cancel
Showing results for 
Search instead for 
Did you mean: 
cotman03
Veteran Contributor

Re: Rangel vs Obama

I read his war story several years ago and was amazed at his military history.  A real hero.

dagwud
Senior Contributor

Re: It is my understanding

"whatever! Think what you want!"

 

For heavens sake Don I'm going by what the New York Times reported.  Did you even read the link to the article I posted?  Now the Times is part of right wing conspiracY?

kraft-t
Senior Advisor

Re: It is my understanding

Nope. You already have her convicted, I cannot do anything to change your mind. The effort would be time wasted.

tomtoolbag
Veteran Advisor

Re: Rangel vs Obama

  I see now that the republicans are stalling on the ethics panel hearing to get it closer to the elections, as expected.

  You're right kraft-t, he won't go down without a fight and he is due his chance to defend himself, and is innocent until PROVEN guilty.

   Hopefully it won't turn into the circus that it has become so far, but we both know that's unlikely.

tomtoolbag
Veteran Advisor

Re: It is my understanding

  The major issue is if ALL the banks that she lobbied on behalf of are in her district, even the one her husband had invested in. If that is the case, which I think that it is, her district that she represents may be happy about that, and ANY OTHER POLITICIAN would have done the same thing, and has.

dagwud
Senior Contributor

Re: It is my understanding

"Nope. You already have her convicted, I cannot do anything to change your mind. The effort would be time wasted."  Can you please show me Don exactly what I said that gave you the impression that I believe Waters is guilty and I already have her convicted?  I would propose that it is you that already has me convicted yet again and are trying to twist my words around as in when you said something to the effect that I did not feel Waters and Rangel should not get their day in court.  Even when I report what the New York Times reported onwhat  Frank and Waters said you attempt to dismiss it by saying  "whatever! Think what you want!"

 

The truth is you will bite on any rumor with no credibility in a heart beat if it sullies the Repub party.  But when it comes to actual news reports from several creditable news sources saying something damaging about a Dem you will always cast doubts on the news reports and often attack the messenger.

 

The other day we wondered if Tea Partiers and upset conservative Repubs would actually put their money where their mouth is and vote out incumbent Repubs and those favored by the Republican party /establishment.   Maddow reported on this after the recent round of primary elections and listed several cases so far where the Repub incumbent and or the Repub candidate backed by the party has gone down in defeat.  I still think it would be a good thing to see incumbents have to start earning re-election as to winning over 80% of all their races.  Another encouraging sign, it has been a strong year for women canidates so far. 

 

Tom, I actually think that Waters and Rangel both stand a good chance of successfully defending themselves against some of the charges likely to be brought against them.  Especially Rangel if they continue to push on his illegal use of Congressional letterhead.   I heard one guy on TV say you could charge most Congressmen with that violation at some point in their careers.  I think the two may be in trouble on some of the more serious charges.  Waters may actually avoid her most serious charge if she can some how get her stepson to take the bullet for her and say he was acting on his own without her knowledge but as her chief of the staff that might be a hard sell.  If they truly feel they are innocent then I commend them for standing up to their party's self interest in asking them to resign. 

kraft-t
Senior Advisor

Re: It is my understanding

What the heck do you want? I said whatever, think what you want. That frees you up to think what you want without interference from me. You can count it as a victory if you must but I have chosen not to continue the dialogue on this topic.

 

I have heard Waters comments concerning the charges and I am incluined to agree with her However, you are welcome to think what you must but i refuse to engage on the topic. I have no interest in the New York Times article. At this point in time it is merely speculation. Again think what you want and tear her down all you want.

 

You will find many threads on this board that I do not respond to. Often I think the threads are stupid and not worth my effort. Other times, I find the topic does not interest me. And other times I choose not to continue the argument because I think it is hopeless.

 

 

dagwud
Senior Contributor

Re: It is my understanding

I'm not trying to argue or even trying gain a victory.  I am simply discussing a current topic in the news and since this sight is 95% politics I thought this was a good place to discuss it.

 

"I have no interest in the New York Times article. At this point in time it is merely speculation."   Why when you read a  news report that reflects negatively on any and all Repubs do you not consider it merely speculation as well?   Your transparency is truly amazing.  When confronted with news reports and facts that don't fit your single party mind set you always get upset and accuse others of attacking and tearing down your poor Dems down when you are far worse at what you are accusing others of doing. 

 

I know it is a waste of my time as you once again have choosen to run from any real debate and adult conversation but what the hell I'll try it again.  I have already asked you what I said that gave you the impression that I believe Waters is guilty and I already have her convicted?  Now I will ask you what I have said that gives you the impression that I was tearing Mrs. Waters down?  Repeating what reputable news agencies have reported or repeating what the Ethics Committee has said is some how tearing her down, already having her convicted and not believing she should get her day in court????    

kraft-t
Senior Advisor

Re: It is my understanding

The conversation is over. You won't learn anything from me and I won't learn anything from you. I don't need to engage in a peeing contest with you. I told you what I heard from congressman waters. Her own words. If the New York times has something doifferent to say so be it.

 

Now you don't like it when I don't agree with you. And you don't like it when I end the dialogue. Then you have to resort to names or insults about how unyielding I am or how protective I am of dems. I presented the facts as I know them. You choose not to beleive them so what would be my purpose to continue. To Provide a forum for you to debate with yourself? I don't think so. You are free to discuss anything you want but don't expect be to participate.

 

Now if you were really interested you cpould have listened to Ms Waters for an hour or so on c-span this morning. She would have explained to you that while congress was tossing our billions for the big banks that she argued for the smaller minority owned banks that were being ignored. Because her husband owned some stock in one of those firms you wish to hang her out to dry.

 

So I guess yoyu think it is unethical for Chuck Grassley to vote on farm programs. And I suppose if Doctors in the Senate vote against health care legislation then they must be guilty of voting self interest. Surely a criminal act.