Liberals or Conservatives

[Jdriller]

Charlestudor2005 says "Now, as a general rule, I think men and women are different in this respect. I think men, again, as a rule, like and thrive on the debate, while women, as a rule, avoid that type of conflict. Now, I've use the phrase "as a rule" on purpose. There are exceptions to the rule, and I am sure there are ladies that can hold their own, and, indeed, enjoy such a debate" He must not be married. Most women I know have no hesitation at all about "debating" and do so frequently. I can never win an arquement with a woman.

[TexTushHog]

Originally Posted by SR Only

Yes, see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_B._Rangel
but to counterpoint my slam of my bud /Charlie, Ben Stein gave a rather impassioned speech about Rangel Sunday morning. He said that Rangel has really done a lot for the country and his transgressions were minor.

Rangel fucked up. But here's an interesting chart that pretty well sets out why reprimand is a more appropriate penalty than censure.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/44328831/1...gel-NO-Censure

[Chevalier]

Originally Posted by TexTushHog

Rangel fucked up. But here's an interesting chart that pretty well sets out why reprimand is a more appropriate penalty than censure.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/44328831/1...gel-NO-Censure

That seems much more like advocacy or talking points than objective analysis, doesn't it? And not very persuasive.

1. Not convicted of a crime. Yes, one person was censured after being convicted of a crime and others who were not convicted of crimes were reprimanded, but the summary at the end shows several individuals who were censured despite not being convicted of a crime. "X occured and censure resulted" does not imply "censure is only appropriate when X occurs," particularly if there are cases when X didn't occur and the individual was still censured.

2. Summary of the offenses, not a reason for no censure. I guess they wanted to round out to a nice, even 10 reasons.

3. Not fraudulent. See #1 above regarding false implication; this is not the only category of conduct that has resulted in censure. Also, while it may not have been a criminal conviction, is not claiming rent-stabilization for multiple units and for campaign purposes rather than living there, and omitting income from his tax return, close to "fraudulent" in the layman's sense of the word? If you want to restrict "fraud" to its legal and criminal meaning, that's fine, but in that case this reason is a duplication of #1.

4. Did not take a bribe. See #1 above regarding false implication; this is not the only category of conduct that has resulted in censure. Also, as I recall, the property owner who gave him the rent-stabilization rates potentially had business before Ways and Means, didn't it? Or was it the companies that he solicited for donations to the foundation, on Congressional letterhead? And the "bribes" associated with Wilson are not that different in nature, from what I can see.

5. No sexual misconduct. See #1 above regarding false implication; this is not the only category of conduct that has resulted in censure.

6. Transparent with the Committee. OK, that's a point in his favor. I suspect some of the other individuals censured could say the same, though.

7. Did not divert official resources for personal use. See #1 above regarding false implication; this is not the only category of conduct that has resulted in censure.

8. Did not involve personal financial gain. See #1 above regarding false implication; this is not the only category of conduct that has resulted in censure. Further, doesn't underpaying taxes for a long period of time, and being allowed to pay much less than market rates for those rent-controlled units, constitute personal financial gain? The unpaid taxes went straight to his pocket, and he didn't use all of those units for a campaign office, did he?

9. Did not have personal financial interest. See #1 above regarding false implication; this is not the only category of conduct that has resulted in censure.

10. Never lied under oath. OK, that's a point in his favor. I suspect some of the others who were censured could say the same, though.


And a key fact that was underplayed: chair of the House Committee that writes the tax laws and yet underpaid his taxes for a long period of time for an item that was clearly and unquestionably taxable. The IRS doesn't accept an argument by taxpayers that "well, my CPA prepared it so I assumed it was correct"; they're still expected to review the return and spot obvious errors or omissions before they sign the return (under penalty of perjury). It's not something that would result in someone going to prison -- ditto for the other offenses -- and Rangel won't go to prison either. But we should expect more from someone in Rangel's position than stopping short of criminal behavior.

I don't know how I would vote if I were a member of the House. But the vote for censure, in a panel evenly divided between Democrats and Republicans, was 9-1. That suggests that those talking points about why reprimand is appropriate instead were not as persuasive as you found them.

[Iaintliein]

Originally Posted by oden

If you haven't read any of their posts, can you say for sure if you are with a politically liberal or conservative leaning person? If so, what is the tell?

The only context I can think of where it would matter is if the subject of politics comes up, in which case the answer will likely be self-evident as the discussion goes on. It's always best to wade in slowly rather than dive in, if you place much value on the relationship with the new person.

[Laurentius]

That quiz is so screwed up it isn't funny; mainly because it didn't ask the right questions.

All political quizes are biased.

Anyway, here is the problem. In the modern era, we have learned to automatically demonize those who disagree with us politically.

Now, I am pretty politically tolerant. While I most certainly have my own views, I can typically see where someone else is coming from and understand why they'd think that way. As such, in general, a political discussion isn't going to make me think less of the person.

However, I do not know that to be the case with the woman; particularly if she has attended any colleges in the Northeast where automatic demonization has become so ingrained as to become reflex.

[TexTushHog]

Chevalier, the piece is obviously advocacy. It's written up to be used as a demonstrative aid in argument. I'd be somewhat torn between censure and reprimand. The most serious offense is under reporting of income. I think the rest is small potatoes. But that is a big issue to me. I think I'd probably urge my colleges to go along with reprimand, but if that didn't carry the day, I'd vote for censure so that the punishment, what ever it was, would be as close to unanimous as possible.

The chart does show that there is no consistent standard that has been applied through out the years. It's hit or miss depending on the public's attitude. That's why I'd lean toward leniency. That, plus long years of service with a clean record.

[Chevalier]

Originally Posted by TexTushHog

The chart does show that there is no consistent standard that has been applied through out the years. It's hit or miss depending on the public's attitude.

And, I suspect, whether the defendant's party has a majority in the House. I know, I know, call me cynical . . .

Originally Posted by TexTushHog

The most serious offense is under reporting of income. . . . That's why I'd lean toward leniency. That, plus long years of service with a clean record.

Originally Posted by TexTushHog

(unless of course you were under reporting income elsewhere, in which case you should go to prison in any event).

OK, let's go with a reprimand + prison. (Yeah, I know, perhaps out of context and/or apples versus oranges -- you later clarified to "substantial portion" -- but the juxtaposition amused me. But then, I'm easily amused.)

[charlestudor2005]

Originally Posted by Ansley

He pointed to the book Black Hawk Down and a couple of others in my bookcase.

I did not read the book, but I did see the movie. It is by far the most depressing movie I ever saw. It's been years, and still, just the thought of the movie depresses my spirit.

[Texas Contrarian]

Originally Posted by Chevalier

...OK, let's go with a reprimand + prison. (Yeah, I know, perhaps out of context and/or apples versus oranges -- you later clarified to "substantial portion" -- but the juxtaposition amused me. But then, I'm easily amused.)

Well, I guess I'm easily amused, too!

TexTushHog, let me see if I've got this straight. Tax evasion should earn you a prison sentence -- unless, of course, you're a liberal Democrat, in which case a reprimand is the appropriate measure?

Amazing!

[Ansley]

Originally Posted by charlestudor2005

I did not read the book, but I did see the movie. It is by far the most depressing movie I ever saw. It's been years, and still, just the thought of the movie depresses my spirit.

I saw the movie too. You are right, it was a very dark and depressing movie.

[DFW5Traveler]

Originally Posted by CaptainMidnight

Well, I guess I'm easily amused, too!

TexTushHog, let me see if I've got this straight. Tax evasion should earn you a prison sentence -- unless, of course, you're a liberal Democrat, in which case a reprimand is the appropriate measure?

Amazing!

+1

Isn't Wesley Snipes going to jail for tax evasion? Other than the obvious why should Rangel get a pass?

[charlestudor2005]

Originally Posted by CaptainMidnight

Well, I guess I'm easily amused, too!

TexTushHog, let me see if I've got this straight. Tax evasion should earn you a prison sentence -- unless, of course, you're a liberal Democrat, in which case a reprimand is the appropriate measure?

Amazing!

Originally Posted by DFW5Traveler

+1

Isn't Wesley Snipes going to jail for tax evasion? Other than the obvious why should Rangel get a pass?

Don't blame liberal Democrats for giving Rangel a pass. Blame the US Attorney in the district that would bring the charges. And I dare say the US Attorney is probably a Republican appointee. He doesn't go to jail unless indicted & convicted. So far, as far as I know, no charges have been brought. There may be some time before the statute runs, though. You might want to start your email campaign.

[Texas Contrarian]

Originally Posted by charlestudor2005

Don't blame liberal Democrats for giving Rangel a pass. Blame the US Attorney in the district that would bring the charges. And I dare say the US Attorney is probably a Republican appointee. He doesn't go to jail unless indicted & convicted. So far, as far as I know, no charges have been brought.

Charles, I assume you realize that everyone knows that.

It's just amusing to see the manifest hypocrisy of someone on the far left who seems to be arguing that a prominent tax-evader should only be subject to "reprimand", not "censure" (let alone the "prison term" urged for others) -- as long as he agrees with him politically!

Does anyone seriously believe he would support such leniency if the offender were a Republican?

[I B Hankering]

Originally Posted by Ansley

He pointed to the book Black Hawk Down and a couple of others in my bookcase.

Originally Posted by charlestudor2005

I did not read the book, but I did see the movie. It is by far the most depressing movie I ever saw. It's been years, and still, just the thought of the movie depresses my spirit.

Mark Bowden’s Guests of the Ayatollah is also very good. It's not as depressing.

[Chevalier]

Originally Posted by charlestudor2005

Don't blame liberal Democrats for giving Rangel a pass. Blame the US Attorney in the district that would bring the charges. And I dare say the US Attorney is probably a Republican appointee. He doesn't go to jail unless indicted & convicted. So far, as far as I know, no charges have been brought. There may be some time before the statute runs, though. You might want to start your email campaign.

1) The US Attorney is appointed by, and serves at the pleasure of, the President. They always resign and replacements are confirmed when aq different party takes over. So all those positions are currently vacant or held by Democrats.

2) But the US Attorney almost always would follow the recommendation of the IRS. Might be influenced by political appointees but it's mostly decided by career staffers, who don't usually approach it as a poltical decision.

3) And what Rangel did would usually result in additional tqx now plus a hefty penalty and interest but would almost never even be referred to IRS Criminal division. That generally is reserved for promoters of tax shelters and those who took serious steps to conceal. It's relatively rare.

4) Snipes' case, on the other hand, involved much bigger amounts and also more egregious abuse and frivolous arguments. Plus he tried to persuade others to follow the same scheme, and tried to cover it up -- including, if I recall, threatening an employee if she told the IRS anything. Criminal prosecution was much more appropriate than for Rangel. It went WAY beyond the standard that TTH articulated.