Article

2008-08-31 Home Front: Politix

Rangel's Carribean hideaway on which taxes are not paid

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by lotp 2008-08-31 08:46|| || Front Page|| [11123 views ] Top

#1 Rangel's a Democrat. Democrat=criminal. The equation is that simple, and has been since before LBJ; probably since FDR.

In an honest country, 95% of all Democrat Party pols would be tried, found guilty of corruption and malfeasance, and imprisoned/shot. 50% of the Republicans would suffer the same fate.

We need a better political class, and we need it badly. We're not going to get it though unless we start screaming every time one of these bastards gets more than one hoof into the public trough.

Problem is, with the craven, corrupt Dems as approx. 50% of the body politic, the crooks will always have defenders. Whenever you hear a Dem whining about how they are being targeted/persecuted because of race, gender or sexual orientation, automatically assume the whiner is, in actuality, a crooked bastard caught red-handed in the commission of a felony. You'll invariably be right.

Hell, they hold the law in such contempt they don't even care about misdemeanors. Ted Kennedy showed their level of "respect" for the law in 1968, and they've gotten nothing but worse since then.

Bastards.

Posted by Jolutch Mussolini7800 2008-08-31 10:18|| 2008-08-31 10:18|| Front Page Top

#2 You know, I have thoughtful family members who tend to vote Democrat for reasons they find persuasive. I disagree with them, sometimes hotly, but find your dismissal of them as 'craven' and 'corrupt' to be simply wrong if not offensive.

Let's deal with specific individuals. There's a lot of corruption and laziness and good-old-boy networking to root out on all sides.

Posted by lotp 2008-08-31 10:34|| 2008-08-31 10:34|| Front Page Top

#3 The problem is democracy which is what our founders feared. We should start by repealing the 17th amendment. Then we should pass an amendment overturning Baker v. Carr.

Posted by Nimble Spemble 2008-08-31 11:02|| 2008-08-31 11:02|| Front Page Top

#4 "I have thoughtful family members who tend to vote Democrat for reasons they find persuasive. I disagree with them, sometimes hotly, but find your dismissal of them as 'craven' and 'corrupt' to be simply wrong if not offensive."

I can't speak for Jolutch, of course, but I took the statement to mean Democrat politician, lotp - not regular voters.

And unforutately, the percentages for politicians (on both sides) are probably close. >:-(

Posted by Barbara Skolaut">Barbara Skolaut 2008-08-31 11:11|| http://ariellestjohndesigns.com/]">[http://ariellestjohndesigns.com/] 2008-08-31 11:11|| Front Page Top

#5 Ah - apologies if I got that wrong. And yeah, the percentages are pretty equal I would guess.

Equal opportunity corruption, complacency and entrenched interests.

Posted by lotp 2008-08-31 11:21|| 2008-08-31 11:21|| Front Page Top

#6 lotp, you're wrong on this one. Period. The Dems don't dump their crooks; instead, they hug them closer. Ted Kennedy and Bill Clinton are the classic examples but "Cold Cash" William Jefferson is just more recent proof (as if any were needed) to show the Democrat skunks haven't changed their stripes.

The Republicans at least make an effort to toss their bums. Even if it is hypocritical, at least that's the tribute vice pays to virtue.

That's the corruption. The cravenness is displayed in numerous ways. It shows in their fervent support for abortion and their frantic hatred for the death penalty. They haven't the slightest qualm about killing the most innocent and defenseless but can't countenance the idea of just punishment for the most wicked.

They hate our military; it's willingness to forcefully defend our country is anathema to them. As far as they're concerned, anyone in uniform is a victim too poor or too stupid to get a job elsewhere. You work at West Point. How many members of our armed forces have you met who think the Democrat Party truly supports them?

They hate guns because they desperately want to believe that if all guns were outlawed there would be no gun crime. They are too afraid to face the fact that in this world you're responsible for your own self-protection. They refuse to recognize the need to make provision for that responsibility because they are cowards at heart. They want all people disarmed so that criminals will have a larger pool of potential victims to pick from when committing crimes, not just those ignore the need to defend themselves.

Dems didn't invent the "let's throw everyone else to the alligator first so I'll get eaten last" school of behavior, but they practice it like true experts. Yes, they're craven and there's no doubt of it.

I think the Democrat Party has no principle other than expediency and their default position on all issues is to foster dependency and perceptions of victimization. They act in this fashion because they truly love nothing but power and will say or do anything to get it.

If you find this "wrong or offensive," we'll just have to agree to disagree. You're not about to change my mind on this issue and frankly, I'm surprised to see you defending them.

Posted by Jolutch Mussolini7800 2008-08-31 11:29|| 2008-08-31 11:29|| Front Page Top

#7 Oh, and yes, I did refer to "pols," meaning politicians, for both parties.

Posted by Jolutch Mussolini7800 2008-08-31 11:31|| 2008-08-31 11:31|| Front Page Top

#8 JM, I come from a blue collar, hunting/fishing/self-reliant family of pro-military people who think that a certain degree of social safety net is a good thing. That doesn't mean they like Kennedy or Jefferson - but they don't live in those states either and they aren't political activists.

They're just ordinary hardworking people of modest but manageable incomes who have a limited time in their lives to decide how to vote. I try to offer input to that decision. Sometimes I'm effective.

Posted by lotp 2008-08-31 11:34|| 2008-08-31 11:34|| Front Page Top

#9 Was I the only one who thought "Cuba" when they saw the headline?

Posted by Swamp Blondie in the Cornfields 2008-08-31 12:07|| 2008-08-31 12:07|| Front Page Top

#10 LOL "it's a private matter"

Ah, no, Chollie, it's a criminal tax case, beyotch!

Posted by Frank G">Frank G 2008-08-31 12:25|| 2008-08-31 12:25|| Front Page Top

#11 We need a better political class, and we need it badly.

We get what we pay for. We pay crap, we get crap. If you really believe in Capitalism, they you accept that good pay will in the end attract good people. Not 100%, but certainly enough to keep the business going. We keep to the 'myth' of the gentleman representative who conducts most of his business during the year and then retires over the winter to assemble in Washington before planting season to do the peoples' work. Then wraps up their duties just enough to return to plant before doing another session before harvest. Just as this world doesn't allow us to have a Swiss militia system [which for 50 years basically were shielded by NATO, i.e. US], it no longer allows for the part time representative at the national level. But we love our myths and prefer to bitch and complain rather than acknowledge reality. And we wonder why socialist can't recognize the obvious failures in their system.

You want these people to be held accountable for a multi-billion dollar budget that include elements that direct, control or influence a multi-trillion dollar national and world economy, the major international security program, and armies [whether you like it or not] of departments and bureaucrats that oversee the infrastructure that makes this society operate, and you pay them squat. So instead, they're bought and paid for by people other than the electorate. Then you wonder why they do the things they do. Time to compete.

Time to pay. One mill a year to every Congressman, SCOTUS, Vice President and President. That's under 550 million a year. That is earmark money funding easily. They don't need any pension plan. They won't need it because one or two election cycles down the calendar you'll have more than enough to choose from in the primaries as far more people compete for their chance at a mill. It is human nature. It doesn't require any constitutional amendment to limit terms. Human behavior will do it on its own.

Now if you have something that is real and not just a wish, something that is simple and matches human behavior, then articulate it. Otherwise, I'll hold to the capitalistic method of improving the stock.

Posted by Procopius2k 2008-08-31 13:43|| 2008-08-31 13:43|| Front Page Top

#12 Proc, what you advocate makes extremely good sense. I suspect it will take a revolution, or the rough equivalent, to get it implemented though.

Posted by Jolutch Mussolini7800 2008-08-31 14:01|| 2008-08-31 14:01|| Front Page Top

#13 That would bring out the competition to the Harvard and Yale Multi-millionaires in the "good Old Boy" network. Perhaps someone like Palin?

Posted by tipover 2008-08-31 14:45|| 2008-08-31 14:45|| Front Page Top

#14 Lotp: he did say '95%' :-)

Proc: good idea, though not high enough. At least 3 mil a year to a Rep, 5 mil a year to a Senator. Then have term limits just in case human behavior isn't completely perfect ;-)

Posted by Steve White 2008-08-31 16:06|| 2008-08-31 16:06|| Front Page Top

23:53 Pappy
23:52 Barbara Skolaut
23:47 bigjim-ky
23:36 Pappy
23:20 Betty Grating2215
23:17 Betty Grating2215
23:10 trailing wife
22:56 tipper
22:20 OldSpook
22:15 lotp
22:06 OldSpook
22:05 Nimble Spemble
22:04 Nimble Spemble
22:03 Angie Schultz
22:03 john frum
21:48 Frank G
21:45 Nimble Spemble
21:30 Procopius2k
21:26 Slats Creack aka Broadhead6
21:25 CrazyFool
21:18 Slats Creack aka Broadhead6
21:01 49 Pan
21:00 OldSpook
20:53 SteveS