Coburn secretly arranged extortion money and tried to hide behind being a doctor and a deacon.
He should be impeached.
Find the Reader's Digest version, please! 11 minutes of Maddow??? Puh lease!
Quote from: Conan71 on October 02, 2009, 12:09:18 PM
Find the Reader's Digest version, please! 11 minutes of Maddow??? Puh lease!
Looks to me as though by negotiating money to cover up black mail, Tom Coburn became party to a crime.
Quote from: FOTD on October 02, 2009, 12:12:26 PM
Looks to me as though by negotiating money to cover up black mail, Tom Coburn became party to a crime.
So far, only source is "NYT". Who was NYT's source?
Quote from: Conan71 on October 02, 2009, 12:14:01 PM
So far, only source is "NYT". Who was NYT's source?
Why Tom "chicken Sh#t" Coburn....this is his way of cya.....the NYT will have more to come. Bank it...it will not help Coburn. He should have gone to the constitution for which he is sworn to.
Will someone post a not crazy Cliff's Notes version of what's going on?
I read the article, same smile that's been floating since, what July? Hampton's attorney supposedly approached Coburn about $8.5 mm to help the Hamptons move from Nevada and, uh, be whole again.
Coburn supposedly scoffed at it and later took and offer to Ensign of around $2mm of which, Ensign supposedly laughed at.
Nothing new to see here, just the times trying to stir the bucket of smile. There's some very cloudy stuff Ensign got into with the lobbying business he got Hampton into which may be totally illegal and unethical, but there doesn't appear to be too much traction with Coburn's actions. Sorry FOTD. Leave this stuff to the pros, not angry agnostic lesbians posing as journalists.
Quote from: Conan71 on October 02, 2009, 01:26:26 PM
I read the article, same smile that's been floating since, what July? Hampton's attorney supposedly approached Coburn about $8.5 mm to help the Hamptons move from Nevada and, uh, be whole again.
Coburn supposedly scoffed at it and later took and offer to Ensign of around $2mm of which, Ensign supposedly laughed at.
Nothing new to see here, just the times trying to stir the bucket of smile. There's some very cloudy stuff Ensign got into with the lobbying business he got Hampton into which may be totally illegal and unethical, but there doesn't appear to be too much traction with Coburn's actions. Sorry FOTD. Leave this stuff to the pros, not angry agnostic lesbians posing as journalists.
" While the affair made national news in June, the role that Mr. Ensign played in assisting Mr. Hampton and helping his clients has not been previously disclosed. Several experts say those activities may have violated an ethics law that bars senior aides from lobbying the Senate for a year after leaving their posts.
In acknowledging the affair, Mr. Ensign cast it as a personal transgression, not a professional one. But an examination of his conduct shows that in trying to clean up the mess from the illicit relationship and distance himself from the Hamptons, he entangled political supporters, staff members and Senate colleagues, some of whom say they now feel he betrayed them.
For example, a longtime fund-raiser who came through with help says Mr. Ensign misled him about why Mr. Hampton needed a new job. The senator also put his chief of staff at the time, who had raised concerns that Mr. Hampton's activities could be problematic, in charge of dealing with him.
And Mr. Ensign allowed Senator Tom Coburn, a friend and fellow conservative Christian, to serve as an intermediary with the Hamptons in May in discussing a large financial settlement, to help them rebuild their lives.
"John got trapped doing something really stupid and then made a lot of other mistakes afterward," Mr. Coburn, Republican of Oklahoma, said in an interview. "Judgment gets impaired by arrogance, and that's what's going on here."
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/02/us/politics/02ensign.html?_r=2&hp
Sorry but FOTD smells a rat in this unethical pile of incestuous mayhem. Tom Coburn was mediating a pay off. "To help them rebuild their lives" ? What? Define that and put a number to it.
Attorneys broker deals for money every day, FOTD. Senators and Representatives broker deals for money all the time between lobbyists, contributors, and special interests. One family deciding to pay another family for a transgression at their hands is not illegal. Using a friend or colleague to act as an intermediary because the two families can no longer stand to talk to each other because one man was schtoinking the other man's wife isn't illegal either. Granted, intermediaries in those situations aren't usually U.S. Senators.
By your theory, should the Hampton's attorney be implicated as well for trying to extort money from Ensign?
I understand your hatred for Sen. Coburn runs deep. Unfortunately for you, I don't see this deal, even if he did act as an intermediary, getting him impeached from office. Could it become a campaign issue which turns voters against him in 2010, quite possibly. You can act on your hatred for him at that time and vote to fire him if he walks away from this mess unscathed.
I think you are yelling "FIRE" where there is none. Might be against his supposed religious ethics, sure, but I have not read anything yet that would appear he broke any laws unless he advised Ensign to pay the Hamptons out of campaign funds or some other source of funding which would be illegal.
And, while we are on the topic, since when did we REALLY expect any politician to be morally or ethically correct? I mean really??? Politics, ethics, and morals don't even belong in the same sentence, maybe in a fairy tale.
I really can't see how anyone could excuse Coburn's actions in negotiating a bribe. We may not be surprised about the lack of ethics in politics, but we shouldn't forgive these transgressions either.
http://www.newsok.com/tom-coburn-confirms-he-was-go-between/article/3405905
Quote from: okiebybirth on October 04, 2009, 02:36:47 PM
I really can't see how anyone could excuse Coburn's actions in negotiating a bribe. We may not be surprised about the lack of ethics in politics, but we shouldn't forgive these transgressions either.
http://www.newsok.com/tom-coburn-confirms-he-was-go-between/article/3405905
I think you're using a couple of terms that are not necessarily warranted: (1) "negotiate". The information we have is merely that Coburn passed along one settlement offer. (2) "bribe". An offer to settle a civil claim is not the same as a bribe. If there is really bribery or extortion going on here, then Hampton's attorney should indeed be implicated (charged, disbarred...) as well, as Conan71 suggested.
Quote from: Oil Capital on October 04, 2009, 03:47:47 PM
I think you're using a couple of terms that are not necessarily warranted: (1) "negotiate". The information we have is merely that Coburn passed along one settlement offer. (2) "bribe". An offer to settle a civil claim is not the same as a bribe. If there is really bribery or extortion going on here, then Hampton's attorney should indeed be implicated (charged, disbarred...) as well, as Conan71 suggested.
What kind of business would Coburn have talking to the lawyer of the mistress of Ensign? A court of law may require proof beyond a reasonable doubt, but outside of court I think we can use the sniff test and know this stinks to high heaven.
And who cares about Hampton's attorney being implicated as well? Maybe he should, but he also isn't representing the state of Oklahoma.
And Conan, what's up with the "agnostic lesbian" comment? Why throw out the homophobia because you are uncomfortable with the discussion? I doubt her sexual orientation has anything to do with the story and you going there with that comment shows that you think calling her such is a terrible put down. In actuality, it says a lot more about you.
It looks like the liberal loons are getting desperate.
Quote from: jamesrage on October 05, 2009, 07:39:47 AM
It looks like the liberal loons are getting desperate.
Wow, that's rich.
How about 'birthers'? That's the pinnacle of desparation right there.
So to be clear:
Asshat 1 has an affair with Slut 2 (who was some kind of staffer and the wife of an employee).
Slut 2 (and her husband) threatens to make things ugly unless the affair unless $$$ is paid.
Asshat 1 asks Coburn to make an offer to make the thing go away.
- - -
Poor judgment for sure. Probably against his "Christian" values. But I don't think it is a crime and I don't see an impeachable offense. Definitely a potential "vote against" offense, but calling for impeachment is silly.
Quote from: okiebybirth on October 04, 2009, 10:48:36 PM
What kind of business would Coburn have talking to the lawyer of the mistress of Ensign? A court of law may require proof beyond a reasonable doubt, but outside of court I think we can use the sniff test and know this stinks to high heaven.
And who cares about Hampton's attorney being implicated as well? Maybe he should, but he also isn't representing the state of Oklahoma.
And Conan, what's up with the "agnostic lesbian" comment? Why throw out the homophobia because you are uncomfortable with the discussion? I doubt her sexual orientation has anything to do with the story and you going there with that comment shows that you think calling her such is a terrible put down. In actuality, it says a lot more about you.
You know:
A) Nothing about the law if you think this was a bribe
B) Nothing about me and obviously don't read the forum much if you think I'm a homophobe. Rachel Maddow is a charicature of a serious journalist.
Tom Coburn wasn't representing the state of Oklahoma in this matter. If anything it sounds like he was acting in his capacity as a friend and room mate, not a legislator. Legislators do have private lives. I assure you, if I sensed there was anything illegal about Coburn's actions, I'd be all over it.
If you don't like Coburn, why are you wasting bandwidth over it. Vote to fire him in Nov. 2010 if you think he's such a doosh.
Quote from: Conan71 on October 02, 2009, 03:21:52 PM
Unfortunately for you, I don't see this deal, even if he did act as an intermediary, getting him impeached from office. Could it become a campaign issue which turns voters against him in 2010, quite possibly.
I agree that what has come out so far is not impeachable, but still very odd and disturbing. Why is my Senator involved in such business? This seems very peculiar for him.
Quote from: RecycleMichael on October 05, 2009, 10:08:32 AM
I agree that what has come out so far is not impeachable, but still very odd and disturbing. Why is my Senator involved in such business? This seems very peculiar for him.
If he was "your guy" you would care less.
Quote from: Conan71 on October 05, 2009, 10:11:10 AM
If he was "your guy" you would care less.
That is not true. I am deeply disappointed in many democrats and just choose to not write about them much. I have written criticism of Obama, Bill Clinton and don't get me strated on Harry Reid.
Quote from: RecycleMichael on October 05, 2009, 10:24:24 AM
don't get me strated on Harry Reid.
Please, please, please!!! How about Speaker Pelosi too?
I will bash a fellow democrat if you promise to bash a fellow republican.
Harry Reid has been completely ineffective as Senate Majority Leader. He has the 60 votes, but can't seem to get them to agree on anything. He has a history of very funny fundraising (Nevada) and when shouted at recent town meetings, cowardly decided to only do them by phone in the future.
Quote from: jamesrage on October 05, 2009, 07:39:47 AM
It looks like the liberal loons are getting desperate.
Rager! You got it! Maddow blasts TulsaWorld!
Mr. Coburn our Deacon, holier than thou, Senaturd brokers cheaper payoff rates for Senaturds to their misstress' families...and then lies about it....Coburns a lying prick. CoCo, quit defending the indefensible....
I'm not defending Coburn over anything other than people mis-reading the accounts given as some sort of criminal act when there does not appear to have been one. I know you get morning wood every day thinking of Senators Inhofe or Coburn being cast from office in some sticky scandal, but you missed on this one. Only way lying becomes a legal issue is if he does it under oath and perjurs himself.
Do you care to call POTUS Obama a liar for un-fulfilled or renegged campaign promises?
Quote from: RecycleMichael on October 05, 2009, 11:37:07 AM
I will bash a fellow democrat if you promise to bash a fellow republican.
Harry Reid has been completely ineffective as Senate Majority Leader. He has the 60 votes, but can't seem to get them to agree on anything. He has a history of very funny fundraising (Nevada) and when shouted at recent town meetings, cowardly decided to only do them by phone in the future.
I bash so many Repugs, I've lost count.
I've been bashing Screwy Dewey and stumping for Adelson, I think that would suffice as a very recent example.
Quote from: Conan71 on October 05, 2009, 12:53:13 PM
I'm not defending Coburn over anything other than people mis-reading the accounts given as some sort of criminal act when there does not appear to have been one. I know you get morning wood every day thinking of Senators Inhofe or Coburn being cast from office in some sticky scandal, but you missed on this one. Only way lying becomes a legal issue is if he does it under oath and perjurs himself.
Do you care to call POTUS Obama a liar for un-fulfilled or renegged campaign promises?
He's got three years to go to fulfill.
Let me get this right.... you still support Coburn despite all his bizarre behavior? And Inhofe ?
Sorry, no woody over these crapheads. Just misery. Like %20 unemployment, record deficits, and lousy health care. Yes, they are to blame.
Quote from: FOTD on October 05, 2009, 01:05:11 PM
He's got three years to go to fulfill.
Let me get this right.... you still support Coburn despite all his bizarre behavior? And Inhofe ?
Sorry, no woody over these crapheads. Just misery. Like %20 unemployment, record deficits, and lousy health care. Yes, they are to blame.
Coburn and Inhofe are soley to blame for bad health care, 20% UE, and record deficits (Coburn is a budget hawk to the nth degree)? I think you missed locusts, drought, and plague too, maybe even swine flu and AIDS.
Quote from: Conan71 on October 05, 2009, 01:35:56 PM
(Coburn is a budget hawk to the nth degree)
Except when it came to that $700 billion TARP thingy.
Listen ... it's OK to be a deficit hawk if you're consistent about it. But approving TARP most certainly swelled the deficit, so it's safe to say that Coburn's wings as a deficit hawk have been clipped.
I'd much rather my U.S. representatives and senators be pragmatic. Coburn said during a town hall meeting that if TARP hadn't been approved, the country was looking at the collapse of the banking system and 30 percent unemployment. So, approving TARP seemed to be an especially prudent decision, given the alternative. Just don't call yourself a crusader against deficits if your record says otherwise.
Okay brother, RW. If I say "Hawkish tendencies with one major transgression" do I get an "amen!" from you?
Quote from: Conan71 on October 05, 2009, 02:41:57 PM
Okay brother, RW. If I say "Hawkish tendencies with one major transgression" do I get an "amen!" from you?
Saying Coburn is a deficit hawk after TARP is like saying Richard Nixon was a wildly successful president if you don't count Watergate.
Quote from: Conan71 on October 05, 2009, 12:54:14 PM
I bash so many Repugs, I've lost count.
I've been bashing Screwy Dewey and stumping for Adelson, I think that would suffice as a very recent example.
Almost every republican I know has been bashing Dewey Bartlett. Bash someone new.
Quote from: RecycleMichael on October 05, 2009, 04:21:33 PM
Almost every republican I know has been bashing Dewey Bartlett. Bash someone new.
Yeah, well just about every Dimocrat bashes Harry Reid too, not much of an accomplishment. Does it help that I'm a Mayor Taylor spooner?
You could be a good democrat...come on over!
Quote from: Conan71 on October 05, 2009, 09:27:31 AM
You know:
A) Nothing about the law if you think this was a bribe
B) Nothing about me and obviously don't read the forum much if you think I'm a homophobe. Rachel Maddow is a charicature of a serious journalist.
Tom Coburn wasn't representing the state of Oklahoma in this matter. If anything it sounds like he was acting in his capacity as a friend and room mate, not a legislator. Legislators do have private lives. I assure you, if I sensed there was anything illegal about Coburn's actions, I'd be all over it.
If you don't like Coburn, why are you wasting bandwidth over it. Vote to fire him in Nov. 2010 if you think he's such a doosh.
Conan, I'm not assuming you are a homophobe, I'm saying your characterization of Rachel Maddow was homophobic. Calling Rachel a agnostic lesbian as a way to dismiss her opinion and attack her is out of line, that's my point.
Quote from: okiebybirth on October 06, 2009, 01:42:36 AM
Conan, I'm not assuming you are a homophobe, I'm saying your characterization of Rachel Maddow was homophobic. Calling Rachel a agnostic lesbian as a way to dismiss her opinion and attack her is out of line, that's my point.
Follow the line of banter FOTD and I usually have and you will get the gist of what was going on with that comment. I really don't care two whits about her sexual or religious preference. FOTD posts her videos almost as if it's scholarly work, she's a commentator, not a journalist. Just like Limbaugh, just like Hannity, just like Olbermann or Matthews. Sorry if it offended you in any way, I'm just an angry protestant white man. ;)
Quote from: okiebybirth on October 06, 2009, 01:42:36 AM
Calling Rachel a agnostic lesbian as a way to dismiss her opinion and attack her is out of line, that's my point.
If she is an agnostic lesbian then calling her such is no worse than calling out "the religious right."
She's much more credible than your sources. And she's got a journalism background.
Don't attack me just because Rachel Maddow comes up with the truthful real news stories instead of hate monger inept foreign owned tv entertainment tyranny. You're just upset over the lack of power thingy, CoCo puff.
Here, Rachel calling out Inhofe on rouge foreign power....he's a traitor. You will not find this in any Oklahoma News Agencies!
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26315908/vp/33185390#33185390
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22425001/vp/33185390#33185390
The republicans are nothing less than anarchists and are doing everything in their small squaller of power to stab our leader in the back. Incredible you would go after the credible journalists. Please tell us, where and when did Rachel Maddow misrepresent the facts?
Rachel is not undermining America's leaders.
Quote from: FOTD on October 06, 2009, 12:02:31 PM
She's much more credible than your sources. And she's got a journalism background.
Don't attack me just because Rachel Maddow comes up with the truthful real news stories instead of hate monger inept foreign owned tv entertainment tyranny. You're just upset over the lack of power thingy, CoCo puff.
Here, Rachel calling out Inhofe on rouge foreign power....he's a traitor. You will not find this in any Oklahoma News Agencies!
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26315908/vp/33185390#33185390
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22425001/vp/33185390#33185390
The republicans are nothing less than anarchists and are doing everything in their small squaller of power to stab our leader in the back. Incredible you would go after the credible journalists. Please tell us, where and when did Rachel Maddow misrepresent the facts?
Rachel is not undermining America's leaders.
Maddow goes after tabloid political journalism. "Christian Mafia"? "C-Street Gang"?
Real credible stuff there, Puff The Magic Dragon.
Quote from: Conan71 on October 06, 2009, 01:23:05 PM
Maddow goes after tabloid political journalism. "Christian Mafia"? "C-Street Gang"?
Real credible stuff there, Puff The Magic Dragon.
They are....why do you refuse to acknowledge the truth?
Quote from: Hoss on October 05, 2009, 08:23:20 AM
Wow, that's rich.
How about 'birthers'? That's the pinnacle of desparation right there.
And before Obama is was "Bush lied for oil","Bush lied to get us in Iraq", "Bush went Awol", "Bush stole the elections", "Bush is a dictator", "Bush is a idiot", "Bush masterminded 9-11" or had something to do with it" or some other conspiracy nut loons. Boths sides have their loons.
Quote from: FOTD on October 05, 2009, 12:45:15 PM
Rager! You got it! Maddow blasts TulsaWorld!
Mr. Coburn our Deacon, holier than thou, Senaturd brokers cheaper payoff rates for Senaturds to their misstress' families...and then lies about it....Coburns a lying prick. CoCo, quit defending the indefensible....
Maddow is a left wing koolaid drinking loon running around trying to claim opposition to Obama is based on racism, not because they oppose Obama politically. I wonder how anyone with a brain can take her serious.
Quote from: FOTD on October 06, 2009, 02:25:03 PM
They are....why do you refuse to acknowledge the truth?
Our administration and Congress are racking up massive, massive deficits with huge paybacks to campaign donors and supporters and people like Maddow are worried about some Christian legislators? Give me a bucking break! Talk about obfuscating to get our eyes off the man behind the curtain.
Quote from: Conan71 on October 06, 2009, 02:42:46 PM
Our administration and Congress are racking up massive, massive deficits with huge paybacks to campaign donors and supporters and people like Maddow are worried about some Christian legislators? Give me a frakking break! Talk about obfuscating to get our eyes off the man behind the curtain.
Print more money...it's the only way out of the trickley downer syndrome we are in.....
Who gives a rats a$$ about deficits....CoCo, you need to worry about the unemployeds.
Quote from: FOTD on October 06, 2009, 02:47:33 PM
Print more money...it's the only way out of the trickley downer syndrome we are in.....
Who gives a rats a$$ about deficits....CoCo, you need to worry about the unemployeds.
What's unemployment got to do with a bunch of Christian Senators? Yet another example of a real issue which is being buried by tabloid political journalism.
Quote from: Conan71 on October 06, 2009, 03:00:47 PM
What's unemployment got to do with a bunch of Christian Senators? Yet another example of a real issue which is being buried by tabloid political journalism.
You really don't understand that these "family value" politicians use that positioning to represent the corporations...and not the people who gave them their power. The unemployed and underclass sure aren't represnted by the christian mafia nor the c streeters....that's for sure. But they carry the banner for anti government measures through reducing the deficits they created in the first place. Funny how their policies always place the company before the people.
Wrong
Can we trust Sen. Coburn?
http://www.tulsaworld.com/opinion/article.aspx?subjectid=61&articleid=20091007_61_A20_Wetook366361
NO!
Quote from: FOTD on October 06, 2009, 05:54:19 PM
You really don't understand that these "family value" politicians use that positioning to represent the corporations...and not the people who gave them their power. The unemployed and underclass sure aren't represnted by the christian mafia nor the c streeters....that's for sure. But they carry the banner for anti government measures through reducing the deficits they created in the first place. Funny how their policies always place the company before the people.
Are you under the illusion that these Democrat politicians who claim to be for the average worker, but who take perks and contributions from banksters, insurance companies, mortgage companies, medical providers, and other corporations are really in DC working for the poor un-washed masses? Bwah hah hah hah hah hah (and so on--long diabolical laugh that would scare even the devil himself)
Conan, you forgot "Tort reform", green initiatives, immigration . . . well, frankly, just about every policy of either party has a direct correlation to a business interest. In some instances both sides are on the payroll of the same industry, but usually to a lesser extent one way or another. With only two parties you really only have two different positions you have to bribe persuade.
Death to the two party system!
Quote from: cannon_fodder on October 07, 2009, 10:16:07 AM
Death to the two party system!
Absolutely! I'm all for a seven party system. One every night!
Quote from: sgrizzle on October 06, 2009, 10:47:28 AM
If she is an agnostic lesbian then calling her such is no worse than calling out "the religious right."
I disagree. Calling her a angry agnostic lesbian to dismiss what she says is demeaning her on account of her sexual orientation.
Dismiss her comments because you don't like her ideas or attack her because of her liberal ideas which pertains to the discussion.
Dismissing her comments by saying "angry agnostic lesbian" is attacking her orientation which attacks all gays and lesbians by demeaning everyone. If she was black, would you dismiss her by saying she's just a "angry agnostic African-American" (or worse)? I doubt you would. You'd attack what she stood for, not the color of her skin.
I don't need a apology and I don't think Conan would intentionally attack a group of people like that. It takes a lot more than name calling to hurt my feelings, but I don't think we should turn a blind eye when someone says something that demeans a whole group.
okiebybirth:
What if she IS a an angry agnostic lesbian? Is it kosher to point it out?
It only demeans people if you take being called agnostic or lesbian as a negative. To me, neither is patently offensive. If someone called me a smart-donkey heathen hetero, it isn't really a derogatory comment.
Likewise, I don't think describing Malcolm X as an "angry black Muslim" is offensive. In that one phrase I have described what many people deem important about him. He was largely an angry man. He was black. And he was Muslim. He let those three traits define him.
I can not speak to the subject of "angry agnostic lesbian," but in and of itself I don't view it as insulting.
Was it meant to dismiss her comments? I think so. So in that light it probably is derogatory. But I do not believe it is patently so nor do I think it has any reflection on a particular community at large. For that matter, it was just a flippant comment.
Maybe I'm not P.C. enough? But you raise a fair point and I appreciate the discussion.
Quote from: Conan71 on October 06, 2009, 02:42:46 PM
Our administration and Congress are racking up massive, massive deficits with huge paybacks to campaign donors and supporters and people like Maddow are worried about some Christian legislators? Give me a frakking break! Talk about obfuscating to get our eyes off the man behind the curtain.
Obfuscating?
That seems to be the job of the Republicans....... sorry, where were you when Bush wanted to make his tax cuts permanent as we were running record deficits in discretionary spending, which didn't even count wars in Iraq and Afghanistan -- as those were off the books.... did you insist that the Bush tax cuts were irresponsible?
When Bush campaigned, he told us the tax cuts were BECAUSE WE WERE RUNNING A SURPLUS.... remember the quip, "it's your money".......
"If there's a recession it's important to cut taxes to make sure the economy grows. . . . It's also important to cut the taxes where there's times of plenty. . . . It's important to cut the taxes to make sure Washington, D.C., does not spend the surplus. . . . This is not only no new taxes. This is tax cuts so help me God." -- George W. Bush, Feb. 6, 2000
(http://cloudfront.mediamatters.org/static/images/item/hardball-20060411-budget.gif)
January 5, 2006
Make the Bush Tax Cuts Permanentby William W. Beach and Rea S. Hederman, Jr.
http://www.heritage.org/research/taxes/wm956.cfm
It's sad when
The Onion was actually more newsworthy and made more sense than the high powered so-called thinktanks....
Monday, February 13, 2006
Bush wants to make his tax cuts permanent, which would cost $1.4 trillion over 10 years. What do you think? http://www.theonion.com/content/node/45352
Ruf,
Your post is another perfect example of obfuscating. WTH has Bush got to do with the obvious smoke-screen I'm alluding to?
Please respond and explain why, when there are more important things wrong with our country: is this pseudo-journalist, Maddow, doing exposes on some Christian Senators instead of following the trail of out-of-control deficit spending which is a far bigger threat to the average American than some Christian Senators who bunk together? Ohhh, they probably drink and play cards too!! The horror!!
I asked for someone to explain why any of this about the "C-Streeters" and "Christian Mafia" is important and no one can form or give a cogent reply.
Cogent reply?
Smokescreen? What have YOU been smoking?
"I asked for someone to explain why any of this about the "C-Streeters" and "Christian Mafia" is important and no one can form or give a cogent reply."
Maddow covers many topics on her shows.... Coburn and Ensign being complete and utter hypocrites is one of them.
And YOU'RE a hypocrite for insisting a liberal should be doing shows lamenting the deficit after EIGHT YEARS OF DEFICIT BUSTING CRAP FROM THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION.... again, where was your outrage about the deficit when Cheney argued "deficits don't matter"???
I'm concerned about the federal deficits that Obama inherited from Bush after he drove the economy into the ditch.
Too bad we can't make the Bush tax cuts expire retroactively....
Quote from: USRufnex on October 08, 2009, 03:36:21 PM
Cogent reply?
Smokescreen? What have YOU been smoking?
"I asked for someone to explain why any of this about the "C-Streeters" and "Christian Mafia" is important and no one can form or give a cogent reply."
Maddow covers many topics on her shows.... Coburn and Ensign being complete and utter hypocrites is one of them.
And YOU'RE a hypocrite for insisting a liberal should be doing shows lamenting the deficit after EIGHT YEARS OF DEFICIT BUSTING CRAP FROM THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION.... again, where was your outrage about the deficit when Cheney argued "deficits don't matter"???
I'm concerned about the federal deficits that Obama inherited from Bush after he drove the economy into the ditch.
Too bad we can't make the Bush tax cuts expire retroactively....
What am I smoking? Dope of course, what else?
Did anyone else see a cogent reply to my original question in here? I sure didn't.
The only hypocrisy I read is carping on over-spending in the Bush years as justification to double down on the deficit in less than a year under a liberal Congress and Administration. "Bush and the Reaganites did it" is the worst frakking excuse ever for continuing on with fiscally-irresponsible behavior. Bush was a moron, right? Why on earth would any Obama supporter use the actions of the Bush admin to justify the actions of the current power?
Coming back to haunt our Senaturd....
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/05/12/tom-coburn-john-ensign_n_861287.html
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0511/54905.html
tsk tsk :P
$2.8 million? What's that make Hampton's wife?
Must have been one fine piece of....
Quote from: Conan71 on May 13, 2011, 12:19:21 PM
$2.8 million? What's that make Hampton's wife?
Must have been one fine piece of....
(http://api.ning.com/files/Jt-e-ExU6Y7SkxKPE4PUv1uGMVVtmVqHoSJ7exiI*9aMXXKVBhqL5bgb-*PqrCYcWdTCbtMHjGTltvYERqZDt95ENGsNl9PA/JohnEnsignDarleneEnsignCindyHamptonDougHampton.jpg)
Quote from: Townsend on May 13, 2011, 12:24:03 PM
(http://api.ning.com/files/Jt-e-ExU6Y7SkxKPE4PUv1uGMVVtmVqHoSJ7exiI*9aMXXKVBhqL5bgb-*PqrCYcWdTCbtMHjGTltvYERqZDt95ENGsNl9PA/JohnEnsignDarleneEnsignCindyHamptonDougHampton.jpg)
Meh. I've got far better than that at home. So do you ;)
If he were going to diddle with someone in Washington, he could have at least gone for Elizabeth Kucinich. It's reputed she's got a stud in her tongue and you know what that means.
(http://mightyminnow.files.wordpress.com/2007/12/elizabeth-kucinich.jpg)
Isn't it fascinating that Ensign's parent's ended up paying off the mistress and husband? They are described as "wealthy casino executives".
The son of casino execs become a Senator, the flushes it all away and loses his seat. This sounds like a good movie script.
Quote from: RecycleMichael on May 13, 2011, 12:39:19 PM
Isn't it fascinating that Ensign's parent's ended up paying off the mistress and husband? They are described as "wealthy casino executives".
The son of casino execs become a Senator, the flushes it all away and loses his seat. This sounds like a good movie script.
More ironic is he's a Republican and all the casino workers helped re-elect Harry Reid.
Whoa....Rachel rips Coburn good tonight....I will try to post it over the weekend....CoBurn Notice.
A deacon and a physician turns from the light into the darkness....
Stay tuned! :)
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26315908/vp/43030078#43030078
Putting the pants on Ensign by Tommy Coburn.....
TulsaWhirled spun a patty cake cover story on this today....
Senator Tom Coburn about allegations Ensign helped Doug Hampton find work as a political consultant: "John got trapped doing something really stupid and then made a lot of other mistakes afterward. Judgment gets impaired by arrogance, and that's what's going on here." (Oh, the irony)
John Edwards charged in felony indictment
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110603/ap_on_re_us/us_edwards_investigation
I guess if you are a sitting Senator, you can wire yourself around and out of similar charges... :o
The only similarity is an affair. Coburn did not solicit campaign contributions to cover up Ensign's affair, nor did he participate in laundering any money to circumvent campaign contribution laws. The hush money came from Ensign's wealthy parents and was not couched as campaign money. Essentially, this story on Edwards doesn't belong under the Coburn topic.
Where Edwards messed up was he should have simply had Hunter create a trust and Baron and Mellon could have funded that trust. Or Hunter could have done video or consulting work for Baron and Mellon reported it as taxable income and it never would have run afoul of campaign laws and fraud.
Edwards was a complete egotistical moron. He sure had me snowed when I first started reading about the guy prior to the '04 elections.
"Prosecutors said the spending was illegal because Edwards should have reported it on public campaign finance filings and because it exceed the $2,300 limit per person for campaign contributions.
The indictment was the culmination of a federal investigation begun by the FBI more than two years ago. The probe scoured virtually every corner of Edwards' political career. That included his political action committees, a nonprofit and a so-called 527 independent political group. It even examined whether he did anything improper during his time in the U.S. Senate, which ended seven years ago.
But the centerpiece of the investigation has long been the hundreds of thousands of dollars privately provided by two wealthy Edwards supporters — his former campaign finance chairman Fred Baron and Rachel "Bunny" Mellon, the 100-year-old widow of banking heir Paul Mellon. That money eventually went to keep mistress Rielle Hunter and her out-of-wedlock baby in hiding in 2007 and 2008, during the apex of the Democratic nomination campaign.
The indictment cited $725,000 in payments made by Mellon and another $200,000 made by Baron. It said the money was used to pay for Hunter's living and medical expenses and for chartered airfare, luxury hotels and nearly $60,000 in rent for a house in Santa Barbara, Calif., to keep her hidden from the public. Other than Edwards, no one was named in the indictment but the indictment's descriptions of others make clear who they are.
Mellon sent her money through her decorator. The indictment said she listed items of furniture in the memo lines of checks — written in amounts of $10,000-$200,000 for "chairs," "antique Charleston table," and "book case" — to hide the true purpose. It said Baron gave an envelope with about $1,000 cash and a note that said, "Old Chinese saying: use cash, not credit cards!""
Edwards is a megalomaniac.... Coburn? Just a multi millionare moocher and manipulator. You are correct Coco.
If you get the chance watch the 10 pm Larry O'Donnell interview with Sen. Tom tonight on MSNBC's Last Word. Coburn has taken charge of moving the debt debate to a higher level closing the loophole on ethanol subsidization. It was good. Coburn dissed Norquist. :-\ Sen. Coburn is belittling the influence of Grover Norquist and says he's "old news" and doesn't care about what he says.
http://blog.seattlepi.com/seattlepolitics/2011/06/14/coburn-on-grover-norquist-old-news-doesnt-matter-what-he-says/
Norquist has been smoking too many corn husks. If he feels that strongly about it, he can run for office. Last I checked, he's not an elected official, just a demagogue.
" But Norquist's definition of taxes is broad. For instance, he says eliminating the multi-billion dollar subsidy for ethanol is a tax increase, "
Uh, really Grover? How many ethanol producers are feeding his organization? Like everyone else, I'm sure he's got his price.