NationStates Jolt Archive

And the Black Caucus properly objects.

The House Democrats took away William Jefferson's seat on the House Ways and Means committee. The rationale by the Democrats is that, "Democrats are determined to hold a high ethical standard," the party's leader, Rep. Nancy Pelosi. "This isn't about proof in the court of law. This is about an ethical standard," Pelosi said.

This action was wrong when Tom Delay was forced out, but at least he was indicted. And this action is wrong now. As I recall, not even Dan Rostenkowski received this treatment. He held his positions until he was indicted, not at the first bit of bad news.

Are the Democrats right in this action? Or does the presumption of innocence become null and void when the subject hurts the message that his party is trying to promote?

That seat was not his as a matter of right, therefore the presumption of innocence. From what I can tell in your post, he held his position during the pleasure of the House Democrats.

That seat was not his as a matter of right, therefore the presumption of innocence. From what I can tell in your post, he held his position during the pleasure of the House Democrats.
Absolutely so. Nancy Pelosi has total control of the seats. But if the presumption of innocence isn't valid, then what standard are they using for this new ethical stand?

Their reputation. They wish to avoid the appearence of impropriety, and if a Democrat shows signs of it, to "keep up appearences", they shove him/her/it out.

Wait, what is Jefferson supposed to have done?

Wait, what is Jefferson supposed to have done?


He's the guy with the 90,000 in marked bribe money the FBI found hidden in is freezer.

he claims to a reasonable explaination for it :D

"Who are you going to believe, me or your lying eyes?" Groucho Marx

He's the guy with the 90,000 in marked bribe money the FBI found hidden in is freezer.

he claims to a reasonable explaination for it :D
Who doesn't put their money in the freezer? Only stupid people. Ever seen a refrigerator or freezer ransacked by robbers? No.

Who doesn't put their money in the freezer? Only stupid people. Ever seen a refrigerator or freezer ransacked by robbers? No.


Maybe they shoudnt keep the marked bribe money in the freezer in case the FBI shows up looking for it . And freezers and refridgerators are the first place to look for drugs and other cotraband...even stupid people know that .

Maybe they shoudnt keep the marked bribe money in the freezer in case the FBI shows up looking for it . And freezers and refridgerators are the first place to look for drugs and other cotraband...even stupid people know that .
Yeah, but we are talking about money and robbers. In case the FBI shows up, stuff it in your clothes.

Yeah, but we are talking about money and robbers. In case the FBI shows up, stuff it in your clothes.
Wasn't that something that Sandy Berger always said?

Wasn't that something that Sandy Berger always said?
I'm sorry, do Republicans always have to be immature or is it a genetic trait?

I'm sorry, do Republicans always have to be immature or is it a genetic trait?
What's immature about pointing out your remark on "stuffing into pants" and a convicted felon?

What's immature about pointing out your remark on "stuffing into pants" and a convicted felon?
Ok, fine, let me "reword" it.
Do Republicans always have to be slanderous/libelous asshats that can't stay on topic without verbally attacking a Democrat/person with political agenda they don't like, or is it a genetic trait?

Ok, fine, let me "reword" it.
Do Republicans always have to be slanderous/libelous asshats that can't stay on topic without verbally attacking a Democrat/person with political agenda they don't like, or is it a genetic trait?
If you want to be on a forum where all they do is praise Democrats to the skies, and curse Republicans with every breath, this ain't it, darlin.

Go over to Democratic Underground and post there.

BTW, the comment about Sandy Berger is neither slander nor libel. He's a convict.

BTW, the comment about Sandy Berger is neither slander nor libel. He's a convict.
Which had shit to do with this thread.
If you would like to point out where I am sitting around bad mouthing random Republican figures just for shits and giggles, knock yourself out.
The president is excluded from this "contest."

Which had shit to do with this thread.
If you would like to point out where I am sitting around bad mouthing random Republican figures just for shits and giggles, knock yourself out.
The president is excluded from this "contest."
You're the one who brought up stuffing things into pants.

You're the one who brought up stuffing things into pants.
Which had nothing to do with any person or event.

Which had nothing to do with any person or event.
Really? It's in common use as a reference to Sandy Berger.

I think Jefferson might have been treated better had he actually listened and not thrown up excuses and generally acted like a child going "NAH NAH CAN'T HEAR YOU!" everytime Pelosi said something. The Dems can hardly afford a scandal now, with them fighting to regain some traction. Democrats may have a good idea, but it's like herding cats with them. Dean doesn't help, either. Republicans, oh they'll all march in lockstep. Exactly like Lemmings off a cliff, but darn they'll obey their bosses!

*sigh*

Really? It's in common use as a reference to Sandy Berger.
Do I really need to go back to Republicans slandering people?

Do I really need to go back to Republicans slandering people?
Am I slandering Sandy Berger, or is he a convict who lost his security clearance?

Am I slandering Sandy Berger, or is he a convict who lost his security clearance?
Obviously the idea that you don't have to bring up people of a different political ideaology and insult them, regardless of record, is an idea foreign to you.

Am I slandering Sandy Berger, or is he a convict who lost his security clearance?
Obviously the idea that you don't have to bring up people of a different political ideaology and insult them, regardless of record, is an idea foreign to you.

Obviously the idea that you don't have to bring up people of a different political ideaology and insult them, regardless of record, is an idea foreign to you.
Really, you would be happier posting on Democratic Underground, where no one insults Democrats, and everyone insults Republicans 24/7.

Really, you would be happier posting on Democratic Underground, where no one insults Democrats, and everyone insults Republicans 24/7.
This could be like blind date!
"Closet fascist telling me what I think in.. 3.. 2.. 1."

And I am still waiting for you to show me where I randomly pull out Republican figures that arn't the president and attack them just for shits and giggles.
Hell, show me where I randomly bring up the president in non-president related threads and attack him.

This could be like blind date!
"Closet fascist telling me what I think in.. 3.. 2.. 1."

And I am still waiting for you to show me where I randomly pull out Republican figures that arn't the president and attack them just for shits and giggles.
Hell, show me where I randomly bring up the president in non-president related threads and attack him.
I've just noticed that you don't tolerate the slightest criticism of Democrats. At all.

That, and you're reduced to inane language once you're upset about the criticism of Democrats.

there is extra douchebaggery afoot today, huh?

there is extra douchebaggery afoot today, huh?
The usual amount.

The usual amount.


maybe I'm just noticing them more

I've just noticed that you don't tolerate the slightest criticism of Democrats. At all.

That, and you're reduced to inane language once you're upset about the criticism of Democrats.
I see you still havn't provided any examples of what I asked for.
You are thus a hypocrite and I am not.