Eric Massa (D-N.Y.) thinks he can play this as some kind of conspiracy against him. He actually thinks we are going to believe he is the victim of some kind of "Chicago Politics" style hit, designed to serve as a warning to other members of congress as to what could happen if they go against the President's plan.
We're not that stupid. This guy has been a dirt-bag for quite some time.
Yes this administration has some serious leadership problems, but I doubt they would resign themselves to schoolyard bullying or character assassination to achieve political ends. I mean after all, this guy is not Akio Toyoda. He's not a banker, a stock broker, or the president of GM. He was just a known perv that happed to be against the healthcare bill, and engaged publicaly in some inappropriate behavior 3 months ago drunk at a party. It's not like he drove off a bridge leaving a dead girl in his car, or had a boyfriend running a prostitution ring out of his taxpayer funded DC apartment.
This guys actions were unacceptable! Using the F-word, and hair tossleing (I don't know what that is, but it sounds disgusting). He needed to be shown the door.
I'm glad he resigned. Good riddance. He was pissin Rahm off anyway.
Drudge is all over this mess. That radio message is a must hear btw. Massa (D-NY) will apparently be on Beck's TV show tomorrow in order to dump all over the ballerina.
Quote from: Gaspar on March 08, 2010, 03:46:30 PM
This guys actions were unacceptable! Using the F-word, and hair tossleing (I don't know what that is, but it sounds disgusting). He needed to be shown the door.
Is that anything like "salad tossing"?
Apparently he's a tickler too.
I am so glad that my boss doesn't come into my office and tickle me till I pee.
This guy and Blago should have a late night comedy show.
It's not like he drove off a bridge leaving a dead girl in his car
Kennedy, right? (Gee, where is that Christian forgiveness? At least the guy got on national TV and apologized.)
And don't forget... or head out to party drunk and kill her high school sweetheart in a car wreck! (Laura Bush - who not only refuses to apologize, but won't even acknowledge questions about it - had her Daddy do the cover up thing in their little hometown. It is good being rich and the "boss".)
Good riddance to Massa! He is just another one of those Republican Congressional perves in Democrat clothes.
Quote from: heironymouspasparagus on March 10, 2010, 08:26:32 PM
Good riddance to Massa! He is just another one of those Republican Congressional perves in Democrat clothes.
So are you saying that all the Democrat perves are actually Republicans?
Republicans in drag...
Quote from: heironymouspasparagus on March 10, 2010, 08:45:19 PM
Republicans in drag...
Because they couldn't possibly be perves and be Democrats at the same time?
Just asking. You can probably guess that I disagree. Being a perve is an equal opportunity persuasion.
Absolutely. I agree completely. (I am no big fan of Democrats, either.)
Probably the biggest difference I see between the two is the Democrats don't take many pains to hide their true agenda - they let you know right up front what they want to do to you. While the Republicans misdirect, lie, obfuscate and try to hide what they want to do to you.
Quick example; had heard this several times in past, particularly from Newt Gingrich while talking to Sean Hannity about 4 or 5 years ago. Then heard Sarah Palin repeat it about 3 weeks ago on Sean Hannity radio show. And a couple of others from time to time. Talking about the 1994 Republican take over of congressional majorities, both referred to it as "the contract ON America".
The Freudian slip of true intentions....
Quote from: heironymouspasparagus on March 10, 2010, 08:55:44 PM
Probably the biggest difference I see between the two is the Democrats don't take many pains to hide their true agenda - they let you know right up front what they want to do to you.
Then when their program is rejected, they complain that they just aren't getting the message out and everyone with a legitimate gripe (and some not so legitimate) is just being an obstructionist. The Dems then call for bipartisanship. When the Dems are in power, bipartisanship means to vote for what the Dems have proposed. When the Dems are not in power, that means to include whatever the Dems want in the proposal. (Republicans aren't much different.)
Actually, I don't believe the Dems are any less sneaky than the Republicans. It seems to come with the character it takes to be a politician.
And the only thing we absolutely must remember as voters....
BOHICA!
(Bend over, here it comes again!)
Quote from: Red Arrow on March 10, 2010, 09:14:16 PM
Actually, I don't believe the Dems are any less sneaky than the Republicans. It seems to come with the character it takes to be a politician.
All politicians are sneaky. The big difference is that the Dems don't pretend to be running on a so-called 'moral' platform to appease the far right nut jobs.
Quote from: azbadpuppy on March 11, 2010, 10:06:09 AM
All politicians are sneaky. The big difference is that the Dems don't pretend to be running on a so-called 'moral' platform to appease the far right nut jobs.
I agree. Politicians are typically people who have a love of power. Their words and actions are designed to acquire or preserve power. Service to the people is secondary and only used as a means to aquire or preserve power.
Quote from: Red Arrow on March 10, 2010, 09:14:16 PM
Then when their program is rejected, they complain that they just aren't getting the message out and everyone with a legitimate gripe (and some not so legitimate) is just being an obstructionist. The Dems then call for bipartisanship. When the Dems are in power, bipartisanship means to vote for what the Dems have proposed. When the Dems are not in power, that means to include whatever the Dems want in the proposal. (Republicans aren't much different.)
Actually, I don't believe the Dems are any less sneaky than the Republicans. It seems to come with the character it takes to be a politician.
If you want to know what Democrats are really up to, just listen to what they are complaining about the loudest.
I'm going to run for office one of these days. And you will be able to tell it's me. The platform will be based on the idea that I want to investigate the rationale that allows one to spend $1 million dollars to get a job that pays $50,000 per year! I think it will take many years of research to find the true answers to the question.
Quote from: heironymouspasparagus on March 11, 2010, 09:38:33 PM
I'm going to run for office one of these days. And you will be able to tell it's me. The platform will be based on the idea that I want to investigate the rationale that allows one to spend $1 million dollars to get a job that pays $50,000 per year! I think it will take many years of research to find the true answers to the question.
You're not supposed to spend your own money to get elected.
No, it will be a million in contributions from my closest friends in insurance, oil and big banks.
And I will certainly be open to selling my consulting services to companies that need it, even if they are my closest friends in insurance, oil and big banks....
The shingle is out!
Quote from: heironymouspasparagus on March 14, 2010, 09:16:58 PM
No, it will be a million in contributions from my closest friends in insurance, oil and big banks.
And I will certainly be open to selling my consulting services to companies that need it, even if they are my closest friends in insurance, oil and big banks....
The shingle is out!
So then what is your problem with spending a $Million of other people's money on a $50,000/yr job? If you can get the support, go for it.
I have no problem with it. That's what I said I want to do. And the next couple million beyond that will actually be consulting fees.
The idea is to "study" the situation while I get enough time to get the pension and lifetime health insurance plan to be all pensions and health insurance plans.
I want to relax the rest of my life on the public dole!!!