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

[Sooner8th]

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]

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/22...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.



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...apn&ap=ask.com

Merry Christmas 8th

[Sooner8th]

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. After this astounding scientific observation Johnson was re elected by an overwhelming marginhttp://www.ask.com/wiki/Hank_Johnson...apn&ap=ask.comMerry Christmas 8th

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.

[SCOUT]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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-tell...l-media-troll/

[Sooner8th]

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-tell...l-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]

^^^^^^^^^^ 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]

^^^^^^^^^^ 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]

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

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

[okie52]

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]

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?