I like how on the list, a supposed example of Hilary Clinton’s corruption is just simply the name “Webb Hubbell.” Yes, Judicial Watch is a joke.

The only thing really worth pointing here is that, as OW pointed out in his first comment, Judicial Watch is a joke. The list is a joke and folks like Jay Tea who take it seriously are a joke.

The reason it is childish and naive is because you want (and judging from your frequency of posting on the subject, you *really* want) to take a subjective judgement and turn it into objective fact because .. why? I guess it makes you feel good and righteous to feel like you are on the “right” side. Well, newsflash – politics attracts people who aren’t exactly high on the integrity and honesty scales, and they are attracted to both parties. (In roughly equal numbers, from what I can tell. Or wait, maybe we should do a historical tally and count them all! Then we’ll know who is really righteous!) The political parties they lead will thus not be bastiens of truth and light. The best we can do is go with a certain political party based on whether we think they are more likely to support the things we think are important.

So by all means, tell people why you support issue a. Or why you think republicans have it wrong when they support issue b. But judging people simply because they have an R after their name, which makes you think you know how and what they think? Arrogant, childish, and naive. Grow up.

What? Did AO just play the I Know You Are But What Am I card with No Backsies?

Didn’t see that coming. I am slain.

Democrats: “The Republican party is systemically corrupt. When you seen corrupt Republicans, it represents the goals of the entire party. When you see corrupt Democrats, it represents individual actors.”

Republicans: “If Republican party corruption is systemic, then all these examples of Democratic corruption indicate the same thing.”

Face it, its a waste of time to argue about it. Both sides have enough examples of malfeasance by the other side that nobody gets to play the angel as much as they might want, and noone is going to concede that their side sucks pretty hard too.

For my own, I do have to say that Oliver’s constant “anything bad that Republicans do represents their overall ideology and goals, anything bad Democrats do represents isolated actors” to be wishful nonsense on stilts. But thats what partisans do, and that’s 80% of what Oliver posts here. Just point, laugh at his childish naivete, and move on.

He wasn’t disbarred, his license was suspended.

Translation: I got nothin’.

Translation: You’re insisting on using facts and something more substantial than “My Grandmother said it is so*” to make your case.

.

* I still can just barely believe that A0 proclaimed that’s what his opinions are based on, and can’t believe anyone would actually think that’s a capstone argument. And, yet, he does.

Quaker,
You’re not a whole lot smarter, you are just being obtuse both about my sainted Grandmother and the english language.

Sean,
You’re just acting like a liberal which puts you head and shoulders above your amigos Quaker and Duros.

I don’t think I have to make my case. I assume it is just understood that only a conservative would implicate his own grandma in corruption just to make a point. But then, as a white guy, AO doesn’t have to worry. Her criminal tendencies aren’t genetic.

Except he never said Chicago was not corrupt.

Dude, seriously, stay down.

I may be mistaken but I don’t believe I’ve ever seen anyone admit they were wrong here.

Clearly you said nothing of the sort, lunchbox. I’ll work on the reading skills if you’ll work on the whole higher brain function thing. Your sentence was a thing of ambivalent beauty.

Oooh. that puts Rhode Island in the running.

Goodness, what could I possibly say, what actual facts could I possibly bring to bear that could hope to compete with your compelling argument that “It’s true because my Grandma said it”?

Hardly seems right to blame her, but then I don’t know your grandma. Was she in politics or rackets?