I'm a big fan of the enforcement of laws.

I don't care what anyone thinks about abortion. I really don't care if you want to kill your kids. But there's no excuse for looking the other way when corrupt organizations aren't prosecuted because of what side they're on in a political dispute.

I just love it when Flint takes the trouble to delete and repost a thread just because i make a reply that crushes his opening post lol

His point was that Planned Parenthood defrauded the government to fund abortions. In my case, I could care less. The question we should investigate is how much is this fraud compared to the fraud nearly every other politician and special interest group commits?

Justinian I have some bottom land to sell you. Close access to river docks, a wonderful view with no nearby houses, and it can be yours for $3000 dollars.

Act fast though, and remember later what you said about if it is a limited amount by politicians...

so free pass on committing crimes if others that are committing them arent prosecuted?

but youre posting an accusation that other politicians or political groups commit fraud without any evidence.  fraud is a specific intent crime.  you have to intend to defraud others.  anyone guilty of that should be prosecuted regardless of their political allegience.

your argument that this organization should get a free pass because of their political position is the same thing as some professor who once argued that african american jury members should always vote not guilty on crimes including rape and murder regardless of the evidence because statistics showed that african americans got harsher sentences

if you believe in that kind of legal system then so be it but at least explain why that is rational or ethical

He's not disagreeing that others should be investigated and prosecuted--on the evidence--as well. You've gone and owned yourself again.

lol

I am fighting Fraud and Waste in my campaign.

Every action of fraud hits someone somewhere. To negate it because 'it already exists' is just insane. To say it 'is at manageable levels" is likewise silly. Fraud should always be fought regardless.

You never asked where the bottom land was

ahh ok haha

Or it's targeted coincidentally because political motives have provided the resources to investigate it. That's just convenient.

You seem to be taking issue with the fact that corruption, if investigated, might not be equally available to everybody. You're arguing that corruption needs to be equitable if it cannot be 100% squashed out. Others are saying we have to start somewhere, and you're arguing for equitable corruption. Since we can never squash it all out, we should never fight it because we might be unequal! Crackhead.

Please name other corrupt organizations "getting away with it."

If you can name them and back up your claim, you'll find many (all?) of us would avidly support prosecution. Thus, there'd be no selectivity or inequality. If you can't, then we have no idea what you're going on about.

Kemp,

1. I am assuming that > 95% of them are corrupt sleazeballs. On my part, I admit it is a matter of faith. Of course, I'm not sure why you would challenge that assumption. You don't seem to be the sort who would think otherwise.

2. I am not saying we can't start somewhere. I am saying it's politically motivated, and the corrupt system will remain unchanged overall, at the expense of public health. I would support an investigation of Planned Parenthood, but only if the government was an equal opportunity investigator, which according to my cynical world view, they are not. Rather, I assume a bunch of socially conservative busybodies decided to win some political capital for the next election.

V.Kemp,

I meant to say that of the set of all political organizations with any relevance in Washington that receive public funding, at least 95% of them are corrupt. Additionally, I implied that at least 95% of the members of government are corrupt, and they nurture a culture of corruption. I also acknowledged that I am accepting this on faith. Faith doesn't require examples. But, for good reason, you are welcome to dismiss my argument on this fact alone. However, you are repeatably confused about my argument that follows.

Your confusion seems to conflate two different types of justice. The one is about imposing the rule of law. I am not disagreeing with this principle at all. The second type occurs when the whole system is rotten, and prosecution is hypocrisy. Whether one is actually prosecuted for the crimes every one else is doing depends on their relationships with the powerful political coalitions. So what you call justice, I call laughable hypocrisy stemming from the competition to win political favor at the expense of their vulnerable enemies. Of course, you are welcome to dismiss my conclusions because my understanding of the government is unusually cynical and not supported with any evidence.