Republicans help bring ethics back to Washington

Aaeamdar · Post by **Aaeamdar** » November 17, 2004, 7:48 pm

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/11/ ... 6140.shtml

Marbus · Post by **Marbus** » November 17, 2004, 7:50 pm

Not surprising... disgusting but not surprising

Zaelath · Post by **Zaelath** » November 17, 2004, 7:54 pm

"If they make this rules change, Republicans will confirm yet again that they simply do not care if their leaders are ethical. If Republicans believe that an indicted member should be allowed to hold a top leadership position in the House of Representatives, their arrogance is astonishing," Pelosi said.

Why should republicans care, 51% of the electorate doesn't give a damn.

Aabidano · Post by **Aabidano** » November 17, 2004, 8:28 pm

Indictment != guilt.

Though in this case I don't doubt he's guilty.

Niffoni · Post by **Niffoni** » November 17, 2004, 9:03 pm

Much as I'm expecting political witch-hunts from the pissed-off left, this move just stinks to high fucking heaven. Thank goodness the public doesn't pay attention to what its government does!

Sionistic · Post by **Sionistic** » November 17, 2004, 11:41 pm

if hes accused, he should be allowed to continue his work, but his work supervised by a seperate party
note: i decided this in a couple of seconds, so I did not take much time to think this over, destroy the comment at will

Akaran_D · Post by **Akaran_D** » November 17, 2004, 11:43 pm

That wasn't a bad post.
I mean, we let Clinton continue working after he lied under oath (reason doesn't matter).

Kelshara · Post by **Kelshara** » November 17, 2004, 11:49 pm

Actually the reason does matter: He should not have been put in the situation where he lied in the first place. It was ridiculous. This is way worse, which I would say if it was a democrat as well.

Zaelath · Post by **Zaelath** » November 18, 2004, 3:22 am

Akaran_D wrote:That wasn't a bad post.
I mean, we let Clinton continue working after he lied under oath (reason doesn't matter).

The current party rule in this area requires House Republican leaders and the heads of the various committees to relinquish their positions if indicted for a crime that could bring a prison term of at least two years.

It's a party rule, not a legal concern like, say, impeaching a president.

Republicans are teh flip-flopping!!

Thess · Post by **Thess** » November 18, 2004, 4:27 am

I thought you were a republican Dar!

Rekaar. · Post by **Rekaar.** » November 18, 2004, 4:39 am

I don't think it's unethical in light of the whole frivolous lawsuit thing. They're just adding an internal review step to the process right?

"This takes the power away from any partisan crackpot district attorney who may want to indict" party leaders and make a name for himself, Bonilla said

Fredonia Coldheart · November 18, 2004, 8:37 am

Rekaar. wrote:I don't think it's unethical in light of the whole frivolous lawsuit thing. They're just adding an internal review step to the process right?
"This takes the power away from any partisan crackpot district attorney who may want to indict" party leaders and make a name for himself, Bonilla said

They aren't talking about defending oneself in a civil trial - they are talking about a criminal indictment that may bring more than 2 years in prison!

Xzion · Post by **Xzion** » November 18, 2004, 8:39 am

Looks like the republicans are truly turning into the party of hypocrisy

Damn if only we had a utopic society without any political parties so people could stand for righteousness and not be forced to kissass party leaders in order to progress in the system

I might have to go and re register independent, only reason I keep the libertarian label is to show support for a party other then repubs or dems

Aabidano · Post by **Aabidano** » November 18, 2004, 9:21 am

In the common law legal system, an indictment is a formal charge of having committed a serious criminal offense.

Neost · Post by **Neost** » November 18, 2004, 10:18 am

So innocent until proven guilty holds for everyone but politicians?

Zaelath · Post by **Zaelath** » November 18, 2004, 11:05 am

Suuuuuuure, and if a teacher at your kid's school had enough evidence against them to get a grand jury indictment for pedophilia, you wouldn't want them the hell out of the school. Be honest, you'd pull the kid out of school the moment the charges were laid if it was something like the recent round up of people w/ kiddy porn.

Besides, again, this is a party rule not a legal action; like striking you off a voting roll for being black.. I mean, being a felon.

Midnyte_Ragebringer · November 18, 2004, 11:09 am

Over react much?

the House Republican Conference decided that a party committee of several dozen members would review any felony indictment of a party leader and recommend at that time whether the leader should step aside.

Try actually reading the story.

Animalor · Post by **Animalor** » November 18, 2004, 11:10 am

Neost wrote:So innocent until proven guilty holds for everyone but politicians?

Noone's condemning him for wrong doing, the problem here is that the republicans changed the rules so this dude gets to keep his job even IF he's found guilty.

Spang · Post by **Spang** » November 18, 2004, 11:24 am

Stan: Sargent Marsh knows it's now or never. He must make a run for it.
Cartman: Marsh assist halt!
Cartman: It will take more than your weak America weapons to destroy me.
Stan: Cartman! We shot your Bosnian fat ass!
Kyle: Yeah you're dead!
Cartman: I have class 4 armor on, that uh uh it it...
Stan: No you don't!
Cartman: Special armor that's imperitable to American bullets.
Kyle: Dude, every time we play American vs Bosnian you cheat.
Stan: Yeah Cartman you suck. If you wanna play Americans vs Bosnians anymore you can just play with yourself.
Cartman: That's fine. I like playing with myself. I play with myself all day long!

Nick · Post by **Nick** » November 18, 2004, 11:55 am

CORRUPTION IS FINE SHUT UP YOU PARTISAN CRACKPOT!1111oneone1

Aabidano · Post by **Aabidano** » November 18, 2004, 1:06 pm

Midnyte_Ragebringer wrote:Try actually reading the story.

\
It looses all entertainment value if you do that.

Lynks · Post by **Lynks** » November 18, 2004, 2:04 pm

Midnyte, you're that last person to tell others to read the full story.

Midnyte_Ragebringer · November 18, 2004, 2:09 pm

Lynks wrote:Midnyte, you're that last person to tell others to read the full story.

Actually, on this thread I was the first.

And it fucking applies. And when I haven't at first and then re-read afterwards, I apologized and recanted.

Anything else? Is that all you got?

Why don't you stop detracting from the discussion at hand with your petty personal attacks? Sad.

Aaeamdar · Post by **Aaeamdar** » November 18, 2004, 5:35 pm

I read the article. As is so typical, sadly, of too many of you here, in your replies you reached for completely irrelevant reasoning.

Of course in our CRIMINAL system, its "innocent" (or more pricisely "not-guilty") until proven guilty. So what? This is not a criminal proceding. Its a very long standing rule being changed becuse of the liklihood that Tom DeLay will be indicted. Showing the stupidity (or more likely the belief by politicians that we are stupid), you get comments like "crackpot DA" as justifying the changed rule. Of course, that's the whole point of a GRAND JURY system - so that a single DA cannot bring crimal charges. A group of citizens reviews the evidence of the DA and decides.

The Democrats, like the Republicans until now, have the same rule and have for a very very long time. For some reason they are not afraid of some "crackpot DA." I am certainly not saying the Dems are any better on this point. But it was the Republicans a decade ago that won back Congress on Gingritch's promises of "a new way" in Washington. Some Republicans stood by that, both in the past by resigning and yesterday with their votes and their comments against this new procedure.

Apparently now, one nam - Tom DeLay - is considered more important to Republicans than long standing principals. Principals, as I said, the Democats remain comfortable continuing to apply to themselves.

Rekaar. · Post by **Rekaar.** » November 18, 2004, 6:14 pm

Animalor wrote:
Neost wrote:So innocent until proven guilty holds for everyone but politicians?
Noone's condemning him for wrong doing, the problem here is that the republicans changed the rules so this dude gets to keep his job even IF he's found guilty.

Guilty of not reading the story nor the replies!

It has nothing to do with being convicted, proven, or arrested etc.

Kaldaur · Post by **Kaldaur** » November 18, 2004, 6:39 pm

It should be noted that Tom Delay has been disciplined two times by the Republican Ethics Council for improper politicking.

archeiron · Post by **archeiron** » November 18, 2004, 6:44 pm

Rekaar. wrote:
Animalor wrote:
Neost wrote:So innocent until proven guilty holds for everyone but politicians?
Noone's condemning him for wrong doing, the problem here is that the republicans changed the rules so this dude gets to keep his job even IF he's found guilty.
Guilty of not reading the story nor the replies!

It has nothing to do with being convicted, proven, or arrested etc.

Quoted for emphasis. Indictment is not equal to conviction.

Karae · Post by **Karae** » November 19, 2004, 8:31 am

Hey, you forgot about the Senate resolution that'll remove disclosure requirements and conflict of interest regulations!

Personally I find it hi-fucking-larious (that means I'm being sarcastic) to see the party that just 6 years ago was screaming at the top of its collective lungs that you can't trust government is now trying to remove oversight provisions wherever they can.

Of course, this ethics provision was merely a political stunt to begin with that the Republicans only set up so they could say they were better than the Democrats because Clinton was serving as President while under investigation (which isn't quite indictment, is it? But most Americans are too stupid to understand the difference, right?). Funny how quickly they changed it back as soon as one of theirs was facing indictment. That's what you call integrity. Integrity like a fox.

Karae · Post by **Karae** » November 19, 2004, 8:38 am

Aaeamdar wrote:Apparently now, one nam - Tom DeLay - is considered more important to Republicans than long standing principals. Principals, as I said, the Democats remain comfortable continuing to apply to themselves.

Redistricting Texas in a non-census year to get the Republicans 5 more seats in the House and intimidating Democratic voters is more important than long standing principals...isn't it? It has to be. Pretty sure I read that somewhere. Mein Kampf, maybe?

Lynks · Post by **Lynks** » November 19, 2004, 9:38 am

Midnyte_Ragebringer wrote:And when I haven't at first and then re-read afterwards, I apologized and recanted.

LOL, you mean like you did in this one? http://www.veeshanvault.org/forums/view ... hp?t=11941 Fucking liar.

You just went to go hide in your bomb shelter without saying a word.

Midnyte_Ragebringer · November 19, 2004, 9:54 am

Lynks wrote:
Midnyte_Ragebringer wrote:And when I haven't at first and then re-read afterwards, I apologized and recanted.
LOL, you mean like you did in this one? http://www.veeshanvault.org/forums/view ... hp?t=11941 Fucking liar.

You just went to go hide in your bomb shelter without saying a word.

Wow. Pulling at straws much?

My opinion was and still is thay the terrorists wanted Kerry to win.

Nick · Post by **Nick** » November 19, 2004, 11:09 am

Then your a moron, it suits Bin Laden's cause perfectly if you vote for Bush, you're fucking yourselves up more than Bin Laden could ever have dreamed..

He is an extremist, as such is not particularly interested in hearing discussion anymore, not before fucking the US as much as possible into the ground.

5 billion a month minimum currently. Hahaha

Sionistic · Post by **Sionistic** » November 19, 2004, 12:00 pm

everyone ssshhh, I wanna see these two go at it

Toshira · Post by **Toshira** » November 19, 2004, 5:50 pm

Yup. Values.

Good job, Bushies. Do whatever you want just DON'T KILL TEH BABYYS ><

Lalanae · Post by **Lalanae** » November 19, 2004, 5:53 pm

Toshira wrote:Yup. Values.

Good job, Bushies. Do whatever you want just DON'T KILL TEH BABYYS ><

unless they are Iraqi babies....

Dregor Thule · Post by **Dregor Thule** » November 19, 2004, 6:10 pm

Lalanae wrote:
Toshira wrote:Yup. Values.

Good job, Bushies. Do whatever you want just DON'T KILL TEH BABYYS ><
unless they are Iraqi babies....

It's only playing at being a baby!

Seebs · Post by **Seebs** » November 19, 2004, 6:19 pm

How can someone with mud on the tip of their shovel espouse ethics?

Toshira · Post by **Toshira** » November 20, 2004, 12:11 am

Seebs wrote:How can someone with mud on the tip of their shovel espouse ethics?

What?

Brotha · Post by **Brotha** » January 4, 2005, 12:31 am

Bump:

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20050104/D87CUL581.html

WASHINGTON (AP) - House Republicans suddenly reversed course Monday, deciding to retain a tough standard for lawmaker discipline and reinstating a rule that would force Majority Leader Tom DeLay to step aside if indicted by a Texas grand jury.

The surprise dual decisions were made by Speaker Dennis Hastert and by DeLay - who asked GOP colleagues to undo the extreme act of loyalty they handed him in November. Then, Republicans changed a party rule, so DeLay could have retained his leadership post if indicted by the grand jury in Austin that charged three of the Texas Republican's associates.

When Republicans began their closed-door meeting Monday night, leaders were considering a rules change that would have made it tougher to rebuke a House member for misconduct. The proposal would have required a more specific finding of ethical violations than is now required.

Republicans gave no indication before the meeting that the indictment rule would be changed. Even more surprising was DeLay's decision to make the proposal himself.

Jonathan Grella, a DeLay spokesman, said DeLay still believed it was legitimate to allow a leader to retain his post while under indictment. But he said by reinstating the rule that he step aside, DeLay was "denying the Democrats their lone issue. Anything that could undermine our agenda needs to be nipped in the bud."

Grella said Republicans did not know in advance that DeLay would make the proposal. "He was doing some thinking and this was the conclusion he came to."

Hastert made the proposal to retain the current standards of conduct.

Rep. Mark Kirk, R-Ill., said, "It's a mark of a leader to take a bullet for the team and not for the team to take a bullet for the leader. I'm very glad we decided to stick with the rules."

Hastert spokesman John Feehery said that a change in standards of conduct "would have been the right thing to do but it was becoming a distraction."

Kylere · Post by **Kylere** » January 4, 2005, 8:26 pm

Umm half of you fucking utter morons were in here whining a couple of months ago that they were NOT going to do this, get a fucking clue.

Zaelath · Post by **Zaelath** » January 4, 2005, 8:39 pm

Kylere wrote:Umm half of you fucking utter morons were in here whining a couple of months ago that they were NOT going to do this, get a fucking clue.

The flip or the flop?

Lalanae · Post by **Lalanae** » January 4, 2005, 11:04 pm

Kylere wrote:Umm half of you fucking utter morons were in here whining a couple of months ago that they were NOT going to do this, get a fucking clue.

I didn't see anyone make a post contrary to a prior post about this issue....