Damo and Freak - Voting for Schaffer?
- Thread starter Bonestorm
- Start date
What part of I'll ask him questions about this when I next see him means that to you? Seriously, do you ever even read another person's posts or do you only exist inside your own web of fantasy?
1) The 106th Congress spanned January of 1999 to December of 2000. The trip was made in August of 1999, during the first session of the 106th Congress. Now, perhaps it is true that Schaffer didn't plan on doing any work on any legislation or participate in any congressional activities for oh, 16 months, but I doubt it.
2) There is a direct link to Abramoff. Abramoff lobbied for the Mariana Island business interests that Schaffer visited. Abramoff's firm paid for the trip. How much more direct a link can there be?
3) Again, he was leaving Congress 16 months after the trip and had plenty of time to act on matters pertaining to the Mariana Islands during those 16 months, particularly considering that he sat on the very committee that handled issues relating to the islands.
4) The source is the Denver Post and I've already provided some linkage. Here you are again for the Mariana trip:
http://www.denverpost.com/news/ci_8872607
And for his bone-headed statement that got the ball rolling:
http://www.denverpost.com/breakingnews/ci_8834138
Cancel 2016.2
The Almighty
Dung... to answer you question, I would likely vote for Schaffer as well.
1) Idiotic comments from Udall about 5% unemployment being "troubling" don't exactly paint a good picture on his understanding of economics.
2) You are pulling one trip from over 8 years ago and pretending it is an issue solely because you can show a tie to Abramoff. Yet if you actually read the Post article it states that his trip was paid for by .....
"Schaffer's $13,000 trip was paid for by the Orange County, Calif.-based Traditional Values Coalition, which Schaffer described as a religious group "concerned with human rights."
Granted, Abramoff appears to have had ties to the TVC. But I think you are overplaying their connection.
3) "Trips paid for by lobbyists and other advocates — even to exotic locales and accompanied by spouses and staff — are far from illegal; in fact, they are a Washington mainstay. In about 5-1/2 years ending in June 2005, lawmakers, their families and staffs took 23,000 trips worth $50 million, according to a study by the Center for Public Integrity. "
The above pretty much pisses me off. It is why I do not like lobbyists and why I don't like those that say money=speech. But, no, his participation in it will not deter me from voting for him given that it is a part of the system. The only difference is Abramoff's weak ties to Schaffer.
4) No, I do not agree with Schaffers comments on the conditions in the M. Islands on the whole. But I do believe the basic principle of how they allow foreign workers into the Islands is a good one. Obviously the working conditions need to be improved, but the structure of bringing in foreign workers could be a base foundation for a plan.
5) I do like the fact that both Udall and Schaffer are committed to R&D in alt energy.
6) I think both would be good Senators on the whole. But Schaffer would likely get my vote over Udall given Udalls economic views. Udall tends to spout off too many of the ignorant chants from the left when it comes to economics.
1) Idiotic comments from Udall about 5% unemployment being "troubling" don't exactly paint a good picture on his understanding of economics.
2) You are pulling one trip from over 8 years ago and pretending it is an issue solely because you can show a tie to Abramoff. Yet if you actually read the Post article it states that his trip was paid for by .....
"Schaffer's $13,000 trip was paid for by the Orange County, Calif.-based Traditional Values Coalition, which Schaffer described as a religious group "concerned with human rights."
Granted, Abramoff appears to have had ties to the TVC. But I think you are overplaying their connection.
3) "Trips paid for by lobbyists and other advocates — even to exotic locales and accompanied by spouses and staff — are far from illegal; in fact, they are a Washington mainstay. In about 5-1/2 years ending in June 2005, lawmakers, their families and staffs took 23,000 trips worth $50 million, according to a study by the Center for Public Integrity. "
The above pretty much pisses me off. It is why I do not like lobbyists and why I don't like those that say money=speech. But, no, his participation in it will not deter me from voting for him given that it is a part of the system. The only difference is Abramoff's weak ties to Schaffer.
4) No, I do not agree with Schaffers comments on the conditions in the M. Islands on the whole. But I do believe the basic principle of how they allow foreign workers into the Islands is a good one. Obviously the working conditions need to be improved, but the structure of bringing in foreign workers could be a base foundation for a plan.
5) I do like the fact that both Udall and Schaffer are committed to R&D in alt energy.
6) I think both would be good Senators on the whole. But Schaffer would likely get my vote over Udall given Udalls economic views. Udall tends to spout off too many of the ignorant chants from the left when it comes to economics.
Cancel 2016.2
The Almighty
do you ever tire of your own stupidity?
Perhaps one day you will grow up enough to actually discuss issues rather than enter one pathetic comment after another. But perhaps I am hoping for too much from you. It would appear there is no vaccine or treatment in sight for your stupidity either.
Fair enough, but the Abramoff issue isn't tenuous as you suggest. First of all, while the TVA may have paid for the trip, it was basically a front-group for Abramoff. Now maybe Schaffer didn't know that at the time, but someone should have informed his staff. His staff apparently informed him that Abramoff's firm paid for the trip:
Additionally, I understand your opposition to Udall's comment that a 5% unemployment rate is troubling, but isn't increasing unemployment in fact troubling? That seems like a tenuous reason to support one candidate over the other. maybe there are legitimate reasons to support Schaffer's economic proposals over Udall's, I honestly don't know. But that one statement doesn't seem to be overwhelming to me given the unemployment trend.
Cancel 2016.2
The Almighty
1) My thought on Abramoff is this.... even if Schaffer did know Abramoff was tied to them.... was it known that Abramoff was the piece of shit he turned out to be? Or was this simply another lobbyist paying for a trip?
2) As for your question on unemployment, it depends on several things. The two most important are... how fast is it increasing? and... what was the starting point?
Why are these important? A few examples...
a) Unemployment rate jumps from 4.9% to 5%.... this is not troubling as the degree of the move is minimal and the starting point was below full employment.
b) Unemployment rate jumps from 7.2% to 7.3%.... this would be troubling. Even though it has a similar 0.1% move it is an increase in unemployment from an already high unemployment number. Meaning a bad situation is getting worse.
c) Unemployment rate jumps from 4.5% to 5.0%. This would also be troubling as it would show a dramatic shift in a one month period. So despite starting below full employment and ending at full employment, the quick shift would be worrisome.
uscitizen
Villified User
I just call em as I see em.
It is not as if those people on that island are really Americans anyway.
Kind of like those who Iraqi who die.
It is a republican mentality problem.
Cancel 2016.2
The Almighty
No, the problem lies in your "paint them all with one stroke" mentality. That and your constant need to over-exaggerate. Acting as though Republicans don't care about these issues may be fun in your little Dem kool aid induced world, but in reality the stupidity of your comments shines quite bright.
Cancel 2016.2
The Almighty
I did not say you were stupid on all issues moron. I said your stupidity lies in comments like those that you just stated on this thread. Now are you done with your idiotic games? Are you able to actually discuss issues now? Or are you going to continue with your moronic comments?
cawacko
Well-known member
The latter. Kind of like a knat on a dog's d*ck that doesn't seem to go away.
uscitizen
Villified User
yeah the truth can be darned inconvenient.
and I will never quit reminding Bush enablers how wrong they have been.
The price of freedom is eternal vigilance.
Yeah, because when you are there you must only do exactly what you came for. Nobody can possibly take advantage of any fun things and do something else too...
Not everything that Abromoff's firm did was illegal. And this couldn't possibly be to have him vote a certain way as he was nearing the end of his time in Congress and had made it no secret. They were not trying to buy his influence.
Basically, you are upset that a politician that is in an opposing party took a trip somewhere to investigate conditions of employment in textile for guest workers so that he could report himself what he saw.
That it wasn't illegal, you don't care about.
That he reported that it was possible to treat people like humans while letting them in to work, you don't care about that either.
Damo, would you please knock this off. You know better than this. Talk about “rubbish”. Any conclusion he came to is tainted by the money. Period. It doesn’t matter whether he was leaving congress or not. As if, former congressman have never been known to benefit from corporate contacts they made while in Congress! It’s very comparable to Phillip Morris paying for a lung cancer/smoking link study. Just give it a rest.
cawacko
Well-known member
no, that has nothing to do with it. It's always interjecting into good conversations little one liners that often have nothing to do with the conversation and add nothing to the conversation. It's repetitive and it's old.
Mark is a bumpersticker and that is all. There is no way I will vote for him. It isn't even close to the "lessor of two evils".
A trip payed for by a lobbyist notwithstanding, Shaffer is not as catch-phrase wannabe as Udall is.
Udall hears people "concerned" over the economy he begins to repeat it, if he hears them "concerned" about something else he will repeat their concerns. It makes dumb people think he is deep when all it is, is following.
A trip payed for by a lobbyist notwithstanding, Shaffer is not as catch-phrase wannabe as Udall is.
Udall hears people "concerned" over the economy he begins to repeat it, if he hears them "concerned" about something else he will repeat their concerns. It makes dumb people think he is deep when all it is, is following.
This is silly.
The whole "You are better than this" is an attempt to make a figure that isn't solely party to go your way on everything. It doesn't matter who they are if they have an "R" and I support them you say this.
Again,
There has never been, nor will there ever be any allegations of illegality from Shaffer on this. He is the penultimate honest man in politics. He made a promise and kept it to show his kid that nobody is above the measure of their word. He is something most of us seek in a politician. The person who will actually try to do what they promise to try to do.
Now, that in itself wouldn't make me vote for him, Carter was that way too. It does however make me listen to what he has to say. What I don't like in Shaffer is far less than what I like in him at this moment. And what I like in Shaffer is far, far more than what I like in Udall.
Socrtease
Verified User
Colorado is about the least mountain state of the mountain states. Too many focus on the family types that think it is proper for the government to pass laws to save my soul instead of just keep me safe and keep my taxes where they are at or lower. My bet is Udall fails there.