Now we have a bank president, bank robber and baby sitter;
tgillian on December 15, 2008 at 12:16 PM

Please, I was desperately trying to get you to honestly answer…I was trying to get a point across that you could simple understand, I think most everyone on this site has enough intelligence to see the point I was making.
Sorry I offended you, I will try to post my answers to you a little more simply worded…they seem to have you confused.
Let’s start with a simple question:
Do you think elected politicians (leaders) should be held to a higher standard in our society?
You should be able to answer that…
Then I have a follow up question (whatever the answer)…that way we will keep the thoughts simple and one at a time for you.

Seriously though, all I’m saying is that you and the media have him tried and convicted. I’m not buying.

tgillian on December 15, 2008 at 12:16 PM

Okay, now you are being dishonest, I asked you in good faith what would you do in three different cases…just tell be what you would do, it isn’t that difficult.
The reason you don’t want to answer, is that you know you would take action with all three.
You would not allow the senator to have any access,nor one of his partisan picks to have access to sensitive materials.
The way you answered the school perp, I don’t know, you may have a soft spot for that.
The bank president, you would not want to have our money tainted or have his “investment” buddy.
So when it gets to your personal life, you would change the rules, but when it gets to some “ambiguous” poltiticia…it’s okay.
I never said it was guilty, but do you think he is above reproach now?
Do you think he should be held to a higher standard?
My “rambling” is your way of dodging a serious problem…do you allow an accused (from the feds with tapes) the same rights as those not accused?
If you think “innocent until proven guilty” means the same rights as someone not accused, you are naive.
If you are accused of a crime of embezzlement (and I know you don’t like analogies, you don’t understand them), I guarantee the bank won’t let you continue working, or making decisions until they find out the “truth”.
Do you understand that analogy?
So why should be allow a politician more rights?

right2bright on December 15, 2008 at 12:00 PM

Now we have a bank president, bank robber and baby sitter; I’m afraid you’re rambling.

I’ve got one for you – a priest, a rabbi and a minister……

Seriously though, all I’m saying is that you and the media have him tried and convicted. I’m not buying.

Why don’t you tell me the laws that he broke and proof?

tgillian on December 15, 2008 at 11:44 AM

You don’t have to be convicted of a crime in court to have you retained.
Do you think if you tried to rob a bank, and were caught they would let you walk around until you go to court?
This is more then some “rumor” this is a federal investigation with tapes of conversations…once again, is this who you want making decisions for you? You are comfortable with him running your government?
If it was a babysitter “accused of molesting children” you would still hire that babysitter until he/she was convicted?
See where your process begins to break down when you are personally affected?
But you wont’ honestly answer…you would have to change your mind.
Politicians have to be held to a higher standard…that is their responsibility, to be above all reproach.

No reason to answer, neither analogy fits this situation. I might remind you of the McMartin Playschool case, but your mind is already made up. Screw the facts, screw the law, just hang ‘im.
Why don’t you tell me the laws that he broke and proof?

tgillian on December 15, 2008 at 11:44 AM

Now be honest with yourself, it is an analogy…let’s try one that is closer to what is happening.
A bank president is accused of funneling large amount of money to an investment firm, and in his contract he appoints his successor, the successor he chooses (after being accused) is ahead of the investment firm…he is accused but not convicted, as a stock holder do you want him to appoint the successor?
You see where the “law” can’t always be so cut and dried…when the process is corrupt, then new laws have to be created.
Now do you understand why there has to be an election?…the system is corrupted.
The answer is in your answer to my analogy…

Oh, then i stand corrected. Here’s to hoping NY comes up with a special election law before stevie wonder over here appoints that butch former president of the teachers union to our damn seat. ::shivers::

ernesto on December 15, 2008 at 9:10 AM

Mocking blind people is really the lowest of the low.

Grow the F#ck up or go back to Koz, you heartless bastard!

Don’t dodge the analogy, what would you do in each case?

right2bright on December 15, 2008 at 11:24 AM

No reason to answer, neither analogy fits this situation. I might remind you of the McMartin Playschool case, but your mind is already made up. Screw the facts, screw the law, just hang ‘im.
Why don’t you tell me the laws that he broke and proof?

jeff_from_mpls on December 15, 2008 at 10:37 AM

Just one thing to add to your rant:
The courts have to get serious about convicting “white collar” crime.
If I received stolen property, I would have to return it, whether I knew about it or not…so everyone that has received money from this Madoff criminal, should return every bit of the money…starting with everyone in his family. Every bit is returned until everyone of their bank accounts are drained, every asset is retrieved, everything.
And the same with Blankface, every sing penny he has received, should be returned, the citizens who voted for him, and gave him money, was under the premise that he was going to honor his oath.
The courts (but they won’t) need to start making a statement that “white collar” crime steals money, which is time…so every “time” stolen needs to be returned or he faces the jail.

Don’t try to modify my words – I said nothing about spys and sexual abuse. I’m just not sure a crime was committed. What’s wrong with waiting to see what really happened. I’m not so inclined to believe all I hear or read. I made no error.

tgillian on December 15, 2008 at 10:30 AM

It is called an “analogy”…now read them again and state to me what actions you would take in the two “analogies”.
Now would you remove the senator on the cmte or let him continue until the courts finished? And would you allow the perp to continue until the courts finished?
Don’t dodge the analogy, what would you do in each case?

BRAVO!!!!

Let’s all come clean here. American’s had better be look-n within right about now. Some serious soul searching is in order. What have we allowed ourselves to become?

We’d better take a good, hard look at ourselves, because this Blago episode suggests that this whole democracy concept can turn into a farce right here in the USA. Compound this with the recent financial meltdowns, the accounting felonies in the early 2000s, and now this massive Madoff fraud, and one could in all seriousness suggest that a hedonist-utilitarian, amoral people like us is unfit for liberty. Without a Judeo-Christian foundation, and a more profound standard of morality than “that which gives the most pleasure to the most people,” I fear we are in our waning days.

Yeah, I went there. Uh huh.

right2bright on December 15, 2008 at 10:04 AM

Don’t try to modify my words – I said nothing about spys and sexual abuse. I’m just not sure a crime was committed. What’s wrong with waiting to see what really happened. I’m not so inclined to believe all I hear or read. I made no error.

Actually, the “people’s seat” originally meant the House, not the Senate.

Sure, that was before Senator Al Franken changed the entire concept of the kind of man a senator ought to be.

Slouching towards Gomorrah.

It’s not like he killed somebody.

The new standard, ladies and gentlemen. Well, for Democrats, anyway.

Jim Treacher on December 15, 2008 at 10:10 AM

It certainly wasn’t the standard for Teddy boy in Chappaquiddick. When did this new standardization process take place?

It’s not like he killed somebody.

The new standard, ladies and gentlemen. Well, for Democrats, anyway.

Not at all. He deserves his day in court. The media are jumping all over him – that should be reason enough to let it play out. It’s not like he Not at all. He deserves his day in court. The media are jumping all over him – that should be reason enough to let it play out. It’s not like he killed somebody.

tgillian on December 15, 2008 at 9:51 AM.

tgillian on December 15, 2008 at 9:51 AM

So, if a Senator who is the cmte chair to an intelligence cmte. was caught selling secrets to Russia, you would still think that he should still carry on his work, even appoint an associate to carry on his “work”?
If a man is ahead of a preschool, and he and his ring of “teachers” were found sexually abusing children, you think he should be able to appoint his successor?

It’s not like he killed somebody.

That is where you make your error…you think selling a senate seat is just dandy, not a major event.
You have been conditioned to accept something that is tantamount to treason…you don’t wait for the act to take place to take action.
He not only broke the law, but in such a way that throws suspicion on the most valuable of our rights…the right to have proper, constitutional representation.
He has tainted the process with his actions, nothing he does now can be considered valid…he will have his day in court…meanwhile he needs to step aside, his supporters need to step aside, and let the people decide what to do.

ral514 on December 15, 2008 at 9:42 AM

You’re right about what should be the logical and legal decision. However, didn’t Blagojevich go into office on the heels of a corrupt governor, who is currently in jail? From that perspective, I can understand why Illinois residents would want a special election instead of leaving it to the same old process.

I think the state lawmakers have a real situation on their hands, and will need to look seriously at changing the law to set up special elections in the event of a vacant seat. Instead of a 1 time exception for this case.

As I’ve mentioned-I’m a Chicago Conservative.
I’ve discussed this issue with others in the area…and almost to person they want a special election.
Even the dems are tired of “business as usual”.

annoyinglittletwerp on December 15, 2008 at 9:36 AM

The only person who doesn’t want a special election is Harry Reid, because he knows that there is a good chance the Republicans would win. I’m sure Durbin is now in the doghouse because he opened his big mouth regarding the special election. This is the second time in December that Durbin has given the IL Republicans a nice fast ball down the middle.

You are joking right?

right2bright on December 15, 2008 at 9:32 AM

Not at all. He deserves his day in court. The media are jumping all over him – that should be reason enough to let it play out. It’s not like he killed somebody.

In Alaska, a senator is convicted for corruption, and you remember some people here, in the the throes of hypocrisy, wanting the corrupt senator to resign so that the governor of Alaska, who is not corrupt, could choose his replacement. (Yes, the actual laws are different, but let’s play along anyway.)

So you see the Illinois situation as being comparable enough that you’d expect people here to reach the same conclusion that they did about Alaska?

So, you think that the Illinois senator that occupied the seat that the Illinois governor was selling had vacated that seat because he was found guilty of corruption? Maybe you haven’t been following the political situation and don’t realize that the Illinois senator wasn’t himself convicted for corruption; rather it’s the Illinois governor that’s the bad actor here.

So, is this a dishonest attempt to draw comparisons where none exist, or,
Is this an example of the actual fuzziness of your thinking, or,
Is this a very revealing slip of how you actually view the ex-senator from Illinois?

Actually, the “people’s seat” originally meant the House, not the Senate. Originally, the Constitution called for state legislatures to select two Senators for each state to represent them in DC. Not until the 17th Amendment passed in 1913 did that change to a popular vote

I find this a little ironic…

The driver for the change was a bribery scandal where the senator bough the senate seat from the state legislators.

Anybody want to guess where?

You got it.

CHICAGO.

Nice.