[BadKosh]

So it seems now hes trying to make a deal to get out of the trial. Do you think he'd step down permanently or resign from the house?

[turtle777]

Why is he even offered a deal ?

If you or me cheat on taxes, do we get to make deals with the IRS ?

-t

[Paco500]

Originally Posted by turtle777 

Why is he even offered a deal ?

If you or me cheat on taxes, do we get to make deals with the IRS ?

-t

Often, yes.

[Paco500]

Which is not to say Rangle should not be prosecuted to the full extent of the law and do serious time. He should.

[BadKosh]

Amazing that it took two years to bring charges. Being found corrupt by those on the committee run by Dems suggests hes REALLY guilty. (Or an offering to show lack of racism from the Obama admin)

[Laminar]

What about the Libs?

[sek929]

I'm surprised he was able to stay away from the numeric pad for that long.

[BadKosh]

So the lobbyists are paying for Wrangles defense? I Wonder why? Ya think they might be involved in the corruption with Wrangle? What could they be hiding?

K Street goes to the defense of Charlie Rangel | Washington Examiner

[BadKosh]

Looks like He DID sucker the spineless Ethics Committee into a deal! What kind of ethics do those on the committee have?

[The Final Dakar]

The only difference between Rangle and other politicians is he got caught. As such, politicians remember it could be their ass in Rangle's position at any time, and therefore act with some reservation/leniency.

This is bipartisanism at its strongest.

[OAW]

If Rangel is smart he will cut a deal. His support in his Congressional District remains high. A big public spectacle would only erode that support. Interestingly enough Charlie Rangel came to power by challenging the late, great Adam Clayton Powell Jr. ... who was also a very popular Representative in Harlem .... when he was vulnerable because of ethics charges. He defeated Powell and has represented that Congressional District ever since. Now Adam Clayton Powell IV is challenging Rangel and making the same argument on why a "change" is needed. What goes around comes around?

OAW

[ebuddy]

I might take some heat (understandably), but I'm kinda pullin' for Rangel. I hate to see folks go down like this after the upbringing he's had, 40 years' service in the House, Purple Heart, and Bronze Star with Valor awards, this guy should be a friggin' hero. Maybe it's because he reminds me of Jackie Gleason or maybe I just respect my elders, I don't know. I mean, his politics stink IMHO and we'd probably agree on a whopping total of 0 issues, but he's just a hell of a story that I don't want to see go down like this. While I think this would be a great opportunity for a black Republican; Michel Faulkner to take Rangel's place, I doubt it.

Rangel's in trouble. He's the poster-child of stale congressman who get sloppy thinking they're above the law. If he knows what's best for him, he'll cop a deal and keep this thing out of the public eye during the election, ditch the corruption that took him, and finish his long-standing career with whatever dignity he can salvage.

[turtle777]

Wow, contrarian much ?

I really don't see how he deserves any sympathy.
Giving his position and experience, he is either

a) an idiot
b) a criminal

making those tax "mistakes".

Either way, he shouldn't be in charge of Ways and Means. Glad he's gone.

-t

[Person Man]

Looks like Rangel is going to get wrangled.

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

I might take some heat (understandably), but I'm kinda pullin' for Rangel. I hate to see folks go down like this after the upbringing he's had, 40 years' service in the House, Purple Heart, and Bronze Star with Valor awards, this guy should be a friggin' hero. Maybe it's because he reminds me of Jackie Gleason or maybe I just respect my elders, I don't know. I mean, his politics stink IMHO and we'd probably agree on a whopping total of 0 issues, but he's just a hell of a story that I don't want to see go down like this. While I think this would be a great opportunity for a black Republican; Michel Faulkner to take Rangel's place, I doubt it.

Rangel's in trouble. He's the poster-child of stale congressman who get sloppy thinking they're above the law. If he knows what's best for him, he'll cop a deal and keep this thing out of the public eye during the election, ditch the corruption that took him, and finish his long-standing career with whatever dignity he can salvage.

You can lament his fall, or the corruption of the system, but I find hard to sympathize for his current position. Particularly in regard to your second paragraph, he deserves no sympathy. If the system is so bad that most of these politicians think they're above the law and most won't even get a whiff of what justice should be, we are in a very bad place.

Honestly, your first paragraph feels like an endorsement for term limits. Get these schmucks out before whatever humanity and decency they might have had is swallowed whole by the system.

[OldManMac]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

You can lament his fall, or the corruption of the system, but I find hard to sympathize for his current position. Particularly in regard to your second paragraph, he deserves no sympathy. If the system is so bad that most of these politicians think they're above the law and most won't even get a whiff of what justice should be, we are in a very bad place.

+1 Whether he's a Democrat or a Republican (almost indistinguishable these days), he should be held accountable.

Honestly, your first paragraph feels like an endorsement for term limits. Get these schmucks out before whatever humanity and decency they might have had is swallowed whole by the system.

Term limits are just the lazy man's way to solve a deeper problem. We, as citizens, deserve the government we get, and if we're not interested in policing our representatives, term limits aren't the answer.

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by OldManMac 

Term limits are just the lazy man's way to solve a deeper problem. We, as citizens, deserve the government we get, and if we're not interested in policing our representatives, term limits aren't the answer.

You say lazy, I say realistic. Choosing who to elect right now is like drinking from the toilet bowl. I'm just suggesting it might be more palatable if we flush more often.

Edit: When you look at the incumbent rate of reelection, term limits seem like avery sensible way to get more new blood into the candidate pool.

[OAW]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

I might take some heat (understandably), but I'm kinda pullin' for Rangel. I hate to see folks go down like this after the upbringing he's had, 40 years' service in the House, Purple Heart, and Bronze Star with Valor awards, this guy should be a friggin' hero. Maybe it's because he reminds me of Jackie Gleason or maybe I just respect my elders, I don't know. I mean, his politics stink IMHO and we'd probably agree on a whopping total of 0 issues, but he's just a hell of a story that I don't want to see go down like this. While I think this would be a great opportunity for a black Republican; Michel Faulkner to take Rangel's place, I doubt it.

Rangel's in trouble. He's the poster-child of stale congressman who get sloppy thinking they're above the law. If he knows what's best for him, he'll cop a deal and keep this thing out of the public eye during the election, ditch the corruption that took him, and finish his long-standing career with whatever dignity he can salvage.

Indeed. Charlie Rangel's life is a quintessential American success story. I hate to see him go out like this. But at the same time I'm like ... "Dude ... WTF were you thinking?!" I can't believe he didn't just cut a deal a long time ago. Now it is mid-term election season and it's too late. Even if a deal is struck between the lawyers the Ethics Committee has to approve it ... and the Republican members who make up half the committee have already stated publicly that they will push for the public trial. There's just too much political mileage to be had out of this in an election cycle ... despite the fact that Charlie Rangel is well-liked on both sides of the aisle.

Oh well ... given his position, visibility, and experience in the House he really should have known better. Of all people he should have known to keep his nose clean ... especially on a personal tax issue.

OAW

[OldManMac]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

You say lazy, I say realistic. Choosing who to elect right now is like drinking from the toilet bowl. I'm just suggesting it might be more palatable if we flush more often.

Edit: When you look at the incumbent rate of reelection, term limits seem like avery sensible way to get more new blood into the candidate pool.

I wasn't implying that you're lazy, but I stand by my statement. Like it or not, politics is about power, and those who do manage to get things done in office are the ones who've been there a while. It takes time to build alliances and relationships, and just putting a revolving door in our representatives' offices isn't going to solve anything. We, as a public, just don't like to admit that the mess in our states and Washington is no one's fault but our own, so we trot out simplistic programs, such as term limits, because we really don't want to get too deeply involved, but we do need something to talk about at the water cooler.

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by OldManMac 

I wasn't implying that you're lazy, but I stand by my statement. Like it or not, politics is about power, and those who do manage to get things done in office are the ones who've been there a while. It takes time to build alliances and relationships, and just putting a revolving door in our representatives' offices isn't going to solve anything. We, as a public, just don't like to admit that the mess in our states and Washington is no one's fault but our own, so we trot out simplistic programs, such as term limits, because we really don't want to get too deeply involved, but we do need something to talk about at the water cooler.

Do you think term limits for Governors and Presidents should be abolished and/or are equally useless?

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

You can lament his fall, or the corruption of the system, but I find hard to sympathize for his current position. Particularly in regard to your second paragraph, he deserves no sympathy. If the system is so bad that most of these politicians think they're above the law and most won't even get a whiff of what justice should be, we are in a very bad place.

Honestly, your first paragraph feels like an endorsement for term limits. Get these schmucks out before whatever humanity and decency they might have had is swallowed whole by the system.

Believe me I understand your point, but I'm not going to call for a firing-squad if that's not how I feel about it. Am I going to shed a river of tears that corruption was caught and addressed and a message sent throughout Congress? Absolutely not. I just hate to see this particular figure go down like this, that's all.

Good points though Dakar, I really am more disappointed by the apparent, systemic corruption itself than the handful of figures it takes down with it, but in this case it's just harder for me to watch.

Next up, Rep. Maxine Waters.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

Do you think term limits for Governors and Presidents should be abolished and/or are equally useless?

President? IMO, no if nothing more than to avoid a monarchy or a situation in which a sitting President's health is waning and while serving at the pleasure of the country is being manipulated by a shadow leadership. It should be noted however, that most Presidents were not interested in serving more than two terms in office; thereby limiting their own terms, or were voted out of office anyway. Limiting the term of the Presidency is a relatively recent ideal and I'm not certain it's absolutely necessary though I generally support it.

Gubernatorial term limits? Less important IMO. Not all governors are subject to term limits per their state constitutions and I'm not sure they should be. Unlike the POTUS who is elected through Congressional representation, governors are more directly accountable to their constituency and to this I agree with OldManMac; any need for a term limit can be tied back directly to an uninformed electorate. While this might be a reality to you, term limits as the solution is only a band-aid fix that IMO offers its own concerns that negate the benefit of simply limiting one's term.

But why stop at Presidents and governors who are elected, why not the Supreme Court appointments as well?

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

I don't get all this "I hate to see him go out like this" speil.

He should suffer the consequences of his actions like any normal citizen should. His being a freakin' congressman means squat. In fact, it's worse- a common citizen evading taxes is one thing. Someone who's supposed to be making and UPHOLDING our laws evading taxes is a betrayer of the public trust.

It doesn't help much that this is the dimwit who once tried to equate tax cuts with racism- claiming it was the new N word. Typical Democrat race-baiting dimshit. Hey Rangle, I guess you no longer say "Democrat" you say "Tax Evading Hypocrite"

[BadKosh]

Next up.....Maxine Waters.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE 

I don't get all this "I hate to see him go out like this" speil.

I'm probably not explaining it well enough. I have a hard time celebrating the fact that a Harlem-born, rags to riches icon of the American way and war hero fell prey to the spoils of politics and ends his 40-year career an elderly criminal dragged through the public eye.

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

ends his 40-year career an elderly criminal dragged through the public eye.

ENDS ?

I thought his career *WAS* being an elderly [political] criminal.

-t

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

I'm probably not explaining it well enough. I have a hard time celebrating the fact that a Harlem-born, rags to riches icon of the American way and war hero fell prey to the spoils of politics and ends his 40-year career an elderly criminal dragged through the public eye.

You can find millions of ordinary, common citizens who have all of those positives yet who also:
1. DON'T cheat on their taxes, even while being a hypocrite twat who tried to paint ordinary citizens getting a tax break as equated to using the n-word.

2. DON'T grosly abuse and betray the trust others have placed on them, in thier work, or otherwise.

3. AREN'T celebrated at all for any of it, EVER, in fact, many of them that don't subscribe to Charlie's tax(everyone ELSE)-and-spend(Only HIM) hypocritical world view are more often demonized.

Just one of those common people is worth more to our nation and to their communities than 435 Rangles.

Rangle- like a lot of his ilk in politics- long ago squandered the clout earned by the honorable parts of his resume.

And we can only hope this actually IS his political demise- the reality is, he'll probably get a minor slap on the wrist and a few winks and nods from his good ol' boys club and continue on like nothing ever happened- back to demonizing others for wanting a FAIR tax rate, not even close to the tax break he was eager to cut for himself.

It's only the lowly peons, Joe and Jane Average that are ever held accountable for their actions. But elect some guy to a lofty enough public office and somehow there's never any responsibility for ANYTHING.

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Gubernatorial term limits? Less important IMO. Not all governors are subject to term limits per their state constitutions and I'm not sure they should be. Unlike the POTUS who is elected through Congressional representation, governors are more directly accountable to their constituency and to this I agree with OldManMac; any need for a term limit can be tied back directly to an uninformed electorate. While this might be a reality to you, term limits as the solution is only a band-aid fix that IMO offers its own concerns that negate the benefit of simply limiting one's term.

Well jeez guys, I guess we shouldn't do it then, as the status quo and the lack of any insightful solutions from either of you seems much better.

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

But why stop at Presidents and governors who are elected, why not the Supreme Court appointments as well?

Total non-sequitur.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

Well jeez guys, I guess we shouldn't do it then, as the status quo and the lack of any insightful solutions from either of you seems much better.

... a trifle pissy, but at least you're not railing on me for the use of band-aid.

This isn't to say there aren't insightful solutions D, it's just not something folks are all that motivated to pick up at this point. More effective disclosure of donors and/or lobbyists, swifter action on reports of impropriety, harsher penalties including resignation and public apology, etc...

It doesn't seem necessary to restrict the rights of people to continue choosing who they feel best represents them throughout the fifty states because of impropriety in two and a lack of law enforcement on the Hill.

Total non-sequitur.

It is also a question. IMO not only a good one, but a necessary one when discussing any notion of term limits against an elected representative given the fact that the Supreme Court is a non-elected, lifetime appointment. I mean, just say you don't feel like talking about it anymore.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE 

You can find millions of ordinary, common citizens who have all of those positives yet who also:
1. DON'T cheat on their taxes, even while being a hypocrite twat who tried to paint ordinary citizens getting a tax break as equated to using the n-word.

2. DON'T grosly abuse and betray the trust others have placed on them, in thier work, or otherwise.

3. AREN'T celebrated at all for any of it, EVER, in fact, many of them that don't subscribe to Charlie's tax(everyone ELSE)-and-spend(Only HIM) hypocritical world view are more often demonized.

I've not had a problem celebrating people I feel have merit Crash. Is this to suggest that Rangel has done absolutely nothing worthy of the support of his constituency for the past 40 years? Really? Look, I agree that he's all, but negated a lifelong career in Congress and I'm not going to shed a tear for the antics of a criminal coming to an abrupt halt, but I don't see why there's any reason I need to celebrate it.

Just one of those common people is worth more to our nation and to their communities than 435 Rangles.

Rangle- like a lot of his ilk in politics- long ago squandered the clout earned by the honorable parts of his resume.

And we can only hope this actually IS his political demise- the reality is, he'll probably get a minor slap on the wrist and a few winks and nods from his good ol' boys club and continue on like nothing ever happened- back to demonizing others for wanting a FAIR tax rate, not even close to the tax break he was eager to cut for himself.

It's only the lowly peons, Joe and Jane Average that are ever held accountable for their actions. But elect some guy to a lofty enough public office and somehow there's never any responsibility for ANYTHING.

There are hundreds of thousands of Joe and Jane Averages getting away with tax fraud Crash and there are countless others who don't have these problems because they never reach outside their comfort zone. And yes, there are many good people who dedicate their entire lives to worthy causes without cheating any system and are not celebrated in pay or otherwise, but it's not Rangel's fault their stories aren't newsworthy.

He'll ultimately lose more because he has more to lose than Joe and Jane Average.

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

I've not had a problem celebrating people I feel have merit Crash. Is this to suggest that Rangel has done absolutely nothing worthy of the support of his constituency for the past 40 years? Really? Look, I agree that he's all, but negated a lifelong career in Congress and I'm not going to shed a tear for the antics of a criminal coming to an abrupt halt, but I don't see why there's any reason I need to celebrate it.

I don't see where you feel the need to lament it. If this is indeed his political end (and again, I doubt it) then it's his own doing.

There are hundreds of thousands of Joe and Jane Averages getting away with tax fraud Crash[

And if any of those average people get caught at it (and haven't been elected to congress or appointed to an Obama admin cabinet position) then they have to face the consequences of their actions. The IRS doesn't cut average tax cheats any slack. People don't wring their hands and go "Oh poor baby, it's so sad to see so-and-so go out like this" much either. Why is this guy any different? Oh, because he got elected to an office he's abused. Big whoopidy.

And yes, there are many good people who dedicate their entire lives to worthy causes without cheating any system and are not celebrated in pay or otherwise, but it's not Rangel's fault their stories aren't newsworthy.

I'm not saying it's his fault. Rangel is newsworthy because he's in a high profile position. But he should face the music the same as the lowest on the ladder has to.

He'll ultimately lose more because he has more to lose than Joe and Jane Average.

Anything he has as a result of some fraud or abuse of his position, he deserves to lose, including the public trust which he squandered long ago. (And again, he's FAR from alone there when it comes to politicians. He just got caught- I'm sure most of his good ol' boy ilk that will nod and wink have done far worse, just covered it up better. IF/WHEN any of them are finally exposed as well, they won't deserve any undue hand-wringing either.

People are getting sick of being endlessly ripped off by the elected political hacks of this country. We don't have kings and queens and such garbage in this country. We elect politicians to work FOR us, (not the other way around as these creeps and their sycophants hace come to believe) and then expect them to uphold the trust we place in them, and uphold and obey the laws and oaths their elected offices bind them to. When they blatantly betray that- it should be good freakin' riddance.

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

... a trifle pissy, but at least you're not railing on me for the use of band-aid.

Actually, I'm in favor of the use the term band-aid. I'm for informality. As for being a trifle pissy, you guys are the ones pissing on my solution being half-assed while neglecting to add anything constructive to the discussion.

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

It doesn't seem necessary to restrict the rights of people to continue choosing who they feel best represents them throughout the fifty states because of impropriety in two and a lack of law enforcement on the Hill.

That depends on your view. I think the rights of the people (or more specifically, their choices) are being restricted by how the system has evolved (i.e. the corruption).

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

It is also a question. IMO not only a good one, but a necessary one when discussing any notion of term limits against an elected representative given the fact that the Supreme Court is a non-elected, lifetime appointment. I mean, just say you don't feel like talking about it anymore.

My introduction of term-limits is with regards to elected officials who are notorious for existing within an unethical if not corrupt system. Last time I checked, judges were neither elected nor prone to widespread corruption.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

Actually, I'm in favor of the use the term band-aid. I'm for informality. As for being a trifle pissy, you guys are the ones pissing on my solution being half-assed while neglecting to add anything constructive to the discussion.

I added constructive ideals to the discussion, you omitted them. I'm not saying your solution is half-assed, I'm saying it's overkill.

That depends on your view. I think the rights of the people (or more specifically, their choices) are being restricted by how the system has evolved (i.e. the corruption).

My view is that the people's choice in an election is among their most fundamental of rights and that your ideal disenfranchises the rights of many over the criminal acts of a few.

My introduction of term-limits is with regards to elected officials who are notorious for existing within an unethical if not corrupt system. Last time I checked, judges were neither elected nor prone to widespread corruption.

My introduction of the Supreme Court was to illustrate what IMO is a logical disconnect. True, a Supreme Court appointment is not an elected position and as such is not subject to any term limit. While there may not be well-documented corruption among judges of the SCOTUS, it is a lifetime appointment that wields exponentially greater power. If we're limiting the term of all elected officials because of the guilt of a few under the guise of the public trust, we're presuming the guilt of all. I see little reason not to likewise presume guilt in a lifetime appointment and limit its term, particularly when there are no other means to do so.

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

I added constructive ideals to the discussion, you omitted them.

I concede this.

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

I'm not saying your solution is half-assed, I'm saying it's overkill.

This appears to be based on perceived severity of the problem.

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

My view is that the people's choice in an election is among their most fundamental of rights and that your ideal disenfranchises the rights of many over the criminal acts of a few.

Do you really think it's just a few? You don't think the majority of the politicians (on the national level) are just out-and-out corrupt?

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

My introduction of the Supreme Court was to illustrate what IMO is a logical disconnect. True, a Supreme Court appointment is not an elected position and as such is not subject to any term limit. While there may not be well-documented corruption among judges of the SCOTUS, it is a lifetime appointment that wields exponentially greater power.

When this becomes an issue, call me.

[olePigeon]

Originally Posted by BadKosh 

So it seems now hes trying to make a deal to get out of the trial.

It's not a trial, it's a hearing.

Originally Posted by BadKosh 

Do you think he'd step down permanently or resign from the house?

Yes, along with all the other Democrats and Republicans abusing their office... which is probably every single one of them.

They all abuse their respective office, but only the idiots get caught.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

When this becomes an issue, call me.

It's disconnected.

[BadKosh]

Screw the generalities about who or who hasn't abused their office. It's more important to examine all those representative-wanna-be's BEFORE they get to run for office. We want to know where their $ came from, and who their friends are. Getting caught once should mean that person can never be the chair of any committee. Second time, removal from office and removal of pension. No third chance. These people who want to represent us should strive for high standards, and should actually be intelligent, which isn't happening much these days.

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

It's disconnected.

It's a logical disconnect. Somehow senators and congressmen aren't corrupt enough to put term limits on, but the supreme court is.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

It's a logical disconnect.

I agree.

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

I agree.

So, are you going to address the points of either of my last couple posts or keep dodging them by doing a "cute" dance?

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

So, are you going to address the points of either of my last couple posts or keep dodging them by doing a "cute" dance?

What, the last couple of posts where you try to subvert the will of the entire US electorate to address a handful of scandals? To me if it were about corruption, you'd have to demonstrate that the overwhelming majority of congresspeople were corrupt. You can't. You didn't address that point.

Again, I said it's overkill, you disagree. What's left to discuss, the Supreme Court again? I mean, you can't cite an overwhelming problem in congress that IMO justifies subverting the will of the electorate so it follows logically that you merely support term limits. Given that, I was surprised you didn't include the Supreme Court. We disagree. Got anything else?

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

What, the last couple of posts where you try to subvert the will of the entire US electorate to address a handful of scandals? To me if it were about corruption, you'd have to demonstrate that the overwhelming majority of congresspeople were corrupt. You can't. You didn't address that point.

Actually, I just asked for your opinion. "Do you really think it's just a few? You don't think the majority of the politicians (on the national level) are just out-and-out corrupt?" No need to get melodramatic.

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Again, I said it's overkill, you disagree. What's left to discuss, the Supreme Court again? I mean, you can't cite an overwhelming problem in congress that IMO justifies subverting the will of the electorate so it follows logically that you merely support term limits. Given that, I was surprised you didn't include the Supreme Court. We disagree. Got anything else?

And you willfully disregard the major distinction between the two, which is the Supreme Court isn't elected. When I point out that, that distinction aside, I'd be willing to actually consider the matter if there was actual documented corruption like there is for some members of congress, you get pissy.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

Actually, I just asked for your opinion. "Do you really think it's just a few? You don't think the majority of the politicians (on the national level) are just out-and-out corrupt?" No need to get melodramatic.

I just don't think it's pervasive enough to justify term limits.

And you willfully disregard the major distinction between the two, which is the Supreme Court isn't elected. When I point out that, that distinction aside, I'd be willing to actually consider the matter if there was actual documented corruption like there is for some members of congress, you get pissy.

I don't think most people in congress are corrupt. As far as this conversation goes, I started off being tongue in cheek. You immediately went all dry and testy. Then...

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar

- ... the status quo and the lack of any insightful solutions from either of you seems much better.
- Total non-sequitur.
- ... keep dodging them by doing a "cute" dance?
- No need to get melodramatic.
- ... you get pissy

Wouldn't it make you happy if I were pissy? I mean, that seems to be what you're shooting for here.

[BadKosh]

Maxine Waters is a DOLT! Blame Bush! LOL Sure it was his fault, AFTER he was already out of office.


Embattled Rep. Maxine Waters on Friday blamed the Bush administration for her ethics problems -- saying she had to intervene with the Treasury Department on behalf of minority-owned banks
seeking federal bailout funds -- including one tied to her husband -- because the Treasury Department wouldn't schedule its own appointments.

The California Democrat said in a Capitol Hill news conference -- an event rarely held during a congressional recess -- that she reached out to then-Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson in late 2008 when his department failed to respond to the National Bank Association's request for a meeting.

"The question at this point should not be why I called Secretary Paulson, but why I had to," she said. "The question at this point should be why a trade association representing over 100 minority banks could not get a meeting at the height of the crisis."

But the House ethics committee, which is investigating Waters for allegedly improperly using her position for personal gain, says in its report of charges that when the meeting was held, the officers of only one bank came -- OneUnited.

That's a problem for Waters since her husband, Sidney Williams, served as a member of OneUnited's board of directors from January 2004 until April 2008, and was a stockholder in the bank.

[OAW]

Originally Posted by BadKosh 

Maxine Waters is a DOLT! Blame Bush! LOL Sure it was his fault, AFTER he was already out of office.

Uhhh ... if she made a phone call to Hank Paulson, the Secretary of the Treasury during the Bush Administration, then do tell exactly how President Bush was "already out of office" at the time?

OAW