DescentBB

Public Service. That is the flag they all wave declaring their moral superiority in sometimes not so subtle ways. They work for the government so they are doing a service for you ungrateful peons, a favor, so quit complaining.

Well what is the difference between the rich stock brokers at the big evil Wall Street firms who manages your retirement portfolio and the government workers or politicians who manage/confiscate somewhere between 25% and 50% of your income? (add up all the taxes you pay sales/city/county/property/state/federal...etc. You get a refund so think you don't pay taxes...Lol!

The Wall Street firms/workers job security/wealth are subject to:
*regulation/prison time for violators
*competition/ Don't produce? Get fired.
*market movement/ economy goes down? You lose income.

The government hacks:
*regulation/ answer to no one outside their own fraternity. Don't pay taxes? A verbal slap on the wrist but keep your job don't go to jail.
*competition/ There is no competitor government you can turn to if you don't like this one unless you are willing to leave the country.
*market movement/ No problem, just print more money and raise taxes.

So quit thinking of \"Public Service\" as a title held by helpful nice benevolent protectors of your quality of life. If they don't dodge bullets or flames they are NOT worthy of anything short of suspicion and often deserve contempt. Treat them like they are on work release from prison not like semi-royalty.

Ah and how about them TSA public service employees who put a whole new meaning to the govt. having a hand in your pocket?

just heard on the news this morning. if you refuse the TSA screening while traveling this holiday it's an $1100.00 fine

Will: I'll apologize if this was not your intention; however if your post was directed at at the local and or county levels of government in any way then it is and you are completely full of shit.

If on the other hand you were talking about the elite levels of State and Federal government then never mind and please continue.

My rant was inspired by the National figures like Charlie Rangel who fails to pay his taxes and then claims Public Servant status like some sort of get-out-of-trouble-free card and his plea is accepted as time served!

For the most part I want people to stop thinking of our government workers as somehow less culpable for the bad things they take part in compared to their private industry counterparts because the nature of their job is somehow special. Stop thinking in terms of Well they were trying to help etc. when it turns out they screwed things up.
They operate in a bubble without the pressures and penalties we civilians suffer. They are elitists.
As for the local and county...yea there is less corruption at that level and less incompetence to a degree but the ingrained moral superiority is part of the territory.
Example, a local county courthouse clerk is just a hard working stiff but the county commissioner or magistrate has enough authority to be highly susceptible to corruption. When they get caught they immediately receive the protection from a large portion of their peers and the citizens simply because of their political affiliation. This is a root problem.
We can stamp out a lot of problems if we held them to a higher than average standard instead of affording them to perform to a lower one based on the excuse that they are somehow better people because their job is described as public service.

So what is your solution?

Will, I think you're overestimating how often those Wall Street individuals are held accountable; they get off with wrist-slaps pretty often, too. That said, I definitely agree with you in general here.

null0010 wrote:So what is your solution?

Aw, c'mon. Lack of a solution proposal doesn't mean the complaint is invalid. Can't a guy just vent once in a while?

I dunno, I get hammered a lot around here for not having a magical instant solution to problems that have plagued the world for centuries.

CUDA wrote:just heard on the news this morning. if you refuse the TSA screening while traveling this holiday it's an $1100.00 fine

$11,000.00 actually. And it's applied if you leave the screening area after your screening started. (At least it's the regular fee, maybe they have a 90% off as a holiday special ?)

On November 21, 2010, [a man] was allowed to enter the U.S. through an airport security checkpoint without being x-rayed or touched by a TSA officer. This post explains how.
http://noblasters.com/post/1650102322/my-tsa-encounter

Penn Gillete magically earns some kind of TSA VIP status:
http://www.pennandteller.com/03/coolstu ... alvip.html

null0010 wrote:So what is your solution?

I wasn't trying to point out a particular thing that needs a law passed to correct or something like that.
It is the way we, as a society, from all political points on the compass, have let our representatives and their bureaucrat assignees become the elite ruling class.

I want a certain level of performance, integrity and humility to be a primary requirement for the position. A requirement that each of us holds more important than political ideology.
We have completely slacked off to the point where we will accept all sorts of bad personal and proffessional behavior from those on 'our team'.

Example: Bill Clinton should never have been able to survive the playing of hide the cigar in Monica's vagina in the Oval Office and then shuffle her job off to the Pentagon and have his secretary hide evidence from the Special Prosecutor. That series of events should have set everyone of us against him regardless of politics and not just because of the sexual harassment in the workplace issues and the morality issue but because if we protect our so called Public Servants from culpability on the grounds of political conveniences we create the kind of elitist ruling class mentality that we have been suffering under for some time now.

We are chipping away at the foundation of a great house, perhaps the only house ever built that can truly shelter a nation in perpetuity and we are rapidly approaching the breaking point. If we don't maintain some respectable minimum standards of performance, ethics and morality that transcend affiliations and ideology we are done for.

Surely you can come up with a better example than that sham of a scandal with Lewinsky to back up your point. Like, I dunno, Whitewater, or Clinton allowing improper access to classified FBI documents, or his questionable pardons on his last day in office, or really anything more important than who he was fooling around with?

null0010 wrote:Surely you can come up with a better example than that sham of a scandal with Lewinsky to back up your point. Like, I dunno, Whitewater, or Clinton allowing improper access to classified FBI documents, or his questionable pardons on his last day in office, or really anything more important than who he was fooling around with?

Your rationalization there is a perfect example of how we make really bad excuses for behavior from politicians, behavior that we will prosecute everyday if perpetrated by civilians. Well done.

Will Robinson wrote:

null0010 wrote:Surely you can come up with a better example than that sham of a scandal with Lewinsky to back up your point. Like, I dunno, Whitewater, or Clinton allowing improper access to classified FBI documents, or his questionable pardons on his last day in office, or really anything more important than who he was fooling around with?

Your rationalization there is a perfect example of how we make really bad excuses for behavior from politicians, behavior that we will prosecute everyday if perpetrated by civilians. Well done.

You're a laugh and a half, Will.

null0010 wrote:Surely you can come up with a better example than that sham of a scandal with Lewinsky to back up your point. Like, I dunno, Whitewater, or Clinton allowing improper access to classified FBI documents, or his questionable pardons on his last day in office, or really anything more important than who he was fooling around with?

Why is it a sham:

sham
–noun
1.
something that is not what it purports to be; a spurious imitation; fraud or hoax.
–adjective
4.
pretended; counterfeit; feigned

Nothing fake or fraudulent regarding the Lewinski affair. Neither was the Juanita Roberts affair. Because Herr Clinton was in a position of high office he got a get out of jail free card.

The whole thing was an excuse to make Clinton look bad. It was ridiculous because there were so many other more legitimate complaints against him and his administration. It was a colossal waste of taxpayer money. All to try any impeach a president for lying about sex? That doesn't affect the nation. It was ludicrous then, and it's ludicrous now.

null0010 wrote:The whole thing was an excuse to make Clinton look bad. It was ridiculous because there were so many other more legitimate complaints against him and his administration. It was a colossal waste of taxpayer money. All to try any impeach a president for lying about sex? That doesn't affect the nation. It was ludicrous then, and it's ludicrous now.

Once again you provide a perfect example of making excuses for the ruling class!!
You just proclaimed that a President shouldn't be subject to laws he breaks if it doesn't affect the whole country. WTF is so special about a guy doing a job that he becomes exempt from the very laws he is prosecuting the citizens under?!?
You asked earlier what my solution is....it is for you and all of us to STOP THINKING LIKE THAT!

An excuse? He committed perjury under oath and while the the loyal dems all voted to aquit, 10 rep. did also. Do some of these rep. names look familiar?:

\"Ten Republicans voted for acquittal for perjury: Chafee (Rhode Island), Collins (Maine), Gorton (Washington), Jeffords (Vermont), Shelby (Alabama), Snowe (Maine), Specter (Pennsylvania), Stevens (Alaska), Thompson (Tennessee), and Warner (Virginia).\"

When the venue was heard in a court of law, Clinton was found guilty and lost the use of his law license for 5 years and fined for false testimony.

Clinton wasn't the first president to keep a female secretary or two around to polish off more than the paperwork.

Krom wrote:Clinton wasn't the first president to keep a female secretary or two around to polish off more than the paperwork.

Totally not the point then or now.
Should any President be allowed to lie under oath in a civil lawsuit to avoid penalty?
Should we support our elected/appointed/hired officials with immunity from prosecution because their position is important or because they are from our chosen party?

ITT: Quibbling about the definition of \"sexual intercourse\"

Only one quibbling was Clinton

Clinton is one out of a long line of ruling class politicians that abused their power, so don't single him out for special treatment, and before everyone stomps on the leftie, no I didn't approve of his little dalliances or his lying about it. In fact, I voted for Bush (not that it made a wit of difference) instead of Gore in 2000 because I could not forgive him for standing right next to Clinton (after the impeachment) in the Rose Garden with his chin held high like a pouting child. He couldn't even be his own man.

Presidential Scandals

So how do we the people as lowly pions force the ruling class and the politicians to abide by our nation's laws and give up majority control of government? Each party protects their own butts, no matter what the consequences or laws and we sure as hell can't depend on Congress or the Judiciary to weed these guys out. They're part of the problem! We can't even nail the crooked Wall Street thieves because the politicians in Washington are just their puppets now and they protect one another.

Some of the Tea Party newbies are succeeding in rabble rousing in Congress. I say GOOD, but I fear they will be infected by the raw power and money machine or just get put in their place by the old guard and NOTHING will change.

Actually Lewinsky was the perfect diversion to the other things null pointed out.

And, the Repubs fell for it.

The issue with the Lewinski case is that there were a ton of other legitimate complaints that could have been brought up against Clinton but the Republicans behind the scandal went with this one because it was the most likely to cause a public uproar and erode public support for Clinton because they had an agenda to push and that agenda was partisan politics, not protecting the american people.

Further, I am of the opinion that just because Congress asks you a question, that does not mean suddenly you have no right to privacy. Clinton honestly should have just said \"That's none of your business\" to questions involving his personal life. If Lewinski didn't like it, she could bring it up herself the same way any other agitated employee in this country does. It was none of Congress' business, and there was better ★■◆● to do.

THAT SAID, I agree with the original post pretty much wholeheartedly. Ever notice how whenever a police department conducts an internal investigation, or when the DA looks at potential misconduct by police officers, no charges ever result unless its absolutely blatent and caught on tape by regular people? Or how whenever a cop is caught on tape, the department rallies around him? Why do we allow that ★■◆● to happen? What ought to happen in those cases is that a distant jurisdiction handles the case so that at least the guy investigating and prosecuting doesnt have any pre-existing relationship with the parties involved.

Same ★■◆● all over the political map. Rule by those with connections and influence is how things go.

Avder wrote:The issue with the Lewinski case is that there were a ton of other legitimate complaints that could have been brought up against Clinton but the Republicans behind the scandal went with this one because it was the most likely to cause a public uproar and erode public support for Clinton because they had an agenda to push and that agenda was partisan politics, not protecting the american people.

Further, I am of the opinion that just because Congress asks you a question, that does not mean suddenly you have no right to privacy. Clinton honestly should have just said "That's none of your business" to questions involving his personal life. If Lewinski didn't like it, she could bring it up herself the same way any other agitated employee in this country does. It was none of Congress' business, and there was better ***** to do.

iawtc

null0010 wrote:

Avder wrote:The issue with the Lewinski case is that there were a ton of other legitimate complaints that could have been brought up against Clinton but the Republicans behind the scandal went with this one because it was the most likely to cause a public uproar and erode public support for Clinton because they had an agenda to push and that agenda was partisan politics, not protecting the american people.

Further, I am of the opinion that just because Congress asks you a question, that does not mean suddenly you have no right to privacy. Clinton honestly should have just said "That's none of your business" to questions involving his personal life. If Lewinski didn't like it, she could bring it up herself the same way any other agitated employee in this country does. It was none of Congress' business, and there was better ***** to do.

iawtc

It's a fallacy that you agree with then.
Congress wasn't the one asking the question and republicans didn't pick the issue from a list of possible gotcha's.

Clinton was sued in a civil suit and lied under oath to escape justice.
At the same time he escaped justice, only because he was a powerful political figure, his own justice department was prosecuting a citizen for the very same crime!(Dr. Battalino)

I'm not interested in hashing out the dirty politics behind the way Starr took those facts to build impeachment fodder for the other side, you guys can go there without me, I've been there done that. It is the way roughly half the adult population immediately abandoned the law to to give him a pass simply because he wore their teams jersey that was relevant to this conversation. It's the way we have created a monster by telling our representatives we'll put up with that that has me pissed off. As far as I'm concerned you can make the Whitehouse a prostitute permitted zone and staff it with an army of Lewinski's as long as they are not unionized...we have enough whores with those credentials already.

Grendel wrote:

CUDA wrote:just heard on the news this morning. if you refuse the TSA screening while traveling this holiday it's an $1100.00 fine :o

$11,000.00 actually...

Well this explains why the richest people can bypass screening. It also explains everything else about how rich people can and do buy favor.

Ehhh, being fined means they never got on the plane, not to mention rich people fly private jets.

Will Robinson wrote:

null0010 wrote:Surely you can come up with a better example than that sham of a scandal with Lewinsky to back up your point. Like, I dunno, Whitewater, or Clinton allowing improper access to classified FBI documents, or his questionable pardons on his last day in office, or really anything more important than who he was fooling around with?

Your rationalization there is a perfect example of how we make really bad excuses for behavior from politicians, behavior that we will prosecute everyday if perpetrated by civilians. Well done.

We prosecute people for getting blow jobs? Damn I'm fucked!

On a more serious note, would you agree that George Bush should have been impeached as well then? Or should now be charged with something?

So just what do you want him charged with?

Mjolnir wrote:...
We prosecute people for getting blow jobs? Damn I'm ****!

No, but you are screwed if getting a blow job is a pertinent fact in a civil or criminal case and you lie about it under oath..THEN you would be screwed...unless you are a member of the ruling class.

Mjolnir wrote:On a more serious note, would you agree that George Bush should have been impeached as well then? Or should now be charged with something?

I'm not aware of any high crime or misdemeanor that he could be charged with but if there is one then he certainly should be. I find it very hard to believe there really is any grounds for it because the democrats controlled the whitehouse and the congress so they could have caused any number of special prosecutors and congressional investigations to go after him and yet they didn't...
I know we heard talk like that from time to time on the democrats campaign trail but
I think it was a case of the old saying 'Where there is smoke there is fire' needed the disclaimer : 'except in politics where there is sometimes just the smoke your party is blowing up your ass'.

Will... a gentleman never kisses and tells! I'm really screwed then lol

Well, I'm fairly sure his disclosure of ordering torture is grounds for that? That could just be me though.

If Bush had committed a impeachable offense you can bet your bippy the Dems would of tried. Or are you pulling another Reagan?

Well, there was the ridiculously poor handling of the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, the controversy surrounding the midterm dismissal of seven United States attorneys, the incredible malarkey of \"nation building,\" the start of an endless \"War\" on \"Terror,\" the executive orders authorizing warrantless wiretaps (both inside and outside the United States), authorization of the CIA to use waterboarding and other \"enhanced interrogation\" torture techniques on \"terror\" suspects based on a secret Department of Justice legal opinion (in direct violation of the Geneva Conventions), creation of the \"enemy combatant\" category in general, intentionally antagonizing known nutjobs North Korea for no good reason, the Big Lie about weapons of mass destruction, taking a dump on Clinton's work with Israel and the PLO by denouncing Arafat as a terrorist, stealing the 2000 election, starting a war of aggression by invading Iraq, outing Valerie Plame, falsifying battle information and failing to provide troops with basic body armor, supporting terrorist organizations within Iran as a way to attempt to overthrow the government, failure to comply with several Congressional subpoenas, systematically undermining efforts to control climate change...

But no, you're right, George W. Bush never did anything wrong. It was all Clinton.

(Sorry for the double post, you know how editing is in this forum...)

By the way, the Democrats did try, but since the Congress was primarily Republicans and Blue Dogs at the time, nothing happened.

null0010 wrote:Well, there was the ridiculously poor handling of the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, the controversy surrounding the midterm dismissal of seven United States attorneys, the incredible malarkey of "nation building," the start of an endless "War" on "Terror," the executive orders authorizing warrantless wiretaps (both inside and outside the United States), authorization of the CIA to use waterboarding and other "enhanced interrogation" torture techniques on "terror" suspects based on a secret Department of Justice legal opinion (in direct violation of the Geneva Conventions), creation of the "enemy combatant" category in general, intentionally antagonizing known nutjobs North Korea for no good reason, the Big Lie about weapons of mass destruction, taking a dump on Clinton's work with Israel and the PLO by denouncing Arafat as a terrorist, stealing the 2000 election, starting a war of aggression by invading Iraq, outing Valerie Plame, falsifying battle information and failing to provide troops with basic body armor, supporting terrorist organizations within Iran as a way to attempt to overthrow the government, failure to comply with several Congressional subpoenas, systematically undermining efforts to control climate change...

But no, you're right, George W. Bush never did anything wrong. It was all Clinton.

This should be fun

have a good time Will

CUDA wrote:

null0010 wrote:Well, there was the ridiculously poor handling of the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, the controversy surrounding the midterm dismissal of seven United States attorneys, the incredible malarkey of "nation building," the start of an endless "War" on "Terror," the executive orders authorizing warrantless wiretaps (both inside and outside the United States), authorization of the CIA to use waterboarding and other "enhanced interrogation" torture techniques on "terror" suspects based on a secret Department of Justice legal opinion (in direct violation of the Geneva Conventions), creation of the "enemy combatant" category in general, intentionally antagonizing known nutjobs North Korea for no good reason, the Big Lie about weapons of mass destruction, taking a dump on Clinton's work with Israel and the PLO by denouncing Arafat as a terrorist, stealing the 2000 election, starting a war of aggression by invading Iraq, outing Valerie Plame, falsifying battle information and failing to provide troops with basic body armor, supporting terrorist organizations within Iran as a way to attempt to overthrow the government, failure to comply with several Congressional subpoenas, systematically undermining efforts to control climate change...

But no, you're right, George W. Bush never did anything wrong. It was all Clinton.

This should be fun

have a good time Will

I don't do laundry lists anymore. Let me just say that the list looks like a bunch of policy stuff you don't like and maybe one or two things that "sound" like they could be a problem but the excuse that the 'democrats tried but repubs stopped them' seems weak because the same rumblings of impeach Bush never stopped all during the time the democrats held the super majority and the Presidency. Bottom line is if they really had a case they would have made it. They would not only have an obligation to but it would serve their political party as well and niether side passes up on those kind of win/win opportunities.
So null, cut through the bull★■◆● and make a case, not based on your feelings or perception but rather examine the law regarding the impeachment and the law regarding any offense you pick as an impeachable one and lets see how far you can get checking off the list of requirements.
I don't give a rip about how bad it was for him to do something, only if it was also truly impeachable for the sake of this discussion. Otherwise we'll be going round and round indefinitely.

I did make a case (so did Kucinich and Wexler). You dismissed it because you are a fanboy.

null0010 wrote:I did make a case (so did Kucinich and Wexler). You dismissed it because you are a fanboy.

You, and Wexler et al seem to have skipped the part of using actual law and seeing if the charges meet the requirement. They certainly made impeachable accusations but they didn't bother to have any reality to support their charges! And you call me the fan boy?!?
Why don't you take their list of charges and look at the actual law concerning them and see if there is evidence to bring the case to trial? You need more than accusations from partisan demagogues to convict someone!!

If that cut and paste is the best you are going to offer then I'll ignore it the way the democrats who had the power to pursue it did....