More 'Transparency' Hypocrisy

[Kathianne]

PB, no more 'fear and loathing', even for you this should be getting ridiculous:

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/02/25/house-kills-effort-investigate-lobbyist-lawmaker-ties/


House Kills Effort to Investigate Lobbyist-Lawmaker Ties
The proposal would have forced the House Ethics Committee to launch a probe into ties between the source and timing of campaign contributions by lobbyists and subsequent legislator requests for special projects or earmarks.


....

[moderate democrat]

ther article suggests that the resolution was open-ended which sounds like a permanent witch hunt to me. Anytime any legislator asked for earmarks, an investigation would ensue whereby all of his campaign contributions by lobbyists would be reviewed to see if any had any connection to the earmark in question. Is that something we really want the House Ethics Committee involved in on a full time basis?

[Missileman]

ther article suggests that the resolution was open-ended which sounds like a permanent witch hunt to me. Anytime any legislator asked for earmarks, an investigation would ensue whereby all of his campaign contributions by lobbyists would be reviewed to see if any had any connection to the earmark in question. Is that something we really want the House Ethics Committee involved in on a full time basis?

Ummm....YEAH!

[hjmick]

Anytime any legislator asked for earmarks, an investigation would ensue whereby all of his campaign contributions by lobbyists would be reviewed to see if any had any connection to the earmark in question. Is that something we really want the House Ethics Committee involved in on a full time basis?

Yeah, I do. It wouldn't take long to weed out the serious crooks and make the rest think twice about who they take money from.

[moderate democrat]

so... of the hundreds and hundreds of earmarks from both sides of the aisle that are included in this latest budget submission, you want to initiate hundreds and hundreds of house ethics committee investigations?

[Yurt]

so... of the hundreds and hundreds of earmarks from both sides of the aisle that are included in this latest budget submission, you want to initiate hundreds and hundreds of house ethics committee investigations?

so the committee that oversees ethics should ignore this?

[Missileman]

so... of the hundreds and hundreds of earmarks from both sides of the aisle that are included in this latest budget submission, you want to initiate hundreds and hundreds of house ethics committee investigations?

What part of "yeah" didn't reach your monitor?

[Yurt]

What part of "yeah" didn't reach your monitor?

he supports pork and wouldn't want the very committee that oversees ethics to do their job

[moderate democrat]

so the committee that oversees ethics should ignore this?

where did I say that anyone should ignore anything? I'll wait.:poke:

[hjmick]

so... of the hundreds and hundreds of earmarks from both sides of the aisle that are included in this latest budget submission, you want to initiate hundreds and hundreds of house ethics committee investigations?

Yes I do. They can add a few more work days to their "strenuous" work schedule. Instead of 200 days off a year, they can settle for 150.



What part of "yeah" didn't reach your monitor?

Maybe you stuttered Missile.

[moderate democrat]

What part of "yeah" didn't reach your monitor?

I think that mandating investigations into every single legislator and every single earmark for no specific cause is wasteful.

If Rep Flake wanted to investigate PMA group's ties to Murtha, he should have asked the ethics committee to investigate those ties.

[Yurt]

where did I say that anyone should ignore anything? I'll wait.:poke:

i told you this morning, you need to be more careful reading my posts:

so the committee that oversees ethics should ignore this? :slap::slap:

[Missileman]

I think that mandating investigations into every single legislator and every single earmark for no specific cause is wasteful.

And I think it's long overdue.

[moderate democrat]

i told you this morning, you need to be more careful reading my posts:

so the committee that oversees ethics should ignore this? :slap::slap:

please tell me then, why would you ask that question when I had never suggested that anyone ignore anything?

[Yurt]

please tell me then, why would you ask that question when I had never suggested that anyone ignore anything?

obvious....

you never indicated you supported any investigation so i wanted to know, without assuming, if you supported any investigation.

so, now let me ask you....

how are you going to cherry pick which earmarks to investigate?

[red states rule]

where did I say that anyone should ignore anything? I'll wait.:poke:

Hmmmmmmmm. "I'll wait"

What poster is infamous for that?

I know I have read that hundreds of times

[red states rule]

so... of the hundreds and hundreds of earmarks from both sides of the aisle that are included in this latest budget submission, you want to initiate hundreds and hundreds of house ethics committee investigations?

How about an earmark of couple hundred million for the US mint to buy new printing presses so they can keep up with all the spending Obama and the Dems want to do?

The current presses are going to wear out soon

[Yurt]

Hmmmmmmmm. "I'll wait"

What poster is infamous for that?

I know I have read that hundreds of times

:lol:

[moderate democrat]

obvious....

you never indicated you supported any investigation so i wanted to know, without assuming, if you supported any investigation.

so, now let me ask you....

how are you going to cherry pick which earmarks to investigate?


when evidence is brought to the ethics committee that suggests that there may, in fact, be a quid pro quo situation with a legislator and a lobbyist concerning a particular earmark, investigate it completely. To suggest that a mandatory full blown ethics committee investigation be undertaken for each and every earmark is wasteful.

[red states rule]

:lol:

Names can be changed, but not old habits :laugh2:

[moderate democrat]

Names can be changed, but not old habits :laugh2:

so Elmer...tell me... do YOU think that every single earmark in every single piece of legislation submitted to the House of Representatives should REQUIRE its own separate mandatory House Ethics Committee Investigation to ascertain whether any quid pro quo might exist between some lobbyist and the legislator who submitted it, or do you think that those investigations should only be undertaken when there is reason to suspect wrongdoing?

[red states rule]

so Elmer...tell me... do YOU think that every single earmark in every single piece of legislation submitted to the House of Representatives should REQUIRE its own separate mandatory House Ethics Committee Investigation to ascertain whether any quid pro quo might exist between some lobbyist and the legislator who submitted it, or do you think that those investigations should only be undertaken when there is reason to suspect wrongdoing?

What earmarks and what pork? Obama and Pelosi PROMISED there would be no pork or earmarks in the stimulus bill, and Dems would reduce pork. So by your logic how can their be hearings into something that does not exist?

Get with the current talking points Virg

[moderate democrat]

What earmarks and what pork? Obama and Pelosi PROMISED there would be no pork or earmarks in the stimulus bill, and Dems would reduce pork. So by your logic how can their be hearings into something that does not exist?



answer the question, if you dare. Elmer

[red states rule]

answer the question, if you dare. Elmer

Virgil, your leaders said there would be no pork in the so called stiimulus bill, and they would reduce pork

I guess it depends on the what the meaning of "promise" and "pork" is

[moderate democrat]

your leaders said there would be no pork in the so called stiimulus bill, and they would reduce pork

I guess it depends on the what the meaning of "promise" and "pork" is

I guess you can't answer a simple question about the topic of this thread.

Why even post in it if you have no intention of addressing it?:lol:

[emmett]

At a time when the dollars are so valuable it seems to me that the pork should not be there to begin with. Is it so damn impossible that we could just spend on what we are suppose to and stop wasting the taxpayers hard earned dollars. Maybe if Congress started a practice like this they might experience a change in the confidence of more people and start making some progress in actually doing the job they were hired to do.......... by the people who they are suppose to be doing it for!

Did this ever occur to anyone?

[red states rule]

At a time when the dollars are so valuable it seems to me that the pork should not be there to begin with. Is it so damn impossible that we could just spend on what we are suppose to and stop wasting the taxpayers hard earned dollars. Maybe if Congress started a practice like this they might experience a change in the confidence of more people and start making some progress in actually doing the job they were hired to do.......... by the people who they are suppose to be doing it for!

Did this ever occur to anyone?

Give Obama time and the dollar will be nearly worthless. Obama's "shitload" of economic experience tells him, all he has to do is keep the printing presses at the US Mint running 24/7 and there will be plenty of money to pay for his socialist agenda