OT: Politics and other stuff that is sure to piss everyone off

[Rocky]

Oh, and I never said there weren't dolts on both sides. I actually said that there are. It just seems to me that some people give the dolts from their own political party a big old pass, and THAT is what I find indefensible.

Rangel, Waters, Pelosi, fairly normal for politicians.

Weiner, Edwards would have been better recent examples of dem hypocrites and assholes.

FWIW, I test on the right.

 

[VTscores]

There's nothing normal about Rangel OR Waters.

Rangle gave up his Ways and Means chairmanship and is the only Congress member in the last 27 years to be censured and reprimanded in the well. Waters is also being investigated for misuse of her influence.

If this is normal, the standards have gone way down.

Weiner and Edwards are also good examples, but even the Daily Show covered them -- pretty hard to ignore them.

 

[Rocky]

Sorry, but Pelosi said "We have to pass it, to see what's in it. She's the most effective lead of the Dems? And you'd do her? Did you really just say that?/QUOTE]

The bill was up online on the Senate website, who had already passed the bill. Of course the Dems and Pelosi knew what it contained. The HCRA had over 2000 pages of detailed interdependencies, and was indeed complex. If you followed it closely as most seniors including myself did, you would remember that Boehner led a smoke and obfuscation campaign against the bill.

The Dems knew exactly what was in the bill but their efforts to pass it were continually stymied by the other side, lying and twisting the facts about what the bill actually contains.

Now, take a look at the statement given in context, along with that little bit of background, and considering the political atmosphere that existed then.

The immediate context of her statement follows:

"You’ve heard about the controversies within the bill, the process about the bill, one or the other. But I don’t know if you have heard that it is legislation for the future, not just about health care for America, but about a healthier America, where preventive care is not something that you have to pay a deductible for or out of pocket. Prevention, prevention, prevention—it’s about diet, not diabetes. It’s going to be very, very exciting. But we have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it, away from the fog of the controversy."

Pelosi says essentially - There are good things in the bill, once we pass it you'll find out.

Rush took her statement out of context, for the quality of the sound bite. He did what he does.

Mega dittoes to you for being a faithful ditto head.

Regarding my statement of doing Pelosi. Im 66. When I look around, my peers are kinda old, fat, droopy, ugly, and some have no teeth.

Pelosi is pretty hot in comparison. You'll be there someday.

 

[Rocky]

If "doing her" is a factor, I'd think Palin and Bachmann would be the serious contenders. Just gag them first. It's difficult for me to believe Pelosi would even cross your mind. Have you seen a close-up? It would be like doing the Wicked Witch of the West. Seriously, don't throw any water on her.

You'll be there one day. Its all relative.

When I was a little boy, there was one teacher that I kinda thought was pretty. As I got older, the list grew.

My filter is now nearly wide open.

They all look pretty much the same upside down.

I agree that Bachmann and Cain said some ridiculous things, but if you think for a second that there aren't Democrats saying ridiculous crap every single day you're fooling yourself.

I never said otherwise. However, you have to admit, this 2012 class of Repubs is loaded with 5* whackadoos.

Waters and Rangle are incompetent AND criminal. Everything they say is ridiculous, you just don't hear them much. They shouldn't even be local dog catchers.

No criminal charges ever brought against either.

Rangel was censured. The Republican led ethics committee dropped the Waters censure movement once Rangel was firmly in their sights. Seems to me they needed a member with black skin to crucify. The stuff of Rangel and Waters is just about business as usual these days in politics.

My point is that there's plenty of material out there on both parties, if only your ears aren't closed to half of it. I think the Daily Show could cut back on the Fox News coverage a bit. Often half their show is just a replay of Bill O'Reilly, when Lawrence O'Donnell offers up lots of juicy change-ups as well.

Fair enough.

 

[VTscores]

You'll be there one day. Its all relative.

When I was a little boy, there was one teacher that I kinda thought was pretty. As I got older, the list grew. My filter is now nearly wide open.

They all look pretty much the same upside down.

No, I'll never be there, and no, they don't all look pretty much the same upside down.

Pelosi isn't hot, never was, and never will be.

She's also pretty clueless.

 

[VTscores]

No criminal charges ever brought against either.

Rangel was censured. The Republican led ethics committee dropped the Waters censure movement once Rangel was firmly in their sights. Seems to me they needed a member with black skin to crucify. The stuff of Rangel and Waters is just about business as usual these days in politics.

The reason criminal charges weren't brought is because they are members of Congress, and this is the way charges against congress members are generally handled.

Rangle was charged with criminal offenses. Tax evasion and misuse of government funds is serious business, and he got censured for it, which is the harshest penalty available short of kicking him out of Congress and pursuing him in state or federal court.


As for Maxine Waters, she has delayed the proceedings with every possible procedure. The case against her will move forward.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/07/us/politics/maxine-waters-ethics-case-will-resume.html


The Ethics committee is mostly a joke these days, because people have no shame. In the past, Rangle would have resigned. He still has four rent-controlled apartments, though he did pay his taxes, and stopped using his staff to fundraise for his personal library.

 

[Rocky]

.

She's also pretty clueless.

I can see you aren't into letting this go. I tried humor, but you appear to be wholly entrenched in making some sort of anti-liberal points, in stead of admitting anything might possibly be askew with the righties.

Be specific with your assertions. Give me some specific instances of her cluelessness.

I don't buy much of what I read online. I like to research shit and figure it out for myself. No dittohead here baby.

Your first supposed clueless quote of hers was ceremoniously shot down, and generalities hold no sway.

Even though I'm a slightly right of center voter and thinker, Ill be happy to play the devils advocate and attempt to come to the defense of Pelosi in this thread.

So, if you are indeed not done with the unsubstantiated attacks, Ill play along.

 

[hokiegrad]

In my opinion, both parties are right on a lot of things. Both parties also promote different ways to accomplish the same goals. I think it is ignorant to assume that whichever party that you support is 100% correct on any of it. I think it is downright dangerous to hope that the other party fails at solving a problem that you find important just so that you can say "I told you so."

Comments like "all liberals" and "al conservatives" are ignorant and short sighted. The two party system's greatest flaw is how it forms teams that root for and against one another. This is life, not sports, and both groups (whether people want to admit it or not) are working for the same goal. Even the most surly and cynical of observers have to admit that they want a successful country if for nothing else, then for the continuation of their careers and paychecks.

Very well put and I completely agree... except I'm not sure about both parties being right on a lot of things. Certainly both parties are wrong on a lot of things. I'm not convinced it's accurate to use the phrase "a lot" when talking about how often they're right.

In addition, MOST modern day pundits do a disservice to the country by utilizing half truths, talking points and scare tactics to garner ratings and book sales. The days of the debates between Chomsky and Buckley are sadly over. The great intellectuals and skeptics are dying off (Christopher Hitchens) and one must think that the great thinkers are searching for material and inspiration in other areas. Politics has become a cruel, laughable joke and if you take a second to sit back and look at the current political system, from the media to the local rep, it is truly comical, which is very unfortunate.

I think the fact that we think it's comical is indicative of how we've all become part of the problem. It's so sad and so scary that we should not be able to find comedy in it. But we do. We should be outraged, not entertained.

What I am saying is this... these extremists help to make plausible and perhaps valid ideas seem crazy or fringe. We've been over this before. If there is a system in place that is keeping the majority of Americas, the world, under heel (perhaps not as brutally as once was, but still, not free), the conspirators would benefit from having a widely divided populous, unable to rise together to enact change. The Glenn Becks', the Alex Jones', the Bill Mahers', the Tea Party, Occupy... all of them help to polarize the issues and control the information passed to their followers in order to breed division and keep the status quo.

These extreme loud-talkers are the dungeon masters of our minds, and now it seems we are footing the bill for Glenn Beck's warden salary for another five years.

This goes with what 46 said in a way. The first major goal of the modern media is to catch our attention because that's what brings in the money, and to that end they will bring in the most polarizing figures they can find and promote the most polarizing stories. The other major goal being to slant things however certain key figures see them, which is just as bad. Both keep us from uniting in outrage at what is going on around us.

 

[Forty_Sixand2]

They have their moments, but they really are geared towards people knitting (or wearing) cardigans.

I'll listen in sometimes if I'm driving somewhere, but I wouldn't go out of my way for it.

Wait, where are you going with this....

 

[VTscores]

I can see you aren't into letting this go. I tried humor, but you appear to be wholly entrenched in making some sort of anti-liberal points, in stead of admitting anything might possibly be askew with the righties.

Be specific with your assertions. Give me some specific instances of her cluelessness.

I don't buy much of what I read online. I like to research shit and figure it out for myself. No dittohead here baby.

Your first supposed clueless quote of hers was ceremoniously shot down, and generalities hold no sway.

Even though I'm a slightly right of center voter and thinker, Ill be happy to play the devils advocate and attempt to come to the defense of Pelosi in this thread.

So, if you are indeed not done with the unsubstantiated attacks, Ill play along.

What's funny is that I'm right of center, and you're being a clown here. There are plenty of silly Pelosi statements. You can look them up as easily as I can. Just google Pelosi and stupid. I'm certain something will come up. What I really can't believe is that "doing her" is something that comes to mind. If I were going to "do" someone in politics, it certainly wouldn't be Pelosi.

You've said many silly things here, and I've done a pretty thorough job of countering them one by one. Each point I counter falls out of your argument, as you try and shift to something else.

My original point, which you seem to have forgotten (go back and read it), was that BOTH parties provide ample comedic material. I didn't defend the silly statements coming from the right. In fact, I pointed out the silliness of Limbaugh and Beck. I agree -- there is an abundance of silliness from the right. But there is ample silliness coming from the left as well.

My only point was that the left has plenty of clowns, and provide ample material for comedy shows, even if the Daily Show misses a lot of laughs by devoting a good bit of their resources on Fox News.

 

[VTscores]

Wait, where are you going with this....

Wait, Wait, she looks like she could use a laugh.

 

[VTscores]

This goes with what 46 said in a way. The first major goal of the modern media is to catch our attention because that's what brings in the money, and to that end they will bring in the most polarizing figures they can find and promote the most polarizing stories. The other major goal being to slant things however certain key figures see them, which is just as bad. Both keep us from uniting in outrage at what is going on around us.

I think THIS is the point.

Much of the news coverage is about ratings and entertainment, not about objective analysis. People like hearing reinforcement of what they believe, and they tend to watch that. That's where Fox News and MSBC live. The shiny baubles (inflammatory speech) get our attention, and generate "clicks" and viewership.

While we bicker about the polarizing figures, we've let our politicians (from both parties) off the hook from actually making progress. They've figured out that they can get re-elected by doing NOTHING, and that doing something is risky in that it makes them stand out.

Career politicians are looking out for their job and the status quo, not for their constituents, and it really shows.

 

[Rocky]

The reason criminal charges weren't brought is because they are members of Congress, and this is the way charges against congress members are generally handled.

YOU stated that their behavior was CRIMINAL. That requires the Judiciary, not the Congress. NO INDICTMENT OR TRUE BILL WAS EVER BROUGHT. Neither has an accusation, information, or complaint been brought forward to any court. Without the jusiciary, there is no CRIMINAL action, by definition. The Fifth Amendment applies.

Rangle was charged with criminal offenses.

No, he wasn't. Again, no Judiciary involvement. He simply paid his taxes and took the censure. BTW, his censure started under Democratic house leadership.

Tax evasion and misuse of government funds is serious business, and he got censured for it, which is the harshest penalty available short of kicking him out of Congress and pursuing him in state or federal court.

Thats what CRIMINAL requires, court charges. Again, the Fifth amendment applies here.

As for Maxine Waters, she has delayed the proceedings with every possible procedure. The case against her will move forward.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/07/us/politics/maxine-waters-ethics-case-will-resume.html

Your editorial choice of words are telling. Waters used her rights of due process, and you call it "delaying the proceedings", as if she is again doing something wrong. Billy Martin concluded that the Ethics Committee appeared to have violated House Rules, and that certain private conversations could “raise concerns about staff partisanship.”

Also, the bank that Ms Waters is being charged with seeking favor was eventually provided with 12 million in bailout money, which should have made the whole thing moot, since she was correct in the need for her solicitation.

FWIW, the top 5 Republicans and the top Dem withdrew from the investigation last Februrary. I think they want to separate themselves from the shitstorm to follow, and separate themselves from any backlash that might find its way back to them.

The Ethics committee is mostly a joke these days, because people have no shame. In the past, Rangle would have resigned. He still has four rent-controlled apartments, though he did pay his taxes, and stopped using his staff to fundraise for his personal library.

The Ethics committee has become a partisan hammer. The white collar crap that the republicans get away with is much harder to prosecute than the obvious stupid crap the dems seem to do. Just an opinion on this last one.

 

[VTscores]

YOU stated that their behavior was CRIMINAL. That requires the Judiciary, not the Congress. NO INDICTMENT OR TRUE BILL WAS EVER BROUGHT. Neither has an accusation, information, or complaint been brought forward to any court. Without the jusiciary, there is no CRIMINAL action, by definition. The Fifth Amendment applies.

No, he wasn't. Again, no Judiciary involvement. He simply paid his taxes and took the censure. BTW, his censure started under Democratic house leadership.

Thats what CRIMINAL requires, court charges. Again, the Fifth amendment applies here.

Your editorial choice of words are telling. Waters used her rights of due process, and you call it "delaying the proceedings", as if she is again doing something wrong. Billy Martin concluded that the Ethics Committee appeared to have violated House Rules, and that certain private conversations could “raise concerns about staff partisanship.”

Also, the bank that Ms Waters is being charged with seeking favor was eventually provided with 12 million in bailout money, which should have made the whole thing moot, since she was correct in the need for her solicitation.

FWIW, the top 5 Republicans and the top Dem withdrew from the investigation last Februrary. I think they want to separate themselves from the shitstorm to follow, and separate themselves from any backlash that might find its way back to them.

The Ethics committee has become a partisan hammer. The white collar crap that the republicans get away with is much harder to prosecute than the obvious stupid crap the dems seem to do. Just an opinion on this last one.

Sorry, but criminal behavior is defined by breaking the law, not by a court charging you with the behavior.

Rangel failed to report income and misused government resources, both of which are crimes. You can go to jail for those offenses. I'm not even sure why you brought up the 5th amendment. You said yourself that the head of the Ethics committee was a Democrat, so it's hard to see that those ethics violations were simple partisanship.

As for Waters, she improperly supported a bailout for a bank that her husband had a financial interest in. There is no clearer conflict-of-interest than that. It's unethical behavior, and not racism that is making those charges stick.

When charged with an ethics violation (or a crime), people are quick to claim that it's politics or racism, but the fact is that if a violation was committed, it should be prosecuted.

Since you're being very critical of my examples of clown-like behavior on the left, I'll point out some examples that you CAN'T deny:

Rod Blagojevich attempting to sell Obama's Senate seat.

Anthony Weiner sexting young women.

John Edwards denying fathering a child, and using campaign contributions to support his girlfriend. (It was a waste of taxpayer funds to prosecute him because he was already out of politics, but it was unethical behavior.)



Even the Daily Show couldn't deny the humor in those stories.

 

[Rocky]

What's funny is that I'm right of center, and you're being a clown here. There are plenty of silly Pelosi statements. You can look them up as easily as I can. Just google Pelosi and stupid. I'm certain something will come up.

You miss the obvious dude. Im saying that you have been poisoned by the Limbaugh koolaid. And, the rest of the half truth rightwing media hacks like him.

Yes, I can google pelosi and stupid, and ill find lots of stuff from the whackadoos, who spend all day long trying to make others look foolish, by making false assertions, distortion, smoke, obfuscation, with little or no ground truth behind them, just like your "pass the bill" indictment earlier. You were wrong, and all the other google whackadoos are wrong.

To make it easy for you, put up or shut up.

What I really can't believe is that "doing her" is something that comes to mind. If I were going to "do" someone in politics, it certainly wouldn't be Pelosi.

That was a joke. Can you possibly lighten up here?

How old are you anyway? Like I said earlier, Im 66, and when you are 66, with women of a similar age, take it from me, they all DO look alike upside down.

At my age, a nice warm hole with hair around it is a 3*.

Two more jokes there, just so you wont be confused.

You've said many silly things here, and I've done a pretty thorough job of countering them one by one. Each point I counter falls out of your argument, as you try and shift to something else.

I take what you say, highlite it, and respond. I havent shifted anything. As far as countering them, you ain't done shit IMO. Try looking up Criminal in your dictionary, then come back, K?

My original point, which you seem to have forgotten (go back and read it), was that BOTH parties provide ample comedic material. I didn't defend the silly statements coming from the right. In fact, I pointed out the silliness of Limbaugh and Beck. I agree -- there is an abundance of silliness from the right. But there is ample silliness coming from the left as well.

OK, I see you are making a move out of the republican dirty trick playbook. Revise history.

I posted about the primary season, making light of the primary nutjobs. It was meant to be a comedic piece, to which you seem to have taken very personal for some reason.

To that, your first response to me was:

"If you can't find any "whackadoos" on the left, you just aren't looking hard enough.

Can you really defend Charlie Rangle? Maxine Waters? Nancy Pelosi?

C'mon. Be honest."

Show me where Im supposed to interpret that as YOU being bipartisan in any way shape or form regarding comedic material?

My only point was that the left has plenty of clowns, and provide ample material for comedy shows, even if the Daily Show misses a lot of laughs by devoting a good bit of their resources on Fox News.

lol

Revising history again

You made lots of points, including assertions that members of congress had been CRIMINALLY charged, you implied that Pelosi was fupped duck, and used her "pass the bill" clip from Rush to support that claim, and a couple of others that I no longer give a good shit about.

Im done with this thread. You're gonna have to play with yourself.

 

[VTscores]

I should have quit when you said you'd do Pelosi, and that Rangel and Waters are no worse than anyone else in Congress.

Pelosi isn't attractive, Rangel got censured in the well of the Congress, and Waters is charged with unethical behavior.

The definition of criminal is a person who commits a crime. Tax evasion and misuse of government property are both crimes, and it doesn't matter where or even if Rangel was tried. The fact is that he was tried in an ethics court and found guilty of 11 charges. Not only did he commit a crime, he was tried, convicted, and censured for it.

 

[Rocky]

I should have quit when you said you'd do Pelosi, and that Rangel and Waters are no worse than anyone else in Congress.

Too bad you couldn't recognize a joke for being a joke. You are so wrapped up in political vitriol, that you are seeing all red. Lighten up and make a funny once in awhile.

Pelosi isn't attractive, Rangel got censured in the well of the Congress, and Waters is charged with unethical behavior.

Pelosi is 72 years old dude. The word attractive is relative. For a 72 year old, she looks fine. Again, lighten up. My girlfriend is 53 by the way.

The definition of criminal is a person who commits a crime. Tax evasion and misuse of government property are both crimes, and it doesn't matter where or even if Rangel was tried. The fact is that he was tried in an ethics court and found guilty of 11 charges. Not only did he commit a crime, he was tried, convicted, and censured for it.

OK, last time, just for your edumacation.

First, there is no such thing as ethics court. This is Congress. They use committees, and are barred from the Constitution from holding court. Thats the purview of the judiciary. Maybe if I say it enough, you will get it.

Committing a crime and being charged with a crime are two very different things.

YOU claimed that Rangel was CRIMINALLY charged, your words, not mine.

The charges brought against Rangel are provided below:

1. Conduct in violation of the solicitation and gift ban
2. Conduct in violations of Code of Ethics for Government Service (clause 5)
3. Conduct in violation of the House gift rule
4. Conduct in violation of postal service laws and franking commission regulations
5. Conduct in violation of any franking statute
6. Conduct in violation of House Office Building Commission's Regulations
7. Conduct in violation of the purpose law and the Member's Congressional Handbook
8. Conduct in violation of the Letterhead Rules
9. Conduct in violation of the Ethics in Government Act (EIGA) and House Rule 16
10. Conduct in violation of Code of ethics for Government Service (clause 5)
11. Conduct in violation of Code of Ethics for Government Service (clause 2)
12. Conduct in Violation of the Code of Conduct: Letter and Spirit of House Rules
13. Conduct in Violation of the Code of Conduct: Conduct Reflecting Discredibility on the House

Do you see the word crime anywhere? Rhetorical, no need to answer.

The reason you don't see the word criminal or crime is because this is CONGRESS. They have rules and codes to follow, and have absolutely zero authority in charging anyone, member or not, with a crime.

It is not within their purview to make criminal charges.

That honor belongs to the judiciary, k?

See how that works?

 

[VTscores]

Whether or not Rangel was charged in a criminal court, he committed crimes. He was actually convicted on 11 ethics charges in an ethics trial and then censured by the House. This is a nontrivial thing. Within those ethics charges, there were several crimes. If you read up, you'll be able to figure out what the crimes were. Failing to report income is a crime. Using government staff and resources to solicit contributions for a private library is also a crime.

The stated offense doesn't need the word "crime" in it for it to be a crime. You don't think it was serious? Rangel spent $2 million on his defense. He obviously took it pretty seriously.

What point are you trying to make, because all I see is the argument that it depends on what the meaning of "criminal" is, or where he was tried. The meaning of criminal is that a crime was committed, and it was. Weasel word it all you want, but Rangel broke both laws AND the spirit of congressional ethics, was convicted in an ethics trial, and was punished by Congress.

Censure used to mean something, but that was when people were capable of feeling shame. These days it amounts to mild embarrassment.

Oh, and you said you were done with this thread. Feel free to let it go at any time.

 

[VTscores]

Oh, and Rocky:

 

[Rocky]

So, its your position that Rangel was criminally charged?

And, you dig in to defend that assertion?