Why are Republican politicians so darned naughty?

Post Reply New Topic

I suppose by this, you mean the credit default swaps and subprime mortgages that were being traded amongst financial institutions like candy and the various individuals who took out these mortgages without a care as to whether or not they could actually afford them? The kind of situation that Bush, or any president for that matter, has absolutely no control over?

But of course it's a lot easier to stick the blame on someone who could do nothing about it, even if he could know of the credit default swaps (which were, really, the biggest danger) going on.



Actually, this is a common misconception. Corporations give money to whoever is in power, unlike lawyers, who always give more to Democrats, and small businesses, which give more to Republican candidates.

And, once again, I must reiterate the fact that politicians rarely get away with corruption. The media and the FBI love to take down corrupt politicians, as they get praised for their deeds, all the while convincing America that all their politicians are corrupt. And yet, the average level of corruption is actually about the same as you find in your everyday life, perhaps even less. I have seen considerable corruption in the jobs I have worked, all to make a few extra dollars. The people who do these things merely get away with it more often than politicians do, partially because it is more destructive to the nation when politicians are corrupt, but also because no one cares. Everyone cares when a politician is corrupt, because news corporations have to sell papers or advertising.

Well, there you go. News corporations. I guess you were right about the corporate sector having a higher instance of corruption.

JFK was quite the womanizer.

ruveyn

I was referring to a number of things Bush did during his eight years in office, not just the credit crisis.

The thing is (and this is universal), is the old Lord Acton that power corrupts. Also, it's seductive, really gets the attention of your preferred sex, etc. Various forms of power (money, political, religious), tend to attract each other. If you have power, temptation is going to come your way.

The Republicans have painted themselves into a corner; first by 'squishing' any moderates and pragmatists out of the party, and then by setting such a high 'moral standard' for what they think is right, that no one would probably meet it.

Corruption isn't new, and it's not limited to any single party. Charlie Wilson (if you've seen the movie [i haven't] or read the book [I have..;] was a Democrat, and constantly in scandal during the 80s. Roy Cohn, McCarthey's (yes, that McCarthy) lawyer, was gay, and that was when it was the only thing worse than Communism... During the Grant adminstration, corruption was so widespread that Senators had prices... It goes on and on, as far back as you care to go.

1. You are free to disagree, but if a man violates his vow to his wife (which is considered to be sacred by many), why would you believe him to uphold his vow to serve the people who elected him to office? That's why it used to be a bar to getting elected. If you cheat on your spouse, then I have no reason to believe you won't cheat on me when you deem it in your interest to do so...it is a lack of integrity.

2. Clinton was condemned for cheating on his wife, but what got him burned was lying about it under oath. Bush did much worse, and many think he should face the music for what he did, but nailing him for a specific prosecutable criminal act is hard to do.

My parents were toddlers when JFK got shot.

I smell a JFK death conspiracy thread in the works...

It's kind of simple, moral regulation!

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/20 ... 141233.htm

Republicans just are SO MORAL that they need to have sexual scandals to balance out their good deeds and bad deeds. Democrats, on the other hand, just have no moral compass, and therefore don't need to engage in this kind of a balancing act.

Republicans profess to believe in Moral standards for the reason that by promulgating such they dont actually have to live up to their own beliefs IRL!

its the whole family values thing, because they say "Gays cant get married because it would destroy the traditional family values, never mind the fact I am divorced three times because I had affairs with other women." There is actaulyl a documentary caleld outraged where it outs gay repulicans who vote against gay rights,

Except that you claimed that Bush screwed up the world. Nothing Bush did could be considered to be that major. And the fact that you would include the credit crisis in your argument that he "screwed up the world" is rather troubling.

How about sending forces in Middle East? :> Thus entering a conflict that lasts till even today? ^^ If that doesn't screw up the world by forcing people to send their soldiers there in a gesture of "solidarity" for the US, mind telling me what it is? ^^

also see this link http://www.viewzone.com/deviantmales.html (lol given antipedophile BS they tend to spew. Mark Foley anyone HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA)

new law: if a senator proposes a law and f****n' violates it, REMOVE THE LAW FROM EXISENCE. If the people who make the laws can't be trusted to follow them ABOLISH IT.

That's funny, but blue states have a lower divorce rate than the so called Bible Belt of red states - I don't need to point out that extramarital affairs are a major causative factor in divorce (but I will).

I think repression is a better descriptor than 'moral regulation' - the Republican and fundamentalist cultures demand that people say outrageous things about the nature of man, and frown highly on safety valves like fantasy or masturbation.

It's like they say - Jews don't recognize Jesus as the Messiah, Christians don't recognize Muhmammed as the Seal of the Prophets, and Baptists don't recognize each other when they go to Hooters.

Reminds me of those celibate men that become ordained priests....

Also, research on Metta ('loving kindness' or compassion meditation) has shown that such practices are like exercise for the compassion circuits of the brain - regular practice strengthens and deepens the ability to be kind, and that regular practitioners actually become more polite, more socially connected, and less stressed in social interactions. This is the opposite of the moral regulation phenomenon, and I see no reason why a non-repressive program to encourage moral behavior would inherently also lead to an increase in immoral behavior. It wouldn't be 100% effective, but it wouldn't necessarily backfire.

I am wondering if what they measured was a type of temporary compassion fatigue ... if we sent people out to run a mile, and then tested their aerobic capacity, we would conclude that exercise diminishes aerobic capacity. Of course, regular exercise usually has the opposite effect on our overall aerobic capacity, even if we are tired after a run. So maybe the moral regulation effect is sorta real but an artifact of the study?