»
Discussion
»
The Alley
»
Swamp Duty
| The Alley |
|
Swamp Duty |
|
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA 
|
WASHINGTON (AP) — A House investigative panel has decided to charge Democratic Rep. Maxine Waters of California with ethics violations, raising the possibility of a second high-profile trial with political implications for Democrats this fall. People familiar with the investigation, who were not authorized to be quoted about unannounced charges, say the allegations could be announced next week. The House ethics committee declined Friday to make any public statement on the matter. Waters has been under investigation for a possible conflict of interest involving a bank that was seeking federal aid. Her husband owned stock in the bank. New York Democrat Rep. Charles Rangel also faces an ethics trial this fall on separate charges that included failure to disclose assets and income, nonpayment of taxes and doing legislative favors for donors to a college center named after him. Both Waters and Rangel are prominent members of the Congressional Black Caucus. Dual ethics trials would be a major political liability for Democrats, forcing them to defend their party's ethical conduct while trying to hold on to their House majority. While Rangel is a former chairman of the tax-writing Ways and Means Committee, Waters is a prominent member of the Financial Services Committee. http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2010-07-31-maxine-waters-ethics-charges_N.htm?csp=34news&utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+UsatodaycomWashington-To pStories+%28News+-+Washington+-+Top+Stories%29&utm_content=My+Yahoo WASHINGTON (AP) — To rebut a lengthy list of alleged ethical misdeeds, Rep. Charles Rangel is trotting out this three-way defense: I didn't do it. I did it, but was inattentive. Others lawmakers were allowed to do same thing without penalty. It's an approach that nervous Democrats are watching closely in one of the most politically explosive cases in years. Should it go to a public trial this fall, smack in the middlof the Congressional Black Caucuse of the election season, and should his defense fall short, that won't help Democratic candidates forced to defend their party's ethics against Republican campaign attacks. The GOP already is demanding that specific Democratic candidates give up contributions provided by Rangel's political organizations, and about a half-dozen Democrats have asked the 20-term lawmaker to resign. He's facing 13 counts of wrongdoing, including providing official favors in return for donations, hiding income and assets, and failing to pay taxes. Rangel, 80, is a former chairman of the tax-writing House Ways and Means Committee. http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/legislative/2010-07-31-rangel-defense_N.htm?csp=34news&utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+UsatodaycomWashington-TopS tories+%28News+-+Washington+-+Top+Stories%29&utm_content=My+Yahoo So, a prominent member of the Financial Services Committee is accused of wheeling and dealing ways for her husband to make a lot of money and a former member ofthe tax-writing Ways and Means committee is accused of failure to pay taxes. Hey, it didn't hurt Holder. SO, will Obama go to bat for them, these two members of the Congressional Black Caucus? (Is there a Congressional White Caucus, I wonder?) He has called Rangel's predicament "troubling". Haven't heard anything about Waters. Pelosi is back in college, taking a refresher course on swamp cleaning, I hear. |
||
| © Copyright 2010 Michael Mack - All Rights Reserved | |||
|
serenity blaze Member Empyrean
since 2000-02-02
Posts 27738 |
I was taught that the last line of an argumentative essay should be a summary. So when I didn't "get" yours, I do with what I always do when I don't "get" it.  I googled the title. Look what I found! http://www.swamppolitics.com/news/politics/blog/2009/03/michelle_obamas_soupkitchen_du.html  |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
I have no idea what you just said ...although it is a subject changer, for sure. |
||
|
Grinch Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929Whoville |
Are you saying some politicians might have ethical issues Mike!  I’m not really surprised - what’s that saying about power corrupting? I wonder though, Is the unethical behaviour restricted to Democrats or are Republicans equally susceptible to unethical behaviour? Is that the point you’re trying to make Mike, that Democrats are less ethical than Republicans, or is it unethical politicians in general that you have an issue with? . |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
The Democrats have the stage for the moment but there has been plenty on both sides. What makes this more interesting, or laughable if you will, is Pelosi. I cannot recall and Republican speaker coming into power by ripping on how bad and corrupt the Democrats were and how he/she is going to clean it up. Pelosi did that. Her words, her vows, here calling Congress a swamp. There have been isolated actions of corruption done by both sides over the years. Pelosi stuck her foot in her mouth with those accusations and words and they are coming back to bite her in a very tender place. I call that poetic justice. |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
No, it's Democrats, Grinch. I think that Charlie Rangel is in hot water for ethics violations, and it may actually be time for him to resign. I'd like to see a more solid representation of the ethics charges against him, mind you, but it looks that way. About Maxine Waters, I've been on vacation, and I'm not up to speed, but it doesn't sound that the ethics committee has considered her case yet, though [Edited - Ron]. Before the Black Caucus, there actually was a White Caucus. They called it The Congress and it was pretty much both houses and, except for a few years during reconstruction, that's the way it was. And pretty much, yes, I'd have to say it was racist for the most part, if you consider supporting slavery then supporting segregation and the various forms of religious and racial discrimination that went along with these practices racist. I do. [Edited - Ron] You should, as should everybody else, make up their own minds on the basis of the evidence that they can tolerate looking at. In my opinion. [Edited - Ron] The Nevada scandal has gone beyond ethics violations at this point and has hit the grand jury level and it seems criminal charges are pending or have been handed down. As I say, I've been on vacation, and I'm behind the curve. The Senator from Louisiana is still trying to deal with various prostitution beefs. [Edited - Ron] [Edited - Ron] [This message has been edited by Ron (08-01-2010 04:51 PM).] |
||
|
Grinch Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929Whoville |
Poetic justice? I’m not sure Mike. Pelosi didn’t claim that there’d be no unethical behaviour, she just claimed there’d be less, she said that the Democrats were going to ‘drain the swamp’, wouldn’t that lead to more publicised instances of alleged ethical transgressions? Could the two cases you’ve highlighted suggest that the swamp draining is actually working? If you’re getting rid of rats from a barn do the rats in the traps mean you’re making progress or that you’re efforts are failing? Just a thought. . |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Could the two cases you’ve highlighted suggest that the swamp draining is actually working? hehe...yes, but not through any effort on Pelosi's part. Since she had mentioned that it was the Republicans who had made a swamp of Congress, I doubt she was referring to Democrats. She did not initiate any action in these cases. The swamp is being drained IN SPITE of her. Bob, [Edited - Ron]. This thread was about these two incidences and Pelosi's swamp draining comments. If you wish to discuss republican scandals, start a thread. If you want to speak about voter registration, start a thread. You travel to faraway lands and then complain that I did not mention them. They had nothing to do with Rangel, Waters and Pelosi, that's why. If you want to discuss them, start a thread. [This message has been edited by Ron (08-02-2010 09:45 AM).] |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
Tisk, tisk, Mike. I was answering Grinch's question from one or two postings prior to my own. If you don't wish Republican wrongdoings to be brought up when you trash Democrats, then you might consider keeping the discussion centered on them when the subject of Republican problems are brought up from time to time. [Edited - Ron] [Edited - Ron] [Edited - Ron] I'm sorry to see that Ron felt the need to edit my posting, since I wasn't trying to be offensive. However, it is Ron's judgement to make, and not mine, and he is remarkably tolerant (You are remarkably tolerant, Ron.) of my opinions. I'll try to keep a more observant eye out about how I put things. And I do not want to hurt people's feelings, because I do regard the folks here as friends. [Bob, your posts were edited not because you were necessarily offensive, but because you wanted to talk about Mike instead of talking about the topic. We're not here to analyze other posters. - Ron] [This message has been edited by Ron (08-02-2010 09:48 AM).] |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
I'll repeat once again...if you want to discuss Republican misgivings, start a thread. |
||
JenniferMaxwell
since 2006-09-14
Posts 2423 |
"If you wish to discuss republican scandals, start a thread" - Balladeer Here you go, Balladeer: /pip/Forum6/HTML/002047.html |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
Ron, you're gonna need a new pair of scissors soon. |
||
|
Grinch Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929Whoville |
quote: But that simply isn’t true Mike, Pelosi and the Democrats created the Office of Congressional Ethics – the organisation that highlighted the potential ethical issues. She set the traps and they seem to be working. http://www.speaker.gov/legislation?id=0167 . |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Pelosi was asked today about the Rangel and Waters issues. She responded that she knows nothing about them. The board works independently and does not share info with her. If you believe that, there's still plenty of swampland down here for sale. |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Here you go, Balladeer You misdirected your message, Jennifer. Bob is the one with the impulses to discuss them. Tell him... |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Democrats declare swamp of corruption drained AP WASHINGTON – Democratic leaders say they've emptied the swamp of congressional corruption. Never mind the ethics trials to come for two longtime party members. "Drain the swamp we did, because this was a terrible place," Speaker Nancy Pelosi said last week of the Republican rule in the House that ended in January 2007. Pelosi's statement might seem odd, but it's an emerging strategy: Separate Democratic-initiated ethics reforms from the cases of Reps. Charles Rangel, D-N.Y., and Maxine Waters, D-Calif. Pelosi needs a strategy because Republicans have been adept at jumping on the troubles of Rangel, the former House Ways and Means chairman, and Waters, a senior member of the Financial Services Committee. "The swamp was described in the press as a 'criminal syndicate' operating out of the Republican leader's office," she said last week in defining the phrase. http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100803/ap_on_go_co/us_waters_ethics Gotta love this woman...of you're a conservative. The swamp has been drained...because of charges against Rangel and Waters? No, because a "criminal syndicate" operating out of the Republican leader's office has been squashed. What criminal syndicate, you ask? Where is that reported in the newspapers? Where are the headlines? Who was in that criminal syndicate? How was it defeated? When? Beats me... Pelosi seems to be using Obama tactics. When the stimulus plan is failing, call it a success. When unemployment stays high over expectations, say it could have been worse and call it a success. When Democrats are facing ethics violations, say a republican criminal syndicate has been erased and call it a success. Thank you, Nancy. You are showing the American public exactly what they need to see. |
||
|
JenniferMaxwell
since 2006-09-14
Posts 2423 |
http://0.tqn.com/d/politicalhumor/1/0/A/j/delay_abramoff_kickbackmtn.jpg |
||
|
Grinch Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929Whoville |
quote: Hmm.. If she’s as bad as you paint her and she has the Office of Congressional Ethics in her pocket why the heck are the investigations still ongoing? If however the Office of Congressional Ethics truly is independent you’d expect her to have no control over who and what they investigate, which seems the case here. Given the evidence, I’d say her statement makes a lot of sense. They are draining the swamp – the two Democrats being investigated are clear evidence of that. . |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Rangel's investigation has been going on over two years. Of course you will paint it any way you like. No problem. Perhaps you also have some information on the Republican criminal syndicate she has eliminated? I feel certain you do...it would fit. Believe me, if Rangel and Waters were Republicans, she would be grabbing headlines, bleating about how and her crack team is bringing the wrongdoers to justice, instead of looking bewildered and have nothing to say but "Don't ask me. I know nothing." |
||
|
Grinch Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929Whoville |
Mike, I’m not painting it at all – I’m just stating facts. Pelosi said she’d drain the swamp and the fact that two Democrats are being investigated is fairly convincing evidence that the draining is underway. Is it embarrassing for her that two Democrats are being investigated? Of course it is, they tarnish the party as a whole but swamp draining sometimes reveals stuff you didn’t really want to see. Would she have been happier if they were Republicans? Of course she would, she’d have been dancing in the street, in the same way that the Republicans are dancing right about now but you claiming that there’s no swamp draining going on is one dance too many. . |
||
|
Cpat Hair
since 2001-06-05
Posts 11793 |
LOL Well, do we all agree there is a swamp to drain? Do we all agree there are people on both sides of the aisle (past and or present) who have done their part to create the swamp? Can we agree that what ever action is taken to lessen the rise of the swamp, might be a good thing? Can we all agree, that partisan politics exists and that which ever side of the aisle can, will make use of wrong doing on the other? If we can agree to this.... then we can also probably agree that the use of exageration, hyperbole,spin, twists, and leverage are a part of the political game, again... regardless of which side of the aisle you might find yourself. If you've said yes to the above, then there should be no surprise with headlines, accusations, promises,or posturing done by any of the pundits or politicos.... Is it the feeling of being ineffective that drives this debate forward? The frustration that comes from feeling you are unable to truly impact the behaviors of those ELECTED officials? Or, is it simply easy to look across the aisles at each other and point to examples, place blame, and call the whole of the situation "the other guys fault"? [This message has been edited by Cpat Hair (08-03-2010 03:16 PM).] |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
When Pelosi said she would drain the swamp, she was referring to the "Republican criminal syndicate", as she has acknowledged. Democrats getting caught up in it is an embarrassment to her and, obviously not of her choosing. Once again, what info you you have over that crime syndicate that she claims she has handled? |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
Jennifer left at least one link. Failure to examine evidence does not mean evidence does not exist. Saying it is somebody else's job to deal with it (See your comment, "Bob is the one with the impulses to discuss them. Tell him..." above.) does not justify saying that no reply to your various statements has been made. Nor does it justify suggesting that the comments were not cogent, since you have explicitly denied reading them. Why not actually read the statements you say you disagree with, if only to see if they were actually made, let alone to check out whether you disagree with the statements themselves or merely with the name of the person making them? That way, we would be able to disagree on matters of fact or elements of reasoning instead of disagreeing about matters of reality, such as this one. Jennifer did offer examples. You may disagree with them and may even be right, but that discussion can't happen as long as you pretend that she hasn't done so when her posting is there for everyone to see. |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
I saw no link from Jennifer referring to Rangel or Waters, Bob. Perhaps you could point them out to me? |
||
|
Grinch Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929Whoville |
quote: Certainly Mike, Pelosi claimed she was going to drain the swamp and some sections of the media reported it as an attempt to counter the Republican criminal syndicate. I can find plenty of references quoting Pelosi claiming that the Republicans hadn’t acted to address unethical behaviour, which they hadn't, but I can’t find a single quote where she called them a “Republican criminal syndicate”. I may have missed it though, presumably, as you’ve attributed the quote to her, you can supply the details – when and where did she actually say that Mike? . |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
quote: While you say the subject of the thread is Rangel and Waters, you do not limit your comments to them, Mike. My comments were directed at some of your other comments, the ones quoted above among them. You wanted to know about the criminal syndicate and Jennifer supplied a reference for you. You asked the question, and it's there in black and white to be seen. If it isn't relevant to the thread and you don't want an answer, edit yourself and don't ask it. That would probably be the most reasonable course of action. To pretend that all you've spoken about are the cases of Rangel and Waters, however, is misleading. quote: Raising an issue such as this, for example, begs a response beyond the Rangel/Waters parameters that you claim to be sticking to. If this comment is appropriate for such a thread, then a response to it is appropriate as well. You have forgotten the Gingrich Congress which swept it way into power with its Contract for America. It seems that the Rhetoric of that Congress has slipped your mind. You might consider re-evaluating your statement above in rememberence of those events. Some of that rhetoric was justified, I believe, by the poor behavior of some of the Democratic incumbents, just as some of the Democratic rhetoric is justified. quote: The truth is that all of us ought to be concerned about any sort of misbehavior by any of our elected officials, Democratic or Republican, as Ringo mentioned recently in another thread. I have from time to time found myself at odds with Ringo, but I believe he is making a great deal of sense here for anybody with concern for us as a nation rather than partisan party concerns. |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Jennifer's link referred to a republican criminal conspiracy?? And how Pelosi was able to break it up?? Bob, you're just arguing for argument's sake.. The truth is that all of us ought to be concerned about any sort of misbehavior by any of our elected officials Of course we should. We should also be concerned about a cure for cancer, corrupt union officials and illegal aliens. That doesn't mean, however, we should discuss them in a thread about Waters. Rangel and Pelosi. You all needed to bring finger pointing into the thread for obvious reasons. I;m really not interested in the petty bickering any longer, Bob. If you're not interesting in discussing the topic at hand, why even bother responding? If you want to discuss other issues, you start a thread about the other issues, which Jennifer did, and discuss them. It's really not that difficult. |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
quote: Where is it written that you can bring up issues in a thread, such as the issues I quoted your bringing up above, and not expect them to get a response in that thread? Please, cite that rule for me, so I will be able to understand what I'm doing wrong here. I am aware of no such rule, but I'm willing to learn if you can show it to me and act politely in the process. In the meantime, if you are unable to reply to the substance of what I'm saying, I'd appreciate it if you wouldn't try to tell me what to do as long as I'm acting in a polite fashion and it's in line with the rules of the site. No matter what the ostensible title of the thread, as far as I know, I still have the right to reply to your comments. If you want my replies to be more on subject, keep your comments there as well. That seems both fair and, as I understand it, the rules of the house. If they are not the Rules of the house, you can tell me so or, better, one of the other moderators can tell me so. They'd be clear of the conflict. Or Ron could say something if he chooses, as he does on occasion. In the meantime, I've made some points that you might choose to address. Telling me not to address points you yourself brought up in your thread is specious. If you don't wish a response, don't bring them up or, better yet, don't bring them up[ in public, where people are likely to have reactions and may wish to exercise their right of free speech to express them. |
||
|
JenniferMaxwell
since 2006-09-14
Posts 2423 |
No Smoking Gun in House Ethics Committee Report Against Waters “The actual committee report reveals in full detail that Waters did not profit from or influence decisions the Treasury made to help One United Bank, or any other minority bank. But the damage has been done. Waters is now firmly imprinted in the media and public mind as the poster politician for congressional corruption. She's black, high profile, a ranking Democrat, and outspoken. That instantly made her an inviting target to dump on the political hot seat. The release of the full report should, but won't change that.” http://www.huffingtonpost.com/earl-ofari-hutchinson/no-smoking-gun-in-house-e_b_671932.html |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
The report that Jennifer mentions suggests that, while the charges concerning Charlie Rangel may have some merit to them, the charges concerning Maxine Waters have considerably less merit to them, if any at all. There is still some room for more information to stream in here, but it appears that the invitation to pig pile on both folks may have been inappropriate. Any of us has the right to issue such an invitation. From a constitutional perspective, because we are speaking of political figures, our speech is protected. My thinking is that it must be protected to ensure that all may enter the political discussion, should they wish. Once again I register a preference for an attempt to present evidence when we chuck our opinions about. |
||
Ringo
since 2003-02-20
Posts 3684Saluting with misty eyes |
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HZegTfr5HRg Since the lovely and talented Rep. Maxine Waters has been brought up... Here's one for the Democratic set. I wonder if she has the same thoughts today? Life's journey is not to arrive at the grave safely in a well preserved body, but rather to skid in sideways, totally worn out, shouting, "WHAT A RIDE |
||
|
Grinch Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929Whoville |
quote: My preference Bob would be for people to actually voice their own opinions, I don’t mind if they don’t initially offer evidence with the opinion. I’m quite capable of ascertaining the validity of anything they say by checking out the facts myself and if I disagree with an opinion I’ll either ignore it or I’ll challenge the opinion. Evidence from the opinion giver at that point would be nice but again it isn’t necessary – if no evidence is offered it’s simply another way of recognising that they have no conviction that their opinion is correct. Occasionally it turns out that someone offers an opinion that differs from my own but they provide evidence that, when I check it out, supports that opinion, in which case I gladly accept their opinion as being equally valid. In other cases they may offer evidence that forces me to re-evaluate my opinion. Either of those cases, where I see an alternate valid opinion or am compelled to amend my own are, for me, the most edifying. What tends to happen here though is that people post other people’s opinions or offer link and quotes to something that purports to be evidence of something but with no clear suggestion of what it is evidence of or what opinion the poster derives from that evidence. . |
||
|
JenniferMaxwell
since 2006-09-14
Posts 2423 |
“My preference Bob would be for people to actually voice their own opinions” - Grinch I’d like to see that happen too, Grinch. Unfortunately those opinions, rather than addressing the issue, too often contain disparaging, belittling or off topic remarks directed at other posters. I’ve been misquoted, quoted out of context, had my words twisted into something never intended so many times that I really hesitate spending time writing an opinion piece only to see it followed by a response that’s little more than a veiled (or not so) ad hominem attack. |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
quote: Some people, Jennifer, might contend that your complaint is, itself, a veiled (or not so) ad hominem attack? Whether it is or isn't is neither greatly important nor my real point. My point, rather, is that it's always going to be a matter of perspective. Recognizing when someone is attacking you when they should be attacking your points is an important skill. It is no less important, however, to be able to recognize when you find yourself doing it to others. It's good, sometimes, to change our perspective. quote: I agree, Grinch, though probably for different reasons. One has to wonder what the purpose of a discussion forum is on a site dedicated to writing when so many are just quoting and linking and (worse for us bandwidth-deprived Members) posting YouTube URLs? |
||
|
JenniferMaxwell
since 2006-09-14
Posts 2423 |
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NYA9ufivbDw |
||
|
JenniferMaxwell
since 2006-09-14
Posts 2423 |
And some people are wondering why some personal attacks are edited out and some are allowed to remain. Some people say there seems to be pattern, certain posters seem to be targeted repeatedly by the edit wand while others with similar rule violating posts are usually passed over. |
||
|
JenniferMaxwell
since 2006-09-14
Posts 2423 |
Actually did a little research trying to sort out when/why copy and pastes started to so often take the place of original opinion pieces. All I could come up with was battle fatigue. Seems like for several years now most of the Alley discussions have centered around the political arena, forces on the right battling forces on the left. At first the handful of regular posters all sent in their pipers, our little brilliant opinion writes, after that, seems some (not all) became battle weary, relied on the spear hurlers and archers, sarcasm and zingers or the defensive shield of deflection. Now, for them, (including myself) seems pretty much all that’s left in the armory is a collection of rusty cannon balls, other peoples writings. Perhaps we’re just too weary of it all to do our own writing, thinking, yet unwilling to retreat or surrender. |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
quote: Perspective? quote: Some learn more slowly than others what is acceptable and what isn't. There are three kinds of posters in the Alley. There are those who address the posts; they aren't very concerned with what is acceptable or not because they don't have to be. There are those who can't seem to help themselves from talking ABOUT the other people posting, and I'm sure those are the ones who seem to be targeted repeatedly. One would hope they will eventually learn. And then there are those who have learned what is acceptable and what isn't and believe they are clever enough to skirt the difference. There is very little hope they will ever learn anything. quote: I can relate, Jennifer. Those of us listening to it are probably just as tired. |
||
|
Grinch Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929Whoville |
quote: Well you certainly have me pegged Ron. I must be a right royal pain in the rear at times - and for that I apologise. . |
||
|
|
⇧ top of page ⇧ |
|
| All times are ET (US). All dates are in Year-Month-Day format. | ||
