Couldn't happen to a nicer guy...

[clyde]

I thought I had her fooled.



Nuts.










I mean phooey!!

[Rileyoriley]

Looks like Mr. Weiner (the congressman, not Clyde) is going to rehab.

[Danzig]

yeah, i saw he's asked for a leave of absence...let me guess, my wife and i want privacy-said the guy who tweeted/sent photos to total strangers.

[SCUDSBROTHER]

Originally Posted by hi_im_god

because he's a distraction from more important issues. and he's a convenient brush the other side will use to paint everyone on your side with in broad strokes.

the game was over at that ridiculous press conference. i don't want to defend him. i want him to resign. this whole thing plays out worse every day he's in office.

the sooner he leaves the headlines the better.

OMG, You fkn ACED 1.

[dellinger63]

Rangel said Weiner "wasn't going with prostitutes. He wasn't going out with little boys."

http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/...een-not-inde-0

[SCUDSBROTHER]

Originally Posted by dellinger63

Rangel said Weiner "wasn't going with prostitutes. He wasn't going out with little boys."

http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/...een-not-inde-0

Apparently, NYC doesn't care if their Reps have the ethics of farm animals.

[dellinger63]

Originally Posted by SCUDSBROTHER

Apparently, NYC doesn't care if their Reps have the ethics of farm animals.

I suppose if Rangel had Rep. written after his name his comment would be taken as homophobic.

The hypocrisy of the democratic party turning on this guy because of sexting and lying to the press while they stood by Clinton, who got serviced in the white house and lied about it under oath is priceless.

I thought dems stayed out of the bedroom and respected one's private life? Weiner needs to stay and teach his party a lesson or two. He's a clown and an integral part of the dem circus.

[Danzig]

i read this morning that over 50% of weiners constituents thinks he should stay. as long as that's the case, he shouldn't resign. the dems are sweating his re-election campaign because of this news coming out. they don't want a chance of losing a seat.
he's expendable in their view. it's not about ethics, it's about seats. vitter hired prostitutes, he's still a senator. he wasn't just a bad husband, he broke the law- which is more than one can currently say about weiner. there needs to be a revolution-every member of congress who has been there more than two terms should be voted out. that would cause a wave of change. as long as you have these intrenched pols who work the system, and teach that system to newcomers, things will continue as they are. the american people held hostage because of politics. it's not that nothing can be done, it's that neither said wants the other to have a success to crow about. it's beyond ridiculous.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by Danzig

there needs to be a revolution-every member of congress who has been there more than two terms should be voted out. that would cause a wave of change.

We just had a massive "wave of change" this past Congress, and all it gave us was a bunch of Tea Party idiots.

[Rileyoriley]

Originally Posted by Riot

We just had a massive "wave of change" this past Congress, and all it gave us was a bunch of Tea Party idiots.

No worse than the idiots that were already there.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by Rileyoriley

No worse than the idiots that were already there.

I'll take experienced idiots over novice idiots any time. I do not thing the Congress needs to be made up entirely of novices, as they tend to think silly, untenable things such as, "Not raising the debt ceiling won't have any real consequences"

I think the founding fathers got it right.

blah blah keep thinging. Derp de derp.

[Danzig]

i wonder if those who suddenly want the debt ceiling raised were against it a few years back, when dems were howling against it? dems now recognize the need to raise, so now...they're suddenly smart?



as for novices, our first congresses were made up of nothing but novices. they did one hell of a job getting us started. when did we get indoctrinated into thinking only career politicians knew what was best?


yeah, just what i thought:

Obama Voted Against Raising Debt Ceiling in 2006 – All Democrats Did – So why the change?

Obama Voted Against Raising Debt Ceiling in 2006 – All Dems Did. The President made an admission along with many other dems that they made a “political” decision in 2006, instead of a fiscal one. They voted not to pass the CR, continuing resolution to to allow the federal government to operate. This was done while the republicans held the House of representatives and Bush was in office. It seemed to have paid off. Sounds like it paid off in getting Obama elected.



At the time, Reid said:

“If my Republican friends believe that increasing our debt by almost $800 billion today and more than $3 trillion over the last five years is the right thing to do, they should be upfront about it. They should explain why they think more debt is good for the economy.

“How can the Republican majority in this Congress explain to their constituents that trillions of dollars in new debt is good for our economy? How can they explain that they think it’s fair to force our children, our grandchildren, our great grandchildren to finance this debt through higher taxes. That’s what it will have to be. Why is it right to increase our nation’s dependence on foreign creditors?

“They should explain this. Maybe they can convince the public they’re right. I doubt it. Because most Americans know that increasing debt is the last thing we should be doing. After all, I repeat, the Baby Boomers are about to retire. Under the circumstances, any credible economist would tell you we should be reducing debt, not increasing it. Democrats won’t be making argument to supper this legalization, which will weaken our country. Weaken our county.”

When Senator Reid was recently asked by NBC’s David Gregory about the conflict between his 2006 and 2011 statements, Reid replied, “I don’t really know what vote you’re talking about.”

[Riot]

Originally Posted by Danzig

i wonder if those who suddenly want the debt ceiling raised were against it a few years back, when dems were howling against it? dems now recognize the need to raise, so now...they're suddenly smart?

as for novices, our first congresses were made up of nothing but novices. they did one hell of a job getting us started. when did we get indoctrinated into thinking only career politicians knew what was best?

The debt ceiling was raised several times during the Bush administrations. This is the first time so much nonsensical posturing about "not having any real consequence" has occurred (there has always been the few who have taken themselves out of the vote in favor of political posturing, Obama included)

I'm not talking Dems vs Republicans, I'm talking novices versus experienced legislators.

Not having novices doesn't mean you're left with career politicians. It's not either-or. No, I most definitely am not in favor of Washington being constantly made up of new classes of novices. I think that would be sheer disaster.

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by Riot

The debt ceiling was raised several times during the Bush administrations. This is the first time so much nonsensical posturing about "not having any real consequence" has occurred (there has always been the few who have taken themselves out of the vote in favor of political posturing, Obama included)

I'm not talking Dems vs Republicans, I'm talking novices versus experienced legislators.

Not having novices doesn't mean you're left with career politicians. It's not either-or. No, I most definitely am not in favor of Washington being constantly made up of new classes of novices. I think that would be sheer disaster.

lol

a few. that's the first time i've seen every democratic senator, almost half the members, classified as 'a few'.


and an fyi..


the debt ceiling was raised eight times under clinton, seven times under bush. it's really not a party thing, but a spending thing. i just find it laughable that the dems made it such a political issue, and now it's jumping up to bite them in the ass.

and yeah, it's all bs. everyone knows it's going to be raised. again.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by Danzig

lol

a few. that's the first time i've seen every democratic senator, almost half the members, classified as 'a few'.


and an fyi..


the debt ceiling was raised eight times under clinton, seven times under bush. it's really not a party thing, but a spending thing. i just find it laughable that the dems made it such a political issue, and now it's jumping up to bite them in the ass.

and yeah, it's all bs. everyone knows it's going to be raised. again.

You've missed my point. Yes, both parties do the political posturing. But how many have said, in the past, "Not raising it won't cause a problem?" That's my point - the ignorance. When you have to have the Secretary of the Treasury sit down with freshmen congressmembers and explain what the debt ceiling is, and yes, if you don't address it, there really are consequences.

I don't want ignorance in there newly fresh every two years. I don't want members that don't know parlimentary procedure, don't know how committees work, don't know how to get legislation through the House or Senate. A little new blood is good, but novices governing gives you things like Sarah Palin leaving little in-the-black Wasilla 23 million in debt.

[Rileyoriley]

Originally Posted by Riot

I'll take experienced idiots over novice idiots any time. I do not thing the Congress needs to be made up entirely of novices, as they tend to think silly, untenable things such as, "Not raising the debt ceiling won't have any real consequences"

I think the founding fathers got it right.

I'm willing to give the inexperienced a try. The "experienced" are the ones who got us in this mess.

[Rileyoriley]

Originally Posted by Danzig

i wonder if those who suddenly want the debt ceiling raised were against it a few years back, when dems were howling against it? dems now recognize the need to raise, so now...they're suddenly smart?



as for novices, our first congresses were made up of nothing but novices. they did one hell of a job getting us started. when did we get indoctrinated into thinking only career politicians knew what was best?


yeah, just what i thought:

Obama Voted Against Raising Debt Ceiling in 2006 – All Democrats Did – So why the change?

Obama Voted Against Raising Debt Ceiling in 2006 – All Dems Did. The President made an admission along with many other dems that they made a “political” decision in 2006, instead of a fiscal one. They voted not to pass the CR, continuing resolution to to allow the federal government to operate. This was done while the republicans held the House of representatives and Bush was in office. It seemed to have paid off. Sounds like it paid off in getting Obama elected.



At the time, Reid said:

“If my Republican friends believe that increasing our debt by almost $800 billion today and more than $3 trillion over the last five years is the right thing to do, they should be upfront about it. They should explain why they think more debt is good for the economy.

“How can the Republican majority in this Congress explain to their constituents that trillions of dollars in new debt is good for our economy? How can they explain that they think it’s fair to force our children, our grandchildren, our great grandchildren to finance this debt through higher taxes. That’s what it will have to be. Why is it right to increase our nation’s dependence on foreign creditors?

“They should explain this. Maybe they can convince the public they’re right. I doubt it. Because most Americans know that increasing debt is the last thing we should be doing. After all, I repeat, the Baby Boomers are about to retire. Under the circumstances, any credible economist would tell you we should be reducing debt, not increasing it. Democrats won’t be making argument to supper this legalization, which will weaken our country. Weaken our county.”

When Senator Reid was recently asked by NBC’s David Gregory about the conflict between his 2006 and 2011 statements, Reid replied, “I don’t really know what vote you’re talking about.”

I "thing" I get it. When it was Bush's money to spend, Obama was against it. Now that the credit card is in Obama's hands, he wants to raise the credit limit. What neither got was the credit card is in OUR name and we want to cap the limit.

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by Rileyoriley

I "thing" I get it. When it was Bush's money to spend, Obama was against it. Now that the credit card is in Obama's hands, he wants to raise the credit limit. What neither got was the credit card is in OUR name and we want to cap the limit.

no, obama and the dems are against anything the republicans are for, and vice versa. this is why everything is crappy, nothing gets done, nothing moves forward, and it's business is usual. now, the dems are in charge, so they want what they want. the reps don't want them to succeed at anything, as the reps want the white house back.
so, we all get the shaft, again, while the pols do their usual.

it's not a matter of what's best, or who can do what. it's about blaming the other guy for everything wrong, and taking credit for everything that's right. both sides engage in the same behavior.
the funny people are those who actually think one or the other of the two parties is the good guy. they both suck. they both hold policy and money hostage to further their own agenda, to keep their power or try to get more. it's why clinton and the dems voted for doma when they're supposedly not worried about people's private lives, it's why congress voted to invade afganistan. it's why republicans are trying to further their agenda while playing politics with the debt ceiling. after obama and company did the same a few years back. it's why clinton was free to fool around and lie, but weiner isn't. or why dems are after weiner, but rangel can stay-after all, his issues were with money, and that's just fine.

[Rileyoriley]

Originally Posted by Riot

You've missed my point. Yes, both parties do the political posturing. But how many have said, in the past, "Not raising it won't cause a problem?" That's my point - the ignorance. When you have to have the Secretary of the Treasury sit down with freshmen congressmembers and explain what the debt ceiling is, and yes, if you don't address it, there really are consequences.

I don't want ignorance in there newly fresh every two years. I don't want members that don't know parlimentary procedure, don't know how committees work, don't know how to get legislation through the House or Senate. A little new blood is good, but novices governing gives you things like Sarah Palin leaving little in-the-black Wasilla 23 million in debt.

Would that be the same Secretary of the Treasury that doesn't know how to fill out his own tax returns? Tim "Tax Cheat" Geithner? I wouldn't be taking any advice from him.