But he's a good Democrat! He's just a person, who are you to judge him? He has done a lot of good for Las Vegas, you need to leave him alone!!!

This is your argument:

(1) If a member of a political party illegally accepted money, then that political party has no interest in, nor has the ability to, stop such corruption.
(2) A member of a political party illegally accpted money.
---------------
(C) That political party has no interest in, nor has the ability to, stop such corruption.

Of course I've parameterized the argument over political parties, which you did not. The only reason that you would do this is if you believe there is some matter of fact that allows premise (1) to hold for the Democratic party and no other party. That is, if you reject the more general form, which you probably do. Unfortunately, since you presented the argument, it is your burden to produce this matter of fact, and to show that (1) holds.

This is similar to the argument you made in your Communism post, which I responded to in the comments. The arguments are valid, but they're simply not sound. Or at the very least, it is difficult to defend their soundess. I repeat myself, but this is an important point: it is your burden to defend your premises.

ac,

Yeah, and your comment in the communism thread was an absurd attempt to say that all those communists weren't really communist and so we have to find some real communists - who, presumably, will promise not to kill us - and allow them a shot at governance...

At any rate, I'm only pointing out that the Democrats are not pure as wind-driven snow...they've got their own skeletons in the closet, and more of them than DeLay or Libby ever had.

Do you want me to bring up the OTHER political scandal? The one where Reid and Herrera took illegal donations from Rhodes builders?

That wasn't me. That was kiwi. What I said was that "[c]ondemning an ideology for the actions of its espousers is silly." And then I went on to show that such arguments keep bad company.

I am repeating myself again, but it's important to make this point: I am not participating in this bipartisan pissing contest. ANY politician acquiring money from corporations/lobbyist/what-have-you is not good. It is not good for AMERICA. When anybody hears of such things happening regardless of their politicall affiliation or that of the culprit, they should feel shame for all of America, and they should be saddened by the fact that corporate interests are marginalizing Joe Sixpack's interests.

So go ahead and bring up any scandal you want. My response will still be the same: Both parties have members with blood on their hands.

Are you going to keep trying to show that one side "did it worserer" than the other, or are you going to speak out against this practice as a whole? I think Americans -- not conservatives or liberals, I said AMERICANS -- are best served by the latter approach.

P.S. It's your site and whatnot, so you know that you can do whatever you want without my approval, but I think that your readers may care to see the entirety of what I was responding to. I don't think you had bad intentions in removing the last part of your post, in which case I respect what you did.

************
"[c]ondemning an ideology for the actions of its espousers is silly."
*************

Maybe, if the espousers committing evil actions are not acting in accordance with the ideology to do so, or if they are so few in number that it can be argued they are not representative.

But when every single Communist regime has been built on the bloody slaughter of those who did not comply, it is hard to excuse the "ideology". When every single Communist regime has had to resort to violence and murder to keep unwilling people INSIDE its borders, it is hard to excuse the "ideology" as not being responsible for oppression. When every single Communist regime has had hundreds of thousands, or millions, literally starving to death while the elite vacation in luxurious dachas or Caribbean resorts, it is hard to excuse the "ideology" for the cruel inequties. And when absolutely NO Communist government has been economically sound, allowed freedom of thought or religion or travel, or has allowed free speech, it is impossible to excuse the "ideology" and blame merely a few "espousers".

The apologists for one of the most brutal and murderous forms of involuntary government in the history of Man have absolutely nothing to stand on. They have to resolutely ignore or deny decades of bloody, agonizing, history to muster any support for this thuggish "ideology" and their willingness to parade their total ignorance of history is astounding.

ac, I distinctly remember the Republican Party, both officially and in the ranks, denouncing Randy Cunningham for his corruption. I know there are others.

Republicans do stand by their own when they feel they are unjustly accused, so if a Republican is INDICTED we tend to look at how many grand juries it took to get those indictments, how many indictments were for things that were actually against the law, and the fact that an indictment is merely an accusation, not a conviction. Republicans tend to know that a GRAND jury is not a REGULAR jury---it is not a finder of fact, but merely a body which listens to one side, and one side only, to rule on whether there is sufficient evident presented to take to court.

So do not confuse fairness with defense of corruption. When it is there, proven or admitted, we do what we can to get rid of the offender, and we do not rewrite the moral code to say that it's all right to lie about sex, even under oath, or that some kinds of sex aren't really sex, or to merely indulge in prurient approval of some guy who's getting a lot. Ryan, in Illinois, is not getting any slack from his party. He broke the law, he deserves what he is getting, and no one is standing behind him or making excuses for him.

If we all recognize that the so-called "culture of corruption" is a big tent, we can all move on to more important issues. The reason Mark and Matt alert us to these DemocRATs and their corruption issues is that the DBM tends to ignore corruption unless the accused has an "R" behind his name.

Thanks, Mark and Matt. Please sirs, I want more...

Almiranta,

You fail to appreciate the distinction I was making. Furthermore, I don't think you've actually read my entire response (which I noted was in the comments of another post). What you find so abhorrent is not Communism. Murdering your population to maintain control is not a commandment of the Communist ideology. It's something that people have done in order to establish or maintain Communism in certain countries.

Anyways, this is a particular case of a point I was illustrating in a comment to a previous post. Read it or not. It's there for the record.

With regard to your second post, my challenge was not addressed to the Republican party, but rather to Mark. I don't have a problem with people defening somebody that they belive is innocent (as long as they chan justify their belief). What I have a problem with is, as I have been calling it, the pissing contest. I have a problem with constant exchange of "your party is more corrupt" because in saying that, you have said nothing, you have convinced nobody, and you have not addressed the problem.