Lipstick on a Bailout

SamCogar wrote:YADA, ..... YADA, ...... YADA

Sure, you are willing to agree to that in your above post ........ but in your next post you will be claiming that an investigation can't be instigated unless it is declared that crimes have been committed.

No. My next post will, as usual, speak for itself.

Thus, around in circles you will go, from one post to the next, with your asinine "circular reasoning" ..............

by posting the equivalent of this:

One can't declare that a crime has been committed before there has been an investigation.

followed by the equivalent of this:

One can't instigate an investigation before it is declared that a crime has been committed.

[/quote]

No again. I have not suggested that an investigation can't be instigated. As the little man says, bring 'em on. But I have suggested that if such is instigated it will confirm that corruptiing motivations based on campaignn contributions are not unlawful.

I don't want to avoid anything Frank but campaign contributions are not the subject of the current conversation much as you want them to be.

Oh yes they are. I have made them a part of the conversation, whether you like it or not. And I have done that because I believe that until we change the way election campaigns are financed in this country, we will have more and more legal bribery providing the motivation for corruption.

I guess I was wrong when I questioned your intelligence Frank because you can't seem to grasp the fact that no matter the motivation, it's not an excuse for committing a crime.

As crimes are typically cut and dried, there's not much room for your opinion.

Nice try though.

I guess I was wrong when I questioned your intelligence Frank because you can't seem to grasp the fact that no matter the motivation, it's not an excuse for committing a crime.

The motivations for official corruption should not be sanctioned by public law that make bribery of public officials legal.

ziggy wrote:

I guess I was wrong when I questioned your intelligence Frank because you can't seem to grasp the fact that no matter the motivation, it's not an excuse for committing a crime.

The motivations for official corruption should not be sanctioned by public law that make bribery of public officials legal.

Just because one's wife does not know when to shut her mouth and knows how to push a man's buttons, he does not have the right to beat the living tar out of her just as a Congressman doesn't have the right to cover up a crime because a financial institution donated money to his campaign fund.

Motivations does not excuse a criminal act. Is there a reason you can't understand that?