N.Y. GOP lawmaker to plead guilty to federal tax fraud - you should be proud [Archive]

dwarthog

12/23/2014, 08:47 AM

Charlie says hey...

Guess you guys will elect anyone to office, over and over again with a (D) next to the name.

Charles Rangel (D)

The following day, Rangel was found guilty on 11 of the 12 charges against him by the adjudicatory subcommittee of the House Ethics Committee (2 of the original 13 charges having been combined).[152][153] Two of the charges were focused on his actions with regards to soliciting funds and donations for the Rangel Center from those with business before the Ways and Means Committee; four were for improper use of Congressional letterhead and other House resources in those solicitations; one was for submitting incomplete and inaccurate financial disclosure statements; one was for using one of his Harlem apartments as an office when he had Congressional dealings with the landlord; one was for failing to pay taxes on his Dominican villa; and two reiterated these charges in describing general violations of House rules.[154]

Two days later, a near-tears Rangel pleaded for "fairness and mercy", but to no avail;[155] the full Committee voted 9–1 to recommend that the full House approve a sanction of censure upon Rangel.[156] The committee stated that "Public office is a public trust [and Rangel] violated that trust."[155] Censure is the strongest penalty the House can impose short of outright expulsion from Congress.[156] The Committee also said that Rangel should make restitution for any unpaid taxes.[156]

olevetonahill

12/23/2014, 09:26 AM

That's it? That's all you got? No lecture on the principled values of the republican party? Just some weak *** grade school name calling. Loser.

You wernt worth that. Have you not realized that ALL of those maggots are crooks? Ds,Rs Independents?

Sooner8th

12/23/2014, 10:16 AM

Charlie says hey... Guess you guys will elect anyone to office, over and over again with a (D) next to the name. Charles Rangel (D) The following day, Rangel was found guilty on 11 of the 12 charges against him by the adjudicatory subcommittee of the House Ethics Committee (2 of the original 13 charges having been combined).[152][153] Two of the charges were focused on his actions with regards to soliciting funds and donations for the Rangel Center from those with business before the Ways and Means Committee; four were for improper use of Congressional letterhead and other House resources in those solicitations; one was for submitting incomplete and inaccurate financial disclosure statements; one was for using one of his Harlem apartments as an office when he had Congressional dealings with the landlord; one was for failing to pay taxes on his Dominican villa; and two reiterated these charges in describing general violations of House rules.[154]Two days later, a near-tears Rangel pleaded for "fairness and mercy", but to no avail;[155] the full Committee voted 9–1 to recommend that the full House approve a sanction of censure upon Rangel.[156] The committee stated that "Public office is a public trust [and Rangel] violated that trust."[155] Censure is the strongest penalty the House can impose short of outright expulsion from Congress.[156] The Committee also said that Rangel should make restitution for any unpaid taxes.[156]I am not seeing where Rangel is a CONVICTED FELON. Typical of you and the right, the standards are different for R's and D's.

SoonerorLater

12/23/2014, 10:20 AM

olevetonahill

12/23/2014, 10:37 AM

^^^^^^^ Troll Alert ^^^^^^^

"Online trolls really are horrible people. Researchers find they are narcissistic, machiavellian, psychopathic and sadistic"

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2559860/Online-trolls-really-ARE-horrible-people-researchers-Narcissistic-Machiavellian-psychopathic-sadistic.html#ixzz3M5wwElfo

8th is a
https://encrypted-tbn1.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQb9BGZBy8WR337pxyMhmIZnjpdswcPB kptxkveQWjCEKlfhlAc

http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/31m6DGGAnDL.jpg

badger

12/23/2014, 10:43 AM

N.Y. GOP lawmaker to plead guilty to federal tax fraud - you should be proud
I'm proud that even our lawmakers are held accountable for their actions, yes.I think we can all agree that there have been lawmakers past and present and will be in the future that are less than stellar citizens and hopefully they will continue to be held accountable when they break the law.

There's no need to get into an R vs D fight over this. If Rick Perry can seamlessly change his R/D affiliation and political tune with the changing Texas political winds, then so can elected officials in every state. California? I LOVE THE ENVIRONMENT AND IMMIGRANTS! Oklahoma? I LOVE LOWER TAXES AND WANT TO IMPROVE ROADS AND BRIDGES! Colorado? I LOVE VOTERS' RIGHTS TO CHOOSE WHETHER MARIJUANA IS LEGAL OR NOT!

Politicians are not representatives of anyone but themselves when they decide to selfishly commit tax fraud and such

okie52

12/23/2014, 10:52 AM

I am not seeing where Rangel is a CONVICTED FELON. Typical of you and the right, the standards are different for R's and D's.

Censure by a dem house no less...but still reelected.

Grimm still isn't a "convicted felon" and wasn't when he was reelected. But you are a man of integrity.

Sooner8th

12/23/2014, 10:52 AM

I'm proud that even our lawmakers are held accountable for their actions, yes.I think we can all agree that there have been lawmakers past and present and will be in the future that are less than stellar citizens and hopefully they will continue to be held accountable when they break the law.There's no need to get into an R vs D fight over this. If Rick Perry can seamlessly change his R/D affiliation and political tune with the changing Texas political winds, then so can elected officials in every state. California? I LOVE THE ENVIRONMENT AND IMMIGRANTS! Oklahoma? I LOVE LOWER TAXES AND WANT TO IMPROVE ROADS AND BRIDGES! Colorado? I LOVE VOTERS' RIGHTS TO CHOOSE WHETHER MARIJUANA IS LEGAL OR NOT!Politicians are not representatives of anyone but themselves when they decide to selfishly commit tax fraud and suchYou are missing the point here. Conservatives and republicans present themselves as the only holder of principled values. Your party is running around screaming at the top of their lungs about the lawlessness of "this president" meanwhile when one of their own had a 20 count indictment six months BEFORE the election the leaders of the party of principled values did not force him out and run another candidate, winning by a huge margin and now after he is going to plead guilty to a FELONY, boner won’t say if Michael Grimm has to go. No integrity. http://www.politico.com/story/2014/12/michael-grimm-to-plead-guilty-113745.html

badger

12/23/2014, 11:03 AM

You are missing the point here
Oh, I know why you posted it. This is my unchanged stance whenever something like this gets posted, because I can assure you that these type of things will never stop being posted and have been posted many times before. The only things that change are the names and the crimes committed

REDREX

12/23/2014, 11:26 AM

You are missing the point here. Conservatives and republicans present themselves as the only holder of principled values. Your party is running around screaming at the top of their lungs about the lawlessness of "this president" meanwhile when one of their own had a 20 count indictment six months BEFORE the election the leaders of the party of principled values did not force him out and run another candidate, winning by a huge margin and now after he is going to plead guilty to a FELONY, boner won’t say if Michael Grimm has to go. No integrity. http://www.politico.com/story/2014/12/michael-grimm-to-plead-guilty-113745.html-----Barack,Nancy, Harry and many other Dems LIE to pass Obamacare and you dare speak about lack of integrity?

Sooner in Tampa

12/23/2014, 11:26 AM

The OP really is an oxygen thief...isn't he? You post this bull$hit about integrity and lemmings...how the fvck are you any different than any other person? If you think the Ds have the market cornered on integrity and being better than any other political party, let me know, because I have some ocean front property in Arizona to sell you.

Here is a hot flash for you, dumbass...THEY ARE ALL CROOKED!! So go back to Democrat Underground and participate in a circle jerk or something more useful than putting this drivel on this message board.

I mean, really, what are you trying to accomplish? Do you want everyone on this board to hate you even more than they already do? I doubt that its possible, but go for it sweetcheeks.

Breadburner

12/23/2014, 01:09 PM

Op is just a stupid dick....

Sooner8th

12/23/2014, 04:48 PM

Censure by a dem house no less...but still reelected.Grimm still isn't a "convicted felon" and wasn't when he was reelected. But you are a man of integrity.OH YES HE IS.Rep. Michael Grimm pleaded guilty to a single count of felony tax evasion on Tuesday, setting off rampant speculation about whether the New York Republican will resign or fight to keep his job.Grimm apologized and admitted to aiding and assisting in the preparation of fraudulent tax returns, part of a 20-count indictment federal prosecutors brought against him in April. But outside the federal courthouse in Brooklyn, Grimm was defiant and said he had no plans to step down. Lynch said that, aside from the guilty plea, Grimm has also signed a statement “admitting to the conduct underlying every charge filed against him.” “Michael Grimm has now publicly admitted that he hired unauthorized workers whom he paid ‘off the books’ in cash, took deliberate steps to obstruct the federal and state governments from collecting taxes he properly owed, cheated New York State out of workers’ compensation insurance premiums, caused numerous false business and personal tax returns to be filed for several years, and lied under oath to cover up his crimes. For republicans censure = FELONY TAX EVASION CONVICTION and no plans to step down. Tell me again about impeaching obama for crimes and misdemeanors while this conservative republican is a convicted felon is still in office. I wonder what "unauthorized workers" is, I we both know. ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS!http://thehill.com/homenews/house/227979-rep-grimm-pleads-guilty-to-tax-evasion

FaninAma

12/23/2014, 04:50 PM

Where is Jesse Jackson, Jr. these days? I haven't seen any news on him lately.

dwarthog

12/23/2014, 05:04 PM

Where is Jesse Jackson, Jr. these days? I haven't seen any news on him lately.

Cheese fell all the way off his cracker, plus he's hiding out from that little campaign funds misuse issue. It's all good, he has the seal of approval, (D), so nothing to see here, move along.

Sooner8th

12/23/2014, 05:09 PM

Where is Jesse Jackson, Jr. these days? I haven't seen any news on him lately.Well his is NOT in the house. He had the decency to resign four months before he plead guilty.

Turd_Ferguson

12/23/2014, 06:55 PM

Well his is NOT in the house. He had the decency to resign four months before he plead guilty.

That mother****er wouldn't know decency if he ****'n tripped over it.

Sooner8th

12/23/2014, 07:43 PM

That mother****er wouldn't know decency if he ****'n tripped over it.Funny how I have not seen a single post from you rightwingers saying he should resign.

okie52

12/24/2014, 10:55 AM

OH YES HE IS.Rep. Michael Grimm pleaded guilty to a single count of felony tax evasion on Tuesday, setting off rampant speculation about whether the New York Republican will resign or fight to keep his job.Grimm apologized and admitted to aiding and assisting in the preparation of fraudulent tax returns, part of a 20-count indictment federal prosecutors brought against him in April. But outside the federal courthouse in Brooklyn, Grimm was defiant and said he had no plans to step down. Lynch said that, aside from the guilty plea, Grimm has also signed a statement “admitting to the conduct underlying every charge filed against him.” “Michael Grimm has now publicly admitted that he hired unauthorized workers whom he paid ‘off the books’ in cash, took deliberate steps to obstruct the federal and state governments from collecting taxes he properly owed, cheated New York State out of workers’ compensation insurance premiums, caused numerous false business and personal tax returns to be filed for several years, and lied under oath to cover up his crimes. For republicans censure = FELONY TAX EVASION CONVICTION and no plans to step down. Tell me again about impeaching obama for crimes and misdemeanors while this conservative republican is a convicted felon is still in office. I wonder what "unauthorized workers" is, I we both know. ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS!http://thehill.com/homenews/house/227979-rep-grimm-pleads-guilty-to-tax-evasion

I know...I know... only pubs are hypocrites...

Grimm wasn't a convicted felon when he was elected...Rangel was a censured rep when he was reelected. Your point was pubs voting for anyone that has an R by his name along with their hypocrisy... yet you have no problem with reelecting a dem was censured. You talking about hypocrisy is laughable.

Here is one of my favorites from the "party of science"...I'm sure you love it too.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QjG958lZ1KI

After this astounding scientific observation Johnson was re elected by an overwhelming margin

2010
Johnson won reelection over the Republican candidate, business owner Liz Carter, gaining 131,760 of 176,467 votes, or 74.67% of the total.

http://www.ask.com/wiki/Hank_Johnson?o=2800&qsrc=999&ad=doubleDown&an=apn&ap=ask.com

Merry Christmas 8th

Sooner8th

12/24/2014, 04:15 PM

I know...I know... only pubs are hypocrites... Grimm wasn't a convicted felon when he was elected...Rangel was a censured rep when he was reelected. Your point was pubs voting for anyone that has an R by his name along with their hypocrisy... yet you have no problem with reelecting a dem was censured. You talking about hypocrisy is laughable. Here is one of my favorites from the "party of science"...I'm sure you love it too.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QjG958lZ1KIAfter this astounding scientific observation Johnson was re elected by an overwhelming marginhttp://www.ask.com/wiki/Hank_Johnson?o=2800&qsrc=999&ad=doubleDown&an=apn&ap=ask.comMerry Christmas 8thShow me where either of these two guys are CONVICTED FELONS. You are showing two different standards, one for dems one for pubs. You party has a CONVICTED FELON in congress and your parties leadership doesn't know if they are going to ask him to resign. It is in a swing district. No integrity. Avery merry christmas to you.

SCOUT

12/25/2014, 01:01 AM

Show me where either of these two guys are CONVICTED FELONS. You are showing two different standards, one for dems one for pubs. You party has a CONVICTED FELON in congress and your parties leadership doesn't know if they are going to ask him to resign. It is in a swing district. No integrity. Avery merry christmas to you.

Marion Barry would say "Hi", but the crack caught up with him.

Oh, and he was elected before conviction. Now convicted? He should resign.

okie52

12/26/2014, 11:30 AM

Originally Posted by Sooner8th

Talk about a complete lack of integrity, Satan could win with an R after his name with you lemmings running out and blindly jerk down the levers for R's. A 20-count indictment in April and he still won by 55 to 42 percent. Tell me about about you're the party of values.

Well, 8th, you've forgotten your original post so I'll repost it for your benefit. You were talking about pubs and their lack of integrity in voting for Grimm when he wasn't convicted of anything in the last election. Lemmings "blindly jerking down the levers" happens on both sides (see previous posts).

Show me where either of these two guys are CONVICTED FELONS. You are showing two different standards, one for dems one for pubs. You party has a CONVICTED FELON in congress and your parties leadership doesn't know if they are going to ask him to resign. It is in a swing district. No integrity.

Show me where the pubs reelected a convicted felon? Now you're trying to shift the conversation to what pub leadership is doing when Grimm just pled guilty 3 days ago while congress is adjourned. You are showing two different standards...please work on that integrity.

Sooner8th

12/26/2014, 11:39 AM

Well, 8th, you've forgotten your original post so I'll repost it for your benefit. You were talking about pubs and their lack of integrity for voting for Grimm when he wasn't convicted of anything in the last election. Lemmings "blindly jerking down the levers" happens on both sides (see previous posts). Show me where the pubs reelected a convicted felon? Now you're trying to shift the conversation to what pub leadership is doing when Grimm just pled guilty 3 days ago while congress is adjourned. You are showing two different standards...please work on that integrity.You still have no integrity. Grimm was indicted on 20 counts by the feds. Show me where rangel was indited by he feds. Rangel did not break the law or he would have been - there is that word again - INDICTED. The congressional panel, sitting as a jury, found that Rangel had used House stationery and staff to solicit money for a New York college center named after him. It also concluded he solicited donors for the center with interests before the Ways and Means Committee, leaving the impression the money could influence official actions.He also was found guilty of failing to disclose at least $600,000 in assets and income in a series of inaccurate reports to Congress; using a rent-subsidized New York apartment for a campaign office, when it was designated for residential use; and failure to report to the IRS rental income from a housing unit in a Dominican Republic resort.The ethics panel split 4-4 on a charge that Rangel violated a ban on gifts because he was to have an office – and storage of his papers – at the Charles B. Rangel Center for Public Service at City College of New York.Two counts charging him with misuse of Congress' free mail privilege were merged into one.The charges said the solicitation for the Rangel Center targeted foundations and businesses that were seeking official action from the House, or had interests that might be substantially affected by Rangel's congressional conduct.However, Rangel was not accused of using his influence to pass or defeat legislation. TRY AGAIN.

okie52

12/26/2014, 11:58 AM

You still have no integrity. Grimm was indicted on 20 counts by the feds. Show me where rangel was indited by he feds. Rangel did not break the law or he would have been - there is that word again - INDICTED. The congressional panel, sitting as a jury, found that Rangel had used House stationery and staff to solicit money for a New York college center named after him. It also concluded he solicited donors for the center with interests before the Ways and Means Committee, leaving the impression the money could influence official actions.He also was found guilty of failing to disclose at least $600,000 in assets and income in a series of inaccurate reports to Congress; using a rent-subsidized New York apartment for a campaign office, when it was designated for residential use; and failure to report to the IRS rental income from a housing unit in a Dominican Republic resort.The ethics panel split 4-4 on a charge that Rangel violated a ban on gifts because he was to have an office – and storage of his papers – at the Charles B. Rangel Center for Public Service at City College of New York.Two counts charging him with misuse of Congress' free mail privilege were merged into one.The charges said the solicitation for the Rangel Center targeted foundations and businesses that were seeking official action from the House, or had interests that might be substantially affected by Rangel's congressional conduct.However, Rangel was not accused of using his influence to pass or defeat legislation. TRY AGAIN.

Indicted is not convicted. Now that Grimm has pled guilty he should resign but the point in your OP was that pubs are lemmings for voting for anyone with an R by their name. Still haven't shown me where pubs voted for a convicted felon. You want to ignore dems reelecting a candidate that was censured by a DEM house and dems reelecting another candidate that should be in a padded cell. Lemmings...that is your favorite term for that type of behavior, isn't it 8th?

The Remnant

12/26/2014, 01:36 PM

Marion Barry was caught on videotape smoking crack, served time in a federal prison, and was promptly re-elected mayor of DC. by a heavily Democratic majority.

olevetonahill

12/26/2014, 01:45 PM

Marion Barry was caught on videotape smoking crack, served time in a federal prison, and was promptly re-elected mayor of DC. by a heavily Democratic majority.

SHHHHH , You will make 8ths head assplode

Sooner8th

12/26/2014, 07:49 PM

Indicted is not convicted. Now that Grimm has pled guilty he should resign but the point in your OP was that pubs are lemmings for voting for anyone with an R by their name. Still haven't shown me where pubs voted for a convicted felon. You want to ignore dems reelecting a candidate that was censured by a DEM house and dems reelecting another candidate that should be in a padded cell. Lemmings...that is your favorite term for that type of behavior, isn't it 8th?Censured is not indicted and it is sure as hell not a convicted felon. You keep trying with this false equivalency of rangel and grimm. You see what rangel did was not illegal and what grimm did was. FELONIES. GET IT? The congressional panel, sitting as a jury, found that Rangel had used House stationery and staff to solicit money for a New York college center named after him. It also concluded he solicited donors for the center with interests before the Ways and Means Committee, leaving the impression the money could influence official actions.He also was found guilty of failing to disclose at least $600,000 in assets and income in a series of inaccurate reports to Congress; using a rent-subsidized New York apartment for a campaign office, when it was designated for residential use; and failure to report to the IRS rental income from a housing unit in a Dominican Republic resort.The ethics panel split 4-4 on a charge that Rangel violated a ban on gifts because he was to have an office – and storage of his papers – at the Charles B. Rangel Center for Public Service at City College of New York.Two counts charging him with misuse of Congress' free mail privilege were merged into one.The charges said the solicitation for the Rangel Center targeted foundations and businesses that were seeking official action from the House, or had interests that might be substantially affected by Rangel's congressional conduct. Your boy was indicted in April on 20 counts of filing false tax returns, mail fraud, wire fraud, hiring undocumented workers and perjury. ILLEGAL FELONIES. NO ETHICS VIOLATIONS. Do you see the diffence - pumpkin? Your people did vote for a convicted felon as grimm is one now. The lemmings ignored his hiring of illegal immigrants. We do not purport to be the party of morals, principals and values - YOUR PARTY DOES. You just keep proving with these posts trying to compare rangel to grimm. LEMMING.

Turd_Ferguson

12/27/2014, 12:31 AM

Censured is not indicted and it is sure as hell not a convicted felon. You keep trying with this false equivalency of rangel and grimm. You see what rangel did was not illegal and what grimm did was. FELONIES. GET IT? The congressional panel, sitting as a jury, found that Rangel had used House stationery and staff to solicit money for a New York college center named after him. It also concluded he solicited donors for the center with interests before the Ways and Means Committee, leaving the impression the money could influence official actions.He also was found guilty of failing to disclose at least $600,000 in assets and income in a series of inaccurate reports to Congress; using a rent-subsidized New York apartment for a campaign office, when it was designated for residential use; and failure to report to the IRS rental income from a housing unit in a Dominican Republic resort.The ethics panel split 4-4 on a charge that Rangel violated a ban on gifts because he was to have an office – and storage of his papers – at the Charles B. Rangel Center for Public Service at City College of New York.Two counts charging him with misuse of Congress' free mail privilege were merged into one.The charges said the solicitation for the Rangel Center targeted foundations and businesses that were seeking official action from the House, or had interests that might be substantially affected by Rangel's congressional conduct. Your boy was indicted in April on 20 counts of filing false tax returns, mail fraud, wire fraud, hiring undocumented workers and perjury. ILLEGAL FELONIES. NO ETHICS VIOLATIONS. Do you see the diffence - pumpkin? Your people did vote for a convicted felon as grimm is one now. The lemmings ignored his hiring of illegal immigrants. We do not purport to be the party of morals, principals and values - YOUR PARTY DOES. You just keep proving with these posts trying to compare rangel to grimm. LEMMING.

HAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHA!!!! Dance monkey DANCE!!! HAHAHAHHAHA!!!

SCOUT

12/27/2014, 01:26 AM

I think the person behind the 8th troll should pick a new handle and change it up a bit. This one is getting boring.

Maybe try being a staunch Libertarian?

Sooner8th

12/27/2014, 07:15 AM

HAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHA!!!! Dance monkey DANCE!!! HAHAHAHHAHA!!!The only monkeys around here dancing are conservatives and republicans who instead of saying this POS needs to go spend their time looking for some false equivalence with democrats. Like I keep saying no integrity.

SoonerorLater

12/27/2014, 09:52 AM

Does this describe somebody we know on this board?

---------------------------
12 Most Telling Characteristics of a Social Media Troll

I define a social media troll as someone who seeks to lure or bait people into negative, disruptive rhetoric for their own edification or to commandeer an otherwise free-flowing discussion among colleagues. They don’t recognize anyone that may be interested in discussing something that bores them and opt to criticize or yell “boring” instead of engaging in the discussion. They choose to belittle those who seek the information and discourse as well as those who try to provide it. They simply have no interest in anything that is not self-serving.

Trolls will defend their focus on expressing contrary opinions as an honorable attempt to rid the online community of fake-experts, get to the truth of a matter or enlighten their followers; however, their intent has nothing to do with community building or public enlightenment. If it was, they’d be more respectful in their debate. Advancing the understanding of a topic requires discussion, which by its very nature is bi-directional. There is no winner in a discussion, only points of view. Intelligent discussions don’t require people to agree but they do require a respectful exchange of ideas with the intent of exploring both sides, not “winning” or criticizing others.

Throughout the last 15 years, I’ve seen trolls work their way from discussion forums to blogs and now on to social networks. Like Shrek, they are no longer in hiding; they’re proud and openly walking among us. The nature of social media networks has created a prime hunting ground for them and they seem to revel in the celebrity of being a troll. The one thing that is consistent seems to be their unwillingness to admit that their intent is to be disruptive or self-serving rather than educational.

Are you a Troll? Not sure? You know you’re a Troll if you:
1. Display false interest

You join a chat you’re not interested in only tell people how lame the chat, topic or guests are.
2. Act overly critical

You join a chat and your only contribution to the collective discourse is to criticize comments, opinions or people.
3. Argue ad nauseum

You continue to argue a point well beyond any educational value for you or the audience to the point where you’re comments are simply repetitive rhetoric.
4. Wage attacks

You post personal attacks on someone’s character, family, job etc. instead of respectfully discussing the point at hand.
5. Present opinions as facts

You fervently argue subjects in which you have no real experience or subject matter expertise, yet present your point of view as fact.
6. Engage those you don’t like

You openly share your dislike or annoyance with an individual(s) yet continuously bait into public discussions through tweets/posts/blog comments.
7. Reject conflicting points of view

You publicly and loudly reject any opinion or fact that is not owned or shared by you, regardless of its validity or interest to the local audience or community at large.
8. Fan the flames in order to “win”

You refuse to “agree to disagree”, choosing to continue to bait your audience with questions and comments that fuels a continuing argument. You have to “win” every discussion as if was a game and will continue to argue even if the discussion moves on to other topics.
9. Don’t allow room for healthy debate

You don’t appreciate a dialogue with those who don’t express your point of view and never offer a “Thank You” for the exchange of information or opinions, choosing to get the last word in with a final insult or criticism.
10. Act childish

You resort to swearing or personal attacks when your point of view is not embraced by others instead of simply moving on.
11. Love to beat a dead horse

You introduce topics you love to hate-on even when no one else is discussing them or when it’s not part of the group’s discussion topic, simply to fuel your need to criticize.
12. Possess anger issues

You respond to others with increasing intensity, hatred, or provocation. You’re fuelled by the negativity.

There are many theories for why trolls are the way they are: bullied as children, jealousy, “little-man syndrome”, dropped on their heads as children maybe. Not sure. But they do exist.

If you’re being attacked by one, remember that trolls are like fire: they can only exist in the presence of oxygen. Removing their oxygen (your attention) is the best way to extinguish them. But this has to be done by the entire community, not just one person. Some try to engage the Troll, even trying to change or placate them but it only serves to fuel their ego and their attacks grow stronger. The community benefits from the group discussion and learning and it’s the community’s duty to ignore the Trolls in support of their victims.

http://12most.com/2011/09/29/12-telling-characteristics-social-media-troll/

Sooner8th

12/27/2014, 10:29 AM

Does this describe somebody we know on this board?---------------------------12 Most Telling Characteristics of a Social Media TrollI define a social media troll as someone who seeks to lure or bait people into negative, disruptive rhetoric for their own edification or to commandeer an otherwise free-flowing discussion among colleagues. They don’t recognize anyone that may be interested in discussing something that bores them and opt to criticize or yell “boring” instead of engaging in the discussion. They choose to belittle those who seek the information and discourse as well as those who try to provide it. They simply have no interest in anything that is not self-serving.Trolls will defend their focus on expressing contrary opinions as an honorable attempt to rid the online community of fake-experts, get to the truth of a matter or enlighten their followers; however, their intent has nothing to do with community building or public enlightenment. If it was, they’d be more respectful in their debate. Advancing the understanding of a topic requires discussion, which by its very nature is bi-directional. There is no winner in a discussion, only points of view. Intelligent discussions don’t require people to agree but they do require a respectful exchange of ideas with the intent of exploring both sides, not “winning” or criticizing others.Throughout the last 15 years, I’ve seen trolls work their way from discussion forums to blogs and now on to social networks. Like Shrek, they are no longer in hiding; they’re proud and openly walking among us. The nature of social media networks has created a prime hunting ground for them and they seem to revel in the celebrity of being a troll. The one thing that is consistent seems to be their unwillingness to admit that their intent is to be disruptive or self-serving rather than educational.Are you a Troll? Not sure? You know you’re a Troll if you:1. Display false interestYou join a chat you’re not interested in only tell people how lame the chat, topic or guests are.2. Act overly criticalYou join a chat and your only contribution to the collective discourse is to criticize comments, opinions or people.3. Argue ad nauseumYou continue to argue a point well beyond any educational value for you or the audience to the point where you’re comments are simply repetitive rhetoric.4. Wage attacksYou post personal attacks on someone’s character, family, job etc. instead of respectfully discussing the point at hand.5. Present opinions as factsYou fervently argue subjects in which you have no real experience or subject matter expertise, yet present your point of view as fact.6. Engage those you don’t likeYou openly share your dislike or annoyance with an individual(s) yet continuously bait into public discussions through tweets/posts/blog comments.7. Reject conflicting points of viewYou publicly and loudly reject any opinion or fact that is not owned or shared by you, regardless of its validity or interest to the local audience or community at large.8. Fan the flames in order to “win”You refuse to “agree to disagree”, choosing to continue to bait your audience with questions and comments that fuels a continuing argument. You have to “win” every discussion as if was a game and will continue to argue even if the discussion moves on to other topics.9. Don’t allow room for healthy debateYou don’t appreciate a dialogue with those who don’t express your point of view and never offer a “Thank You” for the exchange of information or opinions, choosing to get the last word in with a final insult or criticism.10. Act childishYou resort to swearing or personal attacks when your point of view is not embraced by others instead of simply moving on.11. Love to beat a dead horseYou introduce topics you love to hate-on even when no one else is discussing them or when it’s not part of the group’s discussion topic, simply to fuel your need to criticize.12. Possess anger issuesYou respond to others with increasing intensity, hatred, or provocation. You’re fuelled by the negativity.There are many theories for why trolls are the way they are: bullied as children, jealousy, “little-man syndrome”, dropped on their heads as children maybe. Not sure. But they do exist.If you’re being attacked by one, remember that trolls are like fire: they can only exist in the presence of oxygen. Removing their oxygen (your attention) is the best way to extinguish them. But this has to be done by the entire community, not just one person. Some try to engage the Troll, even trying to change or placate them but it only serves to fuel their ego and their attacks grow stronger. The community benefits from the group discussion and learning and it’s the community’s duty to ignore the Trolls in support of their victims.http://12most.com/2011/09/29/12-telling-characteristics-social-media-troll/You are so fvcking stupid and desperate enough to follow your fellow lemmings into not believing the economic data is good and real you quoted a post by TYLER DURDEN! You have no credibility. You are a true dumbass lemming. TYLER DURDEN.

SoonerorLater

12/27/2014, 11:18 AM

^^^^^^^^^^ Troll Alert ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

10. Act childish

resort to swearing or personal attacks when your point of view is not embraced by others instead of simply moving on.

Sooner8th

12/27/2014, 12:35 PM

^^^^^^^^^^ Troll Alert ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^10. Act childish resort to swearing or personal attacks when your point of view is not embraced by others instead of simply moving on.^^^^^^^^^^ Idiot Alert ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^TYLER DURDEN

Turd_Ferguson

12/27/2014, 01:11 PM

^^^^^^^^^^ Idiot Alert ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^TYLER DURDEN

^^^^^^^^^^ Doosh Bag Alert ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^DANCING MONKEY

okie52

12/27/2014, 01:17 PM

Censured is not indicted and it is sure as hell not a convicted felon. You keep trying with this false equivalency of rangel and grimm. You see what rangel did was not illegal and what grimm did was. FELONIES. GET IT? The congressional panel, sitting as a jury, found that Rangel had used House stationery and staff to solicit money for a New York college center named after him. It also concluded he solicited donors for the center with interests before the Ways and Means Committee, leaving the impression the money could influence official actions.He also was found guilty of failing to disclose at least $600,000 in assets and income in a series of inaccurate reports to Congress; using a rent-subsidized New York apartment for a campaign office, when it was designated for residential use; and failure to report to the IRS rental income from a housing unit in a Dominican Republic resort.The ethics panel split 4-4 on a charge that Rangel violated a ban on gifts because he was to have an office – and storage of his papers – at the Charles B. Rangel Center for Public Service at City College of New York.Two counts charging him with misuse of Congress' free mail privilege were merged into one.The charges said the solicitation for the Rangel Center targeted foundations and businesses that were seeking official action from the House, or had interests that might be substantially affected by Rangel's congressional conduct. Your boy was indicted in April on 20 counts of filing false tax returns, mail fraud, wire fraud, hiring undocumented workers and perjury. ILLEGAL FELONIES. NO ETHICS VIOLATIONS. Do you see the diffence - pumpkin? Your people did vote for a convicted felon as grimm is one now. The lemmings ignored his hiring of illegal immigrants. We do not purport to be the party of morals, principals and values - YOUR PARTY DOES. You just keep proving with these posts trying to compare rangel to grimm. LEMMING.

Grimm wasn't "convicted" of anything when he ran for office.

So reelecting a censured candidate is a good thing by dem standards?

You purport to be the "party of science" and reelected a person that believes Guam will capsize. You don't know how foolish you look.

Turd_Ferguson

12/27/2014, 01:18 PM

So reelecting a censured candidate is a good thing by dem standards.

You purport to be the "party of science" and reelected a person that believes Guam will capsize. You don't know how foolish you look.

What do you expect from a LEMMING?

okie52

12/27/2014, 01:20 PM

What do you expect from a LEMMING?

Amazing how someone can be so down on lemmings and be one at the same time.

SoonerorLater

12/27/2014, 01:38 PM

SoonerorLater

12/27/2014, 01:40 PM

"There are many theories for why trolls are the way they are: bullied as children, jealousy, “little-man syndrome”, dropped on their heads as children maybe. "

Probably all of the above in this case.

olevetonahill

12/27/2014, 01:45 PM

okie52

12/27/2014, 01:49 PM

Sooner8th

12/27/2014, 04:02 PM

Grimm wasn't "convicted" of anything when he ran for office.So reelecting a censured candidate is a good thing by dem standards? You purport to be the "party of science" and reelected a person that believes Guam will capsize. You don't know how foolish you look.One more time - censured is not CRIMINAL. Indicted is CRIMINAL. You keep trying for this false equivalency between of censured that is NOT illegal and a CRIMINAL INDICTMENT. The lemmings in your party even ignored the fact that he had hired ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS AND PAID THEM UNDER THE TABLE. I understand you cannot comprehend the difference between censured and indicted, you still think cg tax cuts cause cg tax revenues to go up. Like I keep saying LEMMINGS.

Sooner8th

12/27/2014, 04:06 PM

^^^^^^^^^^ Troll Alert ^^^^^^^^^^^^12. Possess anger issues respond to others with increasing intensity, hatred, or provocation. You’re fueled by the negativity.6. Engage those you don’t likeYou openly share your dislike or annoyance with an individual(s) yet continuously bait into public discussions through tweets/posts/blog comments.Do you think reposting something wipes out your TYLER DURDEN post? You have show me how stupid you are with your TYLER DURDEN post, but keep trying these lemmings will fall in right behind you.

okie52

12/27/2014, 04:54 PM

One more time - censured is not CRIMINAL. Indicted is CRIMINAL. You keep trying for this false equivalency between of censured that is NOT illegal and a CRIMINAL INDICTMENT. The lemmings in your party even ignored the fact that he had hired ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS AND PAID THEM UNDER THE TABLE. I understand you cannot comprehend the difference between censured and indicted, you still think cg tax cuts cause cg tax revenues to go up. Like I keep saying LEMMINGS.

Ahh 8th, if only you could find balance in that slanted mind of yours. I said both sides do it but you have foolishly fought to say only pubs do it.

Cg revenues did go up after tax cuts...every time....you've never been able to grasp that fact but we've been down that road a few times already. And this from a google master that still stated the dems tried twice to pass immigration reform when they controlled the presidency and congress after being shown they didn't.

Censured by his own dem house...meaning (in deference to you) that his own colleagues (dem and pub alike) found his conduct reprehensible.

House censures Rep. Charles Rangel in 333-79 vote

With 170 Democrats joining all but two Republicans, the chamber approved the condemnation for 11 rules infractions that included 17 years of unpaid taxes on property in the Dominican Republic, more than $500,000 in undisclosed financial assets and inappropriately raising millions of dollars for a New York City college from corporations with business before the Ways and Means Committee.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/12/02/AR2010120201626.html

Yet the dem "free thinkers" in his district chose to reelect him 3 more times. Of course you've never even addressed the "party of science" reelecting 3 more times a dem rep that thinks Guam will capsize...but they're not lemmings...right 8th? But this is from a party that nominated a guy that said the north pole would be gone by 2013. Integrity...you still don't have it.

SoonerorLater

12/27/2014, 05:44 PM

Ahh 8th, if only you could find balance in that slanted mind of yours. I said both sides do it but you have foolishly fought to say only pubs do it.

Cg revenues did go up after tax cuts...every time....you've never been able to grasp that fact but we've been down that road a few times already. And this from a google master that still stated the dems tried twice to pass immigration reform when they controlled the presidency and congress after being shown they didn't.

Censured by his own dem house...meaning (in deference to you) that his own colleagues (dem and pub alike) found his conduct reprehensible.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/12/02/AR2010120201626.html

Yet the dem "free thinkers" in his district chose to reelect him 3 more times. Of course you've never even addressed the "party of science" reelecting 3 more times a dem rep that thinks Guam will capsize...but they're not lemmings...right 8th? But this is from a party that nominated a guy that said the north pole would be gone by 2013. Integrity...you still don't have it.

52 this guy is a textbook troll. If he wasn't here arguing about R's and D's or conservatives he would be here trolling about something else. Anything to start an argument and get the attention he craves. You know he's a troll, I know he's a troll, the rest of the board knows he's a troll, he even knows he's a troll. He doesn't even dispute the fact he is a troll. You know why? He fits every definition of a troll. There is absolutely no discussion you or anybody else will have with him where he isn't looking for an angle to vent his rage about whatever it is that he is unable to cope with in real life.

It's a message board and there are always going to be some disagreeable SOB's but this guy goes beyond that. This sick piece of human debris is up in the early a.m. hours on Christmas Morning raging on. What kind of a normal person would be doing that? The guy really does have mental issues.

olevetonahill

12/27/2014, 05:58 PM

52 this guy is a textbook troll. If he wasn't here arguing about R's and D's or conservatives he would be here trolling about something else. Anything to start and argument and get the attention he craves. You know he's a troll, I know he's a troll, the rest of the board knows he's a troll, he even knows he's a troll. He doesn't even dispute the fact he is a troll. You know why? He fits every definition of a troll. There is absolutely no discussion you or anybody else will have with him where he isn't looking for an angle to vent his rage about whatever it is that he is unable to cope with in real life.

It's a message board and there are always going to be some disagreeable SOB's but this guy is goes beyond that. This sick piece of human debris is up in the early a.m. hours on Christmas Morning raging on. What kind of a normal person would be doing that? The guy really does have mental issues.

Well said. I put him on ignore not long after he started posting. Then decided I have more fun trolling him back than ignoring him.

Sooner8th

12/28/2014, 12:19 PM

Ahh 8th, if only you could find balance in that slanted mind of yours. I said both sides do it but you have foolishly fought to say only pubs do it. Cg revenues did go up after tax cuts...every time....you've never been able to grasp that fact but we've been down that road a few times already. And this from a google master that still stated the dems tried twice to pass immigration reform when they controlled the presidency and congress after being shown they didn't. Censured by his own dem house...meaning (in deference to you) that his own colleagues (dem and pub alike) found his conduct reprehensible.http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/12/02/AR2010120201626.htmlYet the dem "free thinkers" in his district chose to reelect him 3 more times. Of course you've never even addressed the "party of science" reelecting 3 more times a dem rep that thinks Guam will capsize...but they're not lemmings...right 8th? But this is from a party that nominated a guy that said the north pole would be gone by 2013. Integrity...you still don't have it.We have gone over this again and again. One more time and try to comprehend this - on both occasions where CG rates were cut CG tax revenues were already going up for the previous two years, then 2 years after the both CG tax cuts CG tax revenues went DOWN. I will state it one more time - cutting CG tax rates were not the cause of the revenues going up the stocking market was. I admitted I was wrong, you never have even with faced with overwhelming evidence that you are wrong. I understand that you seem to think that being censured by your own party is a big deal - your party wouldn't do it to one of theirs. AGAIN - CENSURED IS NOT INDICTED. RANGEL DIDN'T BREAK THE LAW. False equivalency here. People say stupid things all the time - michele backmann “But we also know that the very founders that wrote those documents worked tirelessly until slavery was no more in the United States.”. You keep claiming we are lemmings when overwhelming evidence points to you and your party. Tell me again about death panels

REDREX

12/28/2014, 01:01 PM

Tell me about Barack ,Nancy , Harry and many other Dems lying about Obamacare---You proud ?

Sooner8th

12/28/2014, 01:14 PM

Tell me about Barack ,Nancy , Harry and many other Dems lying about Obamacare---You proud ?WMD's But let's get back to the issue the republicans have a CONVICTED FELON and have no plans to kick his criminal *** out.

REDREX

12/28/2014, 01:16 PM

WMD's But let's get back to the issue the republicans have a CONVICTED FELON and have no plans to kick his criminal *** out.----Lets get back to the fact that Barack was lying about Obamacare----You proud of that?

Sooner8th

12/28/2014, 01:40 PM

----Lets get back to the fact that Barack was lying about Obamacare----You proud of that?No CONVICTED FELONS in government that are DEMOCRATS. Stick to the topic - REPUBLICAN CONVICTED FELON STILL IN THE HOUSE WITH NO PLANS TO KICK HIS *** OUT SINCE HE IS IN A SWING DISTRICT.

Since71ASooner4Life

12/28/2014, 02:29 PM

must be awful lonely living in Oklahoma, where every single county was smart enough to not vote for Obama.

Ever wonder why on average democrat voters are younger than republican?

The Remnant

12/28/2014, 02:42 PM

Every once in awhile you-know-who needs to take his lips off Obama's nut sack and come up for air.

olevetonahill

12/28/2014, 02:48 PM

must be awful lonely living in Oklahoma, where every single county was smart enough to not vote for Obama.

Ever wonder why on average democrat voters are younger than republican?

PSSST: he's from Kansas LOL

Since71ASooner4Life

12/28/2014, 04:49 PM

PSSST: he's from Kansas LOL

I wonder if people from there have any ideas why democrat voters are younger, and what that suggests about their beliefs?

olevetonahill

12/28/2014, 06:02 PM

I wonder if people from there have any ideas why democrat voters are younger, and what that suggests about their beliefs?

Heh LOL

okie52

12/28/2014, 11:24 PM

We have gone over this again and again. One more time and try to comprehend this - on both occasions where CG rates were cut CG tax revenues were already going up for the previous two years, then 2 years after the both CG tax cuts CG tax revenues went DOWN. I will state it one more time - cutting CG tax rates were not the cause of the revenues going up the stocking market was. I admitted I was wrong, you never have even with faced with overwhelming evidence that you are wrong. I understand that you seem to think that being censured by your own party is a big deal - your party wouldn't do it to one of theirs. AGAIN - CENSURED IS NOT INDICTED. RANGEL DIDN'T BREAK THE LAW. False equivalency here. People say stupid things all the time - michele backmann “But we also know that the very founders that wrote those documents worked tirelessly until slavery was no more in the United States.”. You keep claiming we are lemmings when overwhelming evidence points to you and your party. Tell me again about death panels

Actually cg revenues increased all 3 times the tax rate was decreased...not just two.

So voting for Rangel and Johnson isn't lemming like? They were the smart and honorable choices made by the free thinking "party of science"? That what you are saying 8th? You want to show the hypocrisy in the pubs for voting for an indicted candidate after claiming to be morally principled yet you don't see hypocrisy in the self proclaimed "party of science" voting 3-1 for a guy that thinks an island will tip over?

I've already said both parties vote for their own candidate even when their own candidate stinks or is too stupid to come in out of the rain...you, on the other hand, seem to cling to the belief(hope) that it's only pubs that do despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary...again see Rangel and Johnson.

Tell me again about how the North Pole was going to disappear two years ago...

SCOUT

12/28/2014, 11:44 PM

Tell me again about how the North Pole was going to disappear two years ago...

That is the inconvenient, inconvenient truth.

8th cares more about party than he does reality. The problem you are having is that you are discussing topics and not politics. You are not speaking his language.

Edit: If 8th were not just a troll.

WA. Sooner

12/29/2014, 02:40 AM

Guess he needs to bring chocolate back NO

Sooner8th

12/29/2014, 06:05 AM

Actually cg revenues increased all 3 times the tax rate was decreased...not just two.So voting for Rangel and Johnson isn't lemming like? They were the smart and honorable choices made by the free thinking "party of science"? That what you are saying 8th? You want to show the hypocrisy in the pubs for voting for an indicted candidate after claiming to be morally principled yet you don't see hypocrisy in the self proclaimed "party of science" voting 3-1 for a guy that thinks an island will tip over? I've already said both parties vote for their own candidate even when their own candidate stinks or is too stupid to come in out of the rain...you, on the other hand, seem to cling to the belief(hope) that it's only pubs that do despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary...again see Rangel and Johnson.Tell me again about how the North Pole was going to disappear two years ago...Each time they went up with the rate cut they came back DOWN. AGAIN - neither one of them committed FELONIES. LEMMINGS.

REDREX

12/29/2014, 09:42 AM

Up at 5:05 AM to post----Someone needs to get a life

Sooner in Tampa

12/29/2014, 09:44 AM

Up at 5:05 AM to post----Someone needs to get a life

Well, you knows those guys with the PRIVATE SECTOR JOBS!!! They can't be lazy like those of us on the govt teat

SoonerorLater

12/29/2014, 09:54 AM

Up at 5:05 AM to post----Someone needs to get a life

5:05 isn't that early....if you have a paper route or maybe just up all night binge drinking.

olevetonahill

12/29/2014, 09:58 AM

5:05 isn't that early....if you have a paper route or maybe just up all night binge drinking.

Or if yer Old and have to get up to Pee and then cant go back to sleep!

REDREX

12/29/2014, 10:45 AM

Well, you knows those guys with the PRIVATE SECTOR JOBS!!! They can't be lazy like those of us on the govt teat---I wonder if at the next stockholders meeting I asked Sr MGMT if it was OK for employees to spend time during the workday on message boards what they would say?

okie52

12/29/2014, 11:13 AM

Each time they went up with the rate cut they came back DOWN. AGAIN - neither one of them committed FELONIES. LEMMINGS.

Of course they came back down...cg revenues and the market are not static...but you know that (I hope).

So pubs (the party of moral principles) voting for a guy "charged" with felonies is lemming like and hypocritical.

Dems voting for a guy that had already been "censured" by the democrat controlled house of representatives is not being a lemming. Dems (the self proclaimed "party of science") voting for a candidate that believes an island will capsize is not hypocritical or lemming like.

That about sum up your position there 8th?

Sooner8th

12/29/2014, 11:31 AM

Of course they came back down...cg revenues and the market are not static...but you know that (I hope).So pubs (the party of moral principles) voting for a guy "charged" with felonies is lemming like and hypocritical.Dems voting for a guy that had already been "censured" by the democrat controlled house of representatives is not being a lemming. Dems (the self proclaimed "party of science") voting for a candidate that believes an island will capsize is not hypocritical or lemming like.That about sum up your position there 8th?I have stated my position over and over. Lemmings like you want to equate non-criminal censured and a 20 count incitement for felony criminal activity including hiring illegal immigrants. Two separate things. He is still in the house. You just keep making my point for me, to different standards for LEMMINGS like you.

okie52

12/29/2014, 11:46 AM

That is the inconvenient, inconvenient truth.

8th cares more about party than he does reality. The problem you are having is that you are discussing topics and not politics. You are not speaking his language.

Edit: If 8th were not just a troll.

His blind devotion to all that is dem is amusing. He can barely utter a word of disagreement with the DNC. Yet he doesn't see it.

Lemmings are small rodents, usually found in or near the Arctic, in tundra biomes.

According to Gore, Lemmings should be extinct by now.

okie52

12/29/2014, 12:03 PM

I have stated my position over and over. Lemmings like you want to equate non-criminal censured and a 20 count incitement for felony criminal activity including hiring illegal immigrants. Two separate things. He is still in the house. You just keep making my point for me, to different standards for LEMMINGS like you.

Well, 8th, he only pled guilty 6 days ago while the house is in recess so you are expecting them to have a special session now to get rid of him (if they can even do that)? He wasn't convicted of anything when he was elected.

Of course I want to try to help you make your point...just need you to define your high standards regarding dem conduct and pub hypocrisy (the party of moral principles).

Rangel was already censured but apparently that meets your standards for being a rep and not being lemming like.

The "party of science" reelects an island capsizing believer by a 3-1 margin and it is not hypocritical?

That about sum it up 8th?

okie52

12/29/2014, 12:15 PM

Guess he needs to bring chocolate back NO

Ex-New Orleans Mayor Starts Long Jail Term for Corruption

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/09/08/ex-new-orleans-mayor-ray-nagin-reports-to-federal-prison-to-begin-10-year/

It might be a while.

REDREX

12/29/2014, 01:41 PM

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/09/08/ex-new-orleans-mayor-ray-nagin-reports-to-federal-prison-to-begin-10-year/

It might be a while.---The funny thing about this is that the guy had money ---I know people who know him---- He was doing just fine until he became mayor now he is broke

okie52

12/29/2014, 01:43 PM

---The funny thing about this is that the guy had money ---I know people who know him---- He was doing just fine until he became mayor now he is broke

He probably gave the money to needy people that were devastated by Katrina.

Sooner8th

12/29/2014, 04:30 PM

Ahh 8th, if only you could find balance in that slanted mind of yours. I said both sides do it but you have foolishly fought to say only pubs do it. Cg revenues did go up after tax cuts...every time....you've never been able to grasp that fact but we've been down that road a few times already. And this from a google master that still stated the dems tried twice to pass immigration reform when they controlled the presidency and congress after being shown they didn't. Censured by his own dem house...meaning (in deference to you) that his own colleagues (dem and pub alike) found his conduct reprehensible.http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/12/02/AR2010120201626.htmlYet the dem "free thinkers" in his district chose to reelect him 3 more times. Of course you've never even addressed the "party of science" reelecting 3 more times a dem rep that thinks Guam will capsize...but they're not lemmings...right 8th? But this is from a party that nominated a guy that said the north pole would be gone by 2013. Integrity...you still don't have it.HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA TOO GODDAMN FUNNY! You just keep proving how stupid and what a LEMMING you are. I went and googled the speech gore gave and he NEVER said any of the above. You just heard it from rush read it on csnews and on washington times and totally, completely believing it. 1. He was quoting Dr. Wieslaw Maslowski research professor at the Naval Postgraduate School in Monterey, California. 2. He said plainly some of the modeling suggests. 3. He clearly stated there is a 75% chance. 4. He clearly said in the summer months. 5. He clearly said we will find out. Start at 1:50 in the speech. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MsioIw4bvzI

okie52

12/29/2014, 05:07 PM

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA TOO GODDAMN FUNNY! You just keep proving how stupid and what a LEMMING you are. I went and googled the speech gore gave and he NEVER said any of the above. You just heard it from rush read it on csnews and on washington times and totally, completely believing it. 1. He was quoting Dr. Wieslaw Maslowski research professor at the Naval Postgraduate School in Monterey, California. 2. He said plainly some of the modeling suggests. 3. He clearly stated there is a 75% chance. 4. He clearly said in the summer months. 5. He clearly said we will find out. Start at 1:50 in the speech. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MsioIw4bvzI

You are absolutely right 8th. Gore was merely "quoting" models that predicted that there was a 75% chance that the North Pole would be gone in 5 years. That "we will find out" certainly shows he didn't believe in such nonsense and was merely using the models to illustrate something he didn't believe would happen. Well we "found out". Good catch!!!

But 8th...did you forget about:

Well, 8th, he only pled guilty 6 days ago while the house is in recess so you are expecting them to have a special session now to get rid of him (if they can even do that)? He wasn't convicted of anything when he was elected.

Of course I want to try to help you make your point...just need you to define your high standards regarding dem conduct and pub hypocrisy (the party of moral principles).

Rangel was already censured but apparently that meets your standards for being a rep and not being lemming like.

The "party of science" reelects an island capsizing believer by a 3-1 margin and it is not hypocritical?

That about sum it up 8th?

REDREX

12/29/2014, 05:22 PM

Al Gore is an idiot----But that is not news

Sooner8th

12/29/2014, 06:07 PM

You are absolutely right 8th. Gore was merely "quoting" models that predicted that there was a 75% chance that the North Pole would be gone in 5 years. That "we will find out" certainly shows he didn't believe in such nonsense and was merely using the models to illustrate something he didn't believe would happen. Well we "found out". Good catch!!!But 8th...did you forget about:You still are not getting it right. He was quoting a PHD Research Professor at Naval Postgraduate School which is run by our navy. "we will find out" certainly shows he didn't believe in such nonsense and was merely using the models to illustrate something he didn't believe would happen? You got he didn't believe it would happen out of we will find out? You are a real dumbass.

Sooner8th

12/29/2014, 06:13 PM

Well, 8th, he only pled guilty 6 days ago while the house is in recess so you are expecting them to have a special session now to get rid of him (if they can even do that)? He wasn't convicted of anything when he was elected. Of course I want to try to help you make your point...just need you to define your high standards regarding dem conduct and pub hypocrisy (the party of moral principles). Rangel was already censured but apparently that meets your standards for being a rep and not being lemming like. The "party of science" reelects an island capsizing believer by a 3-1 margin and it is not hypocritical? That about sum it up 8th?Show me a single republican in leadership calling on him to resign. I'll make it easier - show me a single REPUBLICAN calling on him to resign.

SCOUT

12/29/2014, 06:54 PM

Show me a single republican in leadership calling on him to resign. I'll make it easier - show me a single REPUBLICAN calling on him to resign.

I already did. Post #24 in this thread.

Sooner8th

12/29/2014, 07:02 PM

I already did. Post #24 in this thread.No you didn't. Try again.

Sooner8th

12/29/2014, 07:04 PM

Staten Island GOP chair backs Rep. Michael Grimm STATEN ISLAND, N.Y. -- While the Staten Island Republican chairman said he stands by Rep. Michael Grimm's decision not to resign after pleading guilty to felony tax fraud, he also said the party is preparing for the possibility of a special election.At the same time, the Democratic chairman is calling for Grimm's resignation.GOP Chairman John Antoniello said Wednesday, "I feel he should stay in office."But considering that Grimm (R-Staten Island/Brooklyn) may go to jail, and if he doesn't, may be pressured by House Republicans to resign, Antoniello said the party is considering the option that there will be a special election to fill his seat. http://www.silive.com/news/index.ssf/2014/12/staten_island_gop_leader_backs.html

SCOUT

12/29/2014, 07:05 PM

No you didn't. Try again.

Umm... "He should resign" is a way of saying, you know, he should resign.

Sooner8th

12/29/2014, 07:06 PM

GOP leaders refuse to weigh in on GrimmBy JAKE SHERMAN and JOHN BRESNAHAN 12/23/14 4:11 PM ESTHouse Republican leadership is refusing to weigh in so far on whether New York GOP Rep. Michael Grimm should remain in Congress after pleading guilty to felony federal tax fraud on Tuesday.Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) has declined to comment on the case, saying he is waiting to talk to Grimm. The two Republicans haven’t spoken, according to a knowledgeable aide.Story Continued BelowAfter a court appearance in Brooklyn earlier today, a defiant Grimm told reporters he had spoken to GOP leadership but had no intentions of voluntarily giving up his seat.Like Boehner, other top House Republicans have ducked the Grimm scandal thus far. An aide to House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) had no immediate comment Tuesday. A spokesman for House Majority Whip Steve Scalise (R-La.) said the No. 3 member of the Republican leadership had nothing to say.Yet the situation will surely test the Republican leadership’s promise to hold members of Congress to the highest standards.Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2014/12/gop-leaders-michael-grimm-113778.html#ixzz3NKpdx59I

Sooner8th

12/29/2014, 07:09 PM

Umm... "He should resign" is a way of saying, you know, he should resign.Do I have to spell everything out? I meant an office holder or official.

okie52

12/29/2014, 07:22 PM

You still are not getting it right. He was quoting a PHD Research Professor at Naval Postgraduate School which is run by our navy. "we will find out" certainly shows he didn't believe in such nonsense and was merely using the models to illustrate something he didn't believe would happen? You got he didn't believe it would happen out of we will find out? You are a real dumbass.

It evidently went over your head...very surprising given a man of your balance and integrity.

okie52

12/29/2014, 07:24 PM

Show me a single republican in leadership calling on him to resign. I'll make it easier - show me a single REPUBLICAN calling on him to resign.

Still not answering 8th.

Voting for Rangel and Johnson is not lemming like or hypocritical by your standards....right 8th?

Sooner8th

12/29/2014, 08:20 PM

Still not answering 8th.Voting for Rangel and Johnson is not lemming like or hypocritical by your standards....right 8th?Have you not completely and totally embarrassed yourself enough on this thread with gore and polar ice melting? You keep trying to equate censured and saying something stupid with a FELONY. Hired illegal immigrants which is a cardinal sin in your party - well - suppose to be a cardinal sin but obviously only when a democrat does it. So stop fvcking asking about rangel and johnson it does not equate in any way shape or form.

okie52

12/29/2014, 08:33 PM

Have you not completely and totally embarrassed yourself enough on this thread with gore and polar ice melting? You keep trying to equate censured and saying something stupid with a FELONY. Hired illegal immigrants which is a cardinal sin in your party - well - suppose to be a cardinal sin but obviously only when a democrat does it. So stop fvcking asking about rangel and johnson it does not equate in any way shape or form.

Gore didn't believe the polar ice would be gone in 5 years so he quoted a scientist and models that did and then stated he "we'll find out"...shrewd. How about you 8th...did you think North Pole was going to be gone 2 years ago? How about 10 years from now? 20? 30?

Do you think islands tip over? Maybe they just tilt a little bit when a couple of fatties jump on it?

You are the one defining pubs behavior as lemmings and hypocrites..paricularly sine they describe themselves as "the moral party".

just want to see where you draw the line for dems....

So Rangel and Johnson aren't lemming like votes or being hypocritical for the self declared "party of science"? That about sum it up for you 8th?

Sooner8th

12/29/2014, 08:40 PM

Gore didn't believe the polar ice would be gone in 5 years so he quoted a scientist and models that did and then stated he "we'll find out"...shrewd. How about you 8th...did you think North Pole was going to be gone 2 years ago? How about 10 years from now? 20? 30?Do you think islands tip over? Maybe they just tilt a little bit when a couple of fatties jump on it?You are the one defining pubs behavior as lemmings and hypocrites..paricularly sine they describe themselves as "the moral party".just want to see where you draw the line for dems....So Rangel and Johnson aren't lemming like votes or being hypocritical for the self declared "party of science"? That about sum it up for you 8th?HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA You keep proving over and over you are the most ignorant, stupid party line following LEMMING on this board. You are so fvcking STUPID you bring up gore again? I already castrated you on that one. Everyone is laughing AT you. Please keep posting and proving my point that the republican party is the party of LEMMINGS who will believe ANYTHING they read that reinforces their ignorant totally and completely made up talking points. Tell us all again how gore said the polar ice was going to be completely gone by 2014. DUMBASS

okie52

12/29/2014, 08:48 PM

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA You keep proving over and over you are the most ignorant, stupid party line following LEMMING on this board. You are so fvcking STUPID you bring up gore again? I already castrated you on that one. Everyone is laughing AT you. Please keep posting and proving my point that the republican party is the party of LEMMINGS who will believe ANYTHING they read that reinforces their ignorant totally and completely made up talking points. Tell us all again how gore said the polar ice was going to be completely gone by 2014. DUMBASS

Since you've already been castrated on this board I know you speak from experience (Google boy).

Tell me why gore said we'll find out...was he waiting with baited breath to see if the North Pole was still there two years ago? How bout you 8th? Did you think Santa was going to have to find a new home?

Still haven't answered the question 8th...Rangel and Johnson...Can't you tell us?

Sooner8th

12/29/2014, 09:09 PM

Since you've already been castrated on this board I know you speak from experience (Google boy).Tell me why gore said we'll find out...was he waiting with baited breath to see if the North Pole was still there two years ago? How bout you 8th? Did you think Santa was going to have to find a new home?Still haven't answered the question 8th...Rangel and Johnson...Can't you tell us?Seriously? You keep posting about this? You have nothing left. I have answered and answered you about it, you either have suffered brain damage or were born with a diminished capacity because no one can be as stupid as you without some impairment. Why did gore say we will see - fvck I don't know. You are trying to read something, ANYTHING into what he said, because you have your own agenda. He was simply stating what a PHD scientist who studies such things reported. He didn't regurgitate sources who are funded by oil and gas companies like you do. Get a fvcking clue you dumbass, inbred, LEMMING moran.

Turd_Ferguson

12/29/2014, 09:54 PM

okie52

12/29/2014, 09:57 PM

Seriously? You keep posting about this? You have nothing left. I have answered and answered you about it, you either have suffered brain damage or were born with a diminished capacity because no one can be as stupid as you without some impairment. Why did gore say we will see - fvck I don't know. You are trying to read something, ANYTHING into what he said, because you have your own agenda. He was simply stating what a PHD scientist who studies such things reported. He didn't regurgitate sources who are funded by oil and gas companies like you do. Get a fvcking clue you dumbass, inbred, LEMMING moran.

You seem angry 8th. I'm trying to help you. Remember, you are a man of integrity if you do say so yourself.

So al gore doesn't have an agenda? Is that your position 8th?

So you don't know why gore would say "we'll find out"? Surely that wouldn't mean that we'll have to wait to see if it happens, would it 8th? Do you know why he would be quoting a scientist that was predicting the North Pole would melt 2 years ago? He simply didn't believe the scientist and randomly chose to quote him out of thousands of scientists on global warming? That where you are coming from 8th?

Still waiting on Rangels and Johnson 8th...no hypocrisy or lemming like behavior on the part of dems there 8th?

okie52

12/29/2014, 10:07 PM

REDREX

12/29/2014, 10:08 PM

Okie---Why do you even talk to that little WIMP?

okie52

12/29/2014, 10:14 PM

I'm just trying to get someone as unbiased as 8th to give me his guidelines for lemmings and hypocrites. I know he's got it down for pubs on voting for someone "charged with a crime"...just trying to see where the bar is set for the dems.

So far, evidently, it's a secret. Censured and island capsizers must be a grey area...

Sooner8th

12/29/2014, 10:59 PM

You seem angry 8th. I'm trying to help you. Remember, you are a man of integrity if you do say so yourself.So al gore doesn't have an agenda? Is that your position 8th?So you don't know why gore would say "we'll find out"? Surely that wouldn't mean that we'll have to wait to see if it happens, would it 8th? Do you know why he would be quoting a scientist that was predicting the North Pole would melt 2 years ago? He simply didn't believe the scientist and randomly chose to quote him out of thousands of scientists on global warming? That where you are coming from 8th? Still waiting on Rangels and Johnson 8th...no hypocrisy or lemming like behavior on the part of dems there 8th?Seriously - how do you breath? You brain is not big enough to handle that task. Only other inbred LEMMING dumbasses support you here. You have shown how stupid you are and what a low IQ you have with your continuance of this thread. I have stated my opinion on those matters REPEATEDLY and you are too fvucking stupid to understand it. You really think you have a leg to stand on here - but you just keep proving my point about LEMMINGS. You are the worst kind of ignorant low IQ LEMMING - once you are called out and proved that the dumbass source you post is 100% wrong - you try your best to hold onto the ignorant argument you started. Please for christs sake stop it - you are only embarrassing yourself and other conservatives/republicans. Again, seriously have some dignity.

Sooner8th

12/29/2014, 11:06 PM

Here ya go dip****. I'll bet you if he'd been a dim, he wouldn't have resigned.http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2014/12/29/grimm-resign-tax-evasion/21026987/Six days to resign. Not a single elected or official of the republican party would say he should resign he finally quits and your lemming *** says if he was a DEMOCRAT he wouldn't have resigned. No have no evidence to prove your point, where we do. LEMMING - your party does something bad and you claim, without proof, dems would be worse. Welcome, turdbucket to okie52 dumbass territory. Hardly surprising though.

FaninAma

12/29/2014, 11:14 PM

Seriously - how do you breath? You brain is not big enough to handle that task. Only other inbred LEMMING dumbasses support you here. You have shown how stupid you are and what a low IQ you have with your continuance of this thread. I have stated my opinion on those matters REPEATEDLY and you are too fvucking stupid to understand it. You really think you have a leg to stand on here - but you just keep proving my point about LEMMINGS. You are the worst kind of ignorant low IQ LEMMING - once you are called out and proved that the dumbass source you post is 100% wrong - you try your best to hold onto the ignorant argument you started. Please for christs sake stop it - you are only embarrassing yourself and other conservatives/republicans. Again, seriously have some dignity.
It's got to be Sic'em.

Turd_Ferguson

12/29/2014, 11:31 PM

It's got to be Sic'em.

I have wondered the same...

Sooner8th

12/30/2014, 12:19 AM

Here ya go dip****. I'll bet you if he'd been a dim, he wouldn't have resigned.http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2014/12/29/grimm-resign-tax-evasion/21026987/UPDATE - he will resign tomorrow or the next day. Let me know when you actually resigns. Meanwhile - your party still has a CONVICTED FELON in office and not a single elected republican or official will say he should resign. Shameful LEMMINGS.

olevetonahill

12/30/2014, 02:28 AM

SicEmBaylor

12/30/2014, 02:59 AM

It's got to be Sic'em.

I have wondered the same...

Fan, I've discussed this with you before. It's not me. I have never once in my life created a fake account, and the last thing I'd ever want to do is play "fake liberal" for a day just to argue with you. I don't have troll accounts.

okie52

12/30/2014, 11:14 AM

Six days to resign. Not a single elected or official of the republican party would say he should resign he finally quits and your lemming *** says if he was a DEMOCRAT he wouldn't have resigned. No have no evidence to prove your point, where we do. LEMMING - your party does something bad and you claim, without proof, dems would be worse. Welcome, turdbucket to okie52 dumbass territory. Hardly surprising though.

James Anthony Traficant, Jr. (born May 8, 1941) is a former Democratic politician and member of the United States House of Representatives from Ohio. He represented the 17th Congressional District, which centered on his hometown of Youngstown and included parts of three counties in northeast Ohio's Mahoning Valley. He was expelled after being convicted of taking bribes, filing false tax returns, racketeering, and forcing his aides to perform chores at his farm in Ohio and houseboat in Washington, D.C..[1] He was sentenced to prison and released on September 2, 2009, after serving a seven-year sentence.

In 2002, Traficant was indicted on federal corruption charges for taking campaign funds for personal use. Again, he opted to represent himself, insisting that the trial was part of a vendetta against him dating to his 1983 trial. After a two-month federal trial, on April 15, 2002, he was convicted of 10 felony counts including bribery, racketeering, and tax evasion. He was sentenced to a federal prison, where he served seven years. Per House rules, he lost his right to vote on legislation pending an investigation by the House Ethics Committee.

Eventually, the House Ethics Committee recommended that Traficant be expelled from Congress. On July 24 the House voted to expel him by a 420-1 vote. The sole vote against expulsion was Rep. Gary Condit, who at the time was in the midst of a scandal of his own and had been defeated in his reelection primary.[13] Traficant was the first representative to be expelled since Michael Myers's expulsion in 1980 as a result of the Abscam scandal.

After his expulsion, Traficant ran as an independent candidate for another term in the House while incarcerated at the Federal Correctional Institute, Allenwood.[14] He received 28,045 votes, or 15 percent, and became one of only a handful of individuals in the history of the United States to run for a federal office from prison. The election was won by one of his former aides, Tim Ryan.[15]

I guess Traficant didn't get your memo because we know dems will always do the honorable thing, right 8th?

Sooner8th

12/30/2014, 11:30 AM

I guess Traficant didn't get your memo because we know dems will always do the honorable thing, right 8th?You just won't give it will you dumbass. You posted about Traficant, 12 YEARS AGO, to try to draw a parallel between how republicans behave and how democrats behave. You AGAIN show how fvcking stupid you are. The first rule of digging yourself a hole- IS TO STOP DIGGING! The conviction put his House seat in jeopardy, with calls for his resignations from Democratic leaders. Two-thirds of the members must approve any move to expel him.''A member of Congress who commits bribery strikes at the heart of representative government,'' Representative Richard A. Gephardt, the Democratic leader, said in calling for Mr. Traficant's resignation.Mr. Traficant had already become a pariah in his party, siding in recent months with Republicans as he complained of government persecution. Notice THE DAY he was convicted DEMOCRATIC HOUSE LEADERSHIP CALLED ON HIM TO RESIGN AND HE WAS SIDING WITH REPUBLICANS. Show me where republican leadership called on grimm to resign. HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA TOO GODDAMN FUNNY! Give it up LEMMING. http://www.nytimes.com/2002/04/12/us/ohio-congressman-guilty-in-bribery-and-kickbacks.html

okie52

12/30/2014, 11:53 AM

You just won't give it will you dumbass. You posted about Traficant, 12 YEARS AGO, to try to draw a parallel between how republicans behave and how democrats behave. You AGAIN show how fvcking stupid you are. The first rule of digging yourself a hole- IS TO STOP DIGGING! The conviction put his House seat in jeopardy, with calls for his resignations from Democratic leaders. Two-thirds of the members must approve any move to expel him.''A member of Congress who commits bribery strikes at the heart of representative government,'' Representative Richard A. Gephardt, the Democratic leader, said in calling for Mr. Traficant's resignation.Mr. Traficant had already become a pariah in his party, siding in recent months with Republicans as he complained of government persecution. Notice THE DAY he was convicted DEMOCRATIC HOUSE LEADERSHIP CALLED ON HIM TO RESIGN AND HE WAS SIDING WITH REPUBLICANS. Show me where republican leadership called on grimm to resign. HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA TOO GODDAMN FUNNY! Give it up LEMMING. http://www.nytimes.com/2002/04/12/us/ohio-congressman-guilty-in-bribery-and-kickbacks.html

Dignity 8th...dignity.

So now 12 years ago doesn't count 8th?

You said:

Six days to resign. Not a single elected or official of the republican party would say he should resign he finally quits and your lemming *** says if he was a DEMOCRAT he wouldn't have resigned. No have no evidence to prove your point, where we do. LEMMING - your party does something bad and you claim, without proof, dems would be worse.

House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, in statement on resignation of Rep. Michael Grimm, R-NY, says Grimm 'made the honorable decision to step down from his seat in Congress'

http://www.breakingnews.com/item/2014/12/30/house-speaker-john-boehner-r-ohio-in-statement-o/

The New York Daily News: Rep. Michael Grimm has decided to resign from Congress in the wake of his guilty plea on a felony tax evasion charge, sources told the Daily News Monday night.

Grimm (R-S.I.) said after he entered his plea last week that he planned to continue serving in the House.
But he reversed course after speaking Monday to House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio), who has taken a hard line on GOPers facing ethics charges.

Read more at http://patdollard.com/2014/12/john-boehner-forces-grimm-to-resign/#XPWDvcMbJfsF6bzD.99

Traficant never resigned. Forced the house to expel him 3 months after his conviction...a convicted felon in the house for 3 months!!!! You're complaining about 6 days for Grimm to resign and for Boehner to make a statement.

I'm sure if Boehner had known how much angst the 6 day wait was causing you he would have sped things up.

As always 8th...just looking for your balanced, unbiased views on the world of politics.

How about Rangel and Johnson 8th...?

SicEmBaylor

12/30/2014, 11:53 AM

I guess Traficant didn't get your memo because we know dems will always do the honorable thing, right 8th?

Traficant was a patriot, and meeting him was one of the true highlights of my life. Ideologically, Traficant was much more a paleoconservative (like myself) than a liberal.

okie52

12/30/2014, 12:18 PM

Bro, HE cant give you any guidelines ! In his world they dont exist.He changes every minute and every hour!

Remember, 8th vigorously defended conservatives to his son (who thought they had a mental disorder). So he's actually trying to help conservatives.

Dignity and integrity are 8th's moniker...standards that he displays on a daily basis.

Sooner8th

12/30/2014, 12:23 PM

Dignity 8th...dignity.So now 12 years ago doesn't count 8th? You said: Traficant never resigned. Forced the house to expel him 3 months after his conviction...a convicted felon in the house for 3 months!!!! You're complaining about 6 days for Grimm to resign and for Boehner to make a statement. I'm sure if Boehner had known how much angst the 6 day wait was causing you he would have sped things up.As always 8th...just looking for your balanced, unbiased views on the world of politics.How about Rangel and Johnson 8th...?One more time - grimm still has not resigned nor has republican leadership called on him to resign PUBLICLY. Look at DEMOCRATIC LEADERSHIP IN '02. Called on him to resign the DAY he was convicted. You cannot control what someone does but you sure can make your position public.

okie52

12/30/2014, 12:23 PM

Traficant was a patriot, and meeting him was one of the true highlights of my life. Ideologically, Traficant was much more a paleoconservative (like myself) than a liberal.

Well, he certainly was against illegal immigration...so he had that going for him.

okie52

12/30/2014, 12:36 PM

One more time - grimm still has not resigned nor has republican leadership called on him to resign PUBLICLY. Look at DEMOCRATIC LEADERSHIP IN '02. Called on him to resign the DAY he was convicted. You cannot control what someone does but you sure can make your position public.

Grimm has said his resignation will take effect on Jan 5th. He announced his resignation after talking to Boehner, yesterday, even though just 5 days earlier he said he would continue as rep.

Boehner made a statement that "Grimm had done the honorable thing"...but that's not good enough?

So now it needs to be a public reprimand like the dems did in 02? How'd that work out? 3 months with a "convicted felon" still in office. I know how upsetting that is to a person with your high standards.

Honestly 8th, I know you are a man of integrity and will applaud Grimm's resignation and thank Boehner for convincing him it was the right thing to do (even though it took 6 Looooonnnggg days) .

Weren't you saying that you needed "proof" of a dem not resigning? So was Traficant an example of a dem not doing the right thing?

While you're at it....go ahead and clear up that whole Rangel and Johnson dilemma...you know, showing your high standards for lemmings.

FaninAma

12/30/2014, 02:32 PM

Fan, I've discussed this with you before. It's not me. I have never once in my life created a fake account, and the last thing I'd ever want to do is play "fake liberal" for a day just to argue with you. I don't have troll accounts.

You must admit that Sooner8th's style of insulting people on this board is very similar to your style of insulting people on the football board. I know you don't agree about the Oakman hit but this is a Sooner board, the hit was replayed by ESPN and described as a dirty hit and it resulted in a serious injury to TK. I can only imagine how you would react if an OU player had done the same thing to Baylor's QB. If you had been posting on any other team's message board beside this one you would have been banned a long time ago over this issue. This is a very tolerant or wussy board, depending on your point of view. I suspect that is why you post here.

SicEmBaylor

12/30/2014, 02:50 PM

You must admit that Sooner8th's style of insulting people on this board is very similar to your style of insulting people on the football board. I know you don't agree about the Oakman hit but this is a Sooner board, the hit was replayed by ESPN and described as a dirty hit and it resulted in a serious injury to TK. I can only imagine how you would react if an OU player had done the same thing to Baylor's QB. If you had been posting on any other team's message board beside this one you would have been banned a long time ago over this issue. This is a very tolerant or wussy board, depending on your point of view. I suspect that is why you post here.

1)No, I don't agree that his posting style is anything at all like mine either here, on the football board, or anywhere else. I'll admit to getting hot under the collar over that and some other issues, but I certainly have not personally insulted aside from once or twice suggesting what someone can do with themselves in the privacy of their own homes.

2)The fact that you take ESPN's analysis as the gospel truth in any situation is sad and disturbing. Regardless of what the infallible experts of ESPN have said, the refs didn't call it and the league didn't punish it.

3)Whether Oakman's hit was 'dirty' or not didn't cause Knight's injury. That's pure fantasy. The initial tackle is what caused Knight's injury.

4)Getting banned over that would be asinine and stupid on any board.

I'm honestly quite finished arguing about Oakman. Maybe once we've 'been there before' we can learn to have a long squeaky clean program like Oklahoma and all its players always have been.

Sooner8th

12/30/2014, 09:50 PM

Grimm has said his resignation will take effect on Jan 5th. He announced his resignation after talking to Boehner, yesterday, even though just 5 days earlier he said he would continue as rep.Boehner made a statement that "Grimm had done the honorable thing"...but that's not good enough? So now it needs to be a public reprimand like the dems did in 02? How'd that work out? 3 months with a "convicted felon" still in office. I know how upsetting that is to a person with your high standards.Honestly 8th, I know you are a man of integrity and will applaud Grimm's resignation and thank Boehner for convincing him it was the right thing to do (even though it took 6 Looooonnnggg days) . Weren't you saying that you needed "proof" of a dem not resigning? So was Traficant an example of a dem not doing the right thing?While you're at it....go ahead and clear up that whole Rangel and Johnson dilemma...you know, showing your high standards for lemmings.HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA You just keep showing what a lemming you and your party are. Boner made a statement he did the honorable thing six days after he was convicted. THE DAY traficant was convicted the democratic leadership called on him to resign PUBLICLY. Again, like a good republican lemming, you keep showing a huge double standard for behavior for R's and for D's. Waiting six days to make a statement = calling on the convicted felon THE DAY HE WAS CONVICTED TO RESIGN IN PUBLIC. Same with Rangel and Johnson = CONVICTED FELON. When I posted this instead of simply saying this guy is a piece of **** and should resign and the repubclian leadership is not upholding your values and it is disappointing, you rush desperately try to find an equivalency on the democratic side. When you find the identical situation you try to say the response of leadership is the same. Six days = the same day. YOU ARE A LEMMING.

SicEmBaylor

12/30/2014, 10:21 PM

Traficant is a terrible example to use for Democratic corruption. For one thing, he detested Democrats and the feeling was mutual among the House leadership. If I remember correctly, he was even banned from their weekly caucus breakfasts. He even voted for Hastert for Speaker. The man detested the government, and that's pretty righteous in my book. Traficant's corruption paled in comparison to the routine corruption that takes place on both sides of the aisles. The only lesson one should learn from Traficant is that if you fight the power of government, the government will find a way to destroy you. The man had his driveway paved, for God's sake. His crimes barely rose above petty ethics violations.

He was no Sunday school teacher, but he would never have acted in such a way that sells the country out to corporate or overseas interests. That's damned sure better than I can say for the overwhelming majority of Congress.

okie52

12/31/2014, 10:52 AM

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA You just keep showing what a lemming you and your party are. Boner made a statement he did the honorable thing six days after he was convicted. THE DAY traficant was convicted the democratic leadership called on him to resign PUBLICLY. Again, like a good republican lemming, you keep showing a huge double standard for behavior for R's and for D's. Waiting six days to make a statement = calling on the convicted felon THE DAY HE WAS CONVICTED TO RESIGN IN PUBLIC. Same with Rangel and Johnson = CONVICTED FELON. When I posted this instead of simply saying this guy is a piece of **** and should resign and the repubclian leadership is not upholding your values and it is disappointing, you rush desperately try to find an equivalency on the democratic side. When you find the identical situation you try to say the response of leadership is the same. Six days = the same day. YOU ARE A LEMMING.

Top of the morning to you 8th. Glad to see you are in good spirits on this fine New Year's Eve.

Perhaps you misstated yourself in your post.

Six days to resign. Not a single elected or official of the republican party would say he should resign he finally quits and your lemming *** says if he was a DEMOCRAT he wouldn't have resigned. No have no evidence to prove your point, where we do. LEMMING - your party does something bad and you claim, without proof, dems would be worse.

So you weren't meaning that there's no proof that a dem wouldn't have resigned after he was convicted? Well, glad you now agree that a dem did refuse to resign. You're a man of integrity. I'm sure if you will reread this thread you will see a number of people, including myself, said Grimm should resign.

So the real crime in your eyes is that Boehner took 6 days to make a statement and Grimm took 6 days to resign. Traficant's not resigning and it taking 3 months to expel him (a convicted felon) were insignificant. That about the size of it there 8th?

8th you seem to have forgotten your OP...let me help you again.

Talk about a complete lack of integrity, Satan could win with an R after his name with you lemmings running out and blindly jerk down the levers for R's. A 20-count indictment in April and he still won by 55 to 42 percent. Tell me about about you're the party of values.http://www.nytimes.com/2014/12/23/nyregion/rep-michael-grimm-to-plead-guilty-to-tax-charge.html

You were describing pubs as lemmings and hypocrites (the party of values) for voting for a candidate that at the time of the election had been charged with crimes..but not convicted. Knowing that you set high standards for dems and their behavior it is natural to ask you what standards you apply to dems...hence the dilemma with

Rangel...reelected 3 times following being censured by a dem house.

Johnson...stating Guam might tip over due to too many people (the party of science) and being reelected 3 more times.

So again, according to you, these were not acts of dem lemmings or hypocrites in reelecting these fine candidates since they were not charged with crimes...that about cover it 8th?

okie52

12/31/2014, 10:56 AM

SicEmBaylor

12/31/2014, 11:07 AM

Sicem...you obviously haven't been following this thread. I used traficant because he was an example of a dem that refused to resign after being convicted of felonies...something 8th said there was no proof of a dem doing it.

I'm following. I'm just saying, there are better examples since Traficant was a DINO.

okie52

12/31/2014, 11:24 AM

I'm following. I'm just saying, there are better examples since Traficant was a DINO.

If you've got one that fits that criteria please feel free to post it.

SicEmBaylor

12/31/2014, 11:37 AM

If you've got one that fits that criteria please feel free to post it.

Charlie Rangel is a damned good example.

SoonerorLater

12/31/2014, 12:14 PM

Corrupt politicians make the remaining ten percent look bad.
– Henry Kissinger

okie52

12/31/2014, 12:14 PM

Charlie Rangel is a damned good example.

Well I would agree but 8th said since he was only "censured" and wasn't a convicted felon dems weren't being lemmings reelecting him...and as you know 8th is a man of integrity.

okie52

12/31/2014, 12:15 PM

Corrupt politicians make the remaining ten percent look bad.
– Henry Kissinger

heh heh...

SoonerorLater

12/31/2014, 12:57 PM

Well I would agree but 8th said since he was only "censured" and wasn't a convicted felon dems weren't being lemmings reelecting him...and as you know 8th is a man of integrity.

Not only that he has that rare ability to analyze any complex social, political and philosophical argument and break it down to it's core elements of lemmings and integrity.

SicEmBaylor

12/31/2014, 01:09 PM

Well I would agree but 8th said since he was only "censured" and wasn't a convicted felon dems weren't being lemmings reelecting him...and as you know 8th is a man of integrity.

Ah, so the criteria was narrowed in such a way that it allowed him to make the point he wanted to make while limiting your ability to make a comparable argument. We used to call that an 'abusive argument.'

okie52

12/31/2014, 01:34 PM

Not only that he has that rare ability to analyze any complex social, political and philosophical argument and break it down to it's core elements of lemmings and integrity.

Heh...

Truly a talent. And to be able to render an unbiased observation just adds to his stature.

okie52

12/31/2014, 01:39 PM

Ah, so the criteria was narrowed in such a way that it allowed him to make the point he wanted to make while limiting your ability to make a comparable argument. We used to call that an 'abusive argument.'

Well I'm sure that 8th wouldn't try to do that because:

He is never abusive

He is a man of integrity and has stated so on several occasions.

Sooner8th

12/31/2014, 05:54 PM

Ah, so the criteria was narrowed in such a way that it allowed him to make the point he wanted to make while limiting your ability to make a comparable argument. We used to call that an 'abusive argument.'No you have it wrong. The criteria is what is relevant - a convicted felon in congress who was not going to resign and still has not resigned and house leadership refusing to call on him to resign. It was these lemming who were desperately search for ANYTHING to have an equivalency with democrats. Being censured and saying something stupid is in no way shape or form equal to being a convicted felon which these lemmings are trying to make it.

Sooner8th

12/31/2014, 05:57 PM

Sicem...you obviously haven't been following this thread. I used traficant because he was an example of a dem that refused to resign after being convicted of felonies...something 8th said there was no proof of a dem doing.I said, or meant to say it was a typo, YOU (turd bucket) have no proof to back up his claim which.

TAFBSooner

12/31/2014, 09:25 PM

Y'all have used six and a half pages to argue that you can discern a difference in the corruption levels between the Democrats and the Republicans in DC?

olevetonahill

12/31/2014, 09:56 PM

Y'all have used six and a half pages to argue that you can discern a difference in the corruption levels between the Democrats and the Republicans in DC?

Whats this Yall shat? 1/2 the Posts are from KC/8th :snowman:

TAFBSooner

1/1/2015, 11:08 AM

Whats this Yall shat? 1/2 the Posts are from KC/8th :snowman:

Yep.

I didn't mean y'all conservatives, I meant y'all naive waifs that think that one batch of pols is less corrupt than another batch of pols.

olevetonahill

1/1/2015, 11:13 AM

Yep.

I didn't mean y'all conservatives, I meant y'all naive waifs that think that one batch of pols is less corrupt than another batch of pols.

I aint in that group. There are very few in any House National or state that have the country's best interest at heart. they have their ****ing Hands out for what they can get.

The President? hes for whoever Bot him the Job

TAFBSooner

1/1/2015, 11:43 AM

I aint in that group. There are very few in any House National or state that have the country's best interest at heart. they have their ****ing Hands out for what they can get.

The President? hes for whoever Bot him the Job

After reviewing the bidding, your one comment on the substance of the thread agreed with me. So I wasn't talking to you.

Anyway, I am feeling more charitable this morning. If you look at it as six pages of describing some of the different ways that politicians can be corrupt, this has been a worthwhile thread.

olevetonahill

1/1/2015, 02:27 PM

After reviewing the bidding, your one comment on the substance of the thread agreed with me. So I wasn't talking to you.

Anyway, I am feeling more charitable this morning. If you look at it as six pages of describing some of the different ways that politicians can be corrupt, this has been a worthwhile thread.

Well there ya go we found some Common ground, happy New year to ya. Now if we could just get that idiot 8th to agree , we could sit around drankin Coke er sompun. Course Mine would a big splash of OVJ in it LOL

cleller

1/1/2015, 04:35 PM

Has this list been brought up yet? Too hard to ready thru all the pages of "lemmings", all-caps, lame name calling, and exclamation points the troll posts.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_American_federal_politicans_convicted_of_c rimes

I just went back to JFK, my lifetime. My ROUGH count was 27 Republican and 48 Democrats convicted of crimes while in office at the federal level. I was trying to count from the computer screen, so it may not be perfect. I'm sure I'll hear from Hell's halitosis if I miscounted.

Ah, Chappaquiddick....

TAFBSooner

1/1/2015, 09:13 PM

Well there ya go we found some Common ground, happy New year to ya. Now if we could just get that idiot 8th to agree , we could sit around drankin Coke er sompun. Course Mine would a big splash of OVJ in it LOL

We'll take a cup o' O V J, for auld lang syne.

olevetonahill

1/1/2015, 09:21 PM

We'll take a cup o' O V J, for auld lang syne.

I miss the Tail gates

TAFBSooner

1/1/2015, 09:41 PM

I miss the Tail gates

I regret not going to very many of them.

olevetonahill

1/1/2015, 09:50 PM

I regret not going to very many of them.

The last 4 er 5 years I supplied Gallons for em LOL

okie52

1/7/2015, 10:49 AM

I said, or meant to say it was a typo, YOU (turd bucket) have no proof to back up his claim which.

Happy New Year 8th.

Typo? Meant to say? Are you still working on complete sentences?

Your angst and great suffering for these tortuous past 2 weeks have been duly noted.

Rep. Michael Grimm has officially resigned his congressional seat in a letter to House Speaker John Boehner, Boehner's office confirmed Monday.

The Daily News reported last week that Grimm decided to resign following his guilty plea to felony tax evasion charges. Grimm initially said he planned to stay in office, but changed his mind after speaking to Boehner last Monday.

http://www.nydailynews.com/blogs/dc/disgraced-staten-island-republican-formally-steps-blog-entry-1.2066465

Mr. Boehner appears to have done what a midterm election, constant ridicule in the news media and a guilty plea in federal court in Brooklyn could not: persuade Mr. Grimm to go away.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/12/30/nyregion/michael-grimm-in-a-reversal-will-resign-from-congress.html?_r=0

Minutes after pleading guilty last week for underreporting his employees’ wages during a previous iteration as owner of the Manhattan restaurant Healthalicious, and admitting culpability, as part of his plea deal, to all the charges in a 20-count indictment that haunted him throughout his re-election campaign, Mr. Grimm told clamoring reporters he would “absolutely not” resign.

But Mr. Grimm’s mind apparently changed after speaking with Mr. Boehner.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/12/30/nyregion/michael-grimm-in-a-reversal-will-resign-from-congress.html?_r=0

I'm sure that fortress of conservatism, those dam lemmings at the NY Times, could use your keen insight into these matters. As a man of integrity, perhaps you should send them a letter explaining how they got it all wrong.

okie52

1/7/2015, 10:56 AM

Y'all have used six and a half pages to argue that you can discern a difference in the corruption levels between the Democrats and the Republicans in DC?

Most reasonable, rational posters on this board realize that both parties are guilty of hypocrisy, corruption and supporting special interests.

Sooner in Tampa

1/7/2015, 11:09 AM

Most reasonable, rational posters on this board realize that both parties are guilty of hypocrisy, corruption and supporting special interests.

This is the key...8th is neither reasonable or rational.

TVKaleen

1/7/2015, 12:01 PM

okie52

1/7/2015, 12:03 PM

This is the key...8th is neither reasonable or rational.

But, as 8th will tell you, he is a man of integrity.

SoonerorLater

1/7/2015, 12:24 PM

But, as 8th will tell you, he is a man of integrity.

Troll's by nature have no integrity.

" trolls are more likely to display noxious personality characteristics, that is, traits that impair one’s ability to build relations and function in a civilised or pro-social way"

okie52

1/7/2015, 12:26 PM

http://alceehastings.house.gov/
http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/individualProfile.asp?indid=2179

I'll just drop these here. You know.. obviously, there is a moral superiority on the other side of the aisle and Democrats would never ever vote a man into the House of Representatives after he was convicted and removed from a Federal judgeship for perjury and bribery.

Oh wait....

I'm sure 8th will be along to tell us that this situation was too long ago, that it only involved the impeachment and conviction of an ousted judge, that the charges were racially motivated, that this is nowhere near as bad as Grimm's situation, that there is no moral equivalency here, and that dems don't vote like lemmings.

okie52

1/7/2015, 12:42 PM

Troll's by nature have no integrity.

" trolls are more likely to display noxious personality characteristics, that is, traits that impair one’s ability to build relations and function in a civilised or pro-social way"

But 8th has repeatedly stated he "is a man of integrity". He also has conservative friends and has vigorously defended conservatives to his son who believes conservatives have a mental disorder. Where on earth would he get an idea like that?

FaninAma

1/7/2015, 01:11 PM

But 8th has repeatedly stated he "is a man of integrity". He also has conservative friends and has vigorously defended conservatives to his son who believes conservatives have a mental disorder. Where on earth would he get an idea like that?

I am sure he formed that opinion without any input form Sooner8th whatsoever. LOL.

okie52

1/7/2015, 01:30 PM

I am sure he formed that opinion with any input form Sooner8th whatsoever. LOL.

LOL.

Sooner8th

1/7/2015, 02:39 PM

http://alceehastings.house.gov/http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/individualProfile.asp?indid=2179I'll just drop these here. You know.. obviously, there is a moral superiority on the other side of the aisle and Democrats would never ever vote a man into the House of Representatives after he was convicted and removed from a Federal judgeship for perjury and bribery.Oh wait....Are you fvcking kidding me here? Show me where Aclee Hastings is a CONVICTED FELON! He was acquitted in court. Once again you people show your lack of integrity, your hypocrisy and double standards. Being aquited as a democrat = being a CONVICTED FELON as a republican. Sweet baby jesus......................

Sooner8th

1/7/2015, 02:44 PM

olevetonahill

1/7/2015, 02:57 PM

okie52

1/7/2015, 03:16 PM

Are you fvcking kidding me here? Show me where Aclee Hastings is a CONVICTED FELON! He was acquitted in court. Once again you people show your lack of integrity, your hypocrisy and double standards. Being aquited as a democrat = being a CONVICTED FELON as a republican. Sweet baby jesus......................

Not long after Hastings' acquittal, however, three federal judges took the unusual step of calling on the House of Representatives to impeach him on the criminal charges. A report compiled by a special Investigating Committee in 1986 found clear evidence that Hastings had covered up his role in the bribery scheme. In 1987 a panel of 27 federal judges recommended impeachment. The following year, the Democrat-led House of Representatives voted 413-to-3 to impeach Hastings on 17 counts including bribery and perjury. And in 1989 a Democrat-controlled Senate convicted Hastings and removed him from his judgeship, making him only the sixth federal judge to be impeached and removed from office in U.S. history.

Glad you cleared that up 8th. He's not a convicted felon, only impeached, convicted and ousted by congress as a federal judge. What in the Hell is the big deal about that? We can now add this to your list along with being censured, being a convicted felon and not resigning (well at least for Traficant anyway), and believing islands capsize of things that don't apply to dems being lemmings and/or hypocrites.

Sooner8th

1/7/2015, 03:24 PM

Glad you cleared that up 8th. He's not a convicted felon, only impeached, convicted and ousted by congress as a federal judge. What in the Hell is the big deal about that? We can now add this to your list along with being censured, being a convicted felon and not resigning (well at least for Traficant anyway), and believing islands capsize of things that don't apply to dems being lemmings and/or hypocrites.What part of not convicted do you dumbasses not understand? He was not a CONVICTED FELON! Typical double standard from republicans.

okie52

1/7/2015, 03:35 PM

What part of not convicted do you dumbasses not understand? He was not a CONVICTED FELON! Typical double standard from republicans.

I'm just trying to help you 8th with these dam lemmings. Of course, and I'm sure it's just another typo or something else "you meant to say", Grimm wasn't convicted of anything when he ran for office.

But, after his conviction, he did take 6 days to announce his resignation and this caused great distress for some people like you. These dam lemmings just don't get that you are a man of integrity and these things matter!!!!

Sooner8th

1/7/2015, 06:33 PM

I'm just trying to help you 8th with these dam lemmings. Of course, and I'm sure it's just another typo or something else "you meant to say", Grimm wasn't convicted of anything when he ran for office. But, after his conviction, he did take 6 days to announce his resignation and this caused great distress for some people like you. These dam lemmings just don't get that you are a man of integrity and these things matter!!!!Neither were any of the democrats. Like I said before, show me a single republican offical who called on him to resign when he plead guilty to a FELONY. Hell, it's been 8 pages and only one of you said he should quit.

TVKaleen

1/7/2015, 07:45 PM

Neither were any of the democrats. Like I said before, show me a single republican offical who called on him to resign when he plead guilty to a FELONY. Hell, it's been 8 pages and only one of you said he should quit.

I don't want him in office. That being said, I don't want a former federal judge who was impeached and CONVICTED and removed from the bench by a Democrat-ran House of Representatives representing the people of his state in the House of Representatives and acting as the Senior member of the House Committee on Rules either. Guess what.. He's been there since 1993. See how much my wanting does. Grimm isn't.

Seriously though, I had nothing to do with that either. In fact, it was a republican congressman who probably had the most to with it since Boehner met with him and after that meeting, he decided to resign. So, just because there isn't someone in front of a camera screaming he should resign immediately doesn't mean there is not plenty of people telling him privately that he should resign.

You seem to be filled with rage. It can't be good for your blood pressure.

Sooner8th

1/7/2015, 08:12 PM

I don't want him in office. That being said, I don't want a former federal judge who was impeached and CONVICTED and removed from the bench by a Democrat-ran House of Representatives representing the people of his state in the House of Representatives and acting as the Senior member of the House Committee on Rules either. Guess what.. He's been there since 1993. See how much my wanting does. Grimm isn't. Seriously though, I had nothing to do with that either. In fact, it was a republican congressman who probably had the most to with it since Boehner met with him and after that meeting, he decided to resign. So, just because there isn't someone in front of a camera screaming he should resign immediately doesn't mean there is not plenty of people telling him privately that he should resign.You seem to be filled with rage. It can't be good for your blood pressure.Let me talk slow and use small words so you can understand. The congressmen was ACQUITTED, can you say ACQUITTED? I'll bet you can. You see he was ACQUITTED in a court of law, as grimm was CONVICTED. You see the difference now? and yes - not only did not a single republican would stand up an say he needed to resign - they actually offered SUPPORT FOR HIM TO STAY IN OFFICE.

TVKaleen

1/7/2015, 08:45 PM

Let me talk slow and use small words so you can understand. The congressmen was ACQUITTED, can you say ACQUITTED? I'll bet you can. You see he was ACQUITTED in a court of law, as grimm was CONVICTED. You see the difference now? and yes - not only did not a single republican would stand up an say he needed to resign - they actually offered SUPPORT FOR HIM TO STAY IN OFFICE.

You really are either thick headed or just blatantly ignoring the fact that he was IMPEACHED.. which means he was convicted by Congress which brought IMPEACHMENT proceedings against him. Now this is a little more complex than a court of law so I'm not quite sure I can use small enough words to make you understand. Sorry. He did not serve jail time but he was found guilty of a crime (bribery and perjury) during the impeachment proceedings and stripped of his robe and cast out from the Federal court system. And I have seen you offer no prrof that they offfered support to Grimm to stay. I have seen that he met with Boehner and then decided to resign. So I'm thinking through actions taken, it can be inferred that he was asked to resign by the Speaker.

Perhaps we can have a little fun with this..

http://www.cracked.com/article_18555_5-blatantly-corrupt-politicians-america-reelected-anyways.html

Which of these 5 guys still hold their offices?

Sooner8th

1/7/2015, 08:55 PM

You really are either thick headed or just blatantly ignoring the fact that he was IMPEACHED.. which means he was convicted by Congress which brought IMPEACHMENT proceedings against him. Now this is a little more complex than a court of law so I'm not quite sure I can use small enough words to make you understand. Sorry. He did not serve jail time but he was found guilty of a crime (bribery and perjury) during the impeachment proceedings and stripped of his robe and cast out from the Federal court system. And I have seen you offer no prrof that they offfered support to Grimm to stay. I have seen that he met with Boehner and then decided to resign. So I'm thinking through actions taken, it can be inferred that he was asked to resign by the Speaker.Perhaps we can have a little fun with this.. http://www.cracked.com/article_18555_5-blatantly-corrupt-politicians-america-reelected-anyways.htmlWhich of these 5 guys still hold their offices?Really? What part of court of law - justice branch and congress legislative branch do you now get? You are just another lemming trying to find a false equivalency with democrats. Did rush hook you up with this guys name?

TVKaleen

1/7/2015, 09:43 PM

Really? What part of court of law - justice branch and congress legislative branch do you now get? You are just another lemming trying to find a false equivalency with democrats. Did rush hook you up with this guys name?

You really are just a shrill. Here you go mister ignorant (in the sense that you do not seem to know what the hell you are talking about or you are just parroting talking points), a crash course on the one time the legislative branch is allowed to bring someone to trial. It's a little thing called impeachment. It's allowed for in the Constitution under Article 2 Section 4. Here's a copy of the document. I'm thinking you must have missed it in your civics classes in high school.

http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/constitution_transcript.html

Now.. for more indepth details but less indepth than you need on impeachment:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impeachment_in_the_United_States

So no, he did not go to jail. Yes he was guilty of a crime.

Interesting facts: Only 5 congressmen have been expelled from office. All were Democrats. 3 were due to the Civil War. One was in 1980 due to Abscam. And the last was James Traficant in 2002.

Twenty three have been censured (which means the house looked down on them and said they did bad and shook their finger at them and told them don't do it again). The last Democrat censured was Charles Wrangle in 2010 for failure to pay taxes (oddly familiar sounding thing there) and the last Republican was Daniel Crane in 1983 for sexual misconduct with a House page.

So really do you want to play my party is clean as driven snow? If you do, you are a fool sir. Both parties are dirty as hell. And neither of them gives a damn about you.

As for Rush, I work for a living. I don't get to listen to people yap on a radio all day. Little petty jabs like this are the work of a mind that knows it is defeated or has nothing useful to say. Which are you good sir?

Sooner8th

1/7/2015, 10:14 PM

You really are just a shrill. Here you go mister ignorant (in the sense that you do not seem to know what the hell you are talking about or you are just parroting talking points), a crash course on the one time the legislative branch is allowed to bring someone to trial. It's a little thing called impeachment. It's allowed for in the Constitution under Article 2 Section 4. Here's a copy of the document. I'm thinking you must have missed it in your civics classes in high school.http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/constitution_transcript.htmlNow.. for more indepth details but less indepth than you need on impeachment:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impeachment_in_the_United_StatesSo no, he did not go to jail. Yes he was guilty of a crime.Interesting facts: Only 5 congressmen have been expelled from office. All were Democrats. 3 were due to the Civil War. One was in 1980 due to Abscam. And the last was James Traficant in 2002. Twenty three have been censured (which means the house looked down on them and said they did bad and shook their finger at them and told them don't do it again). The last Democrat censured was Charles Wrangle in 2010 for failure to pay taxes (oddly familiar sounding thing there) and the last Republican was Daniel Crane in 1983 for sexual misconduct with a House page.So really do you want to play my party is clean as driven snow? If you do, you are a fool sir. Both parties are dirty as hell. And neither of them gives a damn about you.As for Rush, I work for a living. I don't get to listen to people yap on a radio all day. Little petty jabs like this are the work of a mind that knows it is defeated or has nothing useful to say. Which are you good sir?Sweet baby jesus....are you really this dumb? Do you not understand the difference between the judicial and legislative? Do you understand that only the WORD convicted is the same. Go back to civics class and learn something about the three branches of government. You are so busy trying to equate impeachment in congress with a felon conviction in court of law. From the constitution - Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States: but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law. Do you see that part about being subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law. You see that part? HUH? Read it again, then shut the hell up about impeachment.

olevetonahill

1/7/2015, 10:28 PM

Sweet baby jesus....are you really this dumb? Do you not understand the difference between the judicial and legislative? Do you understand that only the WORD convicted is the same. Go back to civics class and learn something about the three branches of government. You are so busy trying to equate impeachment in congress with a felon conviction in court of law. From the constitution - Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States: but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law. Do you see that part about being subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law. You see that part? HUH? Read it again, then shut the hell up about impeachment.

Whoa whoa whoa Back up yer wagon there. You said "CONVICTED" you never specified by who or what.
See how you change the rules of the game to suit yer ownself?

Sooner8th

1/7/2015, 11:36 PM

Whoa whoa whoa Back up yer wagon there. You said "CONVICTED" you never specified by who or what. See how you change the rules of the game to suit yer ownself?Typical conservative republican - parsing a sentence then building an argument around it. You conveniently left out the first part. You see he was ACQUITTED in a court of law, as grimm was CONVICTED. You see the part about the COURT OF LAW. I said grim was CONVICTED, tell me oh mr rocket scientist how many different places was grimm CONVICTED? OK, got it now? You are a true dumbass - not even smart enough to see that your argument fails not once - but twice in one sentence.

TVKaleen

1/8/2015, 08:47 AM

olevetonahill

1/8/2015, 09:01 AM

Typical conservative republican - parsing a sentence then building an argument around it. You conveniently left out the first part. You see he was ACQUITTED in a court of law, as grimm was CONVICTED. You see the part about the COURT OF LAW. I said grim was CONVICTED, tell me oh mr rocket scientist how many different places was grimm CONVICTED? OK, got it now? You are a true dumbass - not even smart enough to see that your argument fails not once - but twice in one sentence.

Ok Einstein , You said the Word Convicted! Not I. Nor am I arguing anything ya Moran. I simply pointed out Your Rules :torn:

Sooner8th

1/8/2015, 09:23 AM

So I'm guessing you have no problems and totally believe the verdicts in the Zimmerman case, the Darren Wilson case, and the Pantaleo grand jury findings. All were carried out under legal procedures.But truly you are missing the point. I agreed with you. Grimm needed to go. And go he did. But you are okay with a guy who was impeached and convicted and removed from his judgeship being a House Rep knowing that his conviction and removal was caused by BRIBERY and perjury. See, I have a problem with a public official taking bribes and abusing their office.And you keep spewing out a hate filled diatribe with anyone who disagrees with you or even everyone who agrees with you but not in the way you want them, which is just about everyone. I suggest you go seek some help with your anger issues man. Life is too short to blow a gasket on the internet.You really aren't that bright are you? You have shown you don't know the difference between a court trial that ends in ACQUITTAL and a grand jury that did not return an INDICTMENT that would lead to a criminal trial then a CONVICTION or an ACQUITTAL. Wilson and Pantaleo have not been found NOT GUILTY. Zimmerman and Aclee Hastings were found INNOCENT. Grimm was not - he is guilty of a FELONY. See the difference? You cannot even get your facts straight, it was ATTEMPT TO SOLICIT A BRIBE. The point I have been making is one - you had a CONVICTED FELON in congress for ~two weeks. Two - not only would a single republican not speak up say and publicly he needed to go they actually offered SUPPORT FOR HIM. No repuiclican would break the reagan commandment of thou shall not speak ill of a fellow republican. Look through the thread and see only one person, who made a weak statement, would say he needed to resign. Like you they were too busy trying to find a democrat that had done the same thing. Pathetic.

okie52

1/8/2015, 11:38 AM

Neither were any of the democrats. Like I said before, show me a single republican offical who called on him to resign when he plead guilty to a FELONY. Hell, it's been 8 pages and only one of you said he should quit.

But 8th, wasn't that your point about pubs in your OP..you know, voting for someone that was only "charged" with crimes?

Talk about a complete lack of integrity, Satan could win with an R after his name with you lemmings running out and blindly jerk down the levers for R's. A 20-count indictment in April and he still won by 55 to 42 percent. Tell me about about you're the party of values.http://www.nytimes.com/2014/12/23/nyregion/rep-michael-grimm-to-plead-guilty-to-tax-charge.html

Does voting for someone "charged" with a crime make them lemmings? Is voting for someone "charged" with a crime worse than voting for someone that has actually been impeached, convicted and ousted from office by congress, or someone that has been actually been censured by the House of representatives, or someone that believes islands tip over, all of which occurred before they were elected/reelected?

These pubs need to understand what separates their voting like lemmings and hypocrites from good, solid voting dems...so in the future, when confronted by a candidate like the dems mentioned above, they can vote in good conscience knowing that they won't be hypocrites or lemmings.

TVKaleen

1/8/2015, 11:52 AM

You really aren't that bright are you? You have shown you don't know the difference between a court trial that ends in ACQUITTAL and a grand jury that did not return an INDICTMENT that would lead to a criminal trial then a CONVICTION or an ACQUITTAL. Wilson and Pantaleo have not been found NOT GUILTY. Zimmerman and Aclee Hastings were found INNOCENT. Grimm was not - he is guilty of a FELONY. See the difference? You cannot even get your facts straight, it was ATTEMPT TO SOLICIT A BRIBE. The point I have been making is one - you had a CONVICTED FELON in congress for ~two weeks. Two - not only would a single republican not speak up say and publicly he needed to go they actually offered SUPPORT FOR HIM. No repuiclican would break the reagan commandment of thou shall not speak ill of a fellow republican. Look through the thread and see only one person, who made a weak statement, would say he needed to resign. Like you they were too busy trying to find a democrat that had done the same thing. Pathetic.

Actually, you are presumed innocent. You are found not guilty. There is a distinction there. Therefore the decision not to indict Mr. Wilson or Mr. Pantaleo was indeed a confirmation of innocence for now. Mister Hastings was found not guilty (not as you indicate found innocent) in a court of law but in a trial of impeachment (steps of impeachment.. bringing of the articles of impeachment and then the trial of impeachment) he was found guilty and then removed from his judgeship. The biggest difference between a criminal trial and impeachment is that officially a criminal trial is an adversary system and the impeachment process is an investigational system. One seeks to prove guilt (as prosecutor) or non-guilt (by the defense) without regard for the truth. It is how you have people who are freed due to technicalities. The other is a system that nominally (and in a perfect world) seeks the truth. Now that being said there is no law that prevent Mister Hastings or Mister Grimm from serving in office. In fact, early on one member not only served while in prison but was re-elected while serving a two year sentence under the James Adams administration (violation of the later found to be unConstitutional Alien and Sedition act). You view this as a holy crusade. You hate republicans. And you hate anyone you presume to be a republican. Your vitriol makes you unable to see through your own beliefs and leads you to using insults and name calling. These tactics do not bolster your arguments and found to be ineffective in convincing people of the righteousness of your causes. In fact, they make you an embarrassment to your cause.

I apologize that I didn't recognize this earlier. At first, like all the others I just laughed at you. But now I'm worried for you. Your actions of ad hominem attacks and derision are not a sign of rational thought. They are the symptoms of an unbalanced mind. I pity you, sir. And I highly recommend you seek help for this hate you have stored up. It is like a time bomb and it will undo you eventually. That being said, after reading most of your posts for the last two days, this is going to be my last word on the subject and to you as I do not wish to contribute any further to your unhinging. Have a wonderful day.

okie52

1/8/2015, 11:55 AM

SoonerorLater

1/8/2015, 12:02 PM

Sooner8th

1/8/2015, 12:17 PM

He's a troll, a liar and a plagiarist. He is also one big logical fallacy just waiting for his next post.Now I'm a plagiarist, rrriiiggghhhttttt. I cannot edit my posts so it looks like I'm saying it. I have contacted the administrators to fix it, but they cannot figure it out. Now tell me again how TYLER DURDEN says the commerce dept played with the GDP numbers that come from the BEA.

Sooner8th

1/8/2015, 12:45 PM

Actually, you are presumed innocent. You are found not guilty. There is a distinction there. Therefore the decision not to indict Mr. Wilson or Mr. Pantaleo was indeed a confirmation of innocence for now. Mister Hastings was found not guilty (not as you indicate found innocent) in a court of law but in a trial of impeachment (steps of impeachment.. bringing of the articles of impeachment and then the trial of impeachment) he was found guilty and then removed from his judgeship. The biggest difference between a criminal trial and impeachment is that officially a criminal trial is an adversary system and the impeachment process is an investigational system. One seeks to prove guilt (as prosecutor) or non-guilt (by the defense) without regard for the truth. It is how you have people who are freed due to technicalities. The other is a system that nominally (and in a perfect world) seeks the truth. Now that being said there is no law that prevent Mister Hastings or Mister Grimm from serving in office. In fact, early on one member not only served while in prison but was re-elected while serving a two year sentence under the James Adams administration (violation of the later found to be unConstitutional Alien and Sedition act). You view this as a holy crusade. You hate republicans. And you hate anyone you presume to be a republican. Your vitriol makes you unable to see through your own beliefs and leads you to using insults and name calling. These tactics do not bolster your arguments and found to be ineffective in convincing people of the righteousness of your causes. In fact, they make you an embarrassment to your cause.I apologize that I didn't recognize this earlier. At first, like all the others I just laughed at you. But now I'm worried for you. Your actions of ad hominem attacks and derision are not a sign of rational thought. They are the symptoms of an unbalanced mind. I pity you, sir. And I highly recommend you seek help for this hate you have stored up. It is like a time bomb and it will undo you eventually. That being said, after reading most of your posts for the last two days, this is going to be my last word on the subject and to you as I do not wish to contribute any further to your unhinging. Have a wonderful day.You are a typical conservative republican. A no integrity lemming who will back the party line even if it is contrary to your professed beliefs. A double standard for behavior for democrats and republicans. You are finally catching on - there is no law in preventing members who have been found guilty of felonies to not be able to serve, so they have to impeach to get them out. You keep trying to equate being impeached with being convicted of a felony. They are not equal, now you already screwed up your argument with the grand jury and now you want to lecture me on how everything works? Typical conservative.

okie52

1/8/2015, 02:02 PM

I better repost this again for 8th...he seems to have overlooked it and I know 8th will want to provide clarity on this matter for all of you dumbasses, lemmings and hypocrites.

Quote Originally Posted by Sooner8th View Post
Neither were any of the democrats. Like I said before, show me a single republican offical who called on him to resign when he plead guilty to a FELONY. Hell, it's been 8 pages and only one of you said he should quit.

But 8th, wasn't that your point about pubs in your OP..you know, voting for someone that was only "charged" with crimes?

Quote Originally Posted by Sooner8th View Post
Talk about a complete lack of integrity, Satan could win with an R after his name with you lemmings running out and blindly jerk down the levers for R's. A 20-count indictment in April and he still won by 55 to 42 percent. Tell me about about you're the party of values.http://www.nytimes.com/2014/12/23/ny...ax-charge.html

Does voting for someone "charged" with a crime make them lemmings? Is voting for someone "charged" with a crime worse than voting for someone that has actually been impeached, convicted and ousted from office by congress, or someone that has been actually been censured by the House of representatives, or someone that believes islands tip over, all of which occurred before they were elected/reelected?

These pubs need to understand what separates their voting like lemmings and hypocrites from good, solid voting dems...so in the future, when confronted by a candidate like the dems mentioned above, they can vote in good conscience knowing that they won't be hypocrites or lemmings.

Sooner8th

1/8/2015, 02:55 PM

I better repost this again for 8th...he seems to have overlooked it and I know 8th will want to provide clarity on this matter for all of you dumbasses, lemmings and hypocrites.But 8th, wasn't that your point about pubs in your OP..you know, voting for someone that was only "charged" with crimes?Does voting for someone "charged" with a crime make them lemmings? Is voting for someone "charged" with a crime worse than voting for someone that has actually been impeached, convicted and ousted from office by congress, or someone that has been actually been censured by the House of representatives, or someone that believes islands tip over, all of which occurred before they were elected/reelected?These pubs need to understand what separates their voting like lemmings and hypocrites from good, solid voting dems...so in the future, when confronted by a candidate like the dems mentioned above, they can vote in good conscience knowing that they won't be hypocrites or lemmings.Sweet baby jesus. Who was impeached, convicted and ousted from office? Show me an democrat that was indicted and won. You keep bring trying to equate a 20-count indictment with saying something stupid. You just keep proving my point. Double standard - no integrity.

okie52

1/8/2015, 04:25 PM

Sweet baby jesus. Who was impeached, convicted and ousted from office? Show me an democrat that was indicted and won. You keep bring trying to equate a 20-count indictment with saying something stupid. You just keep proving my point. Double standard - no integrity.

Hastings was impeached, convicted and ousted as a federal judge...or maybe you don't call that an "office".

So, just for those dumbasses and lemmings, according to 8th's high standards and integrity:

If you are a pub you are a hypocrite and lemming if you vote for a candidate "charged" with a crime(s) even though they are eligible to run for office.

However, according to 8th's high standards and integrity it is perfectly reasonable and acceptable to vote for:

A candidate that has been impeached, convicted and thrown out as a "federal judge" by congress or

a candidate that has been "censured" by the house of Represenatives.

And you are not a hypocrite in the "party of science" to vote for:

A candidate that believes islands tip over.

Hopefully all those dumbasses, lemmings and hypocrites will finally grasp the high standards you demand from both dems and pubs alike and be a guide for pubs in their future voting choices. Thanks for clearing it up.

Sooner8th

1/8/2015, 04:40 PM

Hastings was impeached, convicted and ousted as a federal judge...or maybe you don't call that an "office". So, just for those dumbasses and lemmings, according to 8th's high standards and integrity:If you are a pub you are a hypocrite and lemming if you vote for a candidate "charged" with a crime(s) even though they are eligible to run for office.However, according to 8th's high standards and integrity it is perfectly reasonable and acceptable to vote for:A candidate that has been impeached, convicted and thrown out as a "federal judge" by congress ora candidate that has been "censured" by the house of Represenatives.And you are not a hypocrite in the "party of science" to vote for:A candidate that believes islands tip over. Hopefully all those dumbasses, lemmings and hypocrites will finally grasp the high standards you demand from both dems and pubs alike and be a guide for pubs in their future voting choices. Thanks for clearing it up.Office is for elected officials, judges are on the bench. You people, conservative republicans, have jammed down our throats moral values, family values and having no principals when it is a D. Just as soon as it is a R your people actually offer support. Still trying to equate impeachment and saying something stupid with a CONVICTED FELON. You and the members of your party have no integrity. Check the new thread on mcconnell claiming the economy improved at the last election because R's took the senate. Proof positive you and your party have NO INTEGRITY.

okie52

1/8/2015, 04:55 PM

Office is for elected officials, judges are on the bench. You people, conservative republicans, have jammed down our throats moral values, family values and having no principals when it is a D. Just as soon as it is a R your people actually offer support. Still trying to equate impeachment and saying something stupid with a CONVICTED FELON. You and the members of your party have no integrity. Check the new thread on mcconnell claiming the economy improved at the last election because R's took the senate. Proof positive you and your party have NO INTEGRITY.

Ahh, so a federal judge being impeached, convicted and removed from the "bench" is okay to vote for in an election to congress.

So a resurrected Hastings arrived on the House floor for swearing-in ceremonies as a member of the largest freshman class since 1948, one of the first black members from Florida in 120 years (there are three this year) and the only impeached official ever seated in the House

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/campaigns/junkie/links/hastings010693.htm

.You keep clearing up these otherwise grey areas. Thanks.

Not trying to equate stupidity with crimes, 8th, it's just that you were stating that pubs were hypocrites as the party of "moral values" for voting for a candidate "charged" with crimes. I just wanted to get your highly regarded opinion on the "party of science" reelecting someone that believes islands tip over and, thankfully, you have provided guidance there. Thanks again. You are a man of integrity.