Wednesday, November 08, 2006




Joe Yangtree said...

Interesting article from a year ago. So whatever happened in the impending ethics investigation?

Reliapundit said...

that's a good question, joe.

i think that there's vast corruption in politics - on both sides.

i like coburn's approach.

and i think that one of the greta side effects of small givernment is less money to steal

there shouod be no pork and total transparency and no earmarks.

let's see if the dems deliver.

Joe Yangtree said...

I'd like that too. I do respect Coburn's work against earmarks. Of course, when he tried to derail Ted Stevens' (R-Alaska) worthless bridge, his amendment and ideas were quickly voted down. I only ask that you don't measure the new Congress in all or nothing terms, but by the benchmarks of their predecessors. Earmarks rose to a record level of 15,268 in 2005, so let's see if the Democrats beat that or manange to reverse the trend.

Now, what was the answer to what happened to/in that impending ethics investigation that you blogged about a year ago? Don't leave us hanging.

Joe Yangtree said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Reliapundit said...

obviously the4 gop in the house failed to investigate her., probably one hand wshing the other.
also: the MSM failed to follow up.

she will be exposed now; she can no longer hide. we will get her for who she is and what she's done.

Joe Yangtree said...

So the investigation that you reported a year ago as "impending" that would prove that Murtha and Pelosi were "as crooked as they come" never happened. It wasn't considered by his staunchest opponents in Congress (that he had just publically called out and embarassed with his statements on Iraq) to be worthy of even calling for an investigation. I do appreciate you highlighting this spurious article from the past which shows how desperately wrong you were about the nature of these accusations. I never would have found it.

On the other hand, Tom Delay was reprimanded by the House Ethics Committee three times (twice unanimously), is being investigated for ties to Jack Abramoff, and is under Grand Jury indictment. So, he's set the "as crooked as they come" bar pretty high.

Noble said...

The Biggest mistake President Bush did from Day one was the "Different Tone" stance.
He very well could have stood back and let the Department of Justice go after all the Dems. for many many reasons.
Starting with the Clinton's pardons, and damaging of the White House on their leaving.

Would have - could have - should have!

Reliapundit said...

joe: you are an asshole or an idiot or both.

hastert defended jefferson ferchirssake!

these pol's do not go after each other, in moist cases - because they all play so many games with our money.

the gop should have unloaded on pelosi - who also took more free travel with lobbyists than delay!

they should've unloaded on jefferson too - istead of defending his phantom rights not to obey a federal court order.


corruption is human not partisan.

we need more transparency in congress becasue BOTH parties and all pol's are liable to be seduced and made corrupt by the system as it is now configured.


are you so dumb as to think that if there was no investigation that therefore no ethical lapse occured!?

don't you think the free travel violations were commited bypol's of both parties!?


idiotic shit like this is why i consider you to be a waste of time.

Joe Yangtree said...

So, your charge of "as corrupt as they come" actually has been reduced to "is just another politician"? What an indictment.

It seems like there might be a bit of difference between investigated and reprimanded multiple times (Delay) and never investigated and never reprimanded (Pelosi). Wouldn't the person that was actually investigated and found to be guilty by members of both parties be just a little more deserving of the title than someone that has never been investigated? How about people that are about to serve prison sentences for corruption and bribery (Ney, Jefferson (presumably), Cunningham)? Wouldn't they be considered to be more corrupt?

Of course, the original article promised an "impending investigation". That was purely and simply wrong. Instead of just admitting that, you typically transfer the blame from your shoddy reporting to the person that happened to point it out.

Reliapundit said...

as corrupt as they come measn that, joe.

is english your second language or are you and ass?

i answered all your piints.

you are an ass and a troll.

Joe Yangtree said...

As X as they come means "as much of a particular characteristic as is possible." By definition, labeling Pelosi as corrupt as they come means that she is the most corrupt and that there cannot be anyone more corrupt (e.g. Delay, Ney, Cunningham, Jefferson could not have been more corrupt). Having already schooled you in math and science, it's only appropriate I should do so in English. I guess you're getting an entire education at my hands, but as many students are, you're simply unappreciative and ignore the simple lessons before you.

Joe Yangtree said...

i answered all your piints.
You answered all of my points? Oh, that's funny. The day that you start addressing even the simplest and most obvious of my points will be a banner day for you. Let's review what you didn't answer.

First, you claimed that Pelosi was as corrupt as they come. When I showed she wasn't by giving clear counter-examples, you tried to bizarrely change the definition of what "as they come" means.

Second, I pointed out that your original article's claims were simply wrong. You promised an "impending investigation." There was no investigation. Therefore, you were wrong. I assume you also want to change the meaning of “impending” or possibly “investigation”.

Third, the whole Murtha story didn't amount to much when the surface was scratched.

Fourth, you make up lame excuses as to why they didn't investigate about "one hand washing the other", but the Congress had no problems investigating and unanimously punishing their own powerful representative, Tom Delay? What kind of sense does that make? They overlook the indiscretions of a member of the opposing party to punish one of their own? You live in a strange fantasy world, disconnected from reality.