-
It's that time of year again - our ISP is asking for money. If you have some spare change, please click the Donate link... Thanks!
- About Us
- Search
- Need Help?
- Donate
- Login/Register
Latest Entries
Actions Menu
Blog Roll
- 4F Facebook Page
- Turn Up The Night with Kenny Pick
- Stephanie Miller Show
- The Tim Corrimal Show
- The Rachel Maddow Show
- Angry Americans with Paul Rieckhoff
- Thom Hartmann Program
- Turnips! Fans of Turn Up the Night Facebook Page
- Snopes.com
- Factcheck.org
- Official White House Page, if you must.
- The Brad Blog / Green News Report
- The Poorly Written Political Blog (Joe Santorsa)
Response & Responsibility
Author: BobR
Date: 2010-07-30 12:44:34
When our government was created, the founding fathers put in a 3-pronged system (not unlike the hats they wore). A 3-legged table will always stand solid. Two legs and it falls over; 4 legs or more and it may wobble on uneven ground. The three branches ensure a system of checks & balances. Humankind being what it is, however, each branch needs it's own check to balance against corruption and misbehavior by its members. Thus, the ethics committee.
One would hope that an ethics committee wouldn't be necessary, but of course - it is. The House ethics committee has been in place since before we won the war against England, and handled many investigations through the years. It's rare that the investigation results in a "trial" against one of its own members. Sadly, that is the case as of last night, when negotiations for a deal with Charlie Rangel finally failed. He has 13 charges against him:
It seems obvious, then that these charges require some sort of action. That is understandable. What is a little disappointing is the rationale put forth by some members for taking action:
No - you don't do this because Congress has bad ratings - you do this because a Congressperson did bad things. This should never be used as an election year gesture.
The House has conducted some rather high-profile investigations of it's members in the past decade. They include Mitch McDermott, Tom DeLay, and James Trafficant, who was actually expelled from Congress after being convicted in federal court on corruption charges (more information on investigations can be found here).
Oddly, Rangel got a small measure of support from an old foe and fellow investigatee Tom DeLay back in March:
In a strange contrast, the Senate ethics committee seems a lot less active. Is that because there are fewer members so there's less corruption and bad behavior? Not really, if the actions of Ted Stevens, John Ensign, Larry Craig, David Vitter, and Bob Bennett (to name a few) are considered.
On a personal level - I like Charlie Rangel (Chawlee Rayngel??). He's done well for the country, and done well for his home district. I would consider the accusation that favors and donations may have influenced his congressional actions the most damning, the others less so. Corruption of those with the power to affect others' lives should always be kept in check, especially when the corruption has a direct effect on the electorate. If he feels he's done no wrong, he now has the opportunity to show us.
One would hope that an ethics committee wouldn't be necessary, but of course - it is. The House ethics committee has been in place since before we won the war against England, and handled many investigations through the years. It's rare that the investigation results in a "trial" against one of its own members. Sadly, that is the case as of last night, when negotiations for a deal with Charlie Rangel finally failed. He has 13 charges against him:
House investigators accused veteran New York Rep. Charles Rangel of 13 violations of congressional ethics standards on Thursday, throwing a cloud over his four-decade political career and raising worries for fellow Democrats about the fall elections.
The allegations include failure to report rental income from vacation property in the Dominican Republic and hundreds of thousands of dollars in additional income and assets on his financial disclosure statements.
Other charges focused on Rangel's use of congressional staff and stationery to raise money for a college center in New York named after him; accepting favors and benefits from the donors that may have influenced his congressional actions; use of a subsidized New York apartment as a campaign office instead of a residence; and misuse of the congressional free mail privilege.
It seems obvious, then that these charges require some sort of action. That is understandable. What is a little disappointing is the rationale put forth by some members for taking action:
"We live at a time when public skepticism about the institutions in our country is very high," said Lofgren, the ethics committee chair.
She said it had been the panel's goal "to by our actions rebuild and earn trust by the public and our colleagues."
No - you don't do this because Congress has bad ratings - you do this because a Congressperson did bad things. This should never be used as an election year gesture.
The House has conducted some rather high-profile investigations of it's members in the past decade. They include Mitch McDermott, Tom DeLay, and James Trafficant, who was actually expelled from Congress after being convicted in federal court on corruption charges (more information on investigations can be found here).
Oddly, Rangel got a small measure of support from an old foe and fellow investigatee Tom DeLay back in March:
DeLay, a former Republican lawmaker from Texas who stepped down as majority leader in the wake of his own ethics investigations, said on CNN’s “State of the Union” on Sunday that the House Ethics Committee has abused its power before and was doing so again in the Rangel case.
In a strange contrast, the Senate ethics committee seems a lot less active. Is that because there are fewer members so there's less corruption and bad behavior? Not really, if the actions of Ted Stevens, John Ensign, Larry Craig, David Vitter, and Bob Bennett (to name a few) are considered.
On a personal level - I like Charlie Rangel (Chawlee Rayngel??). He's done well for the country, and done well for his home district. I would consider the accusation that favors and donations may have influenced his congressional actions the most damning, the others less so. Corruption of those with the power to affect others' lives should always be kept in check, especially when the corruption has a direct effect on the electorate. If he feels he's done no wrong, he now has the opportunity to show us.
Comments:
Order comments Newest to Oldest Refresh Comments
Comment by 
TriSec on 07/30/2010 13:04:00
TriSec on 07/30/2010 13:04:00
Morning, comrades!
Well, who knew the Boston/NY rivalry would show up in the aviation circles that I tend to frequent?
Seeing that the Clinton wedding is in Rhinebeck, NY tomorrow, I'm reminded of the Old Rhinebeck Aerodrome, home of perhaps the finest collection of Pioneer Era and WWI flying aircraft in the world.
(They will not be affected by the no-fly zones, and will have planes in the sky like always this weekend.)
In any case, their Saturday airshow notes the "oldest flying airplane on the continent". Which of course, we in Massachusetts believe to be the Model 1909 Bleriot owned by the Collings Foundation in this Commonwealth.
We now return you to our regularly-scheduled blogging.
Well, who knew the Boston/NY rivalry would show up in the aviation circles that I tend to frequent?
Seeing that the Clinton wedding is in Rhinebeck, NY tomorrow, I'm reminded of the Old Rhinebeck Aerodrome, home of perhaps the finest collection of Pioneer Era and WWI flying aircraft in the world.
(They will not be affected by the no-fly zones, and will have planes in the sky like always this weekend.)
In any case, their Saturday airshow notes the "oldest flying airplane on the continent". Which of course, we in Massachusetts believe to be the Model 1909 Bleriot owned by the Collings Foundation in this Commonwealth.
We now return you to our regularly-scheduled blogging.
Comment by 
wickedpam on 07/30/2010 13:08:26
wickedpam on 07/30/2010 13:08:26
Morning 
Comment by TriSec on 07/30/2010 13:15:26
TriSec on 07/30/2010 13:15:26
I'll be glad when Rachel and Keith get back from vacation, BTW.
Comment by 
Will in Chicago on 07/30/2010 13:17:39
Will in Chicago on 07/30/2010 13:17:39
Good morning, bloggers!!
BobR, thanks for an interesting blog. I think that we will see the evidence against Charlie Rangel. Part of me wonders if it would be better, from a political stance, for him to resign. However, if he believes that he is in the right, he should get a chance to defend himself against his accusers.
BobR, thanks for an interesting blog. I think that we will see the evidence against Charlie Rangel. Part of me wonders if it would be better, from a political stance, for him to resign. However, if he believes that he is in the right, he should get a chance to defend himself against his accusers.
Comment by 
Raine on 07/30/2010 13:20:36
Good Morning.
You know it occurs to me that Nathan Deal quit his office as Rep of Georgia's 9th district because he was under ethics investigations... And now he is in a Runoff for the the Governors Seat in Georgia.
I find it funny the so few are making a very big deal out of Deal, and yet everyone is wrangling over Rangel.
Raine on 07/30/2010 13:20:36
Good Morning. You know it occurs to me that Nathan Deal quit his office as Rep of Georgia's 9th district because he was under ethics investigations... And now he is in a Runoff for the the Governors Seat in Georgia.
I find it funny the so few are making a very big deal out of Deal, and yet everyone is wrangling over Rangel.
Comment by Raine on 07/30/2010 13:21:22
Well I am shocked. Chris used to smoke? 
Raine on 07/30/2010 13:21:22
Well I am shocked. Chris used to smoke?
Comment by 
BobR on 07/30/2010 13:23:41
As a non-smoker, I agree with Chris that allowing smoking should be up to the business. They will lose or gain business because of their choice.
BobR on 07/30/2010 13:23:41
Quote by Raine:
As a non-smoker, I agree with Chris that allowing smoking should be up to the business. They will lose or gain business because of their choice.
Comment by TriSec on 07/30/2010 13:24:23
TriSec on 07/30/2010 13:24:23
The pun is the lowest form of wit, dearie.
Re: smoking.
Well, it's summer, so I'm deep into cigar season. Seems like with all the upheavals going on, it's one of the few affordable pleasures left. Cheap liquor, too.
And yes, I can get cigarillos cheaper than cigarettes; seems like the tax structure is different.
Re: smoking.
Well, it's summer, so I'm deep into cigar season. Seems like with all the upheavals going on, it's one of the few affordable pleasures left. Cheap liquor, too.
And yes, I can get cigarillos cheaper than cigarettes; seems like the tax structure is different.
Comment by TriSec on 07/30/2010 13:44:41
TriSec on 07/30/2010 13:44:41
Say, the next time somebody wants to build a new Temple somewhere around me, I'll organize a protest and use the same language the Tea Party is using against the NYC Mosque and see how far I get before somebody brings up the Nazis.
I have the same issue with the EU and their headscarf ban. This is different from anti-Jewish pogroms how?
I have the same issue with the EU and their headscarf ban. This is different from anti-Jewish pogroms how?
Comment by wickedpam on 07/30/2010 13:49:12
wickedpam on 07/30/2010 13:49:12
you can be posh, its a descriptive word
Comment by Raine on 07/30/2010 13:50:01
Raine on 07/30/2010 13:50:01
I wonder if Savage was saying Posher and they didn't quite get that because of his uber NYC accent.
Comment by wickedpam on 07/30/2010 13:56:52
possible - I think he did mean the Pasha thing though - it sounds more elitist and foreign
wickedpam on 07/30/2010 13:56:52
Quote by Raine:
I wonder if Savage was saying Posher and they didn't quite get that because of his uber NYC accent.
possible - I think he did mean the Pasha thing though - it sounds more elitist and foreign
Comment by wickedpam on 07/30/2010 14:05:55
wickedpam on 07/30/2010 14:05:55
oh wow - when did this happen!
Comment by Raine on 07/30/2010 14:06:56
Raine on 07/30/2010 14:06:56
Go Anthony Weiner!!!! 
Comment by Raine on 07/30/2010 14:07:15
yesterday.
Raine on 07/30/2010 14:07:15
Quote by wickedpam:
oh wow - when did this happen!
yesterday.
Comment by BobR on 07/30/2010 14:08:40
holy crap!
BobR on 07/30/2010 14:08:40
Quote by Raine:
Go Anthony Weiner!!!!
holy crap!
Comment by Raine on 07/30/2010 14:10:39
Raine on 07/30/2010 14:10:39
It's all so disingenuous. These were things that would have helped people.
Comment by wickedpam on 07/30/2010 14:10:41
That was amazing!
wickedpam on 07/30/2010 14:10:41
Quote by Raine:Quote by wickedpam:
oh wow - when did this happen!
yesterday.
That was amazing!
Comment by BobR on 07/30/2010 14:13:44
BobR on 07/30/2010 14:13:44
Comment by Al from WV on 07/30/2010 14:15:39
Well said, Bob. Take that principle to it's logical extension: This should never be used as a gesture of any sort; it should only be used to deal with a Congressperson that did bad things, and the fallout (such as effecting an election year in your example) left to be what it is, and to be dealt with separately.
If you're willing to apply that principle across the board, to take it to it's logical extension, then welcome to conservative thinking. This is the kind of thinking I have been talking about since I first hit political message boards over 10 years ago. The resounding absence of this principle among the general population (as exemplified by Lofgren) is one of the primary reasons I say that leadership is lost in this nation, because the people cannot recognize it, and if they could, would not be willing to elect it.
Quote by BobR:
No - you don't do this because Congress has bad ratings - you do this because a Congressperson did bad things. This should never be used as an election year gesture.
Well said, Bob. Take that principle to it's logical extension: This should never be used as a gesture of any sort; it should only be used to deal with a Congressperson that did bad things, and the fallout (such as effecting an election year in your example) left to be what it is, and to be dealt with separately.
If you're willing to apply that principle across the board, to take it to it's logical extension, then welcome to conservative thinking. This is the kind of thinking I have been talking about since I first hit political message boards over 10 years ago. The resounding absence of this principle among the general population (as exemplified by Lofgren) is one of the primary reasons I say that leadership is lost in this nation, because the people cannot recognize it, and if they could, would not be willing to elect it.
Comment by Al from WV on 07/30/2010 14:23:52
Because no Jews have, under the banner of Judaism, declared a Holy War against the US, and under that declaration, attacked the US.
Without expressing any opinion on whether the mosque should or should not be built, that's what makes the comparison incorrect. The point is not that they simply are Muslims. The point is that it happens that Muslim/Islam is the cause/belief system/congealing concept under which they attacked the US.
Quote by TriSec:
Say, the next time somebody wants to build a new Temple somewhere around me, I'll organize a protest and use the same language the Tea Party is using against the NYC Mosque and see how far I get before somebody brings up the Nazis.
I have the same issue with the EU and their headscarf ban. This is different from anti-Jewish pogroms how?
Because no Jews have, under the banner of Judaism, declared a Holy War against the US, and under that declaration, attacked the US.
Without expressing any opinion on whether the mosque should or should not be built, that's what makes the comparison incorrect. The point is not that they simply are Muslims. The point is that it happens that Muslim/Islam is the cause/belief system/congealing concept under which they attacked the US.
Comment by wickedpam on 07/30/2010 14:30:23
I don't think you can lump extremists in with regular people observing their religion - that goes for any religion
wickedpam on 07/30/2010 14:30:23
Quote by Al from WV:Quote by TriSec:
Say, the next time somebody wants to build a new Temple somewhere around me, I'll organize a protest and use the same language the Tea Party is using against the NYC Mosque and see how far I get before somebody brings up the Nazis.
I have the same issue with the EU and their headscarf ban. This is different from anti-Jewish pogroms how?
Because no Jews have, under the banner of Judaism, declared a Holy War against the US, and under that declaration, attacked the US.
Without expressing any opinion on whether the mosque should or should not be built, that's what makes the comparison incorrect. The point is not that they simply are Muslims. The point is that it happens that Muslim/Islam is the cause/belief system/congealing concept under which they attacked the US.
I don't think you can lump extremists in with regular people observing their religion - that goes for any religion
Comment by Raine on 07/30/2010 14:38:21
Raine on 07/30/2010 14:38:21
Comment by BobR on 07/30/2010 14:44:20
I wouldn't consider it conservative thinking, I would consider it thinking. It's not associated with any ideology.
BobR on 07/30/2010 14:44:20
Quote by Al from WV:Quote by BobR:
No - you don't do this because Congress has bad ratings - you do this because a Congressperson did bad things. This should never be used as an election year gesture.
Well said, Bob. Take that principle to it's logical extension: This should never be used as a gesture of any sort; it should only be used to deal with a Congressperson that did bad things, and the fallout (such as effecting an election year in your example) left to be what it is, and to be dealt with separately.
If you're willing to apply that principle across the board, to take it to it's logical extension, then welcome to conservative thinking. This is the kind of thinking I have been talking about since I first hit political message boards over 10 years ago. The resounding absence of this principle among the general population (as exemplified by Lofgren) is one of the primary reasons I say that leadership is lost in this nation, because the people cannot recognize it, and if they could, would not be willing to elect it.
I wouldn't consider it conservative thinking, I would consider it thinking. It's not associated with any ideology.
Comment by Raine on 07/30/2010 15:28:49
Raine on 07/30/2010 15:28:49
Mala, you know of Colin Cowie? HE's in Rhinebeck, NY ( for the event that no one is supposed to know about.. ;P ) my friend just had a picture taken with him! Here are some pictures she posted on her company's page.
Comment by Raine on 07/30/2010 15:32:19
Raine on 07/30/2010 15:32:19
Is it me, or is American Idol starting to look like the final seasons of Love Boat?
Comment by wickedpam on 07/30/2010 15:49:32
Yes, I have heard of him
- what event? I know nothing of a fancy event going down this weekend 
It looks like a cute little town
wickedpam on 07/30/2010 15:49:32
Quote by Raine:
Mala, you know of Colin Cowie? HE's in Rhinebeck, NY ( for the event that no one is supposed to know about.. ;P ) my friend just had a picture taken with him! Here are some pictures she posted on her company's page.
Yes, I have heard of him
- what event? I know nothing of a fancy event going down this weekend It looks like a cute little town
Comment by wickedpam on 07/30/2010 15:51:08
yeah - I don't forsee that show going on for longer then 1 more season - thank God.
wickedpam on 07/30/2010 15:51:08
Quote by Raine:
Is it me, or is American Idol starting to look like the final seasons of Love Boat?
yeah - I don't forsee that show going on for longer then 1 more season - thank God.
Comment by Raine on 07/30/2010 15:55:19
Raine on 07/30/2010 15:55:19
Drew carey Larry king? EEPS!
Comment by Al from WV on 07/30/2010 16:02:53
I don't think you can, either, but an attack under that banner, whether by mainliners or extremists, is what would be necessary to make the comparison valid.
Quote by wickedpam:Quote by Al from WV:Quote by TriSec:
Say, the next time somebody wants to build a new Temple somewhere around me, I'll organize a protest and use the same language the Tea Party is using against the NYC Mosque and see how far I get before somebody brings up the Nazis.
I have the same issue with the EU and their headscarf ban. This is different from anti-Jewish pogroms how?
Because no Jews have, under the banner of Judaism, declared a Holy War against the US, and under that declaration, attacked the US.
Without expressing any opinion on whether the mosque should or should not be built, that's what makes the comparison incorrect. The point is not that they simply are Muslims. The point is that it happens that Muslim/Islam is the cause/belief system/congealing concept under which they attacked the US.
I don't think you can lump extremists in with regular people observing their religion - that goes for any religion
I don't think you can, either, but an attack under that banner, whether by mainliners or extremists, is what would be necessary to make the comparison valid.
Comment by TriSec on 07/30/2010 16:09:05
Well, Al..I'm going to have to disagree with you on this one. The right is focusing their vitriol on ALL Muslims without making the distinction in return. Your comment just doesn't wash.
TriSec on 07/30/2010 16:09:05
Quote by Al from WV:
Because no Jews have, under the banner of Judaism, declared a Holy War against the US, and under that declaration, attacked the US.
Without expressing any opinion on whether the mosque should or should not be built, that's what makes the comparison incorrect. The point is not that they simply are Muslims. The point is that it happens that Muslim/Islam is the cause/belief system/congealing concept under which they attacked the US.
Well, Al..I'm going to have to disagree with you on this one. The right is focusing their vitriol on ALL Muslims without making the distinction in return. Your comment just doesn't wash.
Comment by Al from WV on 07/30/2010 16:11:03
Perhaps it's not idealogically associated with any idealogy; I surely don't think it should be.
However, I know for a fact that you are the first non-conservative person that I have seen in 10 years of political message boarding that has admitted to thinking like that.
I also know for a fact that in those 10 years, based on consistent patterns, I would expect someone who self-identifies as on the liberal side of the aisle would argue for some version of the outcome (raising Congress's "rating") being valued over the process (doing this because a Congressperson did bad things). Outcome over reason for doing, endpoint more important than process, etc have been hallmarks of the principles I have seen non-conservatives (self identified) argue in 10 year.
Ergo, given the above two facts, you can see my conclusions.
I would FAR rather it be simply good thinking. FAR rather it would be immune to political affiliation references. It is not, today, but people like you assuming it should be will help in a slow and insidious way. It will take a long time, admittedly, but seeing a little tiny bit now from the side of the aisle that I've not seen it from is hopeful to me.
Quote by BobR:Quote by Al from WV:Quote by BobR:
No - you don't do this because Congress has bad ratings - you do this because a Congressperson did bad things. This should never be used as an election year gesture.
Well said, Bob. Take that principle to it's logical extension: This should never be used as a gesture of any sort; it should only be used to deal with a Congressperson that did bad things, and the fallout (such as effecting an election year in your example) left to be what it is, and to be dealt with separately.
If you're willing to apply that principle across the board, to take it to it's logical extension, then welcome to conservative thinking. This is the kind of thinking I have been talking about since I first hit political message boards over 10 years ago. The resounding absence of this principle among the general population (as exemplified by Lofgren) is one of the primary reasons I say that leadership is lost in this nation, because the people cannot recognize it, and if they could, would not be willing to elect it.
I wouldn't consider it conservative thinking, I would consider it thinking. It's not associated with any ideology.
Perhaps it's not idealogically associated with any idealogy; I surely don't think it should be.
However, I know for a fact that you are the first non-conservative person that I have seen in 10 years of political message boarding that has admitted to thinking like that.
I also know for a fact that in those 10 years, based on consistent patterns, I would expect someone who self-identifies as on the liberal side of the aisle would argue for some version of the outcome (raising Congress's "rating") being valued over the process (doing this because a Congressperson did bad things). Outcome over reason for doing, endpoint more important than process, etc have been hallmarks of the principles I have seen non-conservatives (self identified) argue in 10 year.
Ergo, given the above two facts, you can see my conclusions.
I would FAR rather it be simply good thinking. FAR rather it would be immune to political affiliation references. It is not, today, but people like you assuming it should be will help in a slow and insidious way. It will take a long time, admittedly, but seeing a little tiny bit now from the side of the aisle that I've not seen it from is hopeful to me.
Comment by Al from WV on 07/30/2010 16:11:14
oops, double post
Comment by Raine on 07/30/2010 16:14:03
I understood the comparison.
Muslims in general are being unfairly targeted for the actions of a few.
Raine on 07/30/2010 16:14:03
Quote by Al from WV:
I don't think you can, either, but an attack under that banner, whether by mainliners or extremists, is what would be necessary to make the comparison valid.
Muslims in general are being unfairly targeted for the actions of a few.
Comment by Al from WV on 07/30/2010 16:17:44
Sigh...
Sorry, to you and Tri both. You want to concentrate on discussing actions of specific people, and I went off and brought principle into it. We are talking about two different things, so best for me to sit down and shut up.
Quote by Raine:I understood the comparison.Quote by Al from WV:
I don't think you can, either, but an attack under that banner, whether by mainliners or extremists, is what would be necessary to make the comparison valid.
Muslims in general are being unfairly targeted for the actions of a few.
Sigh...
Sorry, to you and Tri both. You want to concentrate on discussing actions of specific people, and I went off and brought principle into it. We are talking about two different things, so best for me to sit down and shut up.
Comment by Raine on 07/30/2010 16:20:36
I believe the comment was meant to concentrate on the actions of specific people.
Raine on 07/30/2010 16:20:36
Quote by Al from WV:Quote by Raine:I understood the comparison.Quote by Al from WV:
I don't think you can, either, but an attack under that banner, whether by mainliners or extremists, is what would be necessary to make the comparison valid.
Muslims in general are being unfairly targeted for the actions of a few.
Sigh...
Sorry, to you and Tri both. You want to concentrate on discussing actions of specific people, and I went off and brought principle into it. We are talking about two different things, so best for me to sit down and shut up.
Comment by BobR on 07/30/2010 16:30:36
for someone who doesn't like generalizations made of "conservatives", I'm a little surprised you went and made a generalization of "liberals".
BobR on 07/30/2010 16:30:36
Quote by Al from WV:Quote by BobR:Quote by Al from WV:Quote by BobR:
No - you don't do this because Congress has bad ratings - you do this because a Congressperson did bad things. This should never be used as an election year gesture.
Well said, Bob. Take that principle to it's logical extension: This should never be used as a gesture of any sort; it should only be used to deal with a Congressperson that did bad things, and the fallout (such as effecting an election year in your example) left to be what it is, and to be dealt with separately.
If you're willing to apply that principle across the board, to take it to it's logical extension, then welcome to conservative thinking. This is the kind of thinking I have been talking about since I first hit political message boards over 10 years ago. The resounding absence of this principle among the general population (as exemplified by Lofgren) is one of the primary reasons I say that leadership is lost in this nation, because the people cannot recognize it, and if they could, would not be willing to elect it.
I wouldn't consider it conservative thinking, I would consider it thinking. It's not associated with any ideology.
Perhaps it's not idealogically associated with any idealogy; I surely don't think it should be.
However, I know for a fact that you are the first non-conservative person that I have seen in 10 years of political message boarding that has admitted to thinking like that.
I also know for a fact that in those 10 years, based on consistent patterns, I would expect someone who self-identifies as on the liberal side of the aisle would argue for some version of the outcome (raising Congress's "rating") being valued over the process (doing this because a Congressperson did bad things). Outcome over reason for doing, endpoint more important than process, etc have been hallmarks of the principles I have seen non-conservatives (self identified) argue in 10 year...
for someone who doesn't like generalizations made of "conservatives", I'm a little surprised you went and made a generalization of "liberals".
Comment by 
Mondobubba on 07/30/2010 16:35:04
Don't worry Raine, it's on Showtime.
Mondobubba on 07/30/2010 16:35:04
Quote by Raine:
Drew carey Larry king? EEPS!
Don't worry Raine, it's on Showtime.
Comment by Al from WV on 07/30/2010 16:39:45
Do you really think 10 year of talking on message boards constitutes a generalization? I wouldn't, but, hell, I'm just a dumb hillbilly. I sure as hell don't like generalizations, though, so if I did it, well, I didn't mean to. Chalk it up to not being particularly astute about how most folks see things, I suppose. Not really sure.
It's still a cold hard fact that you are the first non-conservative person that I have seen in 10 years of political message boarding that has admitted to thinking like that. It's still a cold hard fact that I have seen 10 years worth of the patterns I said above. What those facts mean, well, maybe I don't know for anybody but me.
Quote by BobR:Quote by Al from WV:Quote by BobR:Quote by Al from WV:Quote by BobR:
No - you don't do this because Congress has bad ratings - you do this because a Congressperson did bad things. This should never be used as an election year gesture.
Well said, Bob. Take that principle to it's logical extension: This should never be used as a gesture of any sort; it should only be used to deal with a Congressperson that did bad things, and the fallout (such as effecting an election year in your example) left to be what it is, and to be dealt with separately.
If you're willing to apply that principle across the board, to take it to it's logical extension, then welcome to conservative thinking. This is the kind of thinking I have been talking about since I first hit political message boards over 10 years ago. The resounding absence of this principle among the general population (as exemplified by Lofgren) is one of the primary reasons I say that leadership is lost in this nation, because the people cannot recognize it, and if they could, would not be willing to elect it.
I wouldn't consider it conservative thinking, I would consider it thinking. It's not associated with any ideology.
Perhaps it's not idealogically associated with any idealogy; I surely don't think it should be.
However, I know for a fact that you are the first non-conservative person that I have seen in 10 years of political message boarding that has admitted to thinking like that.
I also know for a fact that in those 10 years, based on consistent patterns, I would expect someone who self-identifies as on the liberal side of the aisle would argue for some version of the outcome (raising Congress's "rating") being valued over the process (doing this because a Congressperson did bad things). Outcome over reason for doing, endpoint more important than process, etc have been hallmarks of the principles I have seen non-conservatives (self identified) argue in 10 year...
for someone who doesn't like generalizations made of "conservatives", I'm a little surprised you went and made a generalization of "liberals".
Do you really think 10 year of talking on message boards constitutes a generalization? I wouldn't, but, hell, I'm just a dumb hillbilly. I sure as hell don't like generalizations, though, so if I did it, well, I didn't mean to. Chalk it up to not being particularly astute about how most folks see things, I suppose. Not really sure.
It's still a cold hard fact that you are the first non-conservative person that I have seen in 10 years of political message boarding that has admitted to thinking like that. It's still a cold hard fact that I have seen 10 years worth of the patterns I said above. What those facts mean, well, maybe I don't know for anybody but me.
Comment by Al from WV on 07/30/2010 16:44:38
Yeah, I understand that now. I went and addressed the principle they pretty much have to be operating on to make those comments about those specific people, but, in the end, that is not what the conversation was about, after all. Point well made, Rainey.
Quote by Raine:I believe the comment was meant to concentrate on the actions of specific people.Quote by Al from WV:Quote by Raine:I understood the comparison.Quote by Al from WV:
I don't think you can, either, but an attack under that banner, whether by mainliners or extremists, is what would be necessary to make the comparison valid.
Muslims in general are being unfairly targeted for the actions of a few.
Sigh...
Sorry, to you and Tri both. You want to concentrate on discussing actions of specific people, and I went off and brought principle into it. We are talking about two different things, so best for me to sit down and shut up.
Yeah, I understand that now. I went and addressed the principle they pretty much have to be operating on to make those comments about those specific people, but, in the end, that is not what the conversation was about, after all. Point well made, Rainey.
Comment by TriSec on 07/30/2010 16:47:33
Interesting that after all this time you're still trying to "pigeonhole" thinkers into Lib or Con spheres.
Not an accusation, more of an observation. Until we can all move beyond labels and just be "thinkers", probably nothing will change.
TriSec on 07/30/2010 16:47:33
Quote by Al from WV:
It's still a cold hard fact that you are the first non-conservative person that I have seen in 10 years of political message boarding that has admitted to thinking like that. It's still a cold hard fact that I have seen 10 years worth of the patterns I said above. What those facts mean, well, maybe I don't know for anybody but me.
Interesting that after all this time you're still trying to "pigeonhole" thinkers into Lib or Con spheres.
Not an accusation, more of an observation. Until we can all move beyond labels and just be "thinkers", probably nothing will change.
Comment by 
Scoopster on 07/30/2010 17:00:59
Scoopster on 07/30/2010 17:00:59
Afternoon all! 
Y'all ready for another weekend?
Y'all ready for another weekend?
Comment by TriSec on 07/30/2010 17:09:09
TriSec on 07/30/2010 17:09:09
Related to nothing, I ètah the redesigned BBC website. Feels all dumbed down for an American audience now.
Comment by Raine on 07/30/2010 17:10:06
I hate when that happens!
Raine on 07/30/2010 17:10:06
Quote by Al from WV:
oops, double post
I hate when that happens!
Comment by Raine on 07/30/2010 17:23:27
ch'yah...
Raine on 07/30/2010 17:23:27
Quote by Scoopster:
Afternoon all!
Y'all ready for another weekend?
ch'yah...
Comment by Al from WV on 07/30/2010 17:30:43
[stunned look] I am trying to pigeonhole???? and "into Lib or Con spheres" no less. My my my. How very interesting. How very very interesting.
Quote by TriSec:Quote by Al from WV:
It's still a cold hard fact that you are the first non-conservative person that I have seen in 10 years of political message boarding that has admitted to thinking like that. It's still a cold hard fact that I have seen 10 years worth of the patterns I said above. What those facts mean, well, maybe I don't know for anybody but me.
Interesting that after all this time you're still trying to "pigeonhole" thinkers into Lib or Con spheres.
Not an accusation, more of an observation. Until we can all move beyond labels and just be "thinkers", probably nothing will change.
[stunned look] I am trying to pigeonhole???? and "into Lib or Con spheres" no less. My my my. How very interesting. How very very interesting.
Comment by TriSec on 07/30/2010 17:54:35
TriSec on 07/30/2010 17:54:35
Well, Al, a few days back I made some observation about something and called it "common sense".
You said "welcome to the way of conservative thinking".
Now you've done the same for something Bob said.
Like I said, not accusatory, just an observation.
You said "welcome to the way of conservative thinking".
Now you've done the same for something Bob said.
Like I said, not accusatory, just an observation.
Comment by 
livingonli on 07/30/2010 18:06:34
livingonli on 07/30/2010 18:06:34
A belated good day everyone.
Had to go do lab work for the endocrinologist so I had to go back to the old town and then wait in the office so I just went on line a few minutes ago.
Had to go do lab work for the endocrinologist so I had to go back to the old town and then wait in the office so I just went on line a few minutes ago.
Comment by Mondobubba on 07/30/2010 18:30:15
Ya know it's been awhile since we've seen this blog meme.
Mondobubba on 07/30/2010 18:30:15
Ya know it's been awhile since we've seen this blog meme.
Comment by livingonli on 07/30/2010 18:32:25
livingonli on 07/30/2010 18:32:25
Nothing like when Momma had those 70's music ditches.