What is Digg?Sponsored by Lost University
LOST Season 5 lands on Blu-ray(tm) & DVD for the first time view!
lostuniversity.org/ - Follow the twist and turns of Lost in this 5-disc collection. Perfect gift for lost fans.
95 Comments
- zeeeej, on 10/12/2007, -19/+85Let me try .... (deep breath):
... Monica Lewinsky ...
Done!
Oh, did you mean actual scandals, or just ***** that Rush Limbaugh made up? - whiskeymb, on 10/12/2007, -9/+57I was wondering how long it would be before someone brought up clinton.
- sharpfork, on 10/12/2007, -15/+55@snoop
Did you WTFV? The list is just names.
I know it is hard to be a repub and not vomit out the knee-jerk reaction of blaming Clinton in some obtuse way when your Grand Old Party is even looked at with a critical eye. At least WTFV next time instead of getting you panties in a bunch about the title and "Vommenting" without knowing the topic at hand. - AstroPHX, on 10/12/2007, -8/+45Very creative ad. Now, if more than 1/2 of Americans will vote...
- seanherman, on 10/12/2007, -3/+37@ saigumi
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whitewater_scandal
"The Clintons were cleared of all wrongdoing in two reports prepared by the San Francisco law firm of Pillsbury Madison and Sutro for the Resolution Trust Corporation, which was overseeing the liquidation of Madison Guaranty...
Kenneth Starr's successor, Robert Ray, released a report in September of 2000 that stated "This office determined that the evidence was insufficient to prove to a jury beyond a reasonable doubt that either President or Mrs. Clinton knowingly participated in any criminal conduct."[5] Ray's report effectively ended the Whitewater investigation, with a total cost to American taxpayers of nearly $80 million dollars.[6]"
Lieing [sic] to Grand Jury
Yes, he did this, however http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lewinsky_scandal
"During what amounted to a "discovery phase" of the trial, several issues of fact were resolved and on Friday, February 12, 1999, the Senate rejected both of the articles of impeachment. The perjury charges were rejected with 55 not-guilty votes and 45 guilty votes, and on the obstruction of justice charges the vote was 50-50. Per Art.I ยง3 cl.6 of the Constitution, a two-thirds majority of those Senators present was required for a conviction on either charge. The vote fell largely along party lines. For the perjury vote, 10 Republicans joined all 45 Democrats in voting not-guilty. On the obstruction of justice charge, 5 Republicans joined all 45 Democrats in voting not-guilty. One Republican, Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania, voted "not proven" on both articles, citing Scottish law to support his view that Clinton had not received a fair trial. However, his votes were recorded as 'not guilty.'"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_House_personnel_file_controversy
"In March 2000, Independent Counsel Robert Ray determined that there was no credible evidence of any criminal activity. Ray's report further stated "there was no substantial and credible evidence that any senior White House official, or First Lady Hillary Rodham Clinton, was involved" in seeking the files."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_House_travel_office_controversy
"Ultimately, a president's right to staff his residential quarters with persons of his choosing prevailed and no grounds for legal action could be established."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Clinton_pardons_controversy
"Supporters of Clinton point out that the total number of pardons Clinton granted was comparable to other presidents[13][14][15] and that Republican presidential pardons have also been controversial. These include President Gerald Ford's pardon of former President Richard Nixon on September 8, 1974 and President George H. W. Bush's pardons of six Reagan administration officials accused or convicted in connection with the Iran-Contra affair and Orlando Bosch."
All of these scandals, it could be debated, were politically motivated by the republican controlled congress. Whitewater and the Lewinski scandal, in particular, seemed in retrospect to be a gigantic waste of the American people's time and money, motivated more by politics than a genuine desire to ensure justice.
These Republican scandals, on the other hand, all come at a time when they have almost complete control at least 2 out of 3 of the branches of the federal government. Clinton was never convicted, unlike many of these Republicans listed in the advertisement. There was also never any substantial evidence against Clinton in these scandals, also unlike most of the scandals used in this commercial.
(sorry for the long post) - reeder, on 10/12/2007, -11/+42The fact that Republican freaks have to point at Clinton as some sort of excuse for their behavior shows how desperate they are. Especially since they look at Clinton's 1 to their 10 and seem to feel it equates.
Though it was Republican math that got us to almost 9 Trillion in debt.... - zeeeej, on 10/12/2007, -2/+17@seanherman: "(sorry for the long post)"
No, thank you for doing the leg work. - cramtod, on 10/12/2007, -3/+17> "The trouble with our liberal friends is not that they're
> ignorant: It's they they know so much that isn't so." Ronald Reagan
"Facts are stupid things." Ronald Reagan (1988) - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -1/+16I really don't care what party people are from, both sides have sleazy people, but they also both have people that aren't (or at least haven't yet been caught being) sleazy. All I want is a government where our elected officials are held to a higher standard and not corrupt. Why is that too much to ask?
- ImOscar, on 10/12/2007, -2/+15@SqueakyWheel
Slander- "words falsely spoken that damage the reputation of another"
No, this is not slander, not even close. They're reading names of convictions and accusations. It is not slander to mention a crime someone has been accused of. - archiesteel, on 10/12/2007, -1/+13"You can't even get through Clinton's in one breath"
...but-but-but Clinton!
Don't Republicans realize that the "Clinton defense" hasn't been so overused it actually has the opposite impact now? (i.e. it automatically decreases the credibility of the person who uses it...)
On other words, everytime they try to shift the blame to Clinton, they push independents a little more towards the Democrats. - Brian48216, on 10/12/2007, -4/+15Ignoring the politics of bashing republicans,
This is a clever ad. It's not as annoying as most of the ads you see on TV. - zeeeej, on 10/12/2007, -0/+11After Katrina, Bush told us that we shouldn't get caught up in the "blame game." "There's enough blame to go around." Who says that? People who are to blame!
This is the same thing. Republicans have the power, and they are corrupt. There's no way to wiggle out of this, so they want you to think EVERYONE is corrupt - that they're no worse than the other guy.
The fact is, in the last 12 years, the GOP has built a whole new layer of corruption into the system. Don't believe me? Look up the "K Street Project" sometime (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/K-street_project). In a nutshell, the Republicans agreed to hand over control of the government to corporate lobbyists, if the corporations would agree to pour money into the GOP and only the GOP.
None of this has happened on this scale before. That's not my opinion, it's a fact. Read "The Broken Branch" (cowritten by authors from the conservative AEI and liberal Brookings Institute) to see how bad Congress has gotten under the Republicans. - VicHislop, on 10/12/2007, -4/+15Most of those on your list are not currently in politics. So you're saying that you have to go through a historical recollection of Democratic failures to equal those restricted merely to the contemporary Republican party?
- melvinwalker, on 10/12/2007, -4/+15The funny thing is, the Repubs claim to be the party of morality, and to _certainly_ be better than Pres. Clinton. And yet, at every turn, they use Pres. Clinton to justify their actions.
"So what if we post nuclear weapon plans on the internet? Clinton had an affair!" - there, on 10/12/2007, -3/+13 LMAO.Tell it to the fish.
No doubt this list was pulled off some fruity rightwing website that always neglects the full story. Thanks for providing this list though. This is a actually perfect example how the far right manipulates facts to twist the truth.
Now for the rest of the story......
ALL OF THEM DIDN"T HAPPEN DURING THE SAME FRICKEN ADMINSTRATION.
Statistically speaking the rightwingers in power today are probably the most greedy manipulative corrupt administration in American history. No nice way to say it. - Haapi, on 10/12/2007, -3/+14Wow, impressive. Your list covered over 35 years, rather than just 5.
- zeeeej, on 10/12/2007, -1/+11@corser: Honest to god, as recently as 3 years ago, I was a middle-of-the-road moderate, always eager to see the other side. Granted, I've been a Democrat all my thinking life, but I've always supported some conservative positions. I even supported the war - debated for it with my more-liberal friends for god's sake, even though I figured Bush was exaggerating the WMD threat and lying about terrorists in Iraq. I thought it was worth it to get rid of Saddam Hussein, who WAS a horrible tyrant.
Man, was I wrong. I didn't realize that you can't straddle the fence with these guys. Once you're in for a penny, you're in for a pound. Not all Republicans are corrupt, but all Republicans have chosen corrupt leaders.
They simply don't believe in the America I love. They seem to be willing to throw every freedom away and make any compromise to preserve their own power, and it needs to stop. Bush and his bunch swore an oath to defend the CONSTITUTION. Not "the homeland" or "the American people" - the Constitution. It's literally what defines us as a country. Instead of doing that, they have made every effort to rip it to shreds, all the while calling those of us who stand up to them traitors.
Patrick Henry said "Give me liberty or give me death." The GOP motto seems to be "Give us your liberties or die." And it ain't even true. - zeeeej, on 10/12/2007, -3/+13I love that this list goes back to the '60s and includes Bronx assemblymen. The list from the ad is from the last year or so.
Hey - you forgot Tammany Hall! - seanherman, on 10/12/2007, -1/+10This ad is the kind of thing I'd like to see more often from the democrats. Not vicious, but speaking to the real issues.
- there, on 10/12/2007, -1/+10 You can't seriously be comparing the Democrats record versus the Republicans.
Republicans use exaggeration to feed off the fears and bigotry of primarily ignorant voters that trust sensationalist agenda based rags like Foxnews for "fair and balanced" reporting. They also use minor issues like gay-marriage to project an image of morality but in reality use political smear campaigns of their opponents to distract everyone with how utterly incompetent, authoritarian and CROOKED their leadership is.
Whats really sad is how many of their devoted minions are worse off for supporting them but too proud to admit a mistake.
What has Hillary done that is so evil? Did New York end up like the Soviet Union? And yet she portrayed like Stalin. During Clinton America enjoyed its longest continious economic expansion in history. Wow... so terrible. The communist hoards are invading.
If you want to be a slave to party rhetoric thats your right. The rest of us aren't buying into their crap any longer. What matters is deliverables not promises nor ideology. - ZeroMP, on 10/12/2007, -1/+10See I'm not sure if voting counts for me or not.... maybe someone can help me with this dilemma I'm having?
Here is the deal: I just moved to TEXAS (they do everything big down here) and thanks to the electoral college ripoff I do not get to vote for the President of the United States - I get to vote for the President of Texas.
If I wanted a Republican to win.... I could sit at home and watch a movie and most assuredly a Republican would be elected President (of Texas).
If I wanted a Democrat to win.. I could run out and vote and - most assuredly - a Republican would be elected President (of Texas).
I guess if I were a Republican in Texas the electoral college helps me - because I can watch my movie instead of going out to vote and get the same result.
If I were a Democrat in Texas the electoral college is ***** me for the same reason...
If there were no electoral college I would definately go out and vote - because my vote could in effect - cancel a Democratic vote from a blue state (if I were a Republican) or cancel a Republican vote from Texas (if I were a Democrat)...
Basically since we are able to count the popular vote, and no longer have to transmit these numbers in a burlap sack via horseback (like at the time the electoral college was conceived) I think there is no reason for its existence.
It just makes me think voting is futile in my case thanks entirely to the electoral college... not so in borderline states - but still totally ***** and unnecessary when we are able to total up the popular vote. Sorry for the rant!! - anillop, on 10/12/2007, -6/+14"but Clinton did it" Ah yes the mantra of the stupid. Lets try to stick to issues from this decade people, not things that are too old to have any relevance.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -1/+9Here is a short 5 page list of Bush's scandals. I am sure that if we went back 35 years, it would be a bit longer.
http://dir.salon.com/story/news/feature/2005/01/18/scandal/index.html?pn=1 - ZeroMP, on 10/12/2007, -1/+8@bradbaxter
Nice list. I notice it goes back into the seventies. That looks like it could be a complete list of every democrat ever accused of anything.
How much time does the list of republicans in the video span? I don't know personally because I watched it without sound and the ***** YouTube quality makes it hard to read...
but at least I WATCHED THE ***** VIDEO enough to know that the list only includes names and not a bloated description of the entire event surrounding the name.
In conclusion, I'm burying your comment.... mostly because it is too lengthy and I doubt it is a relavent listing. - whosyodanny, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7Political ads are political ads... now I wonder, why is it that when republicans put out nasty ads, its in the name of truth and honesty, but when the dems do it it is just a mean spirited attempt at getting votes?
- corser, on 10/12/2007, -2/+9Would you be willing to produce a similar list covering same time period and levels of government but focusing on corrupt republicans?
I'm not saying that the Democrats don't have their long list of faults, which they obviously do. But I also don't support them blindly. It's a damn shame that too many people on this site are so polarized when it comes to politics. I see far too many faults with your 2 parties that neither one really deserves your vote.
Just because a certain party is in power doesn't mean they are above criticism, and just because somebody has a different political ideals than you doesn't make them stupid. - corser, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7Can we ALL make a pact never to append -gate to anymore "scandals" please. It's just incredibly ***** stupid.
- zeeeej, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7@ZeroMP: I have no idea who you'll vote for, but I want you to vote on Tuesday. The electoral college doesn't factor into it. You probably knew that already, but it's just for presidential elections.
Also, there are states trying to make the electoral college meaningless by agreeing to send their electoral votes to whichever candidate wins the popular vote. California is leading the way on this (http://www.sacunion.com/pages/state_capitol/articles/8399/). I think everyone should pressure their state lawmakers to adopt this strategy. FYI: It doesn't kick in until there are enough states in the "pool" to make up a majority of electoral votes. - bigturns, on 10/12/2007, -3/+9Clinton's misgivings are important because why? Oh right, he's running for.... SHUT THE ***** UP YOU REPUBLICAN PARROT!
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -2/+7@corser
Actually, he just copied it from here:
http://www.boycottliberalism.com/Scandals.htm
This link and the video just prove that both sides are corrupt. Not exactly news to anyone that isn't brain dead. - zeeeej, on 10/12/2007, -3/+8The guy with the list of names plays the lead character (the sheriff) on "Eureka" (Sci-Fi Network). I knew I liked him.
- corser, on 10/12/2007, -6/+11I applaud the list you made, it goes to show that both sides have their fair share of people not suited for public office.
I'm sure that you can at least agree on that point.
I'm also sure that if you were to include republicans over the same time period and scope of government you would find a similarly sized list to put next to this one. The list covered in the video seems to only include current congressmen and senators.
I'm not saying that because both sides have done it makes it right, but that corrupt people exist no matter what political side they fall on. - there, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5 You're spot on. Unfortunately some people haven't realized the way rightwingers have been operating for the last decade or so. Here it is in a nutshell.
1. Pundits scan the news daily for any dirt on whomever they deem an enemy. Be outraged. (O'Reilly, Beck, Coultier, Rush, etc...)
2. If that doesn't work spin something negatively. (and avoid saying anything positive)
3. If that doesn't work dig up dirt on some associate or relative.
4. If that doesn't work make some exaggerated analogy between extremists that don't reflect their views. (Democrats=communist, Islam=Hitler, Hillary="baby eater")
5. If that doesn''t work look back into history. (sometimes hundreds of years)
6 If that doesn't work just make stuff up and quote unidentified "sources".
They have a completely lopsided view of the world where they are the self described elite and the rest of humanity is some caricature of a human being. The purpose is to throw enough dirt at your opponents to discredit them as such, Even if it is unsubstantiated they know all that some people remember is the two seconds of negative sound bite. Thus all government officials are "corrupt" today when in reality its mostly rightwingers that are corrupt (excessive self-interest has a tendency to do that).
Their politics revolve almost entirely around lying and manipulating the public to hate others so they can gain political power. - corser, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5Well it's not really speaking to the issues, such as health care, education, etc.. but rather pointing out that those controlling the government are not high and upstanding people of character.
It is in no way vicious and is at the very least an example of an attack ad that I can get behind as it presents verifiable facts, not vague statements as to a candidate's baby eating habit. - foofightrs777, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5We need more people like you in this country. Vote the scumbags out regardless of party.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5@bradbaxter
Do you not like to cite your sources? If you are trying to appear smart, you are just coming off as a thief. Here is the link to the other stuff that you copied and pasted:
http://www.therant.us/staff/swirsky/03132006.htm - corser, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5That's a bit harsh, both sides have people who truly want to do good and see something in the ideals of the party they are in that will allow that to happen. However, both sides have people that are only out to get something for themselves or their associates. These are the people that need to be kicked out, thrown in jail, pie to the faced.
- ryMac, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4someone's gonna pass out and sue.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4scandalnamegate?
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4@Mrkamikaze
The *left-leaning* MSM? Are you retarded? Kerry's comments were dishonestly taken out of context by the right, and now the media can't talk about anything else. The MSM is anything but left-leaning. - AegisC, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4People are already screaming "Impeach" regardless.
- tom500k, on 10/12/2007, -4/+7Bet the torqued Republicans won't dare try the $100 challenge to read the list of Republicans under criminal investigation in a single breath.
- Sheir, on 10/12/2007, -7/+10I want that list. That'd be an amazing movement if a lot of people started doing this around the country.
- deesnutz, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4Compared to your list ... all I have to say is ...
George W. Bush (Republican) soon to be tried and self pardoned for war crimes. - corser, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3I'll still check it out. I can separate a person's politics from their day job (as long as their day job isn't political)
Now if you take issue with the ad, and feel it mis-represents facts then go right ahead and refute them.
If you have a similar list of Democrats please post that. Though please remember the "they did it to" doesn't make it right for either side. Every corrupt politician should be thrown out on their ass. - Crispin, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Colin Ferguson. Who I'm sure someone further down has already named.
- ichbinladen, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Some would say nixonrichard fellates his mother's gnarled penis... I just say nixonrichard is a moronic douche.
- Haapi, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4What pass? Has there been any difficulty in getting the MSM to talk about anything else besides Kerry for the past three days? And I don't even watch FOX! Nobody in the MSM has even brought up Bush's awful comedy routine where he's going about the stage saying, "Any WMD over here? Nope! How 'bout over here. Not here!...." in comparison.
The whole list thing brings back memories of the Reagan years. Ah, yes, springtime in America again, with every other Administration official under investigation/indictment.... Those were the days. - cramtod, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4@bradbaxter
Impressive list. However the most recent _dated_ item on your list was 2002 and the majority happened over 10 years ago. The list in the ad are recent and/or ongoing scandals.
The Democrats aren't squeaky clean (Jefferson $$$ freezer scandal) but they just don't compare the current crop of Republicans when it comes to scandal and corruption.
Want to go back to scandals of the 80s? Iran-Contra was far worse than anything you listed. -
Show 51 - 95 of 95 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is