Friday, July 20, 2012

Swab the Deck - And Start With THIS Guy

Remember the Stock Act, the law that was supposed to prevent clowns like Nancy Pelosi and John Boehner from profiting on insider information relative to pending legislation? Yeah, guess what, people. It seems like Eric Cantor and some of the others down there in D.C. have carved out a nice little loophole when it comes to family members (just the House has done this, the Senate has not). Yeah, that's right, all that Mr. Cantor has to do now is simply feed the premium leads to his wife and, boom, can you folks say, a vacation in the Caribbean, please?

30 comments:

Rational Nation USA said...

Ah, the perks of privilege. Is the Senate soon to follow do ya think?

Will "take no prisoners" Hart said...

I think that now that it's out in the open, and only because it's out in the open, probably not.

dmarks said...

The golden rule applies to our ruling elites too:

"Those who make the rules get the gold".

Jerry Critter said...

And,

"Those that have the gold, rule."

It is a nice little circle.

Will "take no prisoners" Hart said...

Kudos to Anderson Cooper on this one.

w-dervish said...

dmarks: "Those who make the rules get the gold".

Actually, those who make the rules write the rules to give the gold to the plutocrats who fund their campaigns.

And these people tend to be Republicans and Conservative Democrats. Progressives oppose this quid pro quo. This is why I call politicians like Bernie Sanders and Alan Grayson "populists". And this is why dmarks denies the populism of these politicians.

He claims to oppose this kind of crony capitalism, but if this were true wouldn't dmarks admire progressives for their refusal to participate in it? Instead he lies and claims that they vote to increase their own power. And then he laughably claims Conservatives are the true populists.

Will: [blah, blah, blah] ...clowns like Nancy Pelosi and John Boehner [blah, blah, blah... Eric] Cantor.

Nancy Pelosi denies the allegations by the discredited liar Peter Schweizer that she was involved in any insider trading. Personally, I'd believe Nancy Pelosi over hardcore Conservative scum like Peter Schweizer any day of the week. This isn't the first time Schweizer has lied about/slandered Mrs. Pelosi.

I'm in favor of getting rid of Eric Cantor though.

Will "take no prisoners" Hart said...

Mr. Schweizer never lied about Pelosi. He said that she has never hired union employees in any of her many businesses and she hasn't.......That and Mr. Schweizer targeted just as many Republicans in his book as Democrats, something that a clown like Keith Olbermann would never in a million years even think to do.......And asshole Pelosi is lying. Steve Croft and 60 Minutes eviscerated/nailed her.

dmarks said...

Most of those you are thinking of who do this aiso, WD, as "conservative" Democrats are actually liberal Democrats. Such as Pelosi, Daschle, Obama, etc.

"He claims to oppose this kind of crony capitalism, but if this were true wouldn't dmarks admire progressives for their refusal to participate in it?"

Some do, some do not, as I pointed out above.

"This is why I call politicians like Bernie Sanders and Alan Grayson "populists". And this is why dmarks denies the populism of these politicians."

They aren't populists, since they consistently vote to concentrate power and control in the hands of the rulers. Not the people. And, no, there is no need to repeat the complete bullsh*t that our representatives = "the people".

------------

As for Mr. Schweizer, Will has documented his truthful statements very well. WD's scores of lies to defend Pelosi just because she has a (D) after his name are like a textbook example of someone lying their head off for partisan reasons. You should give this one up, WD. Will has been running circles around you from the start.

WD said: "Personally, I'd believe Nancy Pelosi over hardcore Conservative scum like Peter Schweizer any day of the week."

And the reason is because Pelosi has a (D) after her name. And this is one of the things that has helped you lose any credibility he has here.

"I'm in favor of getting rid of Eric Cantor though."

Exactly. Because he has an (R) after his name. If he switched to a (D), WD would lie about, defend, and promote his corruption, just like he does for Pelosi.

Will "take no prisoners" Hart said...

The same with killing civilians. He only gets exocised over it when a Republican is doing it.

w-dervish said...

Will: Mr. Schweizer never lied about Pelosi. He said that she has never hired union employees in any of her many businesses and she hasn't...

He did. She can't legally involve herself in any unionization of her workers. Schweizer implied in his book she could hire union workers but didn't want to. But you know this... you're just spinning to protect the liar Schweizer.

Will: Mr. Schweizer targeted just as many Republicans in his book as Democrats.

He also wrote a ridiculously titled book that is about how Conservatives are so much better people than Liberals.

This is something that someone with a lot more integrity like Keith Olbermann would never in a million years even think to do. If a Liberal did write such a book dmarks would describe it as a book wherein the Liberal author refers to Conservatives as a bunch "poopy pants".

Will: And asshole Pelosi is lying.

I have a lot of respect for Nancy Pelosi and am insulted by you calling her a liar and a-hole. That you continue to defend a murderer like bush but attack an honorable public servant like Pelosi sickens me.

dmarks: Most of those you are thinking of who do this aiso, WD, as "conservative" Democrats are actually liberal Democrats. Such as Pelosi, Daschle, Obama, etc.

No one listens to you on this because you don't know the difference. Proof of that is you placing "conservative" in quotes. You don't even believe there are any. dmarks thinks all Democrats are Liberal.

dmarks: They aren't populists, since they consistently vote to concentrate power and control in the hands of the rulers. Not the people. And, no, there is no need to repeat the complete bullsh*t that our representatives = "the people".

They represent the people. That's how representative democracy works... yes, I know you don't like it. You've made that clear during discussions regarding the Citizens United decision and your strong support for the wealthy to be able to buy our elections and bribe our politicians.

dmarks: As for Mr. Schweizer, Will has documented his truthful statements very well. WD's scores of lies to defend Pelosi just because she has a (D) after his name are like a textbook example of someone lying their head off for partisan reasons.

Will has it wrong. It is well documented that Peter Schweizer lies. And me supporting Pelosi and not Cantor has to do with the fact that Nancy Pelosi stands up for the people and votes in their interest while Cantor does not.

dmarks: If [Cantor] switched to a (D), WD would lie about, defend, and promote his corruption, just like he does for Pelosi.

Cantor isn't going to do this. I wouldn't support him if he did. And I don't lie about, defend or promote Nancy Pelosi's "corruption" because she isn't corrupt. She is an honorable public servant who I have great admiration for.

Will: The same with killing civilians. He only gets exocised over it when a Republican is doing it.

Completely false. I speak out against the killing of civilians no matter who authorizes it.

dmarks said...

Pelosi is a dishonorable self-servant who has used her public office for personal gain.

dmarks said...

WD said; "They represent the people. That's how representative democracy works..."

Ideally, on a good day, they represent the people. But always, due to the nature of power and politics, they are the rulers.

"You've made that clear during discussions regarding the Citizens United decision and your strong support for the wealthy to be able to buy our elections and bribe our politicians."

That is a flat out lie. I support Citizens United because it overturned a bad law in which the government punished people for speaking out on political issues.

Your accusations of "wealthy worship" against me, Will, and others, without any shred of evidence, are tiresome lies.

w-dervish said...

dmarks: I support Citizens United because it overturned a bad law in which the government punished people for speaking out on political issues.

McCain/Feingold "punished" wealthy people who attempted to unfairly influence elections. I support reasonable campaign finance laws that prevent the wealthy from buying our elections... dmarks does not. And that is a huge "shread" of evidence straight from dmarks' mouth. For him to continue to say my "accusations" of worshiping the wealthy are "lies" when the evidence is plain as day... that is getting quite tiresome.

dmarks said...

There is one method of possibly influencing elections that is protected in the Constitution: and that is the right for anyone, rich or poor or anything, to speak out on the issues of the day. It is a very important freedom, and damn those fascists like you who want to take it away.

And damn fascists like you who believe that speech that the government does not consider 'fair' should be banned, and those who speak ill of those who rule should, in your exact word, be 'punished'.

Will "take no prisoners" Hart said...

a) Show me in the law where it says that an employer can't hire employees sympathetic to unions. Just because some Pelosi sycophant on the radio says something doesn't make it so. And Pelosi wouldn't have had to do any organizing whatsoever. All that she would have had to do was hire some of the people who load her coffers with all of that dirty union money. b) FDR murdered a hell of a lot more people than Bush ever did and you say nothing. And I've never heard you once make a full-throated denunciation for all of the civilian deaths in Afghanistan and Pakistan due to Mr. Obama's policies. Zero. c) Yes, Mr. Schwerizer did a book on liberal hypocrisy - to counter the gazillion worst persons in the world segments coming from the other side. Sue him. d) Pelosi, a liar? Sorry, I meant to say that she was a fucking liar.

w-dervish said...

dmarks: It is a very important freedom, and damn those fascists like you who want to take it away.

I agree that it is an important freedom. I don't want to take it away. I want to vigorously protect it.

dmarks: And damn fascists like you who believe that speech that the government does not consider 'fair' should be banned...

I'm completely opposed to this. Very strongly opposed, in fact.

dmarks: and those who speak ill of those who rule should, in your exact word, be 'punished'.

You used the word "punished", but when I used it I put it in quotes to indicate that I did not agree with your use of the word. It isn't a punishment at all, but only an attempt to stop the wealthy elites from punishing the rest of us by unfairly influencing our election with the much greater free speech rights damn wealthy worshiping fascist stooges like you want them to have.

dmarks said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
dmarks said...

You know there's a problem when someone like WD starts complaining that there's too much free speech.

And I am just as much a poor-worshipping stooge... because if you supported censoring the poor instead of censoring the rich, I would speak out in favor of their rights as well.

You are quite disingenous when you paint my views on this as wealthy-worshipping, since I oppose the government censoring anyone on this.... and only a small % of those whose rights I favor are rich.

Of course this assumes your argument that protecting the Bill of Rights makes one a 'stooge'.

w-dervish said...

Corrections to dmarks highly erroneous comments: [1] I'm not complaining that there is "too much free speech". [2] Baloney. Poor people don't have the money to buy media ads, which is what we're talking about. It would be impossible for me to support censoring something that can't happen. [3] I am not "quite disingenuous" about your worship of the wealthy, as we are only discussing the "censoring" of the wealthy. Poor people don't have the money to buy media ads. [4] The Bill of Rights isn't at issue here, as the 1st Amendment protects individual free speech rights, not those of PACS.

BTW, what about individual campaign giving limits? Currently an individual can only contribute $6k (I believe). I assume you want to do away with this law as well?

dmarks said...

So many wrong things you have said. You do realize, don't you, that the Constitution forbids "censoring of the wealthy". You are so gung ho about censoring!

PACs are made of individuals, of course, so if you censor a PAC your are censoring those in it who are expressing their free speech rights.

Why not grow up and do what mature people do: if someone says something they don't like, they ignore it. Instead of demanding that the government behave like the one in North Korea in order to censor criticism of the ruling class.

Your demand for this fascist oppression is grosser than any booger joke.

w-dervish said...

Why not grow up and do what mature people do = agree with me or I'll call you names and make playground insults about you "flicking boogers", "eating school paste" and getting "pantsed".

dmarks is clearly the one who needs to grow up. He is, in fact, the most immature adult I've ever encountered.

And the Constitution does *NOT* forbid the kind of censoring that we're talking about. The First Amendment protects individual free speech rights... it does not grant special free speech rights to groups. Those people in the PAC you're talking about retain their individual free speech rights... I'm talking about regulating the special group free speech rights being part of a PAC affords them.

You really need to get a clue dmarks and stop this blind worship of the wealthy that is hurting our country.

Both you and Will need to abandon this simplistic ideology. I just read on article on Yahoo that predicts poverty will rise to historic levels in comming years. And it isn't because people aren't willing to work hard to make money, let alone work harder to make more money!

A simpleton wealthy worshiping partisan is far worse than any of the partisanship you two fools decry, IMHO... but I probably only think that because of my extreme "arrogance" (another of dmarks' favorite playground insults).

dmarks said...

Groups do not speak. It is not possible. But individuals can.

Besides, you are totally wrong. The Constitution does not allow censoring 'groups' either. You are illogical and Constitutionally illiterate, WD. The only thing consistent here is your zeal for censorship.

Grow up. If someone says something you don't like, why not ignore it?

dmarks said...

Also, the rights you denigrate as 'special .... speech rights' are in fact fundamental rights, protected in the 1st Amendment.

w-dervish said...

You are Constitutionally illiterate. The First Amendement protects the rights of individuals, not groups. And groups most certainly can speak. They gather money from multiple individuals and buy ads... thus the group speaks.

And you need to grow up and cut out this wealthy-worshiping nonsense.

dmarks said...

Groups cannot speak. Consider, say, a typical campaign ad. That's a man or woman narrating it (a person speaking out on an issue... and you want to gag him or her). A person entered the text that appears on the screen. All individuals. All with Constitutional rights, whether you like it or not.

w-dervish said...

You're damn right I don't like it, because it's anti-Constitutional. The First Amendement protects the free speech rights of individuals, not groups. Groups can speak, which is why the group known as the press is mentioned in the First Amendment (while no other group is).

dmarks said...

You don't like it because you are anti-Constitutional.

The mention of the press in the First Amendment is for emphasis, not for limiting free speech to just the press. Also, it says Congress cannot censor. It makes no mention of who can be censored or not. The amendment comes from the point of view of limiting the power of the rulers, not for from your POV of the government begrudgingly granting free speech privileges to a narrowly-defined class that the government deems as worthy. Your view is the North Korea-style top-down approach: assuming that rights belong by default only to those in government. Mine is the Constitutional approach firmly rooted in the inalienable rights of human beings.

Simple reading comprehension here. Try it sometime. Then grow up and learn to respect the freedom of expression of those who express views you disagree with.

As for groups speaking, they can't. Read again the comment two comments above this. Individuals associated with groups can speak, but groups themselves are entirely unable to do a thing.

w-dervish said...

The Bill of Rights concerns the rights of individuals. It was not intended to grant special group rights to any organization... except the press, which is why it is specifically mentioned. "for emphasis"... what silly nonsense dmarks! You make me laugh... but I'm laughing at you instead of with you.

dmarks lied: Then grow up and learn to respect the freedom of expression of those who express views you disagree with.

I very strongly respect this freedom that INDIVIDUALS have. I'm opposed to twisting the meaning of the Bill of Rights to give special rights to the organizations representing (and speaking for) the plutocrats you love... as well as any other organization.

And you should take your own advice regarding growing up. When I express my views dmarks' panties get twisted in such a bunch that he can't help but let the playground insults fly in great abundance. Not a grown up thing to do at all. He is, in fact, the most infantile blogger I've ever encountered.

dmarks said...

WD said: "The Bill of Rights concerns the rights of individuals."

Exactly. And this includes individuals involved with groups you want to censor. This includes, for example, a person who is narrating a political advertisement.

" "for emphasis"... what silly nonsense dmarks!"

Actually, I stand with the experts. The adults in the room. Your idea that free speech is a special privilege to a narrowly-defined "press" is neither in the Constitution, or supported by the experts.

"dmarks lied"

Actually, I told the truth in this. You are an immature twit who has absoutely no respect for the free speech rights of others.

"I very strongly respect this freedom that INDIVIDUALS have."

No, you don't. You have argued for the ruling elites to punish them for expressing their free speech rights in hundreds of comments.

I take the more mature approach: if I don't like what someone says, I ignore it.

"I'm opposed to twisting the meaning of the Bill of Rights"

Yet, that is what you do.

"When I express my views dmarks' panties get twisted in such a bunch"

Well, I happen to detest your fascist mindset that the government should strictly control and censor political views.

"...views that he can't help but let the playground insults fly in great abundance."

It is clear now that you are projecting. Look at how you call Gov. Walker "Wanker" all the time.

"Not a grown up thing to do at all."

Perfect description of this.

dmarks said...

By the way, i did more research on the First Amendment. I've found no one out of any experts in it who shares WD's hatred for civil liberties and that the Amendment applies to a narrowly-defined press, only.

In fact, the real experts (Supreme Court Justices) have time and again, year after year defended this basic right of the people. The various First Amendment defense groups also take the view I have. In fact, since I defer to those who know more than I do, I follow their lead.

It is no surprise that your "ignore the dictionary" wild-ass amateur armchair attorney re-writing of the Bill of Rights to suit your statist, fascist agenda is completely laughable.

I stand with the people, the Constitution, and the actual experts on it. Not an enable of jackbooted thugs like you who believes in a North Korea style system where free speech rights are just a privilege ... crumbs tossed down by those who rule.