Censure?
Today is Thursday, 18 November 2010.
Rep. Charles Rangel (D-NY) should be censured by the House only after John Boehner (R/T-OH), etc. are expelled for supporting wars of aggression, white supremacy, etc.
Rep. Charles Rangel (D-NY) should be censured by the House only after John Boehner (R/T-OH), etc. are expelled for supporting wars of aggression, white supremacy, etc.
posted by HH at 9:23 PM
10 Comments:
Why don't you get right on that?
What wars of "white supremacy" do you refer to? And why should that have anything to do with Charles Rangel's censure for misconduct? I surely wouldn't want him to be my representative - or for my representative to conduct himself as Charles Rangel has.
"White" supremacy meaning, e.g., support for such as Rand Paul, who believes that civil rights laws banning segregation are invalid. I'm not pleased with Rangel's conduct, but it should be a far greater priority to clean the House of those who support illegal wars of aggression, such as the conquest of Iraq.
OK, fine, HH. But, unfortunately for your priorities, Congress is not currently addressing wars of aggression, et al. Sorry.
Hey, why don't you call YOUR Congressman and Senators...Maybe they will bring up that lil' old topic next year. Good luck.
To HH:
Sounds as though your beef is with the majority of the voters of the great state of Kentucky - they're the ones who elected Rand Paul to the House. No matter whether Boehner and his colleagues support Paul - it's not an ethical violation (as was Rangel's outrageous conduct). Boehner's support (or not) of Rand Paul and his policies is a political stance with which you disagree, not an ethical violation subject to censure by the House.
Let's compare apples to apples and try to stay on topic without throwing in a million non sequiturs to muddy the waters.
Supporting white supremacists, such as Rand Paul (Senate, not House) and Ron Paul (House, not Senate), regardless of the opinions of voters in Kentucky, brings disrepute upon the House. White supremacy is evil in itself, ethically and politically. Howduhya like them apples to apples
?
Yes, HH, you're quite right that I mis-typed the Paul recently elected to the Senate from Kentucky (Rand), and the Representative currently serving in the House (Ron). Got me there. Good for you.
Still, it appears that duly-elected representatives (Senate or House) will not soon be expelled for their political views, however (correctly or incorrectly) you may characterize them, and however abhorrent they may be to you. (Your calling them "white supremacists" doesn't make it so.) Neither are they going to be expelled for supporting the Iraq war. Many Democrats, as well as Republicans, were in favor of that ill-conceived and ill-fated debacle. In any case, Boehner and his political cronies were elected because of, not in spite of, their political beliefs and their promise to act on those beliefs. That is precisely what the voters of their respective states found appealing enough to send them to Washington.
Again, what has this to do with Charles Rangel's censure for misconduct? Nothing.
Rand Paul advocates segregation. Ron Paul has long published white racist views. Come now: if that don't qualify as "white supremacy", nothing does.
Legislative bodies have the power to discipline, to refuse to seat, and to expell popularly elected members. Before censuring Rangel for financial matters, Congress should cleanse itself of racists and those who voted for a criminal war of aggression.
Not happening, of course. They have already condemned themselves before history.
Hey, "whatchu talkin' bout" -
Very good try there. But, HH is not listening. Go figure....
Since when are petty financial misdemeanors worse than promoting race hate and criminal wars? I'm listening to the hammer of justice and seeing straight.
Post a Comment
<< Home