Increasing number of ethics probes rattles House Republicans

(Lesson: don't make promises you have no intention of keeping!)

Could not agree more, bonos.

The NRCC shot back. A spokesman pointed to Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi’s (D-Calif.) pledge to “drain the swamp” of ethics violators when Democrats took the majority in 2006, and also to Rep. Charlie Rangel (D-N.Y.) as evidence that Democrats were more corrupt than Republicans.

Rangel was censured by the House last year after an Ethics investigation and trial found him guilty on 12 counts.

“It is laughable to hear ethical cries from the party that … continues to harbor a convicted tax evader in Charlie Rangel,” said Paul Lindsay, spokesman for the NRCC. “More than four years after promising to drain the swamp, Nancy Pelosi is still wading in it.”

Actually, it is a few members of each party, not the majority of either. To Boehner's credit, he has not blindly rushed to defend them.

http://www.crewsmostcorrupt.org/mostcorrupt

CREW keeps a nice list of all the ethics issues in congress and works to keep congress under a watchful eye...

So, bonos, do you advocate "guilty until proven innocent"? That's not a defensible position.

Geez Lee - it seems to have been a very successful "defensible" position for the GOP!

Get rid of all incumbents and enact strict term limits on all elected officials.

2010 was a "kick out the incumbents" election.

The result was Teabag obstructionism and a three-ring circus in DC.

Be careful what you ask for, you might get it. Knee-jerk reactionary voting is not the answer.

b dune, according to whom? The question was, "do you advocate that position?"

Both parties have their issues, but for all their problems Democrats advocate for average Americans, including health care reform, banking reform, tax cuts for the middle class, etc...

What we need is a multi party system with at least one mandating that none of its candidates will take corporate money. What we have right now is an ineffective "bipolar" hyper partisan situation.

And the bottom line is that large issue isn't Republicans vs Democrats or vice versa, its the super rich/corporate take over of our economy and government.

Its a gift that all elected leaders have they were born with it.

Here's a better hint. If you do not know if admonishment is needed, you do not admonish. You do not admonish people if they have done nothing wrong.

I do not favor any means of reprimand until it is clear that wrongdoing has occurred. Your use of the word "caught" coupled with your earlier statement that Boehner should admonish them indicates that you believe it is good to mete out punishment while waiting for the facts to become known. I do not agree with that position, and I don't believe you really do, either. I think you haven't thought it through.

What is nonsensical is your belief that punishment (admonishment is a mild form of punishment) comes before fact finding. Don't ever become a lawyer. It requires logic.

ad·mon·ish

(d-mnsh)

tr.v. ad·mon·ished, ad·mon·ish·ing, ad·mon·ish·es
1. To reprove gently but earnestly.

I will be glad to help you out since you are having such a problem with basic concepts. Ethics charges are brought by members of congress to the ethics committee. Consider it like a grand jury at this point. An accusation or allegation has been made that there is a possibility of an ethical lapse by a member and two board members agree that the allegation should be reviewed. It is then in a first phase review. If three board members do not vote to initiate a second phase review, the matter is terminated. Likewise, if four board members vote to terminate the review, it is terminated.

After that, it begins a second phase review. If four board members vote to terminate a second phase review, it is terminated. It also takes four members to extend the second phase review.

After second phase review, it takes four board members to refer it to the Standards Committee for further review or dismissal. If there are not four votes to send it to the Standards Committee for review or dismissal, it is sent to the Standards Committee as unresolved.

Even at this point, it is not proven.

See how easy that was? If you wish to continue to be snarky, I can play all day. However, if that is the case I will simply ignore your remarks as being intellectually dishonest. Your call.

Admonishment is not a punishment...its a warning....as to say if you are doing wrong, cut it out, if you are thinking about doing wrong, don't even think about it......Its not saying some one is innocent or guilty

You really are not very good at this, are you? Just because someone is charged does not mean they are guilty of anything. That is basic to our justice system and sense of fairness. Perhaps it would help you to think of the word allegation rather than the word charge.

I posted the definition of admonish. If you are having trouble comprehending the meaning, I suggest you look at a synonym, such as reprove. Here, I'll help.

reprove

verb

Definition of REPROVE

1
to criticize (someone) usually gently so as to correct a fault

You will notice that in both cases, the definition I provided is the first one listed. You will also notice that they are both used to correct a behavior. Until you determine that someone is guilty, you do not need to correct them. The admonishment is the penalty.

Additional synonyms that might help inform you are condemn, denounce, reprimand, rebuke, lambast, censure and punish.

As for getting snarky, I suggest you look at 2.15 where you decided that it was a better way for you to try to score points rather than address the issues I raised.

It is apparent that you are not here to have a discussion. You would rather try to push a partisan viewpoint.

Lee what dictionary are you using?....Here's Webster's definition

transitive verb
1
a : to indicate duties or obligations to b : to express warning or disapproval to especially in a gentle, earnest, or solicitous manner

here are the examples they used

If you replace admonish with punishment in these instances as you suggested it would not make must since.

.

Rorschach-558483 "Be careful what you ask for, you might get it. Knee-jerk reactionary voting is not the answer"

Exactly! We don't need hot headed or tit for tat BS votes. We need votes that are based totally on the facts and the qualifications of the person for the job. But, much more than qualifications, they must be a person of moral character. Not a religious zealot, not a radical politician, and not an extremist, or strictly limiting everything to the Constitution only. There are laws that have been created since the Constitution over the years in addition to the Constitution that are just as binding and have served this country and its people very well that need and deserve to be considered just as well.

What we need, are people who will stand on their own and think for themselves, who will take a few minutes to find out the facts about the people they are thinking of voting for. Who will set aside party loyalty and open their mind to the real facts about the person, their history, not just where they say the stand now. As in most cases, where they stood yesterday is more likely where they really stand today, and are only saying what they think people want to hear. Such as; they were against it before they were for it, or for it before they were against it.

And keep in mind one fact; a Leopard never changes or loses its spots. Even the Panther (black Leopard) has spots that will show through in the right light. So there is no way to hide what they truly are. You just have to be willing and have the desire to look for it.

Knee jerk reactions are only good for medical evaluations, not for important decisions. I'd trust my gut before I'd trust my knees in making decisions, and even then, I take the time to ensure that my gut reaction is the right one.

Only truth will set us free. But, you have to want to take the time to look for it.

Connie,

http://www.merriam-webster.com/thesaurus/reprove

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/admonishment

bonos,

I have provided the definition and many synonyms that show it is a punishment.

Perhaps while you are learning about the word admonish you can also look up irony. If you had been paying attention you would have noted that I did not push a partisan point of view. Maybe you are just not used to having to comprehend what is written. I believe that is the most charitable conclusion I can find to explain it.

Per your own sources its also a warning......

Connie, but it is not the first listed definition. By using your definition, Boehner has already "warned" the House about not tolerating ethical lapses, which would render bonos point moot. Thus, it cannot be that bonos relied on the "warning" definition.

I do appreciate the civil discussion.

Then it is exceedingly strange. You acknowledge that Boehner warned the House about ethical lapses, but then turn around and complain that he has not warned them. Very strange, indeed.

Why did you exclude the Democrats from your charges of corruption, puppetry, and nepotism?

It is fine with me that we set one single standard for ethics and hold both parties accountable. However, you can't ignore information from websites such as Open Secrets or Source Watch. Republicans starting with the Jack Abramoff scandal to today have far out paced the Democrats. Tom DeLay had to resign and was sentenced to prison for his part in that scandal. Newt got a near unanimous vote of censure from both parties, which led to his resignation.

And the biggest problem right now with corporate influence is that Koch brothers and the super pac, lobbying organization they fund - ALEC.

Jack Abramoff scandal to today have far out paced the Democrats.

Did you watch the interview he did on NPR? He let it be known there were no really clean Congressmen to speak of. He details in his book how easy it was to lead the jackasses to the lobbyist trough.

Why did you exclude the Democrats from your charges of corruption, puppetry, and nepotism?

I didn't, and I don't mind getting it all out in the open. I just have perceived that the scope of Republican corruption is far wider, and involves wholesale bribery by entire industries and lobby groups to buy legislation and policy, not just a little "favor" hashed out in the back of Joe's Bar and Grill to get some contractor a new sidewalk. I think that an honest and complete investigation would show that Abramoff was the tip of the iceberg. And ask yourself, just who was at that Big Secret Energy Meeting with Cheney, and what was agreed on outside the view of the public.

Of course Jack Abramoff wants to tar and feather everyone-- it makes him look better. The republican defense to all of their theft is "everybody's doing it." That's not a defense -- that's an admission of guilt. Abramoff was a republican, aiding and abetting right wing causes. Deal with it. The "equal and opposite" defense simply doesn't hold water -- there's no Democratic Abramoff character.

Okay, so who is PMA?

newts words at resignation were

Gingrich made this announcement only a day after being elected to an 11th term from his district. Commenting on his departure, Gingrich said, "I'm willing to lead but I'm not willing to preside over people who are cannibals".

and cannibals they still are.

the thing is asking John Boehner to admonish members of congress for ethics violations is like asking the pot to call the kettle black. It was John Boehner who stood on the House floor before a session a few years ago and handed out checks from the tobacco lobbiests to members of congress.

Similarly, Newt having three wives, and at least two long-term affairs, makes him "normal." But republicans sure wouldn't tolerate that from President Obama.

Interesting how I contributed factual information about Boehner and there was no direct Republican response. But then they cannot refute the fact that he was caught handing out corporate checks from tobacco corporations during the debate on ending tobacco subsidies. He has undeniably held Thursdays meetings in the assembly hall right off the floor of the House of Representatives with large groups of lobbyists. He was indeed caught living in a house owned by a lobbyist rent free. He has received over a million dollars from big oil over the Keystone pipeline. He has indeed invested in the Keystone Pipeline corporations, so he would make a personal profit from the passage of pipeline legislation to force approval. He was indeed implicated in the Jack Abramoff scandal.

I am not going to tap dance around those points I made with Republican diversionary tactics.

Republicans will invariably come up with examples of Democrat corruption as if I will be duty bound to defend Democrats. But I am for one single standard for both parties.

And I would be interested in a viable multi party system with at least one party holding candidates to a higher standard in not taking bribe money.

Did he have cashed stashed in his freezer too?

Look at the world Romney lives in! No diversity and no womens' rights. How can he even relate to average Americans. Everything I have heard him say like this addressed toward average Americans sounds condescending.

It's just the republican party changing their name, because their brand is so tarnished.

Do you also believe 9/11 was an inside job?

LOL

No, but I believe the Tea Party is trying to give the country a blow job courtesy of of their pimp.

LOL

And before you start LOL about legislators being bought like cattle, take a good look at the evidence scattered throughout our tax lax.

Ordinary income, WAGES max tax rate = 35%

• Unearned income Capital Gains max tax rate = 15%
• Unearned income Carried Interest max tax rate = 15%
• Foreign Sourced income held in offshore accounts = 0%
• Legalized Cayman Island, Ireland, etc. shell corporations = 0%
• LIFO inventory accounting to manipulate earnings and taxes

So, while the average wage earner forks over 35% of his or her wages, the Federal Government subsidizes the wealthy with a tax rate between 0 - 15% on unearned income. And your contention is that wealthy individuals had nothing to do with the creation of this legislation? Your contention is that legislators either dreamed up these massive wealth creation entitlements for 1% of society or the plumbers and teachers that make up the other 99% of our society demanded that we place the needs of rich people before the good of society as a whole? Lobbyists had nothing to do with it? Legislators aren't getting rich passing laws that benefit a powerful few?

How damned dumb are you? LOL

Hey Rational Brent,

Where'd ya go?

Not LOL any longer?

(broken)

They are voting on the insider trading bill-it's a start.

It is time to require that all US Congressmen and Senators have their funds in blind trusts only -- and only in mutual funds.

Walker is the snake in the grass poster child. It is not just the folks in WI that are cheering as he and his cohorts get flushed down.