Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Lebell
I agree that many members, yourself included, stepped forward to say that corruption was not beholden to any one party.
My post was directed at ALL those who are choose to make it an "us vs them" thread and those who are might turn it personal.
Ratbastid as much as said so when he said something about the "moral party".
|
Now wait a second. The republicans do bill themselves as the moral party. The moral majority. They've been claiming the high moral ground in politics for years. If they want to do that, then they'd better make damn sure they're squeaky clean because it sure is ironic that the party of morals spawns politicians who are as morally bankrupt as Cunningham. I see nothing wrong with pointing out the incongruity. If you want to shut down all "us vs. them" threads, you may as well shut down the politics forum, because by definition over 90% of politics is "us vs. them." If however, you want to foster political debate in here, then you have to expect the one side to jump on the other when they screw up.
I don't know how many threads I've seen in here where the republican side has been gleefully bashing Clinton, and nothing's been done. If dredging up history in order to bash the democrats is OK, then why is it not OK to use current events to point out republican flaws?
As for people avoiding this forum. . . well. . OK. I avoid Trampoline because it doesn't interest me. Are you suggesting that you should rush in there and make drastic changes to the atmosphere in that forum because some users might not be interested in going in there?
Some of us like a good rousing debate. That's why we're here. And the politics forum seems pretty active to me - I see new posts in it just about every time I drop by the TFP.
And Ustwo, my apologies. I see what you're saying now. You define a bad apple ONLY as someone who did exactly what Cunningham did. Anyone else doing anything wrong is still not a bad apple and therefore doesnt' need to be dealt with by those in power. So we can have the 2nd in command demanding that we torture people and that's OK because at least he didn't get any kickbacks from it. And we can have either Scooter, Cheney, or someone else high up in the white house leak the identity of an undercover agent, thereby potentially getting that agent and everyone that agent talked to killed, but at least they didn't make any cash from it, so they're OK too. I get it now.
but BTW you guys still didn't take care of Cunningham - the courts did it for you.