http://news.yahoo.com/rep-barney-frank-announced-retirement-181445416.html
QuoteDemocratic Rep. Barney Frank of Massachusetts says he does not intend to seek re-election in 2012.
Frank spoke Monday at a news conference in his hometown of Newton.
Frank said he originally intended to run for one more term, but that his decision was partially due to the fact that the state's new redistricting map will include many people he has never represented before.
Frank said he has had a "busy and stressful" four years dealing with financial reform after the recession.
He says he plans to write and stay involved in public policy decisions.
The 71-year-old Frank, and a lifelong liberal, won a House seat in 1980 was one of the first lawmakers to announce that he is gay.
Today is a good day.
His committee replacement will be Maxine Waters.
Not a good day. :cry:
Oh, the stock market apparently agrees with me. Buckle up.
:yeah:
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on November 28, 2011, 01:57:47 PM
His committee replacement will be Maxine Waters.
Not a good day. :cry:
I thought the line on Maxine was corrupt, not stupid.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 28, 2011, 04:06:49 PM
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on November 28, 2011, 01:57:47 PM
His committee replacement will be Maxine Waters.
Not a good day. :cry:
I thought the line on Maxine was corrupt, not stupid.
I thought that it was both.
Who was it here who was a big fan of this guy? Was it Count? Or am I getting my ex-posters here mixed up?
He seems pretty great to me.
Count.
I miss Count.
Iirc, Feingold was the one he wanted to fuck, though, attributing to him superhuman abilities possessed only by a Roosevelt, or an Edwards.
Count was cool despite his love for the Red Sox. Shame he lost his shit and quit.
Lost his shit? I thought he just stopped posting much and faded off. He was busy with school, IIRC.
He didn't go to law school, did he?
Nah, seminary.
Quote from: Ideologue on November 28, 2011, 07:36:16 PM
I miss Count.
Iirc, Feingold was the one he wanted to fuck, though, attributing to him superhuman abilities possessed only by a Roosevelt, or an Edwards.
Yeah, you're right. Got Feingold mixed up with Frank.
I got the Count part right. :bowler:
Quote from: Ideologue on November 28, 2011, 07:36:16 PM
I miss Count.
Iirc, Feingold was the one he wanted to fuck, though, attributing to him superhuman abilities possessed only by a Roosevelt, or an Edwards.
Wasn't Edwards an utterly contemptible scumbag whose political career was a vanity project? And worse, a lawyer?
Quote from: Habbaku on November 28, 2011, 02:22:29 PM
:yeah:
Now who are you guys going to blame for your mistakes?
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on November 28, 2011, 07:43:23 PM
Lost his shit? I thought he just stopped posting much and faded off. He was busy with school, IIRC.
Maybe? We need a database of former posters and their reasons for vanishing.
Quote from: Neil on November 28, 2011, 07:52:04 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on November 28, 2011, 07:36:16 PM
I miss Count.
Iirc, Feingold was the one he wanted to fuck, though, attributing to him superhuman abilities possessed only by a Roosevelt, or an Edwards.
Wasn't Edwards an utterly contemptible scumbag whose political career was a vanity project? And worse, a lawyer?
Yes. :wub:
Well, that's smarter than what I did.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on November 28, 2011, 08:20:41 PM
He's going to Africa to be a missionary. :)
:blink: :blink: :blink: :blink::blink: :blink: :blink: :blink: :blink: :blink: :blink: :blink: :blink: :blink: :blink: :blink: :blink: :blink:
Quote from: Ideologue on November 28, 2011, 08:16:41 PM
Quote from: Neil on November 28, 2011, 07:52:04 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on November 28, 2011, 07:36:16 PM
I miss Count.
Iirc, Feingold was the one he wanted to fuck, though, attributing to him superhuman abilities possessed only by a Roosevelt, or an Edwards.
Wasn't Edwards an utterly contemptible scumbag whose political career was a vanity project? And worse, a lawyer?
Yes. :wub:
Well, don't wear any Edwards 2012 t-shirts to a job interview.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on November 28, 2011, 08:30:40 PM
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on November 28, 2011, 08:20:41 PM
He's going to Africa to be a missionary. :)
For what? The glory of the Boston Red Sox?
Have you been getting many converts in Korea?
Quote from: Caliga on November 28, 2011, 08:34:07 PM
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on November 28, 2011, 08:20:41 PM
He's going to Africa to be a missionary. :)
:blink: :blink: :blink: :blink::blink: :blink: :blink: :blink: :blink: :blink: :blink: :blink: :blink: :blink: :blink: :blink: :blink: :blink:
I don't think that's true, is it?
Surely noone on Languish could maintain a religious belief.
Quote from: Neil on November 28, 2011, 08:36:14 PM
Quote from: Caliga on November 28, 2011, 08:34:07 PM
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on November 28, 2011, 08:20:41 PM
He's going to Africa to be a missionary. :)
:blink: :blink: :blink: :blink::blink: :blink: :blink: :blink: :blink: :blink: :blink: :blink: :blink: :blink: :blink: :blink: :blink: :blink:
I don't think that's true, is it?
Surely noone on Languish could maintain a religious belief.
I do. Tim's belief in dialectical materialism is nearly religious, as is BB's obsession with Steve Jobs' pastel colored plastic.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on November 28, 2011, 08:35:43 PM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on November 28, 2011, 08:30:40 PM
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on November 28, 2011, 08:20:41 PM
He's going to Africa to be a missionary. :)
For what? The glory of the Boston Red Sox?
Have you been getting many converts in Korea?
Cleavland has the best Korean player, so it's impossible to beat them.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on November 28, 2011, 08:44:52 PM
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on November 28, 2011, 08:35:43 PM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on November 28, 2011, 08:30:40 PM
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on November 28, 2011, 08:20:41 PM
He's going to Africa to be a missionary. :)
For what? The glory of the Boston Red Sox?
Have you been getting many converts in Korea?
Cleavland has the best Korean player, so it's impossible to beat them.
Cleveland Show sucks though.
I remember count. Is there a story here?
Quote from: Ideologue on November 28, 2011, 07:19:58 PM
He seems pretty great to me.
Yeah corruption for your lover is great!
Quote from: alfred russel on November 28, 2011, 09:42:14 PM
I remember count. Is there a story here?
Yes. There was confusino between camper and count for some, like the Gen Wolfe Grey Fox controversy.
Quote from: Darth Wagtaros on November 28, 2011, 09:52:17 PM
Quote from: alfred russel on November 28, 2011, 09:42:14 PM
I remember count. Is there a story here?
Yes. There was confusino between camper and count for some, like the Gen Wolfe Grey Fox controversy.
No, I mean a story of how he ended up in seminary and off to africa.
He saw the face of God in a bowl of Cheerios.
I thought Count was a Jew. They don't do a lot missionary work do they?
Can't blame the guy for running a brothel out of his basement. He's an entrepreneur. Isn't that what we want? Small businesses creating jobs?
Hell, I wouldn't mind having a brothel in my basement. It'd be kinda cool.
Quote from: Razgovory on November 28, 2011, 11:17:09 PM
I thought Count was a Jew. They don't do a lot missionary work do they?
Cheerio God told him to be a Southern Baptist.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on November 28, 2011, 11:17:13 PM
Can't blame the guy for running a brothel out of his basement. He's an entrepreneur. Isn't that what we want? Small businesses creating jobs?
Hell, I wouldn't mind having a brothel in my basement. It'd be kinda cool.
I thought he claimed he didn't know.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on November 28, 2011, 11:23:53 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on November 28, 2011, 11:17:09 PM
I thought Count was a Jew. They don't do a lot missionary work do they?
Cheerio God told him to be a Southern Baptist.
See, this is why I don't eat breakfast cereal.
Quote from: Razgovory on November 28, 2011, 11:29:01 PM
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on November 28, 2011, 11:17:13 PM
Can't blame the guy for running a brothel out of his basement. He's an entrepreneur. Isn't that what we want? Small businesses creating jobs?
Hell, I wouldn't mind having a brothel in my basement. It'd be kinda cool.
I thought he claimed he didn't know.
Someday we'll live in a world where a proud gay Congressman can pimp out fellas in his basement with his head held high and not be criminalized for it.
Well, if I ever get charged with running a gay prostitution ring, I will certainly be claiming they I didn't know they were in my basement.
"Morning officer, what can I do for you".
"Save the pleasantries Raz, we caught you red handed."
"Red handed? What the hell are you talking about?",
"Don't play dumb with us, we can see the guys standing around the room dressed like the Village People. It's damned obvious what is going on here!"
"Wait... You can see them too? Ooooooh."
:lol:
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on November 28, 2011, 11:17:13 PM
Can't blame the guy for running a brothel out of his basement. He's an entrepreneur. Isn't that what we want? Small businesses creating jobs?
Hell, I wouldn't mind having a brothel in my basement. It'd be kinda cool.
you'd need gold teeth.
Sheesh, about time for Frank to step down! Only been 30+ years. <_< He's much too lefty for me, but his constituents like him, so that's what matters. I could never understand it, but this is Massachusetts and anyone with a "D" next to their party affiliation gets extra credit in elections.
I'm still annoyed over the parts that he, Dodd and any others, Dem or Repub, played with Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, and the problems in the housing mess those institutions have played.
Barney related to Hans?
We need a #-of-terms-served limit. Badly. Career politicians are one of the reasons we are in our current mess.
Quote from: KRonn on November 29, 2011, 12:55:48 PM
Sheesh, about time for Frank to step down! Only been 30+ years. <_< He's much too lefty for me, but his constituents like him, so that's what matters. I could never understand it, but this is Massachusetts and anyone with a "D" next to their party affiliation gets extra credit in elections.
I'm still annoyed over the parts that he, Dodd and any others, Dem or Repub, played with Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, and the problems in the housing mess those institutions have played.
It's odd he gets so much flak for something that passed when his party had the minority in the House.
Quote from: fahdiz on November 29, 2011, 02:35:56 PM
We need a #-of-terms-served limit. Badly. Career politicians are one of the reasons we are in our current mess.
Opposite is true actually. The last big crisis (the debt ceiling thingy) was not caused by "career politicians". It was caused by neophytes.
Quote from: Razgovory on November 29, 2011, 03:28:59 PM
Quote from: KRonn on November 29, 2011, 12:55:48 PM
Sheesh, about time for Frank to step down! Only been 30+ years. <_< He's much too lefty for me, but his constituents like him, so that's what matters. I could never understand it, but this is Massachusetts and anyone with a "D" next to their party affiliation gets extra credit in elections.
I'm still annoyed over the parts that he, Dodd and any others, Dem or Repub, played with Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, and the problems in the housing mess those institutions have played.
It's odd he gets so much flak for something that passed when his party had the minority in the House.
As I understand it, he's been a proponent of Fannie and Freddie. But I'm not just blaming him. Those agencies were taking in bad mortgages and selling them as mortgage securities and such. So many of them went bad, adding to economic woes. Why didn't anyone take a close look at these actions? Frank was on the Financial Commissions, head of one I believe, so maybe he should take some responsibility for failure of Fannie and Freddie, and for them not being reigned in. Along with others who didn't notice, either incompetence for not knowing or negligence if they did know.
Dodd and Frank or the culprits according to conservative land despite being in the minority at the time. Revealing the other actors in the scenario would be embarrassing. The result is this strange circumstance where members of the minority party are the main culprits.
Quote from: Razgovory on November 29, 2011, 03:30:31 PM
Opposite is true actually.
No, it really isn't.
QuoteThe last big crisis (the debt ceiling thingy) was not caused by "career politicians". It was caused by neophytes.
Even if that were wholly true (and it leaves out the entire bit about how we got to a point where we needed to raise the debt ceiling again, so your argument's flawed from the get-go) it does not necessarily follow that career politicians do not carry with them their own set of problems.
Perhaps, but that baggage is separate from the neophyte baggage of not knowing how everything works. Have existing term limit legislation improved government?
This is just pure populist hogwash. People get corrupted by power "up there", and they lose that good 'ole common folks sense needed to run government.
Quote from: fahdiz on November 29, 2011, 02:35:56 PM
We need a #-of-terms-served limit. Badly. Career politicians are one of the reasons we are in our current mess.
Yes, and that # is one.
Quote from: fahdiz on November 29, 2011, 02:35:56 PM
We need a #-of-terms-served limit. Badly. Career politicians are one of the reasons we are in our current mess.
Yeah, we desperately need new blood like the one we got in 2010.
Quote from: Maximus on November 29, 2011, 08:22:58 PM
Quote from: fahdiz on November 29, 2011, 02:35:56 PM
We need a #-of-terms-served limit. Badly. Career politicians are one of the reasons we are in our current mess.
Yes, and that # is one.
I'm curious, what is this based on? An objective study of governments with one term limit compared to no term limits?
Yeah, I'm wholly with Raz on this one. I'm kinda surprised to read these kinds of comments here, usually they're reserved for the Yahoo!'s "have your say and show how much of an idiot you are" section.
Quote from: Razgovory on November 29, 2011, 07:22:54 PM
Dodd and Frank or the culprits according to conservative land despite being in the minority at the time. Revealing the other actors in the scenario would be embarrassing. The result is this strange circumstance where members of the minority party are the main culprits.
I think when Dodd Frank passed they were in the majority?
Quote from: DGuller on November 29, 2011, 08:27:30 PM
Quote from: fahdiz on November 29, 2011, 02:35:56 PM
We need a #-of-terms-served limit. Badly. Career politicians are one of the reasons we are in our current mess.
Yeah, we desperately need new blood like the one we got in 2010.
The 2006 new blood wasn't that helpful. When ever you have a huge influx of newbies there is a always a slow down of the system, an increase in filibusters, etc before the newbies learn the rules and find out what they can and can't do. People aren't born with legislating skills. They have to learn them, and there really aren't many places to learn them. And contrary to popular belief, there are in fact skills involved.
Quote from: alfred russel on November 29, 2011, 08:32:17 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on November 29, 2011, 07:22:54 PM
Dodd and Frank or the culprits according to conservative land despite being in the minority at the time. Revealing the other actors in the scenario would be embarrassing. The result is this strange circumstance where members of the minority party are the main culprits.
I think when Dodd Frank passed they were in the majority?
Well that one can hardly be blamed for the current crisis. I mean, it occurred two years after.
Quote from: DGuller on November 29, 2011, 08:29:34 PM
Yeah, I'm wholly with Raz on this one. I'm kinda surprised to read these kinds of comments here, usually they're reserved for the Yahoo!'s "have your say and show how much of an idiot you are" section.
I do agree with you, but maybe term limits like 10 terms in the House or 4 terms in the Senate wouldn't be so bad.
What would be much better though are prohibitions of taking lobbying positions or jobs in the industries that you had oversight over. And extend those rules to staff.
Quote from: alfred russel on November 29, 2011, 08:32:17 PM
I think when Dodd Frank passed they were in the majority?
I think they're talking about the decision to allow Fred and Fan to buy subprime mortgages.
Quote from: Razgovory on November 29, 2011, 08:33:56 PM
Quote from: alfred russel on November 29, 2011, 08:32:17 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on November 29, 2011, 07:22:54 PM
Dodd and Frank or the culprits according to conservative land despite being in the minority at the time. Revealing the other actors in the scenario would be embarrassing. The result is this strange circumstance where members of the minority party are the main culprits.
I think when Dodd Frank passed they were in the majority?
Well that one can hardly be blamed for the current crisis. I mean, it occurred two years after.
gotcha. It seems wierd to put the blame of a worldwide crisis on a senator and congressman who weren't even the leaders of their party in their respective legislative bodies, but to be fair they were both in and out of the majorities during their pre 2008 careers.
Quote from: DGuller on November 29, 2011, 08:29:34 PM
Yeah, I'm wholly with Raz on this one. I'm kinda surprised to read these kinds of comments here, usually they're reserved for the Yahoo!'s "have your say and show how much of an idiot you are" section.
Populism is seductive. "We the people know better then those prancing elites up in Washington." It's a lot fucking harder then it looks. Most people are willing to find faults in others they wouldn't find in themselves. That's why most people believe they are above average in intellect.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 29, 2011, 08:36:05 PM
Quote from: alfred russel on November 29, 2011, 08:32:17 PM
I think when Dodd Frank passed they were in the majority?
I think they're talking about the decision to allow Fred and Fan to buy subprime mortgages.
But that clearly didn't cause the crisis. They weren't such big players in subprime, if the problem was even subprime to begin with.
Quote from: alfred russel on November 29, 2011, 08:38:36 PM
But that clearly didn't cause the crisis. They weren't such big players in subprime, if the problem was even subprime to begin with.
You sure? I'm almost certain they had a giant subprime book.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 29, 2011, 08:42:40 PM
Quote from: alfred russel on November 29, 2011, 08:38:36 PM
But that clearly didn't cause the crisis. They weren't such big players in subprime, if the problem was even subprime to begin with.
You sure? I'm almost certain they had a giant subprime book.
I don't think so, I think it was mostly private and to the extent they got into the game it was late. But I don't have the numbers offhand.
Quote from: DGuller on November 29, 2011, 08:29:34 PM
Yeah, I'm wholly with Raz on this one. I'm kinda surprised to read these kinds of comments here, usually they're reserved for the Yahoo!'s "have your say and show how much of an idiot you are" section.
FWIW, I'm opposed to term limits, too.
Quote from: alfred russel on November 29, 2011, 08:34:58 PM
Quote from: DGuller on November 29, 2011, 08:29:34 PM
Yeah, I'm wholly with Raz on this one. I'm kinda surprised to read these kinds of comments here, usually they're reserved for the Yahoo!'s "have your say and show how much of an idiot you are" section.
I do agree with you, but maybe term limits like 10 terms in the House or 4 terms in the Senate wouldn't be so bad.
What would be much better though are prohibitions of taking lobbying positions or jobs in the industries that you had oversight over. And extend those rules to staff.
I don't think this is unreasonable.
Quote from: DGuller on November 29, 2011, 08:29:34 PM
Yeah, I'm wholly with Raz on this one. I'm kinda surprised to read these kinds of comments here, usually they're reserved for the Yahoo!'s "have your say and show how much of an idiot you are" section.
I mean the staffers are what help our congress folk understand much of it anyway. It isn't as if 15+ years of experience are really getting put to good use.
Quote from: dps on November 29, 2011, 09:26:27 PM
Quote from: DGuller on November 29, 2011, 08:29:34 PM
Yeah, I'm wholly with Raz on this one. I'm kinda surprised to read these kinds of comments here, usually they're reserved for the Yahoo!'s "have your say and show how much of an idiot you are" section.
FWIW, I'm opposed to term limits, too.
President Bill Clinton, for life. :cool:
Quote from: Fate on November 29, 2011, 09:59:02 PM
Quote from: dps on November 29, 2011, 09:26:27 PM
Quote from: DGuller on November 29, 2011, 08:29:34 PM
Yeah, I'm wholly with Raz on this one. I'm kinda surprised to read these kinds of comments here, usually they're reserved for the Yahoo!'s "have your say and show how much of an idiot you are" section.
FWIW, I'm opposed to term limits, too.
President Bill Clinton, for life. :cool:
So Hil can do the job uncredited?
Quote from: DGuller on November 29, 2011, 08:29:34 PM
Yeah, I'm wholly with Raz on this one. I'm kinda surprised to read these kinds of comments here, usually they're reserved for the Yahoo!'s "have your say and show how much of an idiot you are" section.
:mellow:
Quote from: Razgovory on November 29, 2011, 08:37:36 PM
Populism is seductive. "We the people know better then those prancing elites up in Washington." It's a lot fucking harder then it looks. Most people are willing to find faults in others they wouldn't find in themselves. That's why most people believe they are above average in intellect.
You are hilarious.
Quote from: alfred russel on November 29, 2011, 08:34:58 PM
What would be much better though are prohibitions of taking lobbying positions or jobs in the industries that you had oversight over. And extend those rules to staff.
Hmm - a bit like a non-compete clause. Interesting.
Quote from: Darth Wagtaros on November 28, 2011, 08:39:48 PM
Quote from: Neil on November 28, 2011, 08:36:14 PM
Quote from: Caliga on November 28, 2011, 08:34:07 PM
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on November 28, 2011, 08:20:41 PM
He's going to Africa to be a missionary. :)
:blink: :blink: :blink: :blink::blink: :blink: :blink: :blink: :blink: :blink: :blink: :blink: :blink: :blink: :blink: :blink: :blink: :blink:
I don't think that's true, is it?
Surely noone on Languish could maintain a religious belief.
I do. Tim's belief in dialectical materialism is nearly religious, as is BB's obsession with Steve Jobs' pastel colored plastic.
Pastel coloured plastic is so 2001.
It's all about brushed aluminium. :worship:
Quote from: fahdiz on November 29, 2011, 11:56:30 PM
Quote from: alfred russel on November 29, 2011, 08:34:58 PM
What would be much better though are prohibitions of taking lobbying positions or jobs in the industries that you had oversight over. And extend those rules to staff.
Hmm - a bit like a non-compete clause. Interesting.
Except non-compete clauses are monstrous impositions upon people with constrained bargaining power by those with more, whereas this would be an anti-corruption measure to remove power from lobbyists, but I guess it's sort of similar in effect.
P.S. Tim and dialectical materialism? :unsure: Tim and fictional maps that have neither aesthetic nor historical value, maybe.
My only objection to term limits is, that when you boil it down, it's a concession that the electorate is too stupid to know better than to not elect the same guy over and over again.
And while we mostly all probably think the electorate IS too stupid...it's kinda a no-win argument, since the electorate, ultimately, is all of us, not just "the other guy".
Quote from: garbon on November 29, 2011, 09:48:44 PM
Quote from: DGuller on November 29, 2011, 08:29:34 PM
Yeah, I'm wholly with Raz on this one. I'm kinda surprised to read these kinds of comments here, usually they're reserved for the Yahoo!'s "have your say and show how much of an idiot you are" section.
I mean the staffers are what help our congress folk understand much of it anyway. It isn't as if 15+ years of experience are really getting put to good use.
Yet, many still manage to screw up.
I agree in a way that term limits are a kludge. If the incumbent really has a persistent overwhelming advantage election after election, that is not related to his level of performance, then you have deeper problems in the political system. You would be better off addressing the excess of power problem that long incumbency bring about rather than just artificially limiting the length of time one can serve.
Quote from: DGuller on November 30, 2011, 01:50:35 AM
I agree in a way that term limits are a kludge. If the incumbent really has a persistent overwhelming advantage election after election, that is not related to his level of performance, then you have deeper problems in the political system. You would be better off addressing the excess of power problem that long incumbency bring about rather than just artificially limiting the length of time one can serve.
Is it artificial? You can really successfully use your excess of power if your term has limitations.
Quote from: Ideologue on November 29, 2011, 09:31:29 PM
Quote from: alfred russel on November 29, 2011, 08:34:58 PM
Quote from: DGuller on November 29, 2011, 08:29:34 PM
Yeah, I'm wholly with Raz on this one. I'm kinda surprised to read these kinds of comments here, usually they're reserved for the Yahoo!'s "have your say and show how much of an idiot you are" section.
I do agree with you, but maybe term limits like 10 terms in the House or 4 terms in the Senate wouldn't be so bad.
What would be much better though are prohibitions of taking lobbying positions or jobs in the industries that you had oversight over. And extend those rules to staff.
I don't think this is unreasonable.
Who the hell else is going to write the legislation? Georgetown and Yale undergrad interns?