Hey Barfo!

[Denny Crane]

Out with the old culture of corruption, in with the new. Out with the new culture, in with the newer. In this case, it's just out with the really old and consistent culture of corruption.

http://thehill.com/homenews/house/129407-house-ethics-panel-convicts-rangel-on-multiple-counts

House ethics panel convicts Rep. Rangel on 11 of 13 counts

By Susan Crabtree and Jordan Fabian - 11/16/10 11:55 AM ET

Rep. Charles Rangel (D-N.Y.), once one of the most powerful members of the House, was convicted Tuesday on 11 counts of violating ethics rules and now faces punishment.

Rep. Zoe Lofgren (D-Calif.), the chairwoman of the adjudicatory subcommittee and the full House ethics committee, announced the decision late Tuesday morning following an abbreviated public trial and nearly six hours of deliberations.

 

[MARIS61]

Hopefully this is just the beginning of hundreds of prosecutions of our elected representatives for their crimes against their employers (us).

No country can ever be fully functional, and provide excellent service at low cost, when it is controlled by dirtbag puppets of the uber-wealthy.

Political graft is so widespread in America that it's the norm, not the exception. I'd guess in the House and Senate there aren't 20 honest people out of the whole bunch.

 

[Denny Crane]

Hopefully this is just the beginning of hundreds of prosecutions of our elected representatives for their crimes against their employers (us).

No country can ever be fully functional, and provide excellent service at low cost, when it is controlled by dirtbag puppets of the uber-wealthy.

Political graft is so widespread in America that it's the norm, not the exception. I'd guess in the House and Senate there aren't 20 honest people out of the whole bunch.

I suspect the newly elected people are generally doe-eyed and naive when they first get to town, but that wears off quick. Most of them the last congress basically just voted the way they were told to by the party power brokers (Pelosi/Reid, et al).

 

[MARIS61]

I suspect the newly elected people are generally doe-eyed and naive when they first get to town, but that wears off quick. Most of them the last congress basically just voted the way they were told to by the party power brokers (Pelosi/Reid, et al).

More accurately, most of them the last congress basically just voted the way they were told to by both parties' power brokers.

 

[barfo]

Out with the old culture of corruption, in with the new. Out with the new culture, in with the newer. In this case, it's just out with the really old and consistent culture of corruption.

It's not really out with anything, since as far as I can see they aren't going to boot him, just wag their finger and tell him he's been a naughty boy.

But I'm not sure why this thread is addressed to me. As far as I'm concerned, if he's guilty, he should be punished in some satisfying (for the public) way.

barfo

 

[MARIS61]

I'm puzzled as to why criminal charges were not filed and followed by a criminal prosecution.

 

[Denny Crane]

It's not really out with anything, since as far as I can see they aren't going to boot him, just wag their finger and tell him he's been a naughty boy.

But I'm not sure why this thread is addressed to me. As far as I'm concerned, if he's guilty, he should be punished in some satisfying (for the public) way.

barfo

He got booted from the Means & Ways committee chairmanship a while ago. That's booted.

He's the epidemy of the democratic party machine.

BTW, didn't Pelosi come into the speakership saying stuff like this wouldn't happen on her watch?

 

[barfo]

He got booted from the Means & Ways committee chairmanship a while ago. That's booted.

He's the epidemy of the democratic party machine.

He's the plague of the party machine? I guess that's sort of right but maybe not the word you were reaching for.

BTW, didn't Pelosi come into the speakership saying stuff like this wouldn't happen on her watch?

And you believed her?

barfo

 

[jlprk]

Republicans killed the Ethics Panel when they were in power, so you haven't see any stuff like this for several years. As soon as Democrats became the majority, they got the panel going again, but the Statute of Limitations had expired for what the Republicans had been doing.

Most of them the last congress basically just voted the way they were told to by the party power brokers (Pelosi/Reid, et al).

You're kidding. You claim it's the DEMOCRATS who vote as a bloc?

BTW, didn't Pelosi come into the speakership saying stuff like this wouldn't happen on her watch?

Link? Republican writers often hold Democrats to promises they never made. In the most recent campaign, I saw a reporter ask a question in such a way as to set up a false promise, and the candidate had to answer, sure, we'll try to do that. Now Republican writers can harp on how Democrats in general (without mentioning it was just this minor candidate) promised to do something.

 

[Denny Crane]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Culture_of_corruption

Culture of corruption was a political slogan used by the U.S. Democratic Party to refer to a series of political scandals involving Republican politicians during the first two years of George W. Bush's second term as President and leading up to the 2006 midterm elections.

"An ethical cloud hangs over the Capitol," Pelosi said. "This culture of curruption must stop. ... The American people deserve better."

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2006/2/16/115636/545

Fighting the Republican Culture of Corruption

by House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi

Until we have a Democratic majority in Congress we can not ensure that the Constitution will be upheld or that the voices of the American people will be heard over the special interest megaphones. But at each and every abuse of power, I will be fighting against the Republican culture of corruption.

 

[Denny Crane]

As for Republicans voting as a bloc, sure.

As for Democrats? They proved they'd vote as a bloc as long as their palms were greased.

Though the whole voting as a bloc thing is wildly missing how things actually work...

When you have 60 votes in the senate, and you refuse to work in a bipartisan way (enough to get 1 republican vote), you have to vote as a bloc. When you have 30 more votes than you need to pass something in the house, you can allow up to 30 to vote against the unpopular legislation that would likely lose them their seats in districts McCain carried in 2008.

I can say with 100% surety that they count the votes and control the votes.

 

[jlprk]

Voting as a bloc is the very definition of refusing to be bipartisan. In every vote there are many crossover Democrats, but no crossover Republicans. The gridlock is all coming from them.

And you didn't address the fact that when they had the power, Republicans didn't appoint the people necessary to empower ethics committees, which is how Republicans escaped Rangel-like investigations. Pelosi got them going again, even if they hurt her own party. That's what she meant when she said she'd bring back ethics.

 

[maxiep]

Republicans killed the Ethics Panel when they were in power, so you haven't see any stuff like this for several years. As soon as Democrats became the majority, they got the panel going again, but the Statute of Limitations had expired for what the Republicans had been doing.



You're kidding. You claim it's the DEMOCRATS who vote as a bloc?



Link? Republican writers often hold Democrats to promises they never made. In the most recent campaign, I saw a reporter ask a question in such a way as to set up a false promise, and the candidate had to answer, sure, we'll try to do that. Now Republican writers can harp on how Democrats in general (without mentioning it was just this minor candidate) promised to do something.

Both parties are corrupt, which is why I'm generally a tea party supporter. I find the ideas of smaller government, free markets and balanced budgets compelling. I would invite others to find movements that speak to them.

As for Pelosi, here's her promise: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/10/06/AR2006100600056.html

She had a real opportunity. The GOP made such a mess, just by being ethical, she could have sent the Republicans into the wilderness for a generation. She blew it. So the GOP gets one more chance. If they fuck up, third party here we come.

 

[barfo]

Both parties are corrupt, which is why I'm generally a tea party supporter.

It may be that both parties are corrupt, but this is a case of individual corruption. What he was up to had nothing to do with what party he belonged to (as with most congressional corruption issues).

She had a real opportunity. The GOP made such a mess, just by being ethical, she could have sent the Republicans into the wilderness for a generation. She blew it.

How, exactly, did she blow it? Rangel was corrupt since before she was speaker. While she was speaker, his corruption was uncovered and prosecuted. Sounds like you are arguing that she should have swept this under the rug so that no one would know that Rangel was corrupt? Or that she should have built a time machine so she could go back and personally keep him from being a cheat?

barfo

 

[jlprk]

As for Pelosi, here's her promise: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/10/06/AR2006100600056.html

She had a real opportunity. The GOP made such a mess, just by being ethical, she could have sent the Republicans into the wilderness for a generation. She blew it.

How was she not ethical herself? You must mean that she blew it because she refrained from investigating Republicans, after she had said she would (probably because Obama said no). About ethics, your article only says she hoped to

Day One: Put new rules in place to "break the link between lobbyists and legislation."

...Instead, she wants to put Hastert and other Republicans under oath and make them say what they knew of Foley's actions, when they learned it and what they did to stop him.

Your article does not back up what Denny said she said--that Pelosi promised an end to ethics problems for Democrats.

BTW, didn't Pelosi come into the speakership saying stuff like this wouldn't happen on her watch?

 

[maxiep]

It may be that both parties are corrupt, but this is a case of individual corruption. What he was up to had nothing to do with what party he belonged to (as with most congressional corruption issues).

I was making a more global point, that each party will watch out for its own. Rangel should be booted from Congress and serve some time--tax evasion is a serious issue. Instead, he'll keep his seat and his pension with a slap on the wrist.

How, exactly, did she blow it? Rangel was corrupt since before she was speaker. While she was speaker, his corruption was uncovered and prosecuted. Sounds like you are arguing that she should have swept this under the rug so that no one would know that Rangel was corrupt? Or that she should have built a time machine so she could go back and personally keep him from being a cheat?

barfo

Again, the point was more global. Nancy Pelosi had a real opportunity to lead a bi-partisan House, treating Democrats and Republicans equally when they violated the law, holding the Administration accountable, comporting themselves like the average person and running an operation that was open and transparent.

Shutting out the opposition in formulating bills, flying in a private plane, not allowing amendments, sweeping Democrat misdeeds under the rug and spending lavishly on herself and her coterie made even the corrupt Republicans look like the better option. Historians will look back at her reign and see a lost opportunity.

 

[maxiep]

How was she not ethical herself? You must mean that she blew it because she refrained from investigating Republicans, after she had said she would (probably because Obama said no). About ethics, your article only says she hoped to



Your article does not back up what Denny said she said--that Pelosi promised an end to ethics problems for Democrats.

Your expectations are really low. She promised to run the most transparent House in history. Instead, legislation was written out of sight of the opposing party and the public, then dumped on them with no time to even read the legislation before there was a vote. She promised to "drain the swamp". Do you believe the swamp to be drained? Lobbyists have more clout than ever and improprieties have gone uninvestigated, delayed until after the election or swept under the rug.

Bottom line, she didn't do either.

 

[jlprk]

Looks like Republicans consider it a major failure that they didn't oust either Pelosi or Reid. They wanted to bag at least one for gloating rights and, in the House, to make Boehner's job easy. That's the only explanation for irrationally blaming things on Pelosi. The more they go after Pelosi, the stronger she gets with Democrats, who know she must be doing something right if they hate her so much.

 

[Denny Crane]

Looks like Republicans consider it a major failure that they didn't oust either Pelosi or Reid. They wanted to bag at least one for gloating rights and, in the House, to make Boehner's job easy. That's the only explanation for irrationally blaming things on Pelosi. The more they go after Pelosi, the stronger she gets with Democrats, who know she must be doing something right if they hate her so much.

Republicans bagged Obama's Senate seat. Good enough!

Anyhow, Pelosi and Reid are getting what's coming to them for how they ran the house and senate, respectively.

 

[maxiep]

Looks like Republicans consider it a major failure that they didn't oust either Pelosi or Reid. They wanted to bag at least one for gloating rights and, in the House, to make Boehner's job easy. That's the only explanation for irrationally blaming things on Pelosi. The more they go after Pelosi, the stronger she gets with Democrats, who know she must be doing something right if they hate her so much.

I'm pretty sure the GOP is really enjoying the fact Nancy Pelosi is the new Minority Leader. The last poll I saw had her approval rating at 6%. That's not the face of the party you want. If the Democrats were smart, they would have opted for new leadership and a new face that doesn't have her baggage.

 

[Denny Crane]

Voting as a bloc is the very definition of refusing to be bipartisan. In every vote there are many crossover Democrats, but no crossover Republicans. The gridlock is all coming from them.

And you didn't address the fact that when they had the power, Republicans didn't appoint the people necessary to empower ethics committees, which is how Republicans escaped Rangel-like investigations. Pelosi got them going again, even if they hurt her own party. That's what she meant when she said she'd bring back ethics.

LOL. The definition of "bipartisan" is clearly open to interpretation. Yours is one, though not grounded in the reality of politics. "It's our way or the highway, and if you don't vote for it, you're refusing to be bipartisan!"

To me, bipartisan wouldn't be a few crossover votes from either side, but one where the bill gets out of committee with at least half the votes from each side and then gets a lot of votes from both sides.

Consider that one side may not want national health care in any shape or form and the other had the votes to pass it (as a bloc!) so they didn't bother seeking much republican support. So why should republicans vote for it if it's not something they honestly want to vote for?

 

[Denny Crane]

Hey barfo, this is interesting, too!

http://www.cnbc.com/id/40233691

Despite a long and deep recession, the collective personal wealth of congressional members increased by more than 16 percent between 2008 and 2009, according to a study released Wednesday by the Center for Responsive Politics.

The study also indicates that a significant number of members owned shares of major players in the health-care and financial-services sectors, which were the subject of major reform legislation during the period.

In contrast, U.S. median household income dropped 3 percent to $50,221 between 2008 and 2009, the second straight decline, according to the Census Dept. In terms of millionaires, only about 1 percent of the overall population qualifies.

 

[barfo]

Republicans bagged Obama's Senate seat. Good enough!

Bagged it with a guy who has problem with telling the truth. Is that really good enough for you?

barfo

 

[barfo]

Hey barfo, this is interesting, too!

Yeah, the rich are getting richer. Been the trend for some time now. It's not a good thing.

barfo

 

[Denny Crane]

Bagged it with a guy who has problem with telling the truth. Is that really good enough for you?

barfo

"I'm not a witch" got defeated by "I lied about serving in Vietnam" Is that really good enough for you? You seem happy with the result.

 

[Denny Crane]

Yeah, the rich are getting richer. Been the trend for some time now. It's not a good thing.

barfo

I think you skipped the part about how your democratic elected officials enriched themselves through the health care bill by owning stock in those companies the bill favored.

 

[barfo]

"I'm not a witch" got defeated by "I lied about serving in Vietnam" Is that really good enough for you? You seem happy with the result.

Coons lied about Vietnam? That's news to me, actually. I thought the Vietnam liars this cycle were Blumenthal and the aforementioned Kirk.

barfo

 

[Denny Crane]

My bad. He beat the WWE lady.

 

[Denny Crane]

hey barfo

Here's another one of your kind. So do you favor government controlling political speech and dissent?

http://www.rtdna.org/pages/posts/sen.-rockefeller-suggests-eliminating-fox-msnbc1143.php


Sen. Rockefeller Suggests Eliminating FOX, MSNBC

By Ryan G. Murphy, RTDNA Digital Media Editor

I was very disappointed to wake up this morning and see a video of Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D-WV) blasting both FOX and MSNBC during a Cable & Broadcast subcommittee hearing on Wednesday with what appeared to be a request for government intervention if the network's content is not cleaned up.

Here's part of Rockefeller's statement: "There's a little bug inside of me which wants to get the FCC to say to FOX and to MSNBC: 'Out. Off. End. Goodbye.' It would be a big favor to political discourse; our ability to do our work here in Congress, and to the American people, to be able to talk with each other and have some faith in their government and more importantly, in their future."

...


Suggesting censorship is not only the easy way out but it also undermines the point you were trying to make, senator. Healthy political discourse requires diversity of opinion, not no opinion at all. If there's something on television you don't like, please just change the channel.

 

[barfo]

hey barfo

Here's another one of your kind. So do you favor government controlling political speech and dissent?

No. But I can understand the desire to end the stupidity. But you can't outlaw that.

Because then only outlaws would be stupid.

barfo