Muscatine

Hi all

Feeling loads better and ready to get back into the fray.

Scandal.

There are few hard and fast rules defining scandals. But the dictionary defines scandal as "loss of or damage to reputation caused by actual or apparent violation of morality or propriety",  Many presidents make unpopular decisions. Neither are scandals. However purpose can be relegated to scandal. A strong example is whether or not an action is, or appears to be, illegal. Since we expect everyone, particularly politicians, to be law abiding, breaking the law is, by definition a scandal albeit more severe than simply lost or damaged reputations . Misunderstandings, breaches of ethics, unproven crimes or cover-ups are scandals and may bring charges, the amount of publicity garnered, and the seriousness of the crime, if any. The finding of a court with jurisdiction is the sole method used to determine a violation of law. Pardons or dismissals do not negate the status of scandal or it's historical footprint or relevance.

Political.

By definition: Political scandals should involve politicians and not private citizens. Civilians should be included only when they are closely linked to elected or appointed officials such as anyone affiliated with ANYpolitical purpose, be it campaigning, committees, political support within the purpose of electing(not voting) or lobbying. Kenneth Lay of ENRON, a major political contributor to both parties, is a good example, or ex officials intention to foster support for::: or lobbying current officials.(Phil Gram) 

Old Fox::: please alert the media, for in a mere day or two, I'll toss out there, the best darn historical babble I could find. References and other contributors if needed should help to calm nerves too.

A disclaimer if I may? Although I trust my sore eyes I found nor will report nothing within opinion, all materials recorded. nothing from Uncle Bill, Aunt Sally or dad will be part of the findings. I know that "some" will undoubtedly say it's flawed. But, I'll let the referenced material speak for it'self. For my opinion is, that many of our electeds, some are decent, but many are simply greedy lumps that should be given the HEAVE-HO every four years,(2 terms) senators too.

Need a little more rest for now.

Lucy.

Ok, bird...except for the fact that you are not an authority on rules and definitions....and no one has to accept what you write for anything or any reason; or your sources. Having stated this, your blatant umbrella statement that declared Repubs scandalized 3 to 1 over Dems was not based on any such rules or definitions at the time, or you would have posted that.

You are only posting this now as some sort of lame and late qualifier to meet your agenda in this mission of yours. We the readers get to interpret things any way we want and may not accept your definitions and sources. Simply, you are making up the rules after "starting the game".  A noted loss of your credibility is now apparent. Nice try.

PS, Bird...just to demonstrate how flawed your new attachment rules are, Ken Lay was never involved in anything illegal related to politics. His contributions to both parties have never been challenged as such. Your offering here libels the man. Secondly, he died before sentencing, thereby requiring the vacating of his conviction as if he had never been indicted, tried, or convicted. Those are automatic federal court rules.

Your error is in even mentioning Lay within the political scandal posts. This is one example of how skewed you are trying to make this.

The media has been alerted. They don't care either that you took 37 lines to further skew logic to fit your claim, a claim that can never be proven because of its very subjectivity. 

But hey, thanks for sharing. 

While you're on this research kick and have all this spare time, could you tell Algore that it's cold outside?