Maybe there are a few exceptions but I just can't think of any.

http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show ... _fb_maddow

Telcoman

Given the putrid pettiness of partisan politics these days, you probably won't find much in congress. But off the top of my head, Colin Powell is an exception.

Thanks! I forgot about him.

I just can not believe there were so many of them that voted against giving federal aid after hurricane Sandy but now expect federal money when their states suffer a disaster.
f*** them all!

Telcoman

I wouldn't necessarily say F them all, but I agree it's hypocritical for any of the 36 republican senators to seek federal relief money for their own states after voting against Sandy aid for NJ. Cruz and Graham are the main two who did that, but who's surprised by that? I know Rand Paul also voted against Sandy relief, though I don't believe he went the extra step that the two did. But that's just politics 101. And to think the Democrats wouldn't do the same exact thing given the same scenario is naiive. think about it.

Another republican loser!

Puts foot in mouth!

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/ ... li=AAa0dzB

"McCarthy addressed questions about whether his statement on the Select Committee on Benghazi — indicating its goal was to nick Hillary Clinton’s poll numbers — was too damaging.

“Well, that wasn’t helpful. I could have said it much better,” McCarthy admitted. He said he “should not be a distraction” from efforts by the panel find the “truth” about the 2012 attacks on two U.S. compounds in Benghazi, Libya. “That’s part of the decision as well.”

What a dope!

His words perhaps outdo Romney's 47% comments which sunk Romney

Perfect for Hillary commercials


Telcoman

I suspect the fallout from McCarthy's sadly truthful comments about the political agenda behind the Benghazi investigation was a factor in his dropping out. But with the RNC so splintered these days, I'm not sure there's any republican congressperson that would both want that thankless job AND get enough votes. I'm not a republican, but I think McCarthy might have been a better choice for Speaker than some of the other folks that want the job. Chaffetz, for example, was embarrassing during the Planned Parenthood hearings. I suspect Boehner is gonna remain Speaker for awhile.

Bubba1 wrote:I suspect Boehner is gonna remain Speaker for awhile.

And he will also, I hope, feel free to do the right thing - party independent - for whatever issues come up ... what are the Tea Party folks going to do? Fire him?

Z

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

There are not too many choices.

A party incapable of governing.

http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show ... _fb_maddow

Telcoman

you can easily make the argument that neither party is capable of governing. My guess is Ryan will eventually get strong-armed by the RNC to become Speaker, despite his stated preference for being chairman of the Ways/Means Committee.

Rep. Mark Takano has the edgiest sense of humor in Congress. Here’s his Craiglist ad for Speaker of the House.

Are all liberals cross-dressing deadbeat pedophiles?

Just wondering... I'm sure there's a few that aren't, but...

AZhitman wrote:Are all liberals cross-dressing deadbeat pedophiles?

I don't think so but I found another republican scumbag that is ripping off taxpayers and should retire

http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/florida-news ... m_fb_msnbc

Telcoman

telcoman wrote:I don't think

Could have just left it at this.

AZhitman wrote:

telcoman wrote:I don't think

Could have just left it at this.

Yeah, I don't think you'll be happy with another President Clinton but I will.

More Republican Scumbags

http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/gop-blocks-m ... m_fb_msnbc

They just keep coming and making themselves known

Telcoman

Define "Scumbags" as I think the Democrats probably have a lock on that title.

You know, I'd swear we've had this discussion before. Honestly, people who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones. Some of these make you wonder if the Democrat Party is an organized criminal enterprise. These are just the tip of the iceberg.

Robert Byrd, Klansman
Byrd wrote a letter in 1946 to the group's Imperial Wizard stating "The Klan is needed today as never before, and I am anxious to see its rebirth here in West Virginia." Byrd defended the Klan in his 1958 U.S. Senate campaign when he was 41 years old. He was the only Senator to vote against both African American U.S. Supreme Court nominees (liberal Thurgood Marshall and conservative Clarence Thomas) and filibustering the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

Marion Barry, Crack Mayor
Barry was arrested for crack cocaine use and possession. He was charged with three felony counts of perjury, 10 counts of drug possession, and one misdemeanor count of conspiracy to possess cocaine.

James Traficant, Racketeering
He was expelled from congress after being convicted of taking bribes, filing false tax returns, racketeering and forcing his aides to perform chores at his farm in Ohio and houseboat in Washington, D.C.

Neil Goldschmidt, pedoph:le
http://www.statesmanjournal.com/story/o ... /22487735/

Patrick Cannon, Corruption
http://www.foxcarolina.com/story/250801 ... on-charges

Gordon Fox, Bribery
http://www.bostonglobe.com/opinion/2014 ... story.html

Leland Yee, Illegally importing firearms.
http://www.latimes.com/local/la-me-yee- ... z2xDSMSVz7

William J. Jefferson, Corruption
https://www.fbi.gov/news/stories/2013/a ... ption-case

telcoman wrote:Yeah, I don't think you'll be happy with another President Clinton but I will.

There is no accounting for taste, I guess.

Z

Rogue One wrote:Define "Scumbags"

scumbag
Also found in: Medical, Idioms, Encyclopedia, Wikipedia.
scum·bag (skŭm′băg′)
n.
1. Slang A person regarded as despicable.

scumbag (ˈskʌmˌbæɡ)
n
1. an offensive or despicable person

Those definitions seem to describe most Republicans particularly the Tea Party caucus but many others as well.

Also those on the Benghazi Committee that spent 11 hours questioning the next President of the United States Hillary Clinton that looked the most presidential of all of those currently running for office.

I have to wonder why you and most of the previous moderators on this forum continue to back not only the present republican losers but previous ones such as Bush, Palin, Romney, McCain, Rove, d!ck Morris, Limbaugh, O'Reilly, Fox News, etc.

Now the republican candidates are blaming the media for their continuing downward spiral.

http://www.nytimes.com/politics/first-d ... f=politics

“Of course, attacking the media, especially the so-called liberal media, is a popular and time-tested Republican trope. As the party has moved toward the conservative base, the candidates, by criticizing the press and debate moderators, have been able to score points with their core supporters while inoculating themselves from tough questions or criticism after a poor debate performance.”

Telcoman

Comrade, when you ask if we oppose a one party system, are you asking as political commissar?

Rogue One wrote:Comrade, when you ask if we oppose a one party system, are you asking as political commissar?

No we just need to elect representatives that have some common sense.

More elected republican scumbags that have no sense, unwilling to compromise and should be removed from office in the next election.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/03/opini ... egion&_r=0

"This is the familiar line trotted out by Republican politicians after every massacre, as if unfettered access to high-powered weaponry — which they and the gun lobby have made possible — is not a factor in this national catastrophe. Congress’s Republican leaders are betting they can brazenly go through another election cycle without enacting gun safety laws."

Telcoman

If you want to call Republicans scumbags because they won't vote in lockstep with the Democrats on everything, that's your prerogative. Democrats espousing gun control are, in my opinion, brain dead. Every time there's a mass shooting Liberals trot out their gun grabbing rants. Yet despite overwhelming evidence that its been as big a failure as Prohibition, they keep beating this dead horse. Look at Detroit, Chicago, LA and Baltimore. All have some of the strictest gun control laws, yet they still have higher rate of gun related crimes than cities that allow their residents to carry firearms.

What does “gun-control” have to do with thwarting Muslim killers with BOMB-MAKING factories in apartment buildings? Syed Rezwan Farook & Tashfeen Malik had a “bomb-making factory” in their apartment with improvised explosive devices (IEDs) with remote-controlled cars for delivering bombs to targets.

I ask you, which is worse? Being a "scumbag", or trying to deceive the American public by flat out lying to them to push a political agenda?

So you are saying we need more guns,especially the AR-15 and other automatic weapons of war?
And people on the no fly list should be able to purchase guns?
And the mentally ill should be allowed to purchase as many guns as they like?
And no training or background checks for gun show purchases?

Eventually every republican that sucks up to the NRA is going to be voted out of office by those voters with common sense

Howie, you don't get it. If you applied common sense, which you evidently haven't, you'd quickly realize nothing the liberals, conservatives, or the NRA has proposed or implemented has worked to effectively stop gun violence. The solution is clearly not more guns (which is what the NRA preaches). Rogue just accurately pointed out to you that banning certain types of guns (which liberals like you preach) DOES NOT WORK EITHER. Read those last 4 words again until it sinks in. California already has some of more restrictive gun laws in the country, yet we keep seeing plenty of examples of gun violence there too. Not only is there teeny little thing called the 2nd amendment, assault rifles have been legally sold in the US for YEARS. The horse long left that barn. The conservitards are equally wrong as they're now preaching fearmongering against muslims , when the majority of gun violence in this country has nothing to do with them. The incident in San Bernardino might, but that's just one small component of a bigger problem. There are literally millions of peaceful muslims living in the US with same restraint as non-muslims.

The problem isn't guns. All they do is make murder easier. Cars kill more people every year than guns, so where's the outrage to ban cars? And whether a sicko uses an AR-15 or semi automatic handgun (not being challenged) , both are equally capable of killing. Place the problem where it truly is, people. And that's what we need to focus on.

As far as solutions. The government can't solve it alone as they think, as it's a multi-faceted problem which requires a multi-faceted solutions. That's not to say the government can do anything. There are a few things they could do, like 1. eliminating the loophole in the screening process that allows gun sales to people on terrorlst watch lists or are on no ly lists. Appalling that the NRA Is against it. 2. they can restore funding to the CDC that was cancelled in 1996 for gun violence research. It was snuck into the D!ckey Amendment, passed by both houses and signed into law by Bill Clinton. That's bipartisan!!! You want common sense? How the hell can you fix a problem no one understands? Think about it. Appears Congress didn't.

The screening process (which both the NRA and conservatives dislike) is just one small piece toward fixing it until we learn better how to address it. Yes, criminals can get guns anyway, but that's not what the screening processes does. It roots out non-criminals who, for what ever reason, should not own a gun. It works to some extent, as many have been turned down, but it's far from perfect, as the San Bernardino jerks got their guns legally. If you use common sense, doesn't improving the screening process makes far more sense than scrapping it?

Istead of bashing the other side retreating to stale fear mongering political mantras which both extremes are doing , how about doing something with common sense? Like working together with the other side of the aisle to try to address the problem?

You make some valid points that I agree with
Thus far the Republican Party has refused to work with a president elected twice which is why I refer to them as scumbags.

Today's editorial on the front page of the New York Times is worth reading

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/05/opini ... inion&_r=0

"It is not necessary to debate the peculiar wording of the Second Amendment. No right is unlimited and immune from reasonable regulation"

"Certain kinds of weapons, like the slightly modified combat rifles used in California, and certain kinds of ammunition, must be outlawed for civilian ownership. It is possible to define those guns in a clear and effective way and, yes, it would require Americans who own those kinds of weapons to give them up for the good of their fellow citizens.

What better time than during a presidential election to show, at long last, that our nation has retained its sense of decency?"

Lets start with the mentally Ill and go from there

Telcoman

Another Republican Scumbag

Gov Rick Snyder of Michigan

"Gov. Rick Snyder of Michigan is scrambling to deal with a terrible water crisis created by his administration in the city of Flint, which is poor and has a black majority. The damage to the nearly bankrupt city and its nearly 100,000 residents by lead-tainted water caused by corrosion in the pipes has yet to be totaled, but there is no doubt that the state has a moral obligation to provide clean water immediately for the citizens and to devise a long-term solution, no matter how costly."

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/15/opini ... egion&_r=0

"The governor, a Republican, did virtually nothing to help the city until an outpouring of rage from Flint residents, city leaders, journalists and independent researchers forced him to wake up and focus on the calamity, which started more than a year ago."


Telcoman

Since California Democratic Governor Jerry Brown imposed water restrictions on the state’s residents on April 1, people have suddenly become interested in what government officials have described as “one of the most severe droughts on record.”

But for months, Republican Assemblywoman Shannon Grove — who represents part of Kern County, the second largest agricultural sector in the country – has been trying to get the word out about how Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) regulations apparently are literally draining water into the sea all for the sake of a three-inch fish.“I put together this short video to explain the real cause of California’s water shortage problems, which everyone is paying attention to now that the Governor has imposed water restrictions on the entire state,” Grove wrote on her Facebook page on April 3, the day she reposted the video she first published back in September.

“Share it with your friends who need to know the truth,” Grove wrote.

The truth, Grove said, is that the Endangered Species Act and its effort to protect the tiny delta smelt has taken water away from farmers.

That’s right, the worst drought in a century in California is because environmentalists want to be sure a 3 inch fish – the Delta Smelt – has enough water to swim in.

What does that have to do with a republican governor decision to poison an entire town with lead in the water supply trying to save a few dollars and appointing incompetent people over elected officials?
What kind of democracy is that?

Telcoman

Another Republican scumbag loser that insulted millions of Americans



http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/ ... id=SL5CDHP

Telcoman