![]() |
House GOP guts ethics panel - Printable Version +- Cincinnati Bengals Message Board / Forums - Home of Jungle Noise (http://thebengalsboard.com) +-- Forum: Off Topic Forums (http://thebengalsboard.com/Forum-Off-Topic-Forums) +--- Forum: Politics & Religion 2.0 (http://thebengalsboard.com/Forum-Politics-Religion-2-0) +---- Forum: P & R Archive (http://thebengalsboard.com/Forum-P-R-Archive) +---- Thread: House GOP guts ethics panel (/Thread-House-GOP-guts-ethics-panel) |
RE: House GOP guts ethics panel - Rotobeast - 01-03-2017 (01-03-2017, 02:47 PM)michaelsean Wrote: You're on the top, mister.I never figured you for a "Power Bottom". ![]() Sent from my SM-S820L using Tapatalk RE: House GOP guts ethics panel - GMDino - 01-03-2017 So now what? Are they gutless? Did they ACTUALLY listen to the people? Or are the really listening to PE Trump? http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/elections/2016/2017/01/03/trump-slams-house-move-ethics-watchdog/96103514/ Quote:After public denunciations from watchdogs and criticism from President-electDonald Trump, House Republicans on Tuesday reversed course and dropped plans to gut an independent agency that polices potential ethical wrongdoing by lawmakers. RE: House GOP guts ethics panel - Griever - 01-03-2017 (01-03-2017, 12:50 PM)michaelsean Wrote: You start out saying "with respect", and then at no time do you address me as "Lord". I have no idea if it's good or not, bt there seem to be some complaints from both sides of the aisle that it is not non-partisan. I will add that I am not in favor of an outside group being able to levy any sort of punishment on Congressional members. he almost made it through with 0 typos almost RE: House GOP guts ethics panel - Bengalzona - 01-03-2017 (01-03-2017, 01:18 PM)michaelsean Wrote: Alright you just made the list. Ask Dino how much fun that is. I did call you 'Lord' as you requested/demanded. ![]() My understanding is that the difference between this group and the Ethics Committee is primarily that this office has to be bi-partisan, whereas the Ethics Committee can be populated by the party in power in House and doesn't have to be bi-partisan. RE: House GOP guts ethics panel - Bengalzona - 01-03-2017 (01-03-2017, 02:54 PM)Rotobeast Wrote: I never figured you for a "Power Bottom". I just had an image in my mind of what you were describing and I must say that I am now very disturbed! RE: House GOP guts ethics panel - Griever - 01-03-2017 looks like they arent scrapping it now http://www.cnn.com/2017/01/02/politics/office-of-congressional-ethics-oversight-of-ethics-committee-amendment/index.html RE: House GOP guts ethics panel - Bengalzona - 01-03-2017 (01-03-2017, 05:24 PM)Griever Wrote: looks like they arent scrapping it now Yeah. Just saw that. Apparently, there wasn't uniform support throughout the GOP for this (I heard that Paul Ryan was against the changes). Trump tweeted he was against it, and now claims that his tweet changed their minds. Not sure if that is true, but I do give him credit for picking the better side on this issue. RE: House GOP guts ethics panel - Rotobeast - 01-03-2017 (01-03-2017, 05:14 PM)Bengalzona Wrote: I just had an image in my mind of what you were describing and I must say that I am now very disturbed! Was the anus AC or DC ? I need to know if you are a Tesla man. ![]() RE: House GOP guts ethics panel - Bengalzona - 01-03-2017 (01-03-2017, 05:46 PM)Rotobeast Wrote: Was the anus AC or DC ? Is that how you got the name "Roto-beast"? RE: House GOP guts ethics panel - Rotobeast - 01-03-2017 (01-03-2017, 05:50 PM)Bengalzona Wrote: Is that how you got the name "Roto-beast"? It did come from a girl in high school. I only got to test 2 of the 3 outlets though. ![]() RE: House GOP guts ethics panel - Stewy - 01-03-2017 (01-03-2017, 05:24 PM)Griever Wrote: looks like they arent scrapping it now (01-03-2017, 05:29 PM)Bengalzona Wrote: Yeah. Just saw that. Apparently, there wasn't uniform support throughout the GOP for this (I heard that Paul Ryan was against the changes). I saw Trumps tweet about it on CNN. Seemed to me, he wasn't necessarily against the action, but was against the timing. He basically said paraphrasing "Don't you guys have better thing to do at this point?" Personally, I don't have a problem with reforms that limit potential partisan witch hunts, but the committee has an important job I think, and needs to stay. RE: House GOP guts ethics panel - Benton - 01-04-2017 for years the GOP has said they needed both houses, the presidency and the scotus. They had to have it to do anything other than just vote no. well... They got it. First thing they do? Move to take away what little oversight they have now that there's no balances. RE: House GOP guts ethics panel - Belsnickel - 01-04-2017 (01-03-2017, 06:22 PM)Stewy Wrote: I saw Trumps tweet about it on CNN. Seemed to me, he wasn't necessarily against the action, but was against the timing. He basically said paraphrasing "Don't you guys have better thing to do at this point?" I agree with your assessment of Trump's opinion, that was my take as well. It should be noted, though, that the purpose of the OCE is to investigate ethics violations without partisan witch hunts. The bill would have made the OCE a more partisan tool rather than maintaining independence. MCs dislike the OCE because it is sometimes overzealous, which some reforms could help with, but the issue isn't with it being partisan. RE: House GOP guts ethics panel - GMDino - 01-04-2017 (01-04-2017, 03:35 AM)Benton Wrote: for years the GOP has said they needed both houses, the presidency and the scotus. They had to have it to do anything other than just vote no. ...and then they voted no to changing it. ![]() RE: House GOP guts ethics panel - Belsnickel - 01-04-2017 Goodlatte, and his 5th district counterpart whose name I cannot remember currently, have said the basis for the move is that every person, even MCs, are entitled to due process, which I agree with. I don't think the bill would have achieved anything other than neutering the OCE, though. RE: House GOP guts ethics panel - Bengalzona - 01-04-2017 (01-04-2017, 08:48 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: I agree with your assessment of Trump's opinion, that was my take as well. It should be noted, though, that the purpose of the OCE is to investigate ethics violations without partisan witch hunts. The bill would have made the OCE a more partisan tool rather than maintaining independence. MCs dislike the OCE because it is sometimes overzealous, which some reforms could help with, but the issue isn't with it being partisan. (01-04-2017, 03:32 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Goodlatte, and his 5th district counterpart whose name I cannot remember currently, have said the basis for the move is that every person, even MCs, are entitled to due process, which I agree with. I don't think the bill would have achieved anything other than neutering the OCE, though. Yeah, the intent of the OCE was to create a non-partisan environment to review ethics complaints. But its other purpose is to make the information from ethics violations and complaints available to the public and to actually pursue investigation of complaints. Obviously, no one has a problem with information on a politician already convicted of an ethics violation being released to the public. The problem politicians have is with the public being notified about the complaints and investigations. Apparently, there have been some incidents where politicians were in campaign years and they have been investigated for unfounded complaints. There is a feeling that the announcements of the investigations have hurt the politician's chances of winning. RE: House GOP guts ethics panel - GMDino - 01-04-2017 (01-04-2017, 04:47 PM)Bengalzona Wrote: Yeah, the intent of the OCE was to create a non-partisan environment to review ethics complaints. But its other purpose is to make the information from ethics violations and complaints available to the public and to actually pursue investigation of complaints. Obviously, no one has a problem with information on a politician already convicted of an ethics violation being released to the public. The problem politicians have is with the public being notified about the complaints and investigations. Apparently, there have been some incidents where politicians were in campaign years and they have been investigated for unfounded complaints. There is a feeling that the announcements of the investigations have hurt the politician's chances of winning. Like using private emails and running a child pron ring from a pizza shop? ![]() RE: House GOP guts ethics panel - Bengalzona - 01-04-2017 (01-04-2017, 05:03 PM)GMDino Wrote: Like using private emails and running a child pron ring from a pizza shop? Well, these would be actual official investigations of members of the House. RE: House GOP guts ethics panel - GMDino - 01-04-2017 (01-04-2017, 08:05 PM)Bengalzona Wrote: Well, these would be actual official investigations of members of the House. Benghazi then? ![]() RE: House GOP guts ethics panel - Belsnickel - 01-04-2017 (01-04-2017, 04:47 PM)Bengalzona Wrote: Yeah, the intent of the OCE was to create a non-partisan environment to review ethics complaints. But its other purpose is to make the information from ethics violations and complaints available to the public and to actually pursue investigation of complaints. Obviously, no one has a problem with information on a politician already convicted of an ethics violation being released to the public. The problem politicians have is with the public being notified about the complaints and investigations. Apparently, there have been some incidents where politicians were in campaign years and they have been investigated for unfounded complaints. There is a feeling that the announcements of the investigations have hurt the politician's chances of winning. I definitely think there is some room for change with the OCE, but its independence is necessary. I have no doubt you agree, just kind of summing up my opinion. If Goodlatte's office would answer the phone I'd let him know, too. If only I weren't too lazy to walk the 30 yards to his district office. ![]() |