there are plenty of repubs that I know that are all over big oil as well..it isnt just libs my nieve little poster. Regardless of dem or lib some people...SOME...know the difference between right and wrong.

You presume too much. I am not your "nieve little poster". In fact, I am not YOUR anything.

Knowing the difference between right and wrong is not the same as doing something about it. Hence, my original question. Where is your rant on the evil, corrupted Democratic party, oh wise one?

 

[Mr.Conley]

Obviously, I do not espouse that corruption within the government be ignored. What I do want is the same sense of outrage over a Democrat's corruption as we get over a Republican's. I want justice to be served fairly and impartially. I want non-partisan outrage over this type of situation. Otherwise, those who scream and wail against just the Repubs or just the Dems are mere hypocritical, pseudo-moralistic, arrogant jackasses.

I have a few theories:
1. Bill Frist and Tom Delay are much bigger players than William Jefferson. 99.99% of the population probably didn't even know he existed until now.

2. Bill Frist and Tom Delay are the head of their party, Jefferson is a comparatively minor figure.

3. Jefferson acted alone. Abramoff had a much more extensive network of corruption.

4. Their is anger. The Dems don't support him anymore, and a lot of left wing blogs have disowned him.

Just theories...

 

[Annie]

Ummm...there are plenty of repubs that I know that are all over big oil as well..it isnt just libs my nieve little poster. Regardless of dem or lib some people...SOME...know the difference between right and wrong.

What's a nieve?