Jump to content
Washington Football Team Logo
Extremeskins
Forum Rules and Guidelines

MSNBC: Sestak avoids questions on WH job offer

Teller

By Teller
in The Tailgate

Recommended Posts

Bang

Bang

Posted
Posted
Well, on the right wing side they are talking impeachment. Left wing side, probably saying it's a big right wing Sean Hannity-Sarah Palin conspiracy!

No kidding? Impeachment?

Well, didn't see that one coming, said Stevie Wonder.

:jerk:

~Bang

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bang

Bang

Posted
Posted
Well, I was going to post a link to the article but I realized it was a right wing site; so obviously biased.

I would keep an eye though as this thing could have legs.

I would hope not, i mean no doubt if it was done it is underhanded and should be dealt with, but I would hope that it is not just another over-reaction opportunity grabbing dog and pony show.

i think calls for impeachment are a bit much.

And i'm not so much worried about the site the news comes from, I am capable of trying to get a story to balance it if I feel it necessary. Not all right wing news and comment is as heavy handed as some others. I'm not one to dismiss the messenger offhand unless I know they should be from past experience. News from a right wing perspective is valuable, because it may dig for things left leaning sites may not, or introduce a counter perspective to be considered, and vice versa.

~Bang

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Veretax

Veretax

Posted
Posted

I don't understand why they are making such a big deal about this. I mean seriously, does anyone ES think that we could actually impeach, and then remove Obama from Office? Even if you might think its possible, do you really prefer Joe Biden become president? I know I don't

Link to comment
Share on other sites
JimboDaMan

JimboDaMan

Posted
Posted
You can't have thrown Blago under the bus.

And then act as if its no idea when you do the same basic thing.

Selling a position for personal gain. (Blago)

Selling a position for political gain. (Pres. Obama, as he's responsible for his Sr. Admins).

And, of course, almost every politician at every level who was in a position to do the same. Politics is all about horse trading. If every word of this is literally true, its the same thing that's gone on since the dawn of time.

Not that I admire the cynicism that prompts things like this. I don't like it at all. But its normal.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Fergasun

Fergasun

Posted
Posted

Here's something that was documented and happened, It sticks in my craw because I thought it was wrong at the time, there has been a full investigation, yet Bernanke got re-confirmed.

When Bank of America was merging with Merrill Lynch in late 2008 (closing on the deal early in 2009); as a negotiating tactic to get a better price on Merrill (or to extort money from the government, depending on your point of view) Ken Lewis threatened to invoke the "material averse change" (MAC) clause. This would allow BoA to back out of the deal.

In response, and this is documented in e-mails, Bernanke basically threatened to fire Lewis and the Bank of America board of directors if this move got them into trouble. Of course, Bernanke didn't threaten, he spoke with Paulson and Paulson has admitted that he threatened to fire Lewis and the board (although Paulson doesn't like to use the word "threaten").

The testimony and hearings on this are priceless as Congress completely owned Paulson and Bernanke on this and embarrassed both of them. Of course Bernanke ended up reconfirmed, Paulson still has a career, and Geithner (who also had some involvement) is still Treasury Secretary.

I wish our government wasn't full of this shady politics; however it all too often sadly is.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Thiebear

Thiebear

Posted
Posted
And, of course, almost every politician at every level who was in a position to do the same. Politics is all about horse trading. If every word of this is literally true, its the same thing that's gone on since the dawn of time.

Not that I admire the cynicism that prompts things like this. I don't like it at all. But its normal.

Seems everyone was demonizing Blagovich?

Should he be put back in office as just another of the same?

or is it:

If your caught and your local you go down.

You make it to the federal level you can do whatever you want with no Ethics needed?

The lack of Ethics/Ethics committee is my pet peeve though so i'm seriously biased on this one.

Being consistent would be nice though: http://www.extremeskins.com/showthread.php?t=274416&highlight=blagovich

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Ax

Ax

Posted
Posted
Seems everyone was demonizing Blagovich?

Should he be put back in office as just another of the same?

or is it:

If your caught and your local you go down.

You make it to the federal level you can do whatever you want with no Ethics needed?

No, this is just another case of, "If the Obama menstruation does it, Don't Ask, Don't Tell."

Nothing at all wrong with trying to rig an election.:rolleyes:

Hope, Change = Joke

Link to comment
Share on other sites
JimboDaMan

JimboDaMan

Posted
Posted
No, this is just another case of, "If the Obama menstruation does it, Don't Ask, Don't Tell."

Nothing at all wrong with trying to rig an election.:rolleyes:

Hope, Change = Joke

Oh goody, another well-reasoned position from the right wingers!

The only good thing arguments like this - equating two different things and claiming they are the same thing because it suits your purpose - is that they are so easy to dismiss.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Zguy28

Zguy28

Posted
Posted
Oh goody, another well-reasoned position from the right wingers!

The only good thing arguments like this - equating two different things and claiming they are the same thing because it suits your purpose - is that they are so easy to dismiss.

You do just as many verbal gymnastics in defense of the Democrats on here, so don't act sanctimoneous.

While not exactly the same, they still are both trying to determine that a particular person (who will benefit them) sits in a US Senate position through means other than campaigning.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
aREDSKIN

aREDSKIN

Posted
Posted
Yeah, if I remember... the Blago thing was bad because Blago was accepting bribes and moneys in exchange for favors like being nominated for the Senate slot. Very different in my book.

A bribe is a bribe. The consideration exchanged for an "act" is immaterial. That's why there are FEDERAL statutes AGAINST such behavior. It's a crime. Now the severity of such a "crime" may be argued but it's still a criminal act.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Burgold

Burgold

Posted
Posted
A bribe is a bribe. The consideration exchanged for an "act" is immaterial. That's why there are FEDERAL statutes AGAINST such behavior. It's a crime. Now the severity of such a "crime" may be argued but it's still a criminal act.

I disagree. A governor auctioning off a Senate seat to the highest bidder to line his own pockets is different than a governor choosing to offer a competitor a cushy job to get him off his back.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
twa

twa

Posted
Posted
I disagree. A governor auctioning off a Senate seat to the highest bidder to line his own pockets is different than a governor choosing to offer a competitor a cushy job to get him off his back.

So paying a bribe is more honorable than accepting one?

Interesting concept;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Burgold

Burgold

Posted
Posted
So paying a bribe is more honorable than accepting one?

Interesting concept;)

In politics.. yup (but good point) lol. Appointments are the standard commerse of politics. It's been happening since Babylon if not before.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
armstrong001

armstrong001

Posted
Posted

Not sure how Sestak would be in trouble for this, or how anyone could use it against him in an election. Someone could "offer" you hookers and blow, but if you refuse it you've done nothing wrong. If he didn't drop out, and didn't take an appointment, how did he do anything wrong?

ETA: Well, I would venture to guess that MOST people would consider refusing hookers and blow to be the correct thing to do...:silly:

Link to comment
Share on other sites
twa

twa

Posted
Posted
Not sure how Sestak would be in trouble for this, or how anyone could use it against him in an election. Someone could "offer" you hookers and blow, but if you refuse it you've done nothing wrong. If he didn't drop out, and didn't take an appointment, how did he do anything wrong?

Offering a federal position in such a matter is a crime,as is concealing any evidence.

Either a violation occurred or false accusations.

Sestak can't play it both ways.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Zguy28

Zguy28

Posted
Posted
Good luck with this one, fellas. :ols:

Add it to the list of impeachable offenses.

I'm a Republican (at least officially), but I don't think this is impeachable. I wouldn't go that far, I just think it makes Obama look like a hypocrit.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Zguy28

Zguy28

Posted
Posted
Not sure how Sestak would be in trouble for this, or how anyone could use it against him in an election. Someone could "offer" you hookers and blow, but if you refuse it you've done nothing wrong. If he didn't drop out, and didn't take an appointment, how did he do anything wrong?

ETA: Well, I would venture to guess that MOST people would consider refusing hookers and blow to be the correct thing to do...:silly:

Me neither. If anything, this story should show he has some integrity, while the Obama admin...not so much.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...