"California Rep. (MAXINE) WATERS May Face Fall Ethics Trial": ABC

1. 59

   fishskinfreak2008posted 13 years ago

   Web-site/URL: http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wirestor … amp;page=1
   
   Another DEMOCRAT in trouble and Waters is another senior representative (since 1991). This is becoming like a laundry list of Democrats in trouble, as if they don't have enough to deal with already.

   replyreport
   1. 60

      Ron Montgomeryposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      She and Rangel both should have been gone a long time ago.  As they say, don't let the door hit you in the ass..

      replyreport
      1. 60

         Doug Hughesposted 13 years agoin reply to this

         No one seems to be noticing that the Democrats ARE investigating offenses by democrats (and republicans - see John Ensign) in an attempt to enforce tougher rules than the GOP had - and NEVER enforced against their own.

         replyreport
         1. 67

            ledefensetechposted 13 years agoin reply to this

            Yeah it's only taken them 2 years to indict Rangel.  Way to go.

            replyreport
            1. 60

               Ron Montgomeryposted 13 years agoin reply to this

               Longer than that.  He has been an embarrassment for decades.

               replyreport
               1. 67

                  ledefensetechposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                  Jesus, Ron you're scaring me, we are agreeing way too much.

                  replyreport
                  1. 60

                     Ron Montgomeryposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                     I do believe it is possible, and necessary to have an ethical and effective government.  Scumbags who use their positions of power to line their own pockets, and work against those goals should be tarred and feathered.

                     replyreport
                     1. 67

                        ledefensetechposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                        It is possible if not probable that you can get good people in government.  But it helps to have a small government in order to better keep track of the good people and bad apples.  The problem is that in order to get elected, you have to use your position of power to grant people favors.  It's a dance as old as government.  Just because we pull a lever every so often doesn't change the fact that power corrupts.  All our system does is allow those in power to exchange what amounts to bribes to the electorate in exchange for votes.

                        replyreport
   2. 57

      leebertteaposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      This is just another reason why we must have term limits. The longer these people are in office the greater the chance the system will corrupt them and the more arrogant they get.

      replyreport
      1. 60

         readytoescapeposted 13 years agoin reply to this

         Agreed, Limit each and every elected official to two terms and eliminate the retirement benefit.

         replyreport
         1. 95

            wildernessposted 13 years agoin reply to this

            Idaho did that a few years ago for their state legislators via a statewide vote of the people.  It lasted until the legislature reconvened after Xmas break, whereupon they changed the law back to what it was before.
            
            Honest, dedicated politicians doing what the people want.  Right!

            replyreport
   3. 78

      Abecedarianposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      Yes, but the "liberal" media is only reporting on Dems. 
      Here we have Republcians in Ethics Violations Investigations:
      1. Tom Price, GA
      2. John Campbell, CA
      3. Jeb Hensarling, TX
      4. Christopher Lee, NY
      5. Frank Lucas, OK
      6. Gary Miller's PAC, CA, by way of his top contributor Jeffry Burum for bribery and corruption of government officials.
      7. Marco Rubio, FL
      8. Former Speaker, Ray Sansom, who's already been indicted on state charges, he stashed $6 million in the state budget for an airplane hangar for a friend and campaign donor.
      9. Jim Greer, FL- former GOP chairman, criminal investigation. $200,000 of donor money being re-directed to Greer and the party's executive director.
      
      and to be fair, they also forgot to mention these Dems.
      
      1. Early Pomeroy, ND
      2. Joseph Crowley, NY
      
      Wow, corruption isn't a party issue....it's a moral issue.  There are immoral people everyone.  How sad....that just means we need to look at our politcal picks more closely and QUIT voting along party lines.

      replyreport
   4. 60

      Evan G Rogersposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      OH my god!!! A politician doing something unethical?!!?
      
      STOP THE PRESSES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
      
      ..............

      replyreport
2. 66

   AnnCeeposted 13 years ago

   Hip hip hooray!
   
   

   replyreport
3. 60

   Ron Montgomeryposted 13 years ago

   Remember the supposed CIA plot to flood black communities with crack cocaine?
   
   She is the Dem's Sarah palin.

   replyreport
4. 60

   Ron Montgomeryposted 13 years ago

   The problem with limits is that you get increasingly less experienced elected officials who are even more dependant on lobbyists-who of course have no such limits-to write legislation.  Mega corporations would become the de facto government, (as if they are not already)

   replyreport
   1. 57

      leebertteaposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      You said it, lobbyists are already writing legislation and our elected officials aren't even reading it, they have staff for that, so what exactly are they doing? As far as I'm concerned you could out source congress to China or India and we'd at least be paying a lot less than what we're paying now.

      replyreport
   2. 63

      Mishaposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      Yep, and that line of thinking leads me to conclusion that absolute monarchy is actually not a bad thing - at least they don't depend on lobbyists THAT much

      replyreport
      1. 60

         Ron Montgomeryposted 13 years agoin reply to this

         Your reasoning has some merit.  Some smart ancient Greek guy compared the various forms of government and concluded that a benevolent dictatorship worked best..
         
         ... of course it depends on the dictator.

         replyreport
         1. 67

            ledefensetechposted 13 years agoin reply to this

            The philosopher you're looking for is Plato.  Really a bit of an idiot when it came to devising a decent government.  You'd really be better off looking at Cicero, the last great defender of the Roman Republic for a better idea of how government should be constructed.

            replyreport
            1. 60

               Ron Montgomeryposted 13 years agoin reply to this

               Yes, Plato ( i wasn't looking for him) is universally looked on as an idiot.
               
               

               replyreport
         2. 63

            Mishaposted 13 years agoin reply to this

            Yep, that's the key. Under monarchy (don't mix with a dictatorship as a result of a coupe) you never know what kind of person becomes the high power. Sort of even chances of getting good or bad monarch. Your current system (as any democracy or its derivative) ensures the worst choice is made.

            replyreport
            1. 67

               ledefensetechposted 13 years agoin reply to this

               Not as originally set up.  Power was deliberately shattered among various governmental groups who would have to work together to get anything done.  This was to minimize the chances of someone accumulating too much power and ruling as a monarch.  Unfortunately people who hold views similar to people here on the forums, allowed the various governmental groups to either gain or lose power over the centuries and now we're stuck with an unholy mess on our hands.
               
               Still, if there is one good thing to come of all of this, it's a renaissance in the ideas and ideals of the Founders.  As people educate themselves on who they were and what they stood for, there is a very good chance we'll see those original limitations on government imposed again.

               replyreport
               1. 63

                  Mishaposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                  Unfortunately, pretty much like communism, your system proved itself to be incompatible with the real world, and degraded into banal democracy/mobocracy, with looming tyranny.

                  replyreport
                  1. 67

                     ledefensetechposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                     Until recently.  With the ascension of the Anointed One to power, people have rediscovered our Founders, and with that the sorts of  things they worried about and wanted us to avoid.  With that knowledge and with people waking up to the idea that all we were taught in school was a lie, you're starting to see a change, a nascent movement to restore what we originally had.
                     
                     Isn't that the same sort of thing that happened in the USSR when the Russian people discovered that they'd been lied to since the beginning of the Soviet takeover of the nation?

                     replyreport
                     1. 63

                        Mishaposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                        If you want to continue USSR analogy, your current period reminds me of the period during perestroika when people thought that if only we were following Lenin's teachings everything would have been good, and the evil was Stalin deviating from Lenin's plan...

                        replyreport
                        1. 67

                           ledefensetechposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                           Hmmm. Good comparison, I hadn't though of it from that perspective.  One thing I have noticed is that the rest of the world seems to be moving away from collectivism whereas there are elements in this nation that are running headlong into the socialist utopia. 
                           
                           I haven't read it yet, but there is a new biography of Trotsky out there.  http://mises.org/daily/4515  It's interesting to note that even Trotsky had to come out in support of Stalin and his policies, even though he (Trotsky) had been run out of the Soviet Union, at least as such plans divested the aristocracy of their power and property and kept evil "capitalists" from hijacking the Revolution.  Trotsky is so beloved by intellectuals that they can't bring themselves to be totally honest about Trotsky.  Even the author can't bring himself to condemn Trotsky for the very errors he accuses Trotsky of making.  Carl Sagan had a point when he said that authority doesn't necessarily confer weight to an argument.

                           replyreport
                           1. 63

                              Mishaposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                              If one takes time to actually read Trotsky and to think about it, it becomes obvious that Stalin is an innocent baby in comparison to Trotsky...

                              replyreport
                              1. 67

                                 ledefensetechposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                                 I haven't read much about him, I'll have to rectify that.  From what little I do know he sounds remarkably like George Bernard Shaw.

                                 replyreport
   3. 67

      ledefensetechposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      How is that a bad thing?  Going by the example of Waters and Rangel, who needs "professional" politicians.  Besides our legislators were originally envisioned as being members of society not some sort of neo-aristocracy who made the rules they didn't live by.

      replyreport
      1. 60

         Ron Montgomeryposted 13 years agoin reply to this

         A handful of crooks does not invalidate a system. (you conveniently omitted the long line of conservative legislators who have had similar problems or worse.)  tsk tsk.
         
         Did we learn anything from 8 years of the type of government you are advocating?

         replyreport
         1. 67

            ledefensetechposted 13 years agoin reply to this

            Handfull of crooks?  Waters and Rangel are just two of the most egregious examples of the corruption in Washington, they aren't the only examples of corruption.  Hell Boehner got called out on it yesterday on Fox by Chris Wallace and Boehner couldn't give a good answer:
            
            http://www.foxnews.com/on-air/fox-news- … t_id=86913
            
            The rot is in both parties, not just Democrats or Republicans.  Perhaps that's what we should be discussing, not partisan politics.

            replyreport
   4. 65

      Ralph Deedsposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      That's a good point. What's really needed is campaign finance reform which the Supreme Court recently made more difficult by giving free speech rights to corporations.

      replyreport
      1. 60

         Doug Hughesposted 13 years agoin reply to this

         Good to see you Ralph. I wanted to say thanks - last time I saw you, you were standing up for me against a mean-spirited homophobic attack from nurse Rachett. I appreciate it.

         replyreport
         1. 60

            Jim Hunterposted 13 years agoin reply to this

            Awwwwwwwwwww, what a shame.

            replyreport
5. 77

   Mighty Momposted 13 years ago

   Why can't we just ban lobbyists?

   replyreport
   1. 60

      Jim Hunterposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      Because it makes too much sense.

      replyreport
   2. 67

      ledefensetechposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      You really want to open up that can of worms?  Heck you can't get 90% of people to agree the color of the sky is blue, how can you expect people to agree on the definition of a lobbyist?  To put it another way, how do you keep the law from discriminating against one party's lobbyists while allowing the other party's lobbyists free reign.  In the end you'd have all the lobbyists working for one party.  How can that in any way be a good thing?

      replyreport
      1. 73

         someonewhoknowsposted 13 years agoin reply to this

         I say we do what the greeks once did and have a lottery where everyone who wants to be in a political position should just as much of a chance as anyone else and are picked by a method that is proven to be absolutely random.It couldn't be any worse than the system we use now With the exception of those who have the most money who could try to buy their way into office by buying a majority of lottery tickets if that were allowed.

         replyreport
         1. 67

            ledefensetechposted 13 years agoin reply to this

            The only problem is that you're as likely to get an incompetent in power as you are someone who knows what they are doing or can learn to do the right thing.  Democracy always leads to mobocracy which always ends in dictatorship.  Always.

            replyreport
   3. 63

      Mishaposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      When there is a demand - there is a supply. You need to ban government first

      replyreport
   4. 59

      fishskinfreak2008posted 13 years agoin reply to this

      That's flat out IMPOSSIBLE

      replyreport
      1. 60

         Jim Hunterposted 13 years agoin reply to this

         Why?

         replyreport
6. 66

   AnnCeeposted 13 years ago

   I don't think it is necessarily the case that new people are incompetent.  The existing Congress is so crooked, the power so tightly held among a few that a shake up could be nothing but good.  Think about the fact that 3/4 of the Congress wants the Federal Reserve audited, but there is no way they can get it done.  Power is locked up tight.  It's as if there has been a coup, Congress has been hijacked, it doesn't represent the American people, old-timers have been fully corrupted by power, they aren't even really Americans anymore, they live in a different world.  Just listen to the things that come out of their mouths.  Look at how they can look Americans straight in the face and say they did nothing wrong when they are caught with their frigging hands right exactly in the cookie jar for all to see!  They'll look you right in the face and say it's not true.   They are sick monsters and they need to go.  I say we need to get the old corrupt vampires out of Washington.

   replyreport
   1. 67

      ledefensetechposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      I think there's only one Congressman who wants to get rid of the Fed and that's Ron Paul.  Well two, now that his son won an office.  That's a far cry from the 3/4 of Congress you think want to repeal the FRA.  In fact, most politicians want to keep the Fed, they know how most of the programs they use to buy votes are funded, they're not about to cut off that kind of an invisible tax.

      replyreport
7. 60

   readytoescapeposted 13 years ago

   Maybe only hubbers with a certain number of hubs relating to specific political subjects and policies should be allowed to run for office.
   
   Positions and opinions could be easily vetted by observing the posted hubs to choose the candidate to elect,
   
   PLUS
   
   We have all the answers!

   replyreport
8. 66

   AnnCeeposted 13 years ago

   
   
   I didn't say  get rid of, I said audit, Led.

   replyreport
   1. 67

      ledefensetechposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      Be that as it may, it really would be a better idea to get rid of it.  The only thing a central bank does is make bust and boom cycles more common and more destructive.  You think people would have gotten a clue after the 2008 meltdown, but some people are always going to be thick, I guess.

      replyreport
9. 66

   AnnCeeposted 13 years ago

   Thick, Led?  The two presidents who went around the Fed were assassinated.   I don't think the overlords are thick, I think they are evil.
   
   Remember, 3/4 of the Congress are in favor of taking the lid off the Fed.   And they can't get it done.   I posted that article here under United State Politics, it's still on the first page.

   replyreport
   1. 67

      ledefensetechposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      Jeez and people say I'm paranoid.  Look the Fed is the government.  JFK was killed by the military, or the military and intelligence agencies because of the Cuban Missile Crisis; not because some "private" central bank wanted to protect themselves. 
      
      You might educate yourself a bit on the Fed and how power flows through that organization, it might surprise you:
      
      http://mises.org/daily/4171
      
      I still don't know where you're getting the 3/4 of Congress wants to audit the Fed.  You can't get 1/2 to agree on much of anything.  Look at the healthcare debate or the financial reform debate.  You expect me to believe that as partisan as this Congress is, that you can get 3/4 to agree on anything, much less auditing the Fed?  I'd like to see some proof personally.  The only person I've heard of calling to audit the Fed is Ron Paul.

      replyreport
10. 60

    BlogggerOneposted 13 years ago

    Maybe it would help to have congress (and the president) read these blogs and responses and find out what REAL PEOPLE are thinking about them.  They are all living in a beltway bubble.

    replyreport
    1. 66

       AnnCeeposted 13 years agoin reply to this

       But they LIKE their wonderful bubble.  In fact they love to blow economic bubbles too.
       
       

       replyreport
11. 66

    AnnCeeposted 13 years ago

    Fact is, we have an affirmative action president and Congress.    And the beginning of an affirmative action Supreme Court.  (Not conservative Justice Thomas of course.  He doesn't count.)   
    
    Why?  Because we owe them.  They deserve the jobs whether they are suited for them or not.
    
    Oh brave new world of ineptitude and lies.

    replyreport
12. 77

    lovemychrisposted 13 years ago

    Wow...I really do live in a parrallel universe.
    I like this administration. They DO represent me. Affirmative action? Why, cause they're not staunch conservatives?
    
    I was PROUD when Sotomayor and Kagan got in! How much more of a shake up do you need?
    
    Yeah--a lot of them are corrupt, but a lot of them aren't. And I saw it when the Dems took over the House. It was as if the flood-gates had opened up, and all the pent-up anger and frustration came out.
    
    We have one problem now far as I can see...the Republibaggers. They are the ones that need to go. Vamoose!
    
    I heard Waters speaking on her case......she will be vindicated, and this will be seen for what is it...another Beck/Brietbart type move.
    IMO

    replyreport