Christmas comes early

Today, one of the most morally corrupt, economically damaging bastions of the House of Representatives has announce that he won’t be seeking reelection.  In his last election, he narrowly (54%) defeated an unknown opponent in a heavily Democratic district.  Now, due to redistricting of that area, he would have faced a much stiffer challenge with Brookline School Committee member Elizabeth Childs (R) or State Rep. Dan Winslow (R) waiting to run against him.  Regardless of who wins his seat, (D or R) this will be a marked improvement over the person the people of Massachusetts have chosen to curse the rest of the country with.  We all recall Barney Frank’s assurances that our federally subsidized banks, Freddie and Fannie, were in solid financial conditions while he had oversight of the banks when the Dems were in the majority of the House in 2007 and 08. 

Even though he admitted to a lengthy relationship with a male prostitute who ran a bisexual prostitution service out of Frank’s apartment, he hasn’t announced any future plans to resume with such services.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/special/clinton/frenzy/frank.htm

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2011/11/28/rep-barney-frank-wont-seek-re-election/

This entry was posted in News and politics. Bookmark the permalink.

9 Responses to Christmas comes early

  1. kelly liddle says:

    Slightly off topic. But what do you think of Ron Paul? If I was American that is who I would want as my next president. Although on a policy level I don’t agree with many things he seems to be the most honest, hardworking and effective of the candidates. The best thing about him is he wants to remove all rent-seekers large and small, and bring your military home. Should be noted Australia is a defacto 51st state for military purposes following the US into every conflict in some capacity since WWII.

    • suyts says:

      Yes, Australia is one of our closest allies. For many of us, their friendship is treasured. My father served with some Aussies during his military career. He held them in high esteem as comrades and warriors. Harkening back to “The Conversation”, I was a bit dismayed by some of the anti-American sentiment expressed there, but then, I also realize that place may not be representative of the general Australian public.

      As to your question about Ron Paul. Yes, I believe he is the most honest and sincere candidate. He also has great intellectual capacity. And, I find myself in agreement with many of his proposed policies. Bringing the military home is one that I agree on. His literal interpretation of the U.S. constitution is another. However, he has several thoughts that I oppose. He is the prototype of the classic libertarian. In general, I agree with this way of thinking, that is to say, all people should have liberty to do all things, as long as no direct harm comes to others. But, he extends that thought well beyond the norms of our society.

      Edmund Burke said, “Liberty must be limited in order to be possessed.”
      While I may come to agreement with this quote in a different manner than most, I find that this statement is true. One cannot posses zero, nor can one posses infinity. Further, John Adams stated, “Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.” If Ron Paul would embrace those two posits, he would have my unreserved support. But, because he goes so far from the norm in this regard, he is unelectable in my opinion. Others, of course, may disagree.

      • kelly liddle says:

        On a personal level I have nothing against American’s. As far as the foreign policy of your country which in a military sense we just copy I don’t like it. So I am anti your government about this and anti my government for following to closely. So you could consider my sentiments anti-American. I am disgusted by your government for using dirty weapons as in depleted uranium and just discovered UK uses them also. Also disgusted that we do not speak against that. So it is not the terrorists with the dirty weapons it is the leading countries of the world. It also is unlikely to be good for any soldiers in the area. So I think it is good idea not to be too annoyed if someone is anti-American depending on the reason and context and remember there are no troops permanently based in your country from another country. For other countries around the world imagine if another country of much greater power bombed your country what would you think? This is the case in many countries around the world. So if Ron Paul did take your troops home then many anti-Americans would no longer be anti they wouldn’t care as you are leaving them be.

        As far as Ron Paul being electable I have no idea about that. Australia is quite different in some ways. Take for example abortion and the death penalty. In Australia if any potential Prime Minister said they want to ban abortion or support the death penalty their party would lose for sure but I am guessing in the US that neither of these would be a complete vote killer. I know you seem to be confident that you can get out of your debt problem but it will be very painful and needs someone like Ron Paul to do that.

        • suyts says:

          “So if Ron Paul did take your troops home then many anti-Americans would no longer be anti they wouldn’t care as you are leaving them be.”

          No true. Throughout the history of the U.S. we’ve had antagonists regardless of our level of involvement with the various regions and nations. Furthermore, every time we try to limit our involvement and become more of an isolationist state, the various nations throughout the world drag us back to engagement. Recall just a few months ago, Britain and France literally begged the U.S. to throw into the Libyan conflict. They wouldn’t move otherwise. Our Korean conflict is another example. That was a U.N. conflict! Kuwait is another example, Columbia ….. the list goes on and on… It makes me wonder if people don’t see that the American people don’t wish to be in these parts of the world, we are begged to intervene, but somehow, every time we respond to a call for help, we end up being hated even more. Look at the Philippines…. other than give them their independence, save them from the Japanese, give them the ideas of democracy, enrich their nation by technology gifts and trade, what did we do to them? Yet, a large anti-American sentiment swept that nation and now we’re no longer welcome there.

          Personally, nothing would give me greater pleasure than the U.S. shutting its doors and ignore the cries for help that will most assuredly come as soon as we pursue such a policy. But, it isn’t realistic to think that we would. I’m more in favor of a sort of Monroe doctrine and confine our relations and protection/involvement to our immediate neighbors.

  2. kelly liddle says:

    Suyts
    I do get your point but still tend to dissagree with you. I agree that other countries should always become involved in international disputes or where one country invades another in a major way but internal disputes often end up bad and foreigners often get there assumptions wrong. We are yet to see what happens in countries like Libya, Iraq and Afganistan but I am not all that optimistic. There are no easy answers in the world regarding peace and history says that wars are not going to go away any time soon.

    In reality most people do not know what people in other countries think only what they see on TV news or even entertainment shows. This can be very misleading at times. That is why I am chatting to you to find out some of these things. Generally the people in Australia I think would be a little less critical of the US government than I am but even that is hard to tell. The current image being portrayed by our politicians is that everything will be fine in the US and Europe is to blame at the moment for financial problems around the world.

    • suyts says:

      🙂 Disagreement isn’t forbidden here.

      It is partially true that the financial problems can be laid at the feet of Europe and the U.S. But, the other part of blame goes to the individual nations that became dependent upon the globalization and interdependency of our markets. The U.S. can blame Europe, but, they didn’t force us to become so inter-related with them.

  3. Latitude says:

    Tell me again, how much money did we give to European banks to prevent this problem….
    …and how did that work out?

    …I’m really grouchy lately, can you tell?

    • Latitude says:

      BTW, Maxine Waters will replace Barney Frank………….

      …just shoot me

      • suyts says:

        Yeh, but even as whacked out Maxine is, I don’t see her as being as forcefully incompetent as Frank. True, she’s a liberal lunatic without any intellectual faculties, but I don’t think she will be as forceful about it as Frank is.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s