First time visitor? Learn more.

Charlie Rangel hearing goes into Recess

by Rodan ( 115 Comments › )
Filed under Democratic Party, Liberal Fascism, Politics at November 15th, 2010 - 11:30 am

Charlie Rangel is an example of Progressive hypocrisy. He supports higher taxes, yet didn’t declare his own assets overseas in the Dominican Republic. Despite his hypocrisy, his district re-elected him. Today he walked out on his ethics hearing claiming he didn’t have enough money to continue paying his lawyers.

WASHINGTON (CBS 2 / 1010 WINS / WCBS 880) — A panel of Rep. Charlie Rangel’s peers in Congress headed to recess Monday morning to debate continuing the ethics trial against him after a fiery and frustrated Rangel excused himself, arguing he would not represent himself and had not been given enough time to hire counsel.

“My role here is as a respondent and I am not here representing myself. I’ve been a lawyer long enough to know that it is very, very unwise for any person, a lawyer or a judge, to be his own counsel at a proceeding like this,” Rangel said after being asked whether he was making a motion to continue the hearing.

Rep. G.K. Butterfield (D-N.C.), one of the judges on the panel, requested that the hearing go to recess so the panel could discuss whether to continue Monday despite Rangel’s claims that he had not been given adequate time to hire counsel.

Rangel said “50 years of public service has to suffer” because he did not have the money himself to pay for a lawyer, that he did not have enough time to cultivate a legal defense fund, and that free counsel offered to him would be considered a gift and therefore prohibited.

Read the rest: Ethics Trial Debates Continuing Trial After Rangel Excuses Himself

Would you or I be given this opportunity in a legal case? Absolutely not but he will, because Rangel is part of the Neo-Feudal elite.

Tags: ,

Comments

Comments and respectful debate are both welcome and encouraged.

Comments are the sole opinion of the comment writer, just as each thread posted is the sole opinion or post idea of the administrator that posted it or of the readers that have written guest posts for the Blogmocracy.

Obscene, abusive, or annoying remarks may be deleted or moved to spam for admin review, but the fact that particular comments remain on the site in no way constitutes an endorsement of their content by any other commenter or the admins of this Blogmocracy.

We're not easily offended and don't want people to think they have to walk on eggshells around here (like at another place that shall remain nameless) but of course, there is a limit to everything.

Play nice!

115 Responses to “Charlie Rangel hearing goes into Recess”
( jump to bottom )

  1. 1 | November 15, 2010 11:34 am

    The corruptocrats need Charlie now like never before, they are not about to allow anything happen to him.


  2. 2 | November 15, 2010 11:43 am

    doriangrey wrote:

    The corruptocrats need Charlie now like never before, they are not about to allow anything happen to him.

    Actually, we need him too; as an example of all that’s wrong with government.

    No offense to you, but Charlie is like “The Portrait of Dorian Gray”, the one in the attic that no one ever sees. That’s what needs to be unveiled for the public.


  3. eaglesoars
    3 | November 15, 2010 11:44 am

    I’m betting Charlie will get off with a slap on the wrist. Every one of them has done -- or knows someone who has done -- something similiar. With a few exceptions, e.g., Waters, they just haven’t been caught yet.


  4. RIX
    4 | November 15, 2010 11:48 am

    This is Charlie trying to run out the clock.
    He waived counsel & now says that he can’t afford counsel.
    You try that.
    If he was a Republican he would probably be in contempt of Congress.


  5. BuddyG
    5 | November 15, 2010 11:48 am

    Charlie Rangel has no freakin’ shame.


  6. 6 | November 15, 2010 11:48 am

    @ eaglesoars:

    Yup he will get away with breaking the law.


  7. Macker
    7 | November 15, 2010 11:55 am

    [Deleted]


  8. 8 | November 15, 2010 11:55 am

    BuddyG wrote:

    Charlie Rangel has no freakin’ shame.

    He feels entitled.


  9. eaglesoars
    9 | November 15, 2010 11:58 am

    @ RIX

    He waived counsel & now says that he can’t afford counsel.

    I think the deal was he balked when his lawyers sent him a bill for $2 million. He’s on the hook for that, but he let them go. Now try finding counsel when it’s already public knowledge that you can’t pay the legal bills you’ve already incurred.

    Just sayin’


  10. BuddyG
    10 | November 15, 2010 11:58 am

    Rodan wrote:

    BuddyG wrote:
    Charlie Rangel has no freakin’ shame.
    He feels entitled.

    And a sense of “pride” from thumbing his nose at the process.


  11. NoThreat2U
    11 | November 15, 2010 12:02 pm

    Ruh-roh. Charlie Rangel (D-Career Criminal) Caught With Hand in PAC Cookie Jar to Pay Lawyers….

    — Congressman Charles Rangel, whose ethics trial starts tomorrow, appears to have improperly used political-action committee money to pay for his defense.

    Rangel tapped his National Leadership PAC for $293,000 to pay his main legal-defense team this year. He took another $100,000 from the PAC in 2009 to pay lawyer Lanny Davis.

    Two legal experts told The Post such spending is against House rules. “It’s a breach of congressional ethics,” one campaign-finance lawyer said.

    Washington, DC, political lawyer Cleta Mitchell said there is “no authority for a member to use leadership PAC funds as a slush fund to pay for personal or official expenses.”

    Leadership PACs are typically used by politicians to donate money to other candidates.

    But Rangel seems to have run afoul of House ethics rules. Lawmakers are generally allowed to use campaign cash to pay their lawyers, but this is limited to money in their personal campaign committee and they must ask permission first, the campaign-finance lawyer said.

    http://weaselzippers.us/2010/11/14/ruh-roh-charlie-rangel-d-career-criminal-caught-with-hand-in-pac-cookie-jar-to-pay-lawyers/


  12. 12 | November 15, 2010 12:04 pm

    eaglesoars wrote:

    @ RIX
    He waived counsel & now says that he can’t afford counsel.
    I think the deal was he balked when his lawyers sent him a bill for $2 million. He’s on the hook for that, but he let them go. Now try finding counsel when it’s already public knowledge that you can’t pay the legal bills you’ve already incurred.
    Just sayin’

    Oh he could pay it, he just refuses to pay it out of his own pocket. He didnt balk, he tried to pay it with PAC money and got caught. Now he is scrambling to cover up yet another ethics violation which he incurred while trying to defend himself against accusations of ethics violations.


  13. 13 | November 15, 2010 12:08 pm

    Rodan wrote:

    BuddyG wrote:
    Charlie Rangel has no freakin’ shame.

    He feels entitled.

    He is entitled, to share a prison cell with former California Republican congressman Randy “Duke” Cunningham.


  14. BuddyG
    14 | November 15, 2010 12:10 pm

    doriangrey wrote:

    Now [Rangel] is scrambling to cover up yet another ethics violation which he incurred while trying to defend himself against accusations of ethics violations.

    Does it matter? I mean, really, this guy does whatever he has to do to get what he wants. It’s as simple as that. And this hearing process will lead to the inevitable cries of “victim”.


  15. 15 | November 15, 2010 12:11 pm

    @ doriangrey:

    Didn’t the Clinton Administration teach you anything? The laws only apply to Republicans. And the little people, of course. As if they matter…


  16. 16 | November 15, 2010 12:16 pm

    I would not be a bit surprised to see Charlie thrown under the congressional bus in an effort to salvage some imaginary shred of (cough)Democrat “ethics”, followed by a prompt resignation. He’s in pretty deep and, at this point, I don’t see a lot of his bretheren stepping forward with unmitigated support. Rather, I see them giving him a deal that censures him for any number of ethics violations in exchange for his resignation.


  17. BuddyG
    17 | November 15, 2010 12:23 pm

    MacDuff wrote:

    I would not be a bit surprised to see Charlie thrown under the congressional bus

    I hope you’re right, but with Maxine Water’s pending ethics troubles, this is gearing up to be a ‘racism & victim fest’.


  18. 18 | November 15, 2010 12:23 pm

    @ MacDuff:

    Naw. Charlie is of a protected class. Besides, he’d never resign. He likes being a congressman too much. Now, if he becomes too bad an embarrassment, he might commit Clintoncide, but that is doubtful. The Democrats have shown that they can stand any level of embarassment as long as it doesn’t impact their power base. Rangle doesn’t impact that, so as long as there are no strangled hookers in is car’s trunk he’s OK.


  19. 19 | November 15, 2010 12:26 pm

    @ eaglesoars:

    Didn’t Hillary weasel out of some legal bills from the ’90s? It is hard to keep track of all of these corrupt Democrats. I’d be tracking the ones who aren’t corrupt, but they are keeping a low profile. I’ve never heard of any….


  20. RIX
    20 | November 15, 2010 12:28 pm

    eaglesoars wrote:

    @ RIX
    He waived counsel & now says that he can’t afford counsel.
    I think the deal was he balked when his lawyers sent him a bill for $2 million. He’s on the hook for that, but he let them go. Now try finding counsel when it’s already public knowledge that you can’t pay the legal bills you’ve already incurred.
    Just sayin’

    Kind of odd if he waived counsel. I know that he had these guys
    doing the research & advising him, but he had to know what their
    billing rates are.


  21. Philip_Daniel
    21 | November 15, 2010 12:29 pm

    Charlie Rangel opposes the liberation of Black American from the humiliating dependency to White Massa imposed upon them as a matter of sustained and consistent policy by the Democrats. For, if a Black were to become successful while some of his racial brothers remained suckling on the government teat, then he’d be siding with the man, the oppressor, because, you know, if the individual succeeds instead of the race as a whole, then the race is being betrayed — this keeps the whole race down and depressed, ultimately — and if the Black succeeds in a world tainted with Institutional Racism Manifesting Itself Everywhere In Eeeevil Western Civilization, then he’s an Uncle Tom, because a society which is (supposedly) racist to the core cannot logically permit a Black to attain success and live a life of dignity and integrity and comfort unless such a Black sold out to the Republican “Massa” and betrayed the Democrat Massa in the process…


  22. Nevergiveup
    22 | November 15, 2010 12:30 pm

    RIX wrote:

    but he had to know what their
    billing rates are.

    Guess like Rangel probably assume that since they are so great that everything is on the arm


  23. BuddyG
    23 | November 15, 2010 12:30 pm

    Iron Fist wrote:

    so as long as there are no strangled hookers in [Rangel's] car trunk he’s OK.

    Oh no problem there. He’d claim the police planted the evidence.


  24. Macker
    24 | November 15, 2010 12:30 pm

    @ Iron Fist:

    Thank God he will no longer be the Chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee. That said, the country is stuck with Rangel until he dies.


  25. 25 | November 15, 2010 12:30 pm

    Iron Fist wrote:

    I’ve never heard of any….

    You have never heard of any because their arent any, not in the last 60 years. I think the last time their was an honest Democrat politician, it was Harry S Truman.


  26. 26 | November 15, 2010 12:31 pm

    Iron Fist wrote:

    @ doriangrey:
    Didn’t the Clinton Administration teach you anything? The laws only apply to Republicans. And the little people, of course. As if they matter…

    Yup its a double standard.


  27. F
    27 | November 15, 2010 12:32 pm

    $2 million for legal fees.

    The Dems have consistently refused to enact any tort/legal reform, so this might be looked upon as being highly appropriate.


  28. 28 | November 15, 2010 12:33 pm

    @ RIX:

    He probably thought they were going to o it for free, because he’s entitled to the best defense, don’t you know. Rangle is the absolute worst of the Parasite class, all on display for those who care to see. He has the morality of a crack whore, the entitlement of Marie Antionette, and hasn’t added anything to society since the day he was born. He was born to suck, and suck is all he does. Like a vampire, he is a glutton for everything he can suck off the body poltic. He is one of the best the Democrats have to offer.


  29. Philip_Daniel
    29 | November 15, 2010 12:34 pm

    Rodan wrote:

    Iron Fist wrote:
    @ doriangrey:
    Didn’t the Clinton Administration teach you anything? The laws only apply to Republicans. And the little people, of course. As if they matter…

    Yup its a double standard.

    The Democrat ascribes to the Deen of Haqq, you see, and the Republican to the Deen of Tawagheet and Batel, so the Democrat must always be Superior and the Republican must always be Humiliated…


  30. F
    30 | November 15, 2010 12:35 pm

    Iron Fist wrote:

    I’d be tracking the ones who aren’t corrupt, but they are keeping a low profile. I’ve never heard of any….

    “Scoop” Jackson was one of them elusive honest Democrats; definitely old school, elected before the radicalization of the Democrat party in the late 1960′s/early 1970′s.


  31. 31 | November 15, 2010 12:36 pm

    @ Philip_Daniel:

    And yet Rangel is by anybody’s definition extremely successful. He is a millionaire many times over. A Congressman, who owns his seat as though it were a patrimony and him a Duke. Don’t his constituents see how big a fraud the bullshit he is shovelling is? I guess it is the public school system in action.


  32. 32 | November 15, 2010 12:37 pm

    Iron Fist wrote:

    @ MacDuff:
    Naw. Charlie is of a protected class. Besides, he’d never resign. He likes being a congressman too much. Now, if he becomes too bad an embarrassment, he might commit Clintoncide, but that is doubtful. The Democrats have shown that they can stand any level of embarassment as long as it doesn’t impact their power base. Rangle doesn’t impact that, so as long as there are no strangled hookers in is car’s trunk he’s OK.

    I disagree. Charlie’s becoming a bigger liability by the day and they have him dead to rights. They’ve no choice but to throw him overboard. The Dems have precious little (if any) political capital and even if they had any I doubt they’d waste it on him.

    I think he may be gone in the next week or two. Just MHO.


  33. RIX
    33 | November 15, 2010 12:37 pm

    Nevergiveup wrote:

    RIX wrote:
    but he had to know what their
    billing rates are.
    Guess like Rangel probably assume that since they are so great that everything is on the arm

    Don’t you think that Rangel could get a heavy hittin Dem law firm
    to take him pro bono to spash their name all over?


  34. F
    34 | November 15, 2010 12:37 pm

    No matter how this ethics trial ends up, you know the Dem majority is going to do a “hand wave” to give Rangel a slap on the wrist if he should be found guilty.

    Which isn’t a forgone conclusion given the makeup of the House at the moment.


  35. BuddyG
    35 | November 15, 2010 12:38 pm

    When I was about 7 years old, I was shopping with my Mother in a McCrory’s store where I asked her if she would buy baseball cards for me. She said “no”, so I put ‘em in my pocket and stole ‘em. This was quickly discovered when I pulled ‘em out and opened ‘em in the car ride home. Mom promptly turned around, drove back to McCrory’s, dragged me by the collar inside, made me apologize to the manager, paid for the cards, wouldn’t let me keep ‘em, took me home, and sent me to bed without dinner. I never stole again.

    Charlie Rangel’s childhood was different.


  36. RIX
    36 | November 15, 2010 12:41 pm

    MacDuff
    32 | November 15, 2010 12:37
    I disagree. Charlie’s becoming a bigger liability by the day and they have him dead to rights. They’ve no choice but to throw him overboard. The Dems have precious little (if any) political capital and even if they had any I doubt they’d waste it on him.

    I think he may be gone in the next week or two. Just MHO.

    That would be outstanding, but they have to walk carefully here.
    Rangel no doubt has the goodies on them. Whatever they do, I’ll bet is
    agreed to by Rangel over some fine sippin whiskey.


  37. 37 | November 15, 2010 12:41 pm

    @ F:

    He was before my time. My memories of the Democrats start with Jimmy Carter, Tip the Lip, and the cast of traitors from the Reagan Administration. So my opinion of Democrats started out with that they weren’t worth a truckload of manure. My opinion of them has done nothing but go down. They are the elite of the Parasite class. Kind of like Registered breeds of bedbugs, and about as useful.


  38. 38 | November 15, 2010 12:43 pm

    @ MacDuff:

    We’ll see. The Democrats have neither Honor nor Principle, so I don’t expect very much from them. He and Waters may get censured, but only with a huge dollop of whining about how oppressed they are.


  39. 39 | November 15, 2010 12:43 pm

    @ Philip_Daniel:

    That’s exactly how the Dems view the situation. They feel it’s their natural right to rule.


  40. 40 | November 15, 2010 12:45 pm

    @ BuddyG:

    Rangle’s parents no doubt made Rangle give them a percentage of anything he stole. Teaching him to lie about such things at an early age. They had high hopes for Charlie, and lying is an essential skill for a politician…


  41. BuddyG
    41 | November 15, 2010 12:48 pm

    Iron Fist wrote:

    lying is an essential skill for a CAREER politician…

    Why term limits are needed.


  42. Crashnburn01
    42 | November 15, 2010 12:48 pm

    @ BuddyG:
    Is it possible we are brothers? Mine did the same thing over a yo-yo!!!


  43. RIX
    43 | November 15, 2010 12:48 pm

    Iron Fist
    28 | November 15, 2010 12:33
    @ RIX:

    He probably thought they were going to o it for free, because he’s entitled to the best defense, don’t you know. Rangle is the absolute worst of the Parasite class, all on display for those who care to see

    Yeah, Rangel is an old school pro at corruption.
    Obama is new school, but still the same school.
    All of the Rezko slick deals, a sweet deal on his mansion & shoveling state licenses & foundation money to Rezko to build his slum lord empire


  44. F
    44 | November 15, 2010 12:48 pm

    @ Iron Fist:
    The Dems had begun their slide towards the Elitist Parasite class status before Carter. It could be argued it began with Johnson.


  45. F
    45 | November 15, 2010 12:50 pm

    @ BuddyG:
    Term limits for elected politicians and removal of the career civil service, mirror images of the abuses of extended political power.


  46. 46 | November 15, 2010 12:51 pm

    MacDuff wrote:

    Iron Fist wrote:
    @ MacDuff:
    Naw. Charlie is of a protected class. Besides, he’d never resign. He likes being a congressman too much. Now, if he becomes too bad an embarrassment, he might commit Clintoncide, but that is doubtful. The Democrats have shown that they can stand any level of embarassment as long as it doesn’t impact their power base. Rangle doesn’t impact that, so as long as there are no strangled hookers in is car’s trunk he’s OK.
    I disagree. Charlie’s becoming a bigger liability by the day and they have him dead to rights. They’ve no choice but to throw him overboard. The Dems have precious little (if any) political capital and even if they had any I doubt they’d waste it on him.
    I think he may be gone in the next week or two. Just MHO.

    If a homosexual democrat congressman having sexual relations with an underage intern not only is not grounds to remove that congressman but when the republicans censure him the Democrat’s stand as one and turn their backs on the Republicans and give the democrat predator a standing ovation, then by god you know that nothing Charlie Rangle does is going to get him anything more than a slap on the wrist.


  47. BuddyG
    47 | November 15, 2010 12:54 pm

    Crashnburn01 wrote:

    Is it possible we are brothers? Mine did the same thing over a yo-yo!!!

    Same thing? Well, good for ya Mom !


  48. 48 | November 15, 2010 12:56 pm

    @ doriangrey:

    Yeah. Demcorats cannot self-police. It would be likeasking the Outlaws and Hell’s Angels to self-police. Not to dis the bikers, of course, by comparing them to politicians, but you know what I mean…


  49. BuddyG
    49 | November 15, 2010 1:00 pm

    What’s the difference between a Hoover and a Harley ?

    On a Harley, the dirtbag rides on the outside.


  50. RIX
    50 | November 15, 2010 1:02 pm

    @ doriangrey:

    How about the lionizing of Teddy Kennedy?
    Mary Jo Kopechne was unavailable for comment.


  51. 51 | November 15, 2010 1:03 pm

    @ BuddyG:

    Better a dirtbag than a Democrat Congressman…


  52. 52 | November 15, 2010 1:04 pm

    RIX wrote:

    @ doriangrey:
    How about the lionizing of Teddy Kennedy?
    Mary Jo Kopechne was unavailable for comment.

    Exactly the Democrats consider a murder and a traitor to be a hero.


  53. BuddyG
    53 | November 15, 2010 1:08 pm

    @ Iron Fist:

    Special Delivery


  54. Nevergiveup
    54 | November 15, 2010 1:26 pm

    Note signals deadlocked jury in New York Gitmo terror case
    ASSOCIATED PRESS
    Last Updated: 1:00 PM, November 15, 2010
    Posted: 12:54 PM, November 15, 2010
    Comments: 0

    More Print
    NEW YORK — A holdout juror in the trial of the first Guantanamo Bay detainee has asked to be removed from the panel, signaling a deadlocked jury.
    The juror said in a note Monday that she felt she was being attacked after reaching a conclusion that is not going to change. Twelve anonymous jurors are considering charges against Ahmed Ghailani.
    Federal Judge Lewis Kaplan reminded all of the jurors of his instructions on the law and told them to continue deliberating.
    Prosecutors say Ghailani was part of an al-Qaida cell that bombed two U.S. embassies in Africa in 1998. Defense lawyers say Ghailani did not know about the plot and was duped into aiding it.
    Deliberations began last Wednesday.

    Read more: http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/note_signals_deadlocked_jury_in_0UMR4eR0D7Z7WJvjK6zUWK#ixzz15NQjqTGc

    This is why you do NOT hold civilian trials for these scum


  55. RIX
    55 | November 15, 2010 1:28 pm

    This is from MSN

    Chief counsel: Rangel ‘sloppy’ with finances
    Chisam said he did not believe Rangel’s conduct was corrupt, but rather, that the congressman, the former chairman of the tax-writing House Ways and Means Committee, was “overzealous” and “sloppy in his personal finances.”

    “Charlie , just hold your wrist ou so that we can slap it & move on.”
    Anybody else think that it is innapropriate for the Counsel to the
    Committee to offer an opinion at this point?


  56. Nevergiveup
    56 | November 15, 2010 1:29 pm

    RIX wrote:

    This is from MSN

    Chief counsel: Rangel ‘sloppy’ with finances
    Chisam said he did not believe Rangel’s conduct was corrupt, but rather, that the congressman, the former chairman of the tax-writing House Ways and Means Committee, was “overzealous” and “sloppy in his personal finances.”

    “Charlie , just hold your wrist ou so that we can slap it & move on.”
    Anybody else think that it is innapropriate for the Counsel to the
    Committee to offer an opinion at this point?

    Hey we all know what’s going on. Just let them do it and lets move on.


  57. 57 | November 15, 2010 1:29 pm

    @ Nevergiveup:

    I bet I can guess the religion and/or political party of the “holdout”. *spit* Obama would turn all the al Qaeda prisoners loose if he dared. Watch what he does if we kick him out in 2012. If you think Clinton’s pardons were infamous, wait until you see what Obama does as a final gesture towards the public…


  58. m
    58 | November 15, 2010 1:31 pm

    @ BuddyG:

    LOL! Mine was lipstick when I was 5, and I didn’t steal them as much as -- hey I like that… and just put it in my pocketbook :}

    My mom took me back too, in a tizzy, screaming about how the department store would think she put me up to it, LOL!

    I got dinner but I also got my rear end tore up, LOL!

    Bless.


  59. m
    59 | November 15, 2010 1:33 pm

    @ m:

    and I didn’t steal them as much as – hey I like that… and just put it in my pocketbook :}

    Meaning at 5 I didn’t understand the whole concept of thievin.


  60. 60 | November 15, 2010 1:34 pm

    m wrote:

    @ BuddyG:
    LOL! Mine was lipstick when I was 5, and I didn’t steal them as much as – hey I like that… and just put it in my pocketbook :}
    My mom took me back too, in a tizzy, screaming about how the department store would think she put me up to it, LOL!
    I got dinner but I also got my rear end tore up, LOL!
    Bless.

    Heh, I got an ass-whuppin for far less. Actually, I think I only got one or two actual ass-whuppins; from there on, just the threat was quite sufficient.


  61. 61 | November 15, 2010 1:35 pm

    @ m:

    See, if you’d have been raised a Democrat, you’d have known better, and hidden what you stole from your mother, lest she demand her cut…


  62. mjazz
    62 | November 15, 2010 1:36 pm

    @ m:
    Did you fix my html shortcuts or did they just magically reappear?


  63. Speranza
  64. 64 | November 15, 2010 1:36 pm

    m wrote:

    Meaning at 5 I didn’t understand the whole concept of thievin.

    I don’t think you’re alone. It makes me wonder how “educators” can actually think that children at that age can understand the concept of homosexuality, or global friggin’ warming…..


  65. 65 | November 15, 2010 1:37 pm

    Speranza wrote:

    Westboro Baptist Church protesters face jeers and slashed tires
    Ha Ha Ha

    Yeah baby, the people speaketh!!!


  66. Speranza
    66 | November 15, 2010 1:38 pm

    MacDuff wrote:

    Yeah baby, the people speaketh!!!

    It (the slashed tires) could not have happened to a more deserving band of freaks and scum buckets!


  67. mjazz
    67 | November 15, 2010 1:39 pm

    @ MacDuff:
    I saw this show about a lady in England who needed someone to come in and help her get her kids under control. Part of it involved running herself ragged just getting the kid to stand in a corner.
    A good spanking would have been a whole lot faster.


  68. 68 | November 15, 2010 1:39 pm

    Iron Fist wrote:

    See, if you’d have been raised a Democrat, you’d have known better, and hidden what you stole from your mother, lest she demand her cut…

    I think you’re thinking about organized crime and gangsters….. oh..wait…never mind.


  69. 69 | November 15, 2010 1:40 pm

    @ mjazz:

    Pain is a wonderful instructor. I use it all the time when teaching karate. That is much easier than teaching kids, though, because you can hit a student…


  70. mjazz
    70 | November 15, 2010 1:40 pm

    @ MacDuff:
    Like the 6th grader who thought he was really a girl. Give me a break.


  71. mjazz
    71 | November 15, 2010 1:42 pm

    @ Iron Fist:
    My brother said he would never say “Because I said so” to his kid.
    That changed.


  72. Macker
    72 | November 15, 2010 1:43 pm

    @ Philip_Daniel:

    My overall opinion of Representatives Чарльз Рангель and Максин Уотерс can best be described as: [Deleted]


  73. 73 | November 15, 2010 1:44 pm

    mjazz wrote:

    @ MacDuff:
    I saw this show about a lady in England who needed someone to come in and help her get her kids under control. Part of it involved running herself ragged just getting the kid to stand in a corner.
    A good spanking would have been a whole lot faster.

    Like I said, just once or twice was good enough for me. People who let their children run around, scream at their little hearts’ content and be generally annoying just piss me off. I can’t help but wonder what kind of people they will grow up to be, with no limitations on their behavior and no respect for other people or their property.

    Probably liberal Democrats.


  74. F
    74 | November 15, 2010 1:44 pm

    Speranza wrote:

    Westboro Baptist Church protesters face jeers and slashed tires
    Ha Ha Ha

    Jeers I can agree with. Criminal destruction of property I don’t.


  75. mjazz
    75 | November 15, 2010 1:46 pm

    Rangel’s Slumlord Violations


  76. Speranza
    76 | November 15, 2010 1:46 pm

    F wrote:

    Speranza wrote:
    Westboro Baptist Church protesters face jeers and slashed tires
    Ha Ha Ha

    Jeers I can agree with. Criminal destruction of property I don’t.

    I am not losing any sleep over it.


  77. F
    77 | November 15, 2010 1:47 pm

    MacDuff wrote:

    m wrote:

    Meaning at 5 I didn’t understand the whole concept of thievin.

    I don’t think you’re alone. It makes me wonder how “educators” can actually think that children at that age can understand the concept of homosexuality, or global friggin’ warming…..

    Which is the entire intent of indoctrinating kids that young. They don’t have the necessary judgment nor life experience to decide something an authority figure tells them is bullshit.


  78. 78 | November 15, 2010 1:47 pm

    @ Nevergiveup:

    The not-guilty hold out -- Muslim? Leftist? Stupid? Moral narcissist? Any or all would want to undermine justice.


  79. m
    79 | November 15, 2010 1:47 pm

    @ Iron Fist:

    Seriously. “Hey mom, look what I got!” just didn’t work out for me, LOL!

    @ mjazz:

    Magic! (wasn’t me)


  80. Macker
    80 | November 15, 2010 1:47 pm

    @ BuddyG:

    You sure that isn’t run by Demo☢rats?


  81. RIX
    81 | November 15, 2010 1:48 pm

    Nevergiveup
    56 | November 15, 2010 13:29
    Hey we all know what’s going on. Just let them do it and lets move on.

    Sure looks like it.


  82. m
    82 | November 15, 2010 1:49 pm

    @ Speranza:

    Nice!


  83. 83 | November 15, 2010 1:50 pm

    Iron Fist wrote:

    @ mjazz:
    Pain is a wonderful instructor. I use it all the time when teaching karate. That is much easier than teaching kids, though, because you can hit a student…

    Well, having gone to a Catholic school (back in the day), I do remember regular paddlings of various students, bent over the nun’s desk, butt facing the class. There was never any trouble “keeping order” in the classroom.


  84. buzzsawmonkey
    84 | November 15, 2010 1:50 pm

    Not all show trials result in undeserved penalties.

    Some result in undeserved exonerations.


  85. m
    85 | November 15, 2010 1:50 pm

    @ MacDuff:

    Seriously! Why can’t they let kids be kids?!


  86. 86 | November 15, 2010 1:50 pm

    @ F:

    Exactly. They want to teach them what the Leftists want them to believe before they have any real world experience. I think it was Hitler who said something about not caring what the parents thought because the Party would control what their children thought. I don’t remember the exact quote.


  87. F
    87 | November 15, 2010 1:50 pm

    @ Speranza:
    Would some leftist protester breaking windows of a store be ok because the protester disagrees with capitalism and finds it morally wrong?

    Criminal destruction of property is wrong no matte who does it.


  88. m
    88 | November 15, 2010 1:52 pm

    @ F:

    It was the slasher fairies.


  89. 89 | November 15, 2010 1:52 pm

    MacDuff wrote:

    Well, having gone to a Catholic school (back in the day), I do remember regular paddlings of various students, bent over the nun’s desk, butt facing the class. There was never any trouble “keeping order” in the classroom.

    And I might add that my parents always told me that if I got a paddling at school, don’t bother crying to them about it or I’d get another one at home.

    Consolidated authority.


  90. RIX
    90 | November 15, 2010 1:52 pm

    Limbaugh is now going deep about the “enhanced” pat downs by the TSA.
    He is right. I get it because my hip sets off the metal detector.
    It is really intrusive with the screener all over the groin area.
    Limbaugh said, “Sure feel up ordinary Americans, but let Achmed &
    Abdllah sail right through. It would be discrimination.”


  91. 91 | November 15, 2010 1:53 pm

    @ MacDuff:

    There are no “uncontrollable” children. You’d be shocked at the order in a karate studio among even very young children. That is because we can tell the parents not to bring precious back if he/she is a big enough pain in the ass, but also because we’ll tell precious “No” and mean it. They didn’t have me teach the kids very much. Just an advanced brown-belt self-defense class, and that only once…


  92. buzzsawmonkey
    92 | November 15, 2010 1:54 pm

    MacDuff wrote:

    I don’t think you’re alone. It makes me wonder how “educators” can actually think that children at that age can understand the concept of homosexuality, or global friggin’ warming…..

    Part of the objective is to make the parents knuckle under to the teaching, no matter what is, just to establish who does and doesn’t have a voice in what is taught.

    Part of the objective is to get the kids to learn to parrot pat phrases and reprove their parents if the parents do not mirror them—the groundwork, if you will, for children policing their parents.

    Part of the objective is to lay a subliminal groundwork, through such pat phrases, that will establish the children’s thought templates later in life when they re-encounter the subject matter.


  93. F
    93 | November 15, 2010 1:56 pm

    @ buzzsawmonkey:
    Informing on parents and their “unsocial” ideas and thoughts is increasingly becoming part of the curriculum.


  94. 94 | November 15, 2010 1:56 pm

    @ RIX:

    The problem is that you can hid a knife, small pistol, whatever in the groin area. Me and my boys used to laugh at pat down searches that didn’t cover the groin and women’s breasts. They aren’t serious if they leave that area out. The all-over body X-Ray is better. It really doesn’t show up nude images, but so what if it did. It’ll show that the buldge in your crotch ain’t your balls, if you are wearing Semtex® underwear. That is what is important.


  95. F
    95 | November 15, 2010 1:58 pm

    FNC is now reporting the first Gitmo detainee civilian trial is heading for a mistrial.

    What a fooking joke. *SPIT*


  96. 96 | November 15, 2010 1:58 pm

    F wrote:

    Jeers I can agree with. Criminal destruction of property I don’t.

    While I would normally agree, I think slashed tires is a pretty small price to pay for emotionally scarring the families of men and women who died in the service of our country. Were I a judge, I’d find the slashers guilty of misdemeanor vandalism and sentence them to dinner at my place.


  97. buzzsawmonkey
    97 | November 15, 2010 1:59 pm

    F wrote:

    Informing on parents and their “unsocial” ideas and thoughts is increasingly becoming part of the curriculum.

    IIRC, there were a couple of cases earlier this year where child protective services attempted to strip parents of their children because the parents owned firearms.


  98. Macker
    98 | November 15, 2010 1:59 pm

    @ buzzsawmonkey:

    Which is why the Teachers’ Unions are scared shitless of vouchers.


  99. Macker
    99 | November 15, 2010 1:59 pm

    MacDuff wrote:

    While I would normally agree, I think slashed tires is a pretty small price to pay for emotionally scarring the families of men and women who died in the service of our country. Were I a judge, I’d find the slashers guilty of misdemeanor vandalism and sentence them to dinner at my place.

    What would you feed them?


  100. F
    100 | November 15, 2010 2:00 pm

    @ Iron Fist:
    Americans don’t expect Israeli style airport screenings. We really should learn from what they do.

    It’ll never happen, though.


  101. Philip_Daniel
    101 | November 15, 2010 2:00 pm

    Iron Fist wrote:

    And yet Rangel is by anybody’s definition extremely successful. He is a millionaire many times over. A Congressman, who owns his seat as though it were a patrimony and him a Duke. Don’t his constituents see how big a fraud the bullshit he is shovelling is? I guess it is the public school system in action.

    I was talking about decent enterprises such as entrepreneurship and medicine, not politics…


  102. Nevergiveup
    102 | November 15, 2010 2:01 pm

    F wrote:

    FNC is now reporting the first Gitmo detainee civilian trial is heading for a mistrial.

    What a fooking joke. *SPIT*

    Yeah I posted up above about that. One juror has asked out--apparently she is holding out for not guilty.


  103. 103 | November 15, 2010 2:02 pm

    Macker wrote:

    MacDuff wrote:
    While I would normally agree, I think slashed tires is a pretty small price to pay for emotionally scarring the families of men and women who died in the service of our country. Were I a judge, I’d find the slashers guilty of misdemeanor vandalism and sentence them to dinner at my place.

    What would you feed them?

    The finest steaks I could find and an open bar, of course!


  104. 104 | November 15, 2010 2:03 pm

    buzzsawmonkey wrote:

    Part of the objective is to lay a subliminal groundwork, through such pat phrases, that will establish the children’s thought templates later in life when they re-encounter the subject matter.

    Yes. “Social justice” is one such phrase. Two generations have now grown up with the idea that the law is about taking care of the disadvantaged and distributing wealth and privilege.
    Thousands of people watching Rangel will see a poor black man in the dock facing authority alone. He’ll be voted back.


  105. F
    105 | November 15, 2010 2:04 pm

    @ MacDuff:
    And yet another exception to the rule of law is what you espouse.

    The counter-protesters is exactly the level of retaliation that was required. Get enough jeerers and passively push the church members further and further away from the funerals by lock-step marching.


  106. 106 | November 15, 2010 2:05 pm

    Overlook wrote:

    Thousands of people watching Rangel will see a poor black man in the dock facing authority alone. He’ll be voted back.

    Which is exactly the image he was intentionally projecting and the result’s he is actively seeking to reap.


  107. mjazz
    107 | November 15, 2010 2:09 pm

    @ Iron Fist:
    I think it was Marx who said he wanted to destroy the family unit.


  108. m
    108 | November 15, 2010 2:11 pm

    @ MacDuff:

    ~:D


  109. RIX
    109 | November 15, 2010 2:11 pm

    @ Iron Fist:
    Yeah the full body xray is better.
    The point is though that the TSA is not serious about security.
    If this was about that, how about cavity searches?


  110. Buffalobob
    110 | November 15, 2010 2:15 pm

    Rangel said “50 years of public service has to suffer” because he did not have the money himself to pay for a lawyer, that he did not have enough time to cultivate a legal defense fund, and that free counsel offered to him would be considered a gift and therefore prohibited. Because I’m just a crook.


  111. mjazz
    111 | November 15, 2010 2:24 pm


  112. orangecrush
    112 | November 15, 2010 3:36 pm

    What is the TSA gonna do once Al-Quaida figures out that they can only get a bomb on a plan using an enema implant? Are they then going to ban all assholes from flying?

    They really need to look at how Israel does things.


  113. orangecrush
    113 | November 15, 2010 3:40 pm

    @ 111 mjazz: We need some protests like that here in Seattle. As a former government worked I can guarantee you that the TSA will not be able to hire ethical screeners. Nor will they be able to manage them effectively. Federal governments are obtuse institutionas with little to no common sense when it comes to working with a non conforming individual.


  114. 114 | November 15, 2010 7:37 pm

    [...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by 1389, The Blogmocracy. The Blogmocracy said: Charlie Rangel hearing goes into Recess http://goo.gl/fb/4CfRj #democraticparty #liberalfascism #politics [...]


  115. 115 | November 15, 2010 8:00 pm

    orangecrush wrote:

    What is the TSA gonna do once Al-Quaida figures out that they can only get a bomb on a plan using an enema implant? Are they then going to ban all assholes from flying?

    They really need to look at how Israel does things.

    Works for me, on both counts.

    Banning the assholes from flying would mean no Muslims and no liberals on planes. No politicians and no journalists either.

    Let ‘em walk! :evil:


Back to the Top

The Blogmocracy

website design was Built By David