Pampers Vitter

[Bonestorm]

Yeah, because "quid pro quo" isn't something anybody would think after millions in donations...



Nobody is "forgetting" anything here, except immediate whitewash because they don't want anybody to point out something negative about their party heroes.

Are there any indications that Mr. Singh is a braindead idiot? Because one would have to be a braindead idiot to pay over a million bucks to the Clinton foundation as a quid pro quo for a vote that isn't needed and that would go in your favor anyway.

Use your fucking heads.

 

[Cancel7]

Yeah, because "quid pro quo" isn't something anybody would think after millions in donations...



Nobody is "forgetting" anything here, except immediate whitewash because they don't want anybody to point out something negative about their party heroes.

That's bullshit. It is certainly legitimate to point out that the most rubber stamp congress of all times, the most slavish group of men, the same men who took apparent homoerotic pleasure out of taking orders from the men who define conflict of interest, bush and dick, are now waiving their little balls in the air, and acting all manly.

It's a joke, and it will be treated as such. And your sad attempt Damo, to claim that "they all do it, we know republicans do it, but we decided to just say something about it now" won't work.

Worse of all, the Clintons didn't do anything wrong. You people ignored crimes and travesties which occured right under your noses, and now, you want to investigate nothing in a obvious attempt to create the appearance that there might be something there.

You better try selling this someplace else. You know there is no way I'm buying.

 

[Damocles]

Are there any indications that Mr. Singh is a braindead idiot? Because one would have to be a braindead idiot to pay over a million bucks to the Clinton foundation as a quid pro quo for a vote that isn't needed and that would go in your favor anyway.

Use your fucking heads.

Yeah, because nobody has ever hedged their bets...

Nothing is a sure thing, until you buy it.

I guarantee if there was an "R" by the name you would nearly be in tears as Dixie and other true believers rejected any idea that it could possibly even look that way...

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

Aren't you an uncle? I guess unless you are actually a father, or, forced to attend that most boring of all events; the baby shower, you wouldn't know what a diaper genie is.

It's some sort of, it's like a garbage disposal? But it's portable and it's for dirty diapers.

Yes, four nieces... two teenagers, two infants... but none are in CO. So not really exposed to that. Last diaper I changed was when my kid sister was an infant.... about 25 years ago. No magic baby genies back then.

 

[Damocles]

That's bullshit. It is certainly legitimate to point out that the most rubber stamp congress of all times, the most slavish group of men, the same men who took apparent homoerotic pleasure out of taking orders from the men who define conflict of interest, bush and dick, are now waiving their little balls in the air, and acting all manly.

Yaaay...

It's a joke, and it will be treated as such. And your sad attempt Damo, to claim that "they all do it, we know republicans do it, but we decided to just say something about it now" won't work.

Worse of all, the Clintons didn't do anything wrong. You people ignored crimes and travesties which occured right under your noses, and now, you want to investigate nothing in a obvious attempt to create the appearance that there might be something there.

You better try selling this someplace else. You know there is no way I'm buying.

When did I say we need to "investigate"? Please link me up to that post.

And again, if there was an "R" by that name you would nearly be hemorrhaging in an attempt to get them convicted of something. Me, I just want to start holding them accountable for a bit of ethics standards. Basically the same type I would be held to in dealings with this corporation that I work for.

 

[Bonestorm]

Yeah, because nobody has ever hedged their bets...

Nothing is a sure thing, until you buy it.

I guarantee if there was an "R" by the name you would nearly be in tears as Dixie and other true believers rejected any idea that it could possibly even look that way...

Oh, well. If you guarantee it I suppose it must be true.

The fact of the matter is that a similar bill passed the Senate by unanimous consent in 2006. Do you know what unanimous consent means?

 

[cawacko]

It's my ultimate commentary that repukes who dared not breathe a word of dissent, but clicked their heels and said "YES SIR, SIR' for eight fucking years as we were lied into a war, driven to economic collapse, and shit on the constitutiion, but who are waving their balls around now and demanding "answers" about a foundation that helps AIDS victims, are pathetic hacks.

The ones who like to pay hookers to diaper them? They're priceless.

Clear enough?

Fair enough. You dislike people who act like yourself but this time the shoe is on the proverbial other foot.

 

[Damocles]

Oh, well. If you guarantee it I suppose it must be true.

The fact of the matter is that a similar bill passed the Senate by unanimous consent in 2006. Do you know what unanimous consent means?

It means that enough people were paid off that nobody stood to object to the measure so they didn't even bother to vote.

"No objections? Motion passes....<bam>... On to the next item..."

 

[Bonestorm]

Yaaay...



When did I say we need to "investigate"? Please link me up to that post.

And again, if there was an "R" by that name you would nearly be hemorrhaging in an attempt to get them convicted of something. Me, I just want to start holding them accountable for a bit of ethics standards. Basically the same type I would be held to in dealings with this corporation that I work for.

What ethics standards do you want. Quit being a fucking tease and spit out what Hillary Clinton did wrong and what ethics policies you want in place to prevent people from doing whatever it is you allege you did wrong.

Your pussified equivocations are tiresome.

 

[Bonestorm]

It means that enough people were paid off that nobody stood to object to the measure so they didn't even bother to vote.

"No objections? Motion passes....<bam>... On to the next item..."

OK. Finally, we're getting somewhere. Do you happen to recall which party was in control of the Senate in 2006 when the initial India nuclear energy bill passed by unanimous consent on the motion of the Majority Leader?

 

[Damocles]

What ethics standards do you want. Quit being a fucking tease and spit out what Hillary Clinton did wrong and what ethics policies you want in place to prevent people from doing whatever it is you allege you did wrong.

Your pussified equivocations are tiresome.

If I were to accept such largesses, I would be required to excuse myself from taking part in considering the measure that I had gained from. And this is just as a member of Home Owners Association Board of Directors.

Act responsibly, avoid the appearance of ethical impropriety and you will gain, ignore it and press on and we all lose.

Your moral equivocations in favor of your own political party is disgusting.

 

[Bonestorm]

If I were to accept such largesses, I would be required to excuse myself from taking part in considering the measure that I had gained from. And this is just as a member of Home Owners Association Board of Directors.

Act responsibly, avoid the appearance of ethical impropriety and you will gain, ignore it and press on and we all lose.

Your moral equivocations in favor of your own political party is disgusting.

Ooohhhh, moral equivocations is disgusting. I don't even know what that means. It's more horseshit muddled nonsense from you, as usual.

And I didn't ask about your fucking homeowners' association. (1) What did Clinton do wrong? (2) What should be done about it?

 

[Damocles]

Ooohhhh, moral equivocations is disgusting. I don't even know what that means. It's more horseshit muddled nonsense from you, as usual.

And I didn't ask about your fucking homeowners' association. (1) What did Clinton do wrong? (2) What should be done about it?

Again,

If you take Millions in Donations, you should recuse yourself from considering any measure that favors those who gave you the money. Period.

It is simple ethics.

And you don't know what moral equivocation is, except when it is done by somebody with an "R" by their name. They irony is astounding. I've spent years listening to you guys talking down somebody who supported such activity from an "R" because of party affiliation while I spoke against it (not strongly enough for most people here, according to them I should have burned something or shouted more or some such because if I don't act exactly like them I am not doing enough), and when it is right there before you, you won't even consider making a change to make our government a little more ethical and less coin operated.

I have consistently spoken against the coin-operated government, all during the past decade almost that we have "known" each other. Nothing changes with what I say... But suddenly the government can do no wrong for a whole grip of y'all...

And yes, I find hypocrisy to be the most unattractive trait of humans.

 

[Bonestorm]

Again,

If you take Millions in Donations, you should recuse yourself from considering any measure that favors those who gave you the money. Period.

It is simple ethics.

And you don't know what moral equivocation is, except when it is done by somebody with an "R" by their name. They irony is astounding. I've spent years listening to you guys talking down somebody who supported such activity from an "R" because of party affiliation while I spoke against it (not strongly enough for most people here, according to them I should have burned something or shouted more or some such because if I don't act exactly like them I am not doing enough), and when it is right there before you, you won't even consider making a change to make our government a little more ethical and less coin operated.

I know what moral equivocation is. I'm beginning to think that you, on the other hand, do not.


Edit to respond to your edit: Please. Get off your high horse. This shit coming from the guy that defended the guy that took a vacation to the Mariana Island with Jack Abramoff and that aggressively questioned people sold into bondage and who worked in slave labor on the Marianas where forced abortions were commonplace is just a little too much for me to handle.

 

[Damocles]

I know what moral equivocation is. I'm beginning to think that you, on the other hand, do not.


Edit to respond to your edit: Please. Get off your high horse. This shit coming from the guy that defended the guy that took a vacation to the Mariana Island with Jack Abramoff and that aggressively questioned people sold into bondage and who worked in slave labor on the Marianas where forced abortions were commonplace is just a little too much for me to handle.

Link me up to that defense.

I know I started to, but then shut up when I found out more. Instead of digging in and getting even more defensive, I stopped talking.

But then, you have a "great" memory when it supposedly makes an "R" look bad, but can't imagine how something can cause ethical issues if a "D" is next to the name.

Some activities are exactly what I protest against, and sometimes they are done by people with "R"s next to their name and I still protest against them.

It might seem like a "mantra of the right" right now, but it is more than a fair question.

Where is even the URGE to change anything? You do nothing to show you have any urge to change the accountability system of the government or to change the corporate ownership of the legislative bodies. It's all good, if it has the "D" label.

 

[Bonestorm]

Link me up to that defense.

I know I started to, but then shut up when I found out more. Instead of digging in and getting even more defensive, I stopped talking.

But then, you have a "great" memory when it supposedly makes an "R" look bad, but can't imagine how something can cause ethical issues if a "D" is next to the name.

Some activities are exactly what I protest against, and sometimes they are done by people with "R"s next to their name and I still protest against them.

It might seem like a "mantra of the right" right now, but it is more than a fair question.

Where is even the URGE to change anything? You do nothing to show you have any urge to change the accountability system of the government or to change the corporate ownership of the legislative bodies. It's all good, if it has the "D" label.

I have no idea what the fuck you are talking about. Seriously. It's all nonsense.

And the Shaffer thing, please:

Yeah, because when you are there you must only do exactly what you came for. Nobody can possibly take advantage of any fun things and do something else too...



Not everything that Abromoff's firm did was illegal. And this couldn't possibly be to have him vote a certain way as he was nearing the end of his time in Congress and had made it no secret. They were not trying to buy his influence.

Basically, you are upset that a politician that is in an opposing party took a trip somewhere to investigate conditions of employment in textile for guest workers so that he could report himself what he saw.

That it wasn't illegal, you don't care about.

That he reported that it was possible to treat people like humans while letting them in to work, you don't care about that either.

http://www.justplainpolitics.com/JPP-Current-f4/damo-and-freak-voting-for-schaffer-t10104/

 

[Damocles]

I have no idea what the fuck you are talking about. Seriously. It's all nonsense.

And the Shaffer thing, please:




http://www.justplainpolitics.com/JPP-Current-f4/damo-and-freak-voting-for-schaffer-t10104/

And? As I said, when I learned more...

I STOPPED TALKING ABOUT IT.

You, instead, dig in and pretend that you have equivalence because of my previous "defense". You don't.

And this line here:

"Bob's a good guy. He is conservative on some of those issues that I am not, but is right on the ones that I am as well. So he is an anti-Bush. That's good for me."

Pretty much says... Yeah, I wouldn't want to say that, but I prefer to vote for somebody that supports my issues better than the guy that won...

 

[Damocles]

It's all good though.

You can try to rob yourself of responsibility using that thread, or you can measure yourself by a different standard.

 

[Bonestorm]

And? As I said, when I learned more...

I STOPPED TALKING ABOUT IT.

You, instead, dig in and pretend that you have equivalence because of my previous "defense". You don't.

And this line here:

"Bob's a good guy. He is conservative on some of those issues that I am not, but is right on the ones that I am as well. So he is an anti-Bush. That's good for me."

Pretty much says... Yeah, I wouldn't want to say that, but I prefer to vote for somebody that supports my issues better than the guy that won...

My favorite was actually this part:

There has never been, nor will there ever be any allegations of illegality from Shaffer on this. He is the penultimate honest man in politics. He made a promise and kept it to show his kid that nobody is above the measure of their word. He is something most of us seek in a politician. The person who will actually try to do what they promise to try to do.

Mostly because of the misuse of "penultimate" and that you apparently had his nuts on your tonsils at the time.

 

[Damocles]

My favorite was actually this part:



Mostly because of the misuse of "penultimate" and that you apparently had his nuts on your tonsils at the time.

My favorite parts are the ones where you ignore, "He isn't perfect..."

And other times where I stated I disliked some of his actions.

What I would like and expect is for him to do what he said. I would also like it if we could work towards ethics standards for Congress that we expect from something as small as a Home Owners Association Board of Directors.

Your attempt to again say, "They do it too!" is astoundingly ineffective in this regard.

If Schaffer took millions from Oil Companies (he took money, not millions though what I would like still applies IMO), I would prefer if the rules specifically stated that he could not take part in considering laws that would favor them. Just as I would prefer rules that said the same for Clinton or any other politician.