Republican Tom Marino angers Nancy Pelosi (1 Viewer)

[BeaverCleaver]

I can't imagine anyone who is not just hopelessly married to their party getting behind Pelosi, Reid, Boehner, Mconnell etc. All of them are horrible #### bags as people. They're incompetent, not very bright, and seem to get off on screwing this country up. They are corrupt government elitists that will rule this country until they die or retire. The masses are so entrenched in this R vs D thing that they will continue to cheer these D bags on. Blows my mind.

Amen brother

Amazing that people believe this crap. For the record:Pelosi- extremely competent, very bright, not corrupt.

Reid- somewhat competent, bright, somewhat corrupt.

Boehner- not very competent, somewhat bright, not corrupt.

McConnell- competent, bright, not corrupt.

NONE of them are horrible #### bags as people. That sort of language should be reserved for members of ISIS or Hamas. All of them are elitists, in a good way. None of them are D bags. And replacing any of them with extreme idealists would be disastrous for this country.

There is a reason why the Establishment has been and remains in charge of this country: because overall, despite their mistakes from time to time, they are the good guys, and they do a pretty fair job. All four of these people are patriots.

I agree that these folks are pretty bright, competent as well (when you really consider what their goals are), but not corrupt? Come on.

I think Tim is a big fan of Willy Brown and mentioned he wasn't corrupt as well.

http://www.judicialwatch.org/corrupt-politicians-lists/washingtons-ten-most-wanted-corrupt-politicians-for-2011/#pelosi

From the link

Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-CA): Despite the media firestorm over her military travel abuses ignited by a Judicial Watch investigation, Nancy Pelosi continued to use the United States Air Force as her own personal travel agency right up until her final days as House Speaker according to documents Judicial Watch uncovered from the Air Force in 2011.

Pelosi used Air Force aircraft for 43 flights from January 1 to October 1, 2010. By comparison, Nancy Pelosi logged 47 flights in the previous nine-month period, April 1, 2009, to January 1, 2010, according to previous documents uncovered by Judicial Watch. In other words, she did not back off at all from her pattern of abuse.

In fact, these documents show Pelosi not only receiving special treatment on military flights (chocolate covered strawberries for her birthday, for example), but also ferrying her family back and forth on military aircraft, including her husband, daughter, granddaughters and son-in-law. (The following is a link to records detailing one such flight with her daughter Christina.)

Pelosi was also caught up in the insider trading scandal that exploded into the news in November 2011 courtesy of author Peter Schweizer and his book, Throw Them All Out.

As detailed by Bloomberg, “Pelosi and her husband, Paul, with a net worth estimated at $40 million, bought shares in the initial public offering of credit-card company Visa Inc. in 2008, when Pelosi was speaker of the House… They bought the shares just before legislation died that would have limited the fees credit-card issuers could charge retailers. The shares more than doubled in the next two months.”

Pelosi has also invited San Francisco investment banker William Hambrecht to serve as an expert at economic forums on Capitol Hill on multiple occasions, even speaking to reporters by his side at the U.S. Capitol, without disclosing the fact that Hambrecht is her son’s boss and her husband Paul’s business partner. One of the business deals struck by Paul Pelosi and Hambrecht yielded more than $100,000 in income for the Pelosi family in 2010.

While serving as Speaker of the House, Pelosi repeatedly overlooked corruption by her fellow partisans. The evidence suggests this “ethics blind spot” extends too frequently to her own activities. Pelosi’s penchant for abusing the perks of her office is reprehensible.

 

[Joe T]

I can't imagine anyone who is not just hopelessly married to their party getting behind Pelosi, Reid, Boehner, Mconnell etc. All of them are horrible #### bags as people. They're incompetent, not very bright, and seem to get off on screwing this country up. They are corrupt government elitists that will rule this country until they die or retire. The masses are so entrenched in this R vs D thing that they will continue to cheer these D bags on. Blows my mind.

Amen brother

Amazing that people believe this crap. For the record:Pelosi- extremely competent, very bright, not corrupt.

Reid- somewhat competent, bright, somewhat corrupt.

Boehner- not very competent, somewhat bright, not corrupt.

McConnell- competent, bright, not corrupt.

NONE of them are horrible #### bags as people. That sort of language should be reserved for members of ISIS or Hamas. All of them are elitists, in a good way. None of them are D bags. And replacing any of them with extreme idealists would be disastrous for this country.

There is a reason why the Establishment has been and remains in charge of this country: because overall, despite their mistakes from time to time, they are the good guys, and they do a pretty fair job. All four of these people are patriots.

"Pelosi- extremely competent, very bright, not corrupt."

 

[Phil Elliott]

I can't imagine anyone who is not just hopelessly married to their party getting behind Pelosi, Reid, Boehner, Mconnell etc. All of them are horrible #### bags as people. They're incompetent, not very bright, and seem to get off on screwing this country up. They are corrupt government elitists that will rule this country until they die or retire. The masses are so entrenched in this R vs D thing that they will continue to cheer these D bags on. Blows my mind.

Amen brother

Amazing that people believe this crap. For the record:

Pelosi- extremely competent, very bright, not corrupt.

Reid- somewhat competent, bright, somewhat corrupt.

Boehner- not very competent, somewhat bright, not corrupt.

McConnell- competent, bright, not corrupt.

NONE of them are horrible #### bags as people. That sort of language should be reserved for members of ISIS or Hamas. All of them are elitists, in a good way. None of them are D bags. And replacing any of them with extreme idealists would be disastrous for this country.

There is a reason why the Establishment has been and remains in charge of this country: because overall, despite their mistakes from time to time, they are the good guys, and they do a pretty fair job. All four of these people are patriots.

<spits-coffee-out> Are you referring to the Hamas organization that Pelosi implied was a humanitarian organization? I would be happy replacing all four of them.

 

[Joe T]

I remember when people around here were defending former representative Anthony Weiner as bright, extremely competent, and not corrupt. Even after the twitter peni$ pics, people were still defending him.

 

[Stinger Ray]

I wonder if Tim will use this reply like he did in the immigration thread yesterday...

"Sigh. The mockery of what I have attempted to argue here, is so predictable, but it's also so tiresome...

 

[psychobillies]

I can't imagine anyone who is not just hopelessly married to their party getting behind Pelosi, Reid, Boehner, Mconnell etc. All of them are horrible #### bags as people. They're incompetent, not very bright, and seem to get off on screwing this country up. They are corrupt government elitists that will rule this country until they die or retire. The masses are so entrenched in this R vs D thing that they will continue to cheer these D bags on. Blows my mind.

Amen brother

Amazing that people believe this crap. For the record:

Pelosi- extremely competent, very bright, not corrupt.

Reid- somewhat competent, bright, somewhat corrupt.

Boehner- not very competent, somewhat bright, not corrupt.

McConnell- competent, bright, not corrupt.

NONE of them are horrible #### bags as people. That sort of language should be reserved for members of ISIS or Hamas. All of them are elitists, in a good way. None of them are D bags. And replacing any of them with extreme idealists would be disastrous for this country.

There is a reason why the Establishment has been and remains in charge of this country: because overall, despite their mistakes from time to time, they are the good guys, and they do a pretty fair job. All four of these people are patriots.

The Establishment is in charge because they can use their power to raise massive amounts of campaign dollars, and people are too apathetic to vote beyond what "their" party tells them.

Good guys don't make millions of dollars in public service.

I'm not sure how you can look at the deficit and claim that they are doing a pretty good job. Plenty of other issues(such as the one on the border brought up in this thread) that are complete disasters because of these people.

Patriots? That's an opinion that's hard to argue for or against, but when they exempt themselves from laws that every other American is subject to, I find it to be an opinion that I disagree with.

Tim, I know that you always like to see both sides of the issues, and you present yourself as the ultimate moderate, and even reverse your position sometimes when presented with certain facts(which is very rare). But the people I mentioned, and many others, are hard line partisan hacks that could give a #### about much more than their position of power and their pensions. The country would be better off without them.

First off, I don't consider myself the ultimate anything. I am moderate on some issues, not at all on others. I don't necessarily see extremism as a vice- it depends on the issue. But I don't generally like extremism among American politicians. That to me is very dangerous.

Now you called the 4 guys above "hard line partisan hacks." NONE of them are hardline, by any real definition of the term. In fact, all 4 of them, like most Establishment leaders, are harshly criticized by the grass roots on both sides because they are too willing to compromise. But it is correct to call them partisan. And that is not necessarily a bad thing. More good has been accomplished in this country through partisan effort and struggle than otherwise. To me it's perfectly OK that both political parties are concerned with winning and staying in power. The struggle that ensues makes us stronger- typically. Most of our problems arise when we have people like the Tea Party, or liberal grass roots politicians, who don't give a crap about partisan politics and are willing to risk all to get their agenda pushed through. That's when bad things tend to happen.

To be clear, I was not trying to insult you. My impression has always been that in most cases you are trying to find the middle, and based on part of your post above, I'm not sure I was wrong. But I certainly don't read all of your posts, so whatever. My apologies.

Second, When has Pelosi ever compromised on anything? She supported Bush during the war in Iraq and all, but that wasn't a compromise.

Pelosi agreed to extend the Bush tax cuts, to take $300 million out of Obama's stimulus for tax cuts, to all sorts of changes to Obamacare so as not to scare away Blue Dog Democrats, and that's just the tip of the iceberg. Her entire term as Speaker was full of compromises.

I tend to see that as her losing some key political battles more than her compromising, but I guess people are gonna see things differently. Like you said, she didn't do it to compromise with the Republicans, she did a lot of it to appease her own party(i.e.. save her own ### and position of power).

They are all bad for the country IMO and we're stuck with them. It sucks. I know you don't speak from a place of ignorance, but I disagree with you about it.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qzFRMWB2n6E

VIDEO: Nancy Pelosi Goes Berserk! Tries to Chase Down Congressman on House Floor!
...

Gotta say she looks like a certified doddering ol' k00k looking for her lost cat or something.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

I can't imagine anyone who is not just hopelessly married to their party getting behind Pelosi, Reid, Boehner, Mconnell etc. All of them are horrible #### bags as people. They're incompetent, not very bright, and seem to get off on screwing this country up. They are corrupt government elitists that will rule this country until they die or retire. The masses are so entrenched in this R vs D thing that they will continue to cheer these D bags on. Blows my mind.

Amen brother

Amazing that people believe this crap. For the record:Pelosi- extremely competent, very bright, not corrupt.

Reid- somewhat competent, bright, somewhat corrupt.

Boehner- not very competent, somewhat bright, not corrupt.

McConnell- competent, bright, not corrupt.

NONE of them are horrible #### bags as people. That sort of language should be reserved for members of ISIS or Hamas. All of them are elitists, in a good way. None of them are D bags. And replacing any of them with extreme idealists would be disastrous for this country.

There is a reason why the Establishment has been and remains in charge of this country: because overall, despite their mistakes from time to time, they are the good guys, and they do a pretty fair job. All four of these people are patriots.

I agree that these folks are pretty bright, competent as well (when you really consider what their goals are), but not corrupt? Come on.

I think Tim is a big fan of Willy Brown and mentioned he wasn't corrupt as well.

http://www.judicialwatch.org/corrupt-politicians-lists/washingtons-ten-most-wanted-corrupt-politicians-for-2011/#pelosi

From the link

Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-CA): Despite the media firestorm over her military travel abuses ignited by a Judicial Watch investigation, Nancy Pelosi continued to use the United States Air Force as her own personal travel agency right up until her final days as House Speaker according to documents Judicial Watch uncovered from the Air Force in 2011.

Pelosi used Air Force aircraft for 43 flights from January 1 to October 1, 2010. By comparison, Nancy Pelosi logged 47 flights in the previous nine-month period, April 1, 2009, to January 1, 2010, according to previous documents uncovered by Judicial Watch. In other words, she did not back off at all from her pattern of abuse.

In fact, these documents show Pelosi not only receiving special treatment on military flights (chocolate covered strawberries for her birthday, for example), but also ferrying her family back and forth on military aircraft, including her husband, daughter, granddaughters and son-in-law. (The following is a link to records detailing one such flight with her daughter Christina.)

Pelosi was also caught up in the insider trading scandal that exploded into the news in November 2011 courtesy of author Peter Schweizer and his book, Throw Them All Out.

As detailed by Bloomberg, “Pelosi and her husband, Paul, with a net worth estimated at $40 million, bought shares in the initial public offering of credit-card company Visa Inc. in 2008, when Pelosi was speaker of the House… They bought the shares just before legislation died that would have limited the fees credit-card issuers could charge retailers. The shares more than doubled in the next two months.”

Pelosi has also invited San Francisco investment banker William Hambrecht to serve as an expert at economic forums on Capitol Hill on multiple occasions, even speaking to reporters by his side at the U.S. Capitol, without disclosing the fact that Hambrecht is her son’s boss and her husband Paul’s business partner. One of the business deals struck by Paul Pelosi and Hambrecht yielded more than $100,000 in income for the Pelosi family in 2010.

While serving as Speaker of the House, Pelosi repeatedly overlooked corruption by her fellow partisans. The evidence suggests this “ethics blind spot” extends too frequently to her own activities. Pelosi’s penchant for abusing the perks of her office is reprehensible.

I remember when he said that about Willie, that was a good one.

 

[timschochet]

I never said Willie wasn't corrupt, only that he was very effective. He was the mode of an old-fashioned "machine boss" type of politician. Very affable though.

Pelosi is a different animal entirely.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

I never said Willie wasn't corrupt, only that he was very effective. He was the mode of an old-fashioned "machine boss" type of politician. Very affable though.

Pelosi is a different animal entirely.

( I know I should let it go just let it go... no.).

Tim, this is you in the ACA thread (talking about the controversy about whether Congressional Democrats had pledged to forgo coverage and put them and their staffers under ACA):

... It doesn't matter if ACA is hypocritcal. It doesn't matter if the President lied- not at this point. The only that matters is if Obamacare is good or bad for the public- as a whole.

Sarnoff proceeds to argue about political hypocrisy and the importance of accountability in democrayc.

You:

... The most effective politician in my lifetime in my state was a black Democrat named Willie Brown. He served various offices, and he got more good things accomplished for California than anyone I can think of. He also dressed in thousand dollar suits, dined with celebrities, and lived far beyond his official salary means. But I don't care; I wish we had a hundred Willie Browns.

Right there you said you don't care about corruption. Elsewhere in the Weiner thread you talked about how it was a shame a man like that had to resign (but only for "distraction" (gosh isn't that what they all say)).

You did not in fact concede that Brown was corrupt but here you do.

You have a real habit of making excuses for politicians. You seem quite facile or willing to explain away malfeasance on the part of politicians. This is a major, major reason behind the dysfunction in our American system and you like a lot of people don't seem to see that it starts at home.

 

[32 Counter Pass]

Boooo. I was hoping for so much more. Why couldn't the camera focus on her?

 

[timschochet]

I never said Willie wasn't corrupt, only that he was very effective. He was the mode of an old-fashioned "machine boss" type of politician. Very affable though.

Pelosi is a different animal entirely.

( I know I should let it go just let it go... no.).

Tim, this is you in the ACA thread (talking about the controversy about whether Congressional Democrats had pledged to forgo coverage and put them and their staffers under ACA):

... It doesn't matter if ACA is hypocritcal. It doesn't matter if the President lied- not at this point. The only that matters is if Obamacare is good or bad for the public- as a whole.

Sarnoff proceeds to argue about political hypocrisy and the importance of accountability in democrayc.

You:

... The most effective politician in my lifetime in my state was a black Democrat named Willie Brown. He served various offices, and he got more good things accomplished for California than anyone I can think of. He also dressed in thousand dollar suits, dined with celebrities, and lived far beyond his official salary means. But I don't care; I wish we had a hundred Willie Browns.

Right there you said you don't care about corruption. Elsewhere in the Weiner thread you talked about how it was a shame a man like that had to resign (but only for "distraction" (gosh isn't that what they all say)).

You did not in fact concede that Brown was corrupt but here you do.

You have a real habit of making excuses for politicians. You seem quite facile or willing to explain away malfeasance on the part of politicians. This is a major, major reason behind the dysfunction in our American system and you like a lot of people don't seem to see that it starts at home.

It depends on the level of corruption. But you're right, I don't care much about personal corruption. I want politicians who can get things done.

Based on the writing of Robert Caro, the most corrupt major American politician in the 2nd half of the 20th century was Lyndon Johnson (and #2 overall behind the Kingfish.) But without LBJ, there would be no Civil Rights Act.

 

[jonboltz]

I wonder if Tim will use this reply like he did in the immigration thread yesterday...

"Sigh. The mockery of what I have attempted to argue here, is so predictable, but it's also so tiresome...

I'm not following that thread...was he correct over there too?

 

[timschochet]

I wonder if Tim will use this reply like he did in the immigration thread yesterday...

"Sigh. The mockery of what I have attempted to argue here, is so predictable, but it's also so tiresome...

I'm not following that thread...was he correct over there too?

Actually- yes. Yes I was. Thanks for the support.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

I never said Willie wasn't corrupt, only that he was very effective. He was the mode of an old-fashioned "machine boss" type of politician. Very affable though.

Pelosi is a different animal entirely.

( I know I should let it go just let it go... no.).

Tim, this is you in the ACA thread (talking about the controversy about whether Congressional Democrats had pledged to forgo coverage and put them and their staffers under ACA):

... It doesn't matter if ACA is hypocritcal. It doesn't matter if the President lied- not at this point. The only that matters is if Obamacare is good or bad for the public- as a whole.

Sarnoff proceeds to argue about political hypocrisy and the importance of accountability in democrayc.

You:

... The most effective politician in my lifetime in my state was a black Democrat named Willie Brown. He served various offices, and he got more good things accomplished for California than anyone I can think of. He also dressed in thousand dollar suits, dined with celebrities, and lived far beyond his official salary means. But I don't care; I wish we had a hundred Willie Browns.

Right there you said you don't care about corruption. Elsewhere in the Weiner thread you talked about how it was a shame a man like that had to resign (but only for "distraction" (gosh isn't that what they all say)).

You did not in fact concede that Brown was corrupt but here you do.

You have a real habit of making excuses for politicians. You seem quite facile or willing to explain away malfeasance on the part of politicians. This is a major, major reason behind the dysfunction in our American system and you like a lot of people don't seem to see that it starts at home.

It depends on the level of corruption. But you're right, I don't care much about personal corruption. I want politicians who can get things done.

Based on the writing of Robert Caro, the most corrupt major American politician in the 2nd half of the 20th century was Lyndon Johnson (and #2 overall behind the Kingfish.) But without LBJ, there would be no Civil Rights Act.

Tim our politicians aren't getting anything done, at least not federally.

LBJ voted against the Civil Rights bills twice before he became president. Probably the number one motivator in the 64 CRA was the civil rights movement itself followed by JFK getting shot.

Pretty surprised by your frankness, and actually it strikes me as a tad bit authoritarian. It's a Third World mentality, and the 'train runs on time' theory of government leads to absolutely awful, undemocratic results. It's also just bad government model. For one thing a pol that acts out of quid pro quo self interest is almost never doing the right or best thing, and also the average citizen has no idea what projects or improvements he is missing, not to mention the out of pocket costs for citizens which go into private pockets. In any event it's an absolutely inexcusable approach to government (and life for that matter). If you go around making excuses for wrongdoing you're going to get wrongdoing.

 

[RCon]

You're discussing this with a poster who also believes the NSA should be able to do anything it chooses in the name of security. Basically, the end always justifies the means, as long as he agrees with the end goal. Corruption doesn't matter, nor does hypocrisy, nor do all the people who get screwed along the way, as long as the end goal is achieved. That might be a bit of hyperbole, but those are basically timschochet's stances, whether he's aware of it or not.

 

[timschochet]

It is complete hyperbole. I'm not an authoritarian, and I do not believe the end justifies the means. I wrote that I didn't care much about PERSONAL corruption in terms of politicians. Corruption related to the job is a far different matter and can't be tolerated.

Also, Rich, with regard to the NSA I defended the PRINCIPLE of collective warrants. I did not defend everything theyre reported to have done, and once I learned more about it I stopped defending them altogether.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

It is complete hyperbole. I'm not an authoritarian, and I do not believe the end justifies the means. I wrote that I didn't care much about PERSONAL corruption in terms of politicians. Corruption related to the job is a far different matter and can't be tolerated.

Also, Rich, with regard to the NSA I defended the PRINCIPLE of collective warrants. I did not defend everything theyre reported to have done, and once I learned more about it I stopped defending them altogether.

How do you distinguish "personal" corruption involving Brown and Pelosi? That is professional corruption. The two inherently overlap. People must be personally corrupt before they become professionally corrupted, that's what it's all about, selling out the public office for personal gain.

Maybe a Bill Clinton / Lewinsky situation is a good example of purely "personal" corruption, but then he suborned her perjury and was considered unfit for the DC and Arkansas bars, which is a professional disqualification, he was deemed unfit to be an attorney in two different jurisdictions. But that's really not what we're talking about, we're talking quid pro quo, a politician receives something of personal value in return for a public act of some kind.

 

[timschochet]

It is complete hyperbole. I'm not an authoritarian, and I do not believe the end justifies the means. I wrote that I didn't care much about PERSONAL corruption in terms of politicians. Corruption related to the job is a far different matter and can't be tolerated.

Also, Rich, with regard to the NSA I defended the PRINCIPLE of collective warrants. I did not defend everything theyre reported to have done, and once I learned more about it I stopped defending them altogether.

How do you distinguish "personal" corruption involving Brown and Pelosi? That is professional corruption. The two inherently overlap. People must be personally corrupt before they become professionally corrupted, that's what it's all about, selling out the public office for personal gain.

Maybe a Bill Clinton / Lewinsky situation is a good example of purely "personal" corruption, but then he suborned her perjury and was considered unfit for the DC and Arkansas bars, which is a professional disqualification, he was deemed unfit to be an attorney in two different jurisdictions. But that's really not what we're talking about, we're talking quid pro quo, a politician receives something of personal value in return for a public act of some kind.

Well you raise a good point. It is hard to distinguish. I probably went a little overboard in terms of what I wrote about Willie Brown. It's just that stuff like that (and the accusations against Pelosi) are just so damn commonplace that when they are reported it's typically only for partisan purposes. The whole thing just bores me to death. I'd much rather be debating real issues than learning about how much cash some jerk hid in his freezer.

 

[Bogeys]

It is complete hyperbole. I'm not an authoritarian, and I do not believe the end justifies the means. I wrote that I didn't care much about PERSONAL corruption in terms of politicians. Corruption related to the job is a far different matter and can't be tolerated.

Also, Rich, with regard to the NSA I defended the PRINCIPLE of collective warrants. I did not defend everything theyre reported to have done, and once I learned more about it I stopped defending them altogether.

How do you distinguish "personal" corruption involving Brown and Pelosi? That is professional corruption. The two inherently overlap. People must be personally corrupt before they become professionally corrupted, that's what it's all about, selling out the public office for personal gain.

Maybe a Bill Clinton / Lewinsky situation is a good example of purely "personal" corruption, but then he suborned her perjury and was considered unfit for the DC and Arkansas bars, which is a professional disqualification, he was deemed unfit to be an attorney in two different jurisdictions. But that's really not what we're talking about, we're talking quid pro quo, a politician receives something of personal value in return for a public act of some kind.

Well you raise a good point. It is hard to distinguish. I probably went a little overboard in terms of what I wrote about Willie Brown. It's just that stuff like that (and the accusations against Pelosi) are just so damn commonplace that when they are reported it's typically only for partisan purposes. The whole thing just bores me to death. I'd much rather be debating real issues than learning about how much cash some jerk hid in his freezer.

Ever think it may be commonplace because corruption of that sort is so common? I think that is what people are getting at, not just saying either all Ds or all Rs bad, but that since people don't seem to care about this type of corruption most (not all but I would think a strong majority) politicians indulge in it to one extent or another. They may be effective politicians, but that doesn't mean they aren't corrupt or that they are honorable people.

 

[B-Deep]

I can't imagine anyone who is not just hopelessly married to their party getting behind Pelosi, Reid, Boehner, Mconnell etc. All of them are horrible #### bags as people. They're incompetent, not very bright, and seem to get off on screwing this country up. They are corrupt government elitists that will rule this country until they die or retire. The masses are so entrenched in this R vs D thing that they will continue to cheer these D bags on. Blows my mind.

Amen brother

Amazing that people believe this crap. For the record:

Pelosi- extremely competent, very bright, not corrupt.

Reid- somewhat competent, bright, somewhat corrupt.

Boehner- not very competent, somewhat bright, not corrupt.

McConnell- competent, bright, not corrupt.

NONE of them are horrible #### bags as people. That sort of language should be reserved for members of ISIS or Hamas. All of them are elitists, in a good way. None of them are D bags. And replacing any of them with extreme idealists would be disastrous for this country.

There is a reason why the Establishment has been and remains in charge of this country: because overall, despite their mistakes from time to time, they are the good guys, and they do a pretty fair job. All four of these people are patriots.

You know who is extremely competent and at very least somewhat bright?

Mr. Timothy Chochet

I have trouble believing he was not laughing out loud in a fully bellly laugh at the thought of what would happen when he pulled the pin on a post calling the congressional leaders of both parties the good guys and patriots. Tim knows that when that grenade rolls around the corner all hell is going to break loose in the FFA, and he throws it right in and watches.

 

[NREC34]

Typical Lib loving, America hating FFA. Never fails.

I am always amazed how many dumb people there are around to keep voiting her in office. Basically, when you run into someone who thinks she is doing a fantastic job you can pretty much walk away and disregard this guy as a moron. After you punch him in the face anyway.....

Hmm exactly the way I feel about the 67% of repubtards that approved of Bush his last year in office.

 

[urbanhack]

I never said Willie wasn't corrupt, only that he was very effective. He was the mode of an old-fashioned "machine boss" type of politician. Very affable though.

Pelosi is a different animal entirely.

( I know I should let it go just let it go... no.).

Tim, this is you in the ACA thread (talking about the controversy about whether Congressional Democrats had pledged to forgo coverage and put them and their staffers under ACA):

... It doesn't matter if ACA is hypocritcal. It doesn't matter if the President lied- not at this point. The only that matters is if Obamacare is good or bad for the public- as a whole.

Sarnoff proceeds to argue about political hypocrisy and the importance of accountability in democrayc.

You:

... The most effective politician in my lifetime in my state was a black Democrat named Willie Brown. He served various offices, and he got more good things accomplished for California than anyone I can think of. He also dressed in thousand dollar suits, dined with celebrities, and lived far beyond his official salary means. But I don't care; I wish we had a hundred Willie Browns.

Right there you said you don't care about corruption. Elsewhere in the Weiner thread you talked about how it was a shame a man like that had to resign (but only for "distraction" (gosh isn't that what they all say)).

You did not in fact concede that Brown was corrupt but here you do.

You have a real habit of making excuses for politicians. You seem quite facile or willing to explain away malfeasance on the part of politicians. This is a major, major reason behind the dysfunction in our American system and you like a lot of people don't seem to see that it starts at home.

It depends on the level of corruption. But you're right, I don't care much about personal corruption. I want politicians who can get things done.

Based on the writing of Robert Caro, the most corrupt major American politician in the 2nd half of the 20th century was Lyndon Johnson (and #2 overall behind the Kingfish.) But without LBJ, there would be no Civil Rights Act.

Tim our politicians aren't getting anything done, at least not federally.

Everyone laughed when Al Franken won, but he seems like one of the only guys who is never in front the camera is constantly trying to legislation pushed through for his constituency or the good of the people.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

I never said Willie wasn't corrupt, only that he was very effective. He was the mode of an old-fashioned "machine boss" type of politician. Very affable though.

Pelosi is a different animal entirely.

( I know I should let it go just let it go... no.).

Tim, this is you in the ACA thread (talking about the controversy about whether Congressional Democrats had pledged to forgo coverage and put them and their staffers under ACA):

... It doesn't matter if ACA is hypocritcal. It doesn't matter if the President lied- not at this point. The only that matters is if Obamacare is good or bad for the public- as a whole.

Sarnoff proceeds to argue about political hypocrisy and the importance of accountability in democrayc.

You:

... The most effective politician in my lifetime in my state was a black Democrat named Willie Brown. He served various offices, and he got more good things accomplished for California than anyone I can think of. He also dressed in thousand dollar suits, dined with celebrities, and lived far beyond his official salary means. But I don't care; I wish we had a hundred Willie Browns.

Right there you said you don't care about corruption. Elsewhere in the Weiner thread you talked about how it was a shame a man like that had to resign (but only for "distraction" (gosh isn't that what they all say)).

You did not in fact concede that Brown was corrupt but here you do.

You have a real habit of making excuses for politicians. You seem quite facile or willing to explain away malfeasance on the part of politicians. This is a major, major reason behind the dysfunction in our American system and you like a lot of people don't seem to see that it starts at home.

It depends on the level of corruption. But you're right, I don't care much about personal corruption. I want politicians who can get things done.

Based on the writing of Robert Caro, the most corrupt major American politician in the 2nd half of the 20th century was Lyndon Johnson (and #2 overall behind the Kingfish.) But without LBJ, there would be no Civil Rights Act.

Tim our politicians aren't getting anything done, at least not federally.

Everyone laughed when Al Franken won, but he seems like one of the only guys who is never in front the camera is constantly trying to legislation pushed through for his constituency or the good of the people.

I have no problem with true believers of any ideology who are ethical. I agree with you on Franken.

 

[psychobillies]

It is complete hyperbole. I'm not an authoritarian, and I do not believe the end justifies the means. I wrote that I didn't care much about PERSONAL corruption in terms of politicians. Corruption related to the job is a far different matter and can't be tolerated.

Also, Rich, with regard to the NSA I defended the PRINCIPLE of collective warrants. I did not defend everything theyre reported to have done, and once I learned more about it I stopped defending them altogether.

How do you distinguish "personal" corruption involving Brown and Pelosi? That is professional corruption. The two inherently overlap. People must be personally corrupt before they become professionally corrupted, that's what it's all about, selling out the public office for personal gain.

Maybe a Bill Clinton / Lewinsky situation is a good example of purely "personal" corruption, but then he suborned her perjury and was considered unfit for the DC and Arkansas bars, which is a professional disqualification, he was deemed unfit to be an attorney in two different jurisdictions. But that's really not what we're talking about, we're talking quid pro quo, a politician receives something of personal value in return for a public act of some kind.

Well you raise a good point. It is hard to distinguish. I probably went a little overboard in terms of what I wrote about Willie Brown. It's just that stuff like that (and the accusations against Pelosi) are just so damn commonplace that when they are reported it's typically only for partisan purposes. The whole thing just bores me to death. I'd much rather be debating real issues than learning about how much cash some jerk hid in his freezer.

You do know that you're not required to participate in every political thread, right?

For the record, I think politicians taking bribes is pretty much an enormous deal, and it's one of the reasons why I posted here in the first place. Congress sucks. They are doing a horrible job in just about every aspect(especially the leadership). Not sure how someone pointing that out can get you so worked up.

 

[Greggity]

Reminds me of Spacy in House of cards. Crooked dems.....

 

[RCon]

It is complete hyperbole. I'm not an authoritarian, and I do not believe the end justifies the means. I wrote that I didn't care much about PERSONAL corruption in terms of politicians. Corruption related to the job is a far different matter and can't be tolerated.

Also, Rich, with regard to the NSA I defended the PRINCIPLE of collective warrants. I did not defend everything theyre reported to have done, and once I learned more about it I stopped defending them altogether.

Like I wrote, "whether he's aware of it or not".

 

[RCon]

It is complete hyperbole. I'm not an authoritarian, and I do not believe the end justifies the means. I wrote that I didn't care much about PERSONAL corruption in terms of politicians. Corruption related to the job is a far different matter and can't be tolerated.

Also, Rich, with regard to the NSA I defended the PRINCIPLE of collective warrants. I did not defend everything theyre reported to have done, and once I learned more about it I stopped defending them altogether.

How do you distinguish "personal" corruption involving Brown and Pelosi? That is professional corruption. The two inherently overlap. People must be personally corrupt before they become professionally corrupted, that's what it's all about, selling out the public office for personal gain.

Maybe a Bill Clinton / Lewinsky situation is a good example of purely "personal" corruption, but then he suborned her perjury and was considered unfit for the DC and Arkansas bars, which is a professional disqualification, he was deemed unfit to be an attorney in two different jurisdictions. But that's really not what we're talking about, we're talking quid pro quo, a politician receives something of personal value in return for a public act of some kind.

Well you raise a good point. It is hard to distinguish. I probably went a little overboard in terms of what I wrote about Willie Brown. It's just that stuff like that (and the accusations against Pelosi) are just so damn commonplace that when they are reported it's typically only for partisan purposes. The whole thing just bores me to death. I'd much rather be debating real issues than learning about how much cash some jerk hid in his freezer.

I think the point is exactly that the quid pro quo corruption is commonplace. Further, the point is that it continues to happen precisely because it doesn't bother you (or most other people). If it bothered enough people, they would vote out the corrupt politicians.

It bothers me.