Pelosi Considers Rewriting Ethics Rules, Dems Can't Meet High Ethical Standards

mikeyh9in

Cherished Member
Joined
May 31, 2004
Posts
322
Media
4
Likes
342
Points
293
Age
55
Location
San Francisco (California, United States)
Gender
Male
I thought long an hard about the motivations of the folks like Trinity and I believe that it is a form of self denial and deflection.

I believe they are deeply ashamed for not standing up during the Bush era. Standing up for what is right for people and America.

They stood silent when Bush gave Billions in needless tax cuts to the rich.

They stood silent when the patriot act stripped Americans of the most fundamental rights.

The stood silent when we entered a needless, unprovoked war in Iraq.

The stood silent when they displayed their bigotry against their fellow Americans by seeking to institutionalize it in the constitution.

They stood silent and tried to justify torturing people.

They called Americans protesting the Iraq war "un-American."

They stood silent as New Orleans flooded and people died.

Now they have this sudden need to react to something, anything -- because what the left has been screaming and protesting during the bast 9 years has come to be.

Did you not hear the left saying that Bush is destroying America? And now that we are in the post-Bush era and we have everything that he has sown, you are seeking anything to blame but the truth.

It is quicker to destroy than create. We will be in the land that Bush created for many many years to come

The smart folks saw it coming and were prepared. The rest are scrambling and blaming (blaming illegal immigration, the gays, the Democrats).

But instead of blaming, they should be helping.

-Mike
 

Trinity

Just Browsing
Joined
Sep 16, 2006
Posts
2,680
Media
0
Likes
0
Points
181
Gender
Female
It is quicker to destroy than create. We will be in the land that Bush created for many many years to come

The smart folks saw it coming and were prepared. The rest are scrambling and blaming (blaming illegal immigration, the gays, the Democrats).

But instead of blaming, they should be helping.-Mike

Pelosi is considering rewriting the rules of ethics so that her Party won't get caught in "unintended circumstances" and you believe any criticism of Democrats losing their principles and all credibility is a call to write a laundry list of what you deemed was Republican wrongdoing.

Instead of talking about the past and the wrongdoing of those out of power you need to be examining the present and wrongdoing of the Democrats currently in power. But you are too embarrassed to do that...so you deflect.
 

Industrialsize

Mythical Member
Gold
Platinum Gold
Joined
Dec 23, 2006
Posts
22,253
Media
213
Likes
32,166
Points
618
Location
Kathmandu (Bagmati Province, Nepal)
Sexuality
100% Gay, 0% Straight
Gender
Male
Right, and Congress rightly censured him for it. Why are you digging this up?
Let's get this right. Mr frank was NOT censured for anything having to do with a prostitution ring. From wikipedia:
A 1990 investigation by the House Ethics Committee was prompted by Steve Gobie, a male prostitute Frank befriended and housed, who attempted to profit on his allegations that Frank knew he was using the home to see clients. Frank confirmed that he had once paid Gobie for sex, hired him with personal funds as an aide and wrote letters on congressional stationery on his behalf to Virginia state probation officials, but Frank said he fired Gobie when he learned that prostitution clients were visiting his apartment. "Two years [after Frank fired Gobie], Gobie tried unsuccessfully to sell his story to the The Washington Post. He then gave the story to the The Washington Times for nothing, in hopes of getting a book contract for the male version of Mayflower Madam."
After the investigation, the Committee found no evidence that Frank had known of or been involved in the alleged illegal activity and dismissed all of Gobie's more scandalous claims; they recommended a reprimand for Frank using his congressional office to fix 33 of Gobie's parking tickets. The House voted 408-18 to reprimand Frank.
 

Trinity

Just Browsing
Joined
Sep 16, 2006
Posts
2,680
Media
0
Likes
0
Points
181
Gender
Female
Let's get this right. Mr frank was NOT censured for anything having to do with a prostitution ring. From wikipedia:
A 1990 investigation by the House Ethics Committee was prompted by Steve Gobie, a male prostitute Frank befriended and housed, who attempted to profit on his allegations that Frank knew he was using the home to see clients. Frank confirmed that he had once paid Gobie for sex, hired him with personal funds as an aide and wrote letters on congressional stationery on his behalf to Virginia state probation officials, but Frank said he fired Gobie when he learned that prostitution clients were visiting his apartment. "Two years [after Frank fired Gobie], Gobie tried unsuccessfully to sell his story to the The Washington Post. He then gave the story to the The Washington Times for nothing, in hopes of getting a book contract for the male version of Mayflower Madam."
After the investigation, the Committee found no evidence that Frank had known of or been involved in the alleged illegal activity and dismissed all of Gobie's more scandalous claims; they recommended a reprimand for Frank using his congressional office to fix 33 of Gobie's parking tickets. The House voted 408-18 to reprimand Frank.

LoL. It is funny that somehow you believe that that clarification of fixing parking tickets affiliated with Frank paying for sex to the same person conducting a sex ring in Franks home actually changes something. :rolleyes:
 
Last edited:

b.c.

Worshipped Member
Verified
Gold
Joined
Nov 7, 2005
Posts
20,540
Media
0
Likes
21,784
Points
468
Location
at home
Verification
View
Gender
Male
Funny how there hasn't been a single mention as to how the GOP modified the Ethics Rules back when Tom Delay was the House Majority Leader. Precisely, a rule that would have forced him to resign if he was indicted for criminal acts in his home state. But I guess when that happened, that wasn't supposed to be a sign of weakness or a sign that they couldn't "meet high ethical standards" either. Or was it? I'm not sure anymore... so many people have been spinning so much they can't even form a statement without getting dizzy.

But hey... Democrats are evil, right? That's the only thing that matters until Obama is out of office, right?! Rah, rah, sis boom-bah! Three cheers for political hypocrisy!!! :rolleyes:

Can someone put a fork in this thread already?

Well not only that, but, THE WHOLE PREMISE AND TITLE OF THIS THREAD IS BOGUS!!

First of all, according to one of the articles linked by the o.p., the Ethics Rules come under review and revision every two years. It's a standard practice.

Secondly, Pelosi is only taking the revisions under consideration, with input from various Republican and Democratic members of Congress.

Third the objections to the OCE's procedures (Office of Congressional Ethics) according to the cited article come from both Republicans and Democrats in Congress (quote):

"Bipartisan anger over the OCE has flared at times in the 111th Congress as members have reacted to being investigated by an independent body. The OCE’s creation at Pelosi’s urging in 2008 marked the first time members of Congress have handed over some power to police themselves to an outside group." http://thehill.com/homenews/house/102633-pelosi-considering-ethics-rule-change

Conclusion: Bogus topic and bogus thread full of ASSumptions and RIGHT WINGED spin.

Next.
 

Trinity

Just Browsing
Joined
Sep 16, 2006
Posts
2,680
Media
0
Likes
0
Points
181
Gender
Female
Well not only that, but, THE WHOLE PREMISE AND TITLE OF THIS THREAD IS BOGUS!!

Wonder if the Hill knows the whole premise and title of their article is bogus...?

Pelosi considering rewriting ethics rules - TheHill.com

First of all, according to one of the articles linked by the o.p., the Ethics Rules come under review and revision every two years. It's a standard practice.

You know what is not standard practice?...changing the rules of ethics because you can't meet the high standard. The New York Times and the Washington Post blasted the Democrats move to change the rules because:

Undercutting OCE's authority would be backsliding. The point of creating an outside watchdog was to prevent the ethics committee from sweeping things under the rug; all those on the committee are members of Congress. The panel is too often inclined not only to dismiss a complaint but to do so quietly, without airing the evidence. Lawmakers are understandably concerned that the ethics process not be used to tar them unfairly, providing fodder for attack ads in the next election, but there is also a public interest in full disclosure and robust enforcement. So far, the OCE -- which is made up of former members of Congress and experts chosen by the speaker and minority leader in equal numbers -- has proved a helpful force, and the ethics panel's unhappiness with the arrangement only underscores its importance.
Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington - from the Washington Post

Secondly, Pelosi is only taking the revisions under consideration, with input from various Republican and Democratic members of Congress.

The resolution was "clumsily" already introduced with 19 co-sponsors which alerted the New York Times, Washington Post and numerous Watchdog groups to the Democrats' shananigans. Pelosi is trying to figure out how to get rid of those "unintended consequences" created by the OCE:

At the meeting, which was also attended by CBC lawmaker and Majority Whip James Clyburn (D-S.C.), sources said Pelosi heard complaints about the OCE’s new powers and investigation tactics.

Pelosi and Clyburn were sympathetic, because the OCE has produced some unintended consequences, according to two sources in the room.
The Hill.com

Third the objections to the OCE's procedures (Office of Congressional Ethics) according to the cited article come from both Republicans and Democrats in Congress

Please - it also says this:
Bipartisan anger over the OCE has flared at times in the 111th Congress as members have reacted to being investigated by an independent body. The OCE’s creation at Pelosi’s urging in 2008 marked the first time members of Congress have handed over some power to police themselves to an outside group.
The Hill.com

And it also says this:

“There was a problem a few years ago with corruption in this institution, and that’s why it was created,” Davis said. “I would hate to see the leadership walk away from this commitment — as I look back as a private citizen. No member should be threatened by a more vigilant ethics system.”
The Hill.com

Conclusion: Bogus topic and bogus thread full of ASSumptions and RIGHT WINGED spin.

Next.
Topic - on point. Thread - backed up by articles from The Hill, the Washington Post and Talking Points Memo.

Your response? a combination of spin and inaccuracy.
 

B_VinylBoy

Sexy Member
Joined
Nov 30, 2007
Posts
10,363
Media
0
Likes
68
Points
123
Location
Boston, MA / New York, NY
Sexuality
90% Gay, 10% Straight
Gender
Male
Well not only that, but, THE WHOLE PREMISE AND TITLE OF THIS THREAD IS BOGUS!!

First of all, according to one of the articles linked by the o.p., the Ethics Rules come under review and revision every two years. It's a standard practice.

Secondly, Pelosi is only taking the revisions under consideration, with input from various Republican and Democratic members of Congress.

Third the objections to the OCE's procedures (Office of Congressional Ethics) according to the cited article come from both Republicans and Democrats in Congress (quote):

"Bipartisan anger over the OCE has flared at times in the 111th Congress as members have reacted to being investigated by an independent body. The OCE’s creation at Pelosi’s urging in 2008 marked the first time members of Congress have handed over some power to police themselves to an outside group." Pelosi considering rewriting ethics rules - TheHill.com

Conclusion: Bogus topic and bogus thread full of ASSumptions and RIGHT WINGED spin.

Next.

I just love it when you talk smart. :biggrin1:
Unlike our beloved, agenda driven wingnut of a thread starter who repeatedly mistakes regurgitated, opinionated spin as intelligent thinking.
 

Trinity

Just Browsing
Joined
Sep 16, 2006
Posts
2,680
Media
0
Likes
0
Points
181
Gender
Female
This is funny from Talking Points Memo:

Will House Speaker Nancy Pelosi stand up and defend her signature "drain the swamp" ethics initiative from members of her own party? Doesn't look like it.

/But Pelosi's in a bit of a bind on this one, on a couple of levels. The Fudge resolution may go to far, but she can't say she opposes it entirely. Likewise, for political reasons, she'd have a hard time admitting that the Democrats might hamstring the ethics board when it's only been up and running for a year. And in the meantime, Republicans are keeping quiet, enjoying the bind they think Democrats created for themselves.
TPM

That wraps it up in a nutshell. The reason the writer says "doesn't look like it" is because Pelosi didn't really say she would oppose the legislation and "kicked the can down the road." It's bad timing for the Dems.

Lowering the bar on ethical standards is unseemly and reflects poorly for the Dems. The Republicans are don't mind watching them squirm.
 

B_talltpaguy

Experimental Member
Joined
Nov 8, 2007
Posts
2,331
Media
0
Likes
17
Points
123
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Gender
Male
^Pelosi has done nothing but placate certain members of her caucus with sterile platitudes that are functionally meaningless, but you'll be damned if that's going to stop you dishonestly from applying Rep. Fudge's personal concerns directly to Pelosi herself.

I love it when you lie your ass off like this, and cite articles that say one thing, and then unethically assert that they say something quite different... it goes a long way in exemplifying how you are quite obviously obsessed with trolling this forum with the same crap over and over and over, until you quite literally drive every good contributing member away from this site.

Feel free to now rant on and on and attack me with a lengthy post that clearly took you a long while to create. As always, I thoroughly enjoy knowing that you waste a significant portion of your life on this minor political forum that is only frequented by a few dozen people, desperately trying to convince viewers that your dishonest assertions are true, when the truth is that almost nobody here gives a shit about you, and in fact eagerly look forward to the day that is soon coming when this site's moderation figures out that the site is better off without you, than it is with you.
 
Last edited:

Trinity

Just Browsing
Joined
Sep 16, 2006
Posts
2,680
Media
0
Likes
0
Points
181
Gender
Female
^Pelosi has done nothing but placate certain members of her caucus with sterile platitudes that are functionally meaningless, but you'll be damned if that's going to stop you dishonestly from applying Rep. Fudge's personal concerns directly to Pelosi herself.

I did nothing of the sort. Your accusation is unfounded and just silly. You appear to be the only one being dishonest.

I love it when you lie your ass off like this, and cite articles that say one thing, and then unethically assert that they say something quite different...

You are confused. That never happened. :rolleyes:
 

fratpack

Legendary Member
Joined
Sep 24, 2005
Posts
7,256
Media
6
Likes
1,974
Points
333
Location
nyc
Sexuality
100% Gay, 0% Straight
Gender
Male
As far as I concerned, politics has always and will always be a dirty business, with self serving politicians of either party looking out for their own interests. I am so tired of having to choose between the "better of two evils". Washington will never change and the back biting and back stabbing will continue ad nauseum.
 

TomCat84

Expert Member
Joined
Nov 23, 2009
Posts
3,414
Media
4
Likes
173
Points
148
Location
London (Greater London, England)
Sexuality
100% Gay, 0% Straight
Gender
Male
Let's get this right. Mr frank was NOT censured for anything having to do with a prostitution ring. From wikipedia:
A 1990 investigation by the House Ethics Committee was prompted by Steve Gobie, a male prostitute Frank befriended and housed, who attempted to profit on his allegations that Frank knew he was using the home to see clients. Frank confirmed that he had once paid Gobie for sex, hired him with personal funds as an aide and wrote letters on congressional stationery on his behalf to Virginia state probation officials, but Frank said he fired Gobie when he learned that prostitution clients were visiting his apartment. "Two years [after Frank fired Gobie], Gobie tried unsuccessfully to sell his story to the The Washington Post. He then gave the story to the The Washington Times for nothing, in hopes of getting a book contract for the male version of Mayflower Madam."
After the investigation, the Committee found no evidence that Frank had known of or been involved in the alleged illegal activity and dismissed all of Gobie's more scandalous claims; they recommended a reprimand for Frank using his congressional office to fix 33 of Gobie's parking tickets. The House voted 408-18 to reprimand Frank.

I guess what I meant to say is that he was rightly reprimanded, taken care of, what have you. Was just wondering why the Barney Frank incident gets dragged up every few years. I stand corrected, sir :smile: