Barney Frank is a liar; must be VOTED OUT

commoner: His boyfriend was running a prostitution ring out of their house and he was reelected several times thereafter. You're going to have to do better if you want him out of office!

Maybe no more.
I'm powerless there.

And his boyfriend was growing weed in their back yard and Frank used a male prostitute himself.

as a homo with half of EV and chelsea/mepa under his belt, it's quite disgusting to see this barney rubble impersonator go on third tier talk shows and use "his" people for his agenda, as if all queers are cut from the same cloth, willing to give up their hard earned money via taxes to support the 'hope' and 'feel-good thoughts' of gay marriage.

uhm, im an adult, id rather be called a fag and get to keep my salary and enjoy 8th ave orgies, than be called a brother to general society and half to pay up half my salary for it, so i can watch your kids play soccer in mom jeans. plus a little cardio wouldn't help.

"so i can watch your kids play soccer in mom jeans"

True dat. I don't mind being a "brother" to society. But why does this brother always get the tab?

"uhm, im an adult, id rather be called a fag and get to keep my salary and enjoy 8th ave orgies"

PSSST -- the orgies have moved to NINTH Avenue.

*****

"I have long felt that we are pushing too many people into homeownership and not doing enough for rental housing and that was no favor to anybody,”- Barney Frank.

REALLY.

Was he feeling that way when he was jamming "equal lending" laws down the throats of banks over the past decade, forcing them to extend loans to "disadvantaged" minorities who otherwise would not have qualified for mortgages based on their financial situations?

Boston REALLY sucks

what kind of self-respecting citizen would trade away civil rights for lower taxes? that's the most pathetic, weak, self-hating justification for naked greed i've seen in a long, long time.

are you so deluded that you can't recognize the difference between a right and a desire? you don't desire to get married. that's very, very different from accepting the idea that you shouldn't have the right to do so. i'm a caucasian man engaged to a caucasian woman--i have no desire to marry an african american woman. does this mean that i should acquiesce to a law banning interracial marriage?

presuming that you actually do pay nearly half of your salary in taxes (you must have poor tax planning; my million earnings per year are not taxed anywhere near that rate) you must be among the highly privileged top 1% of earners. you really think that an extra few dollars in your pocket are worth trading away your equality as a citizen?

and seriously, who cares what barney frank's ex boyfriend grew in their back yard or what sort of shady business he ran out of their home? they broke up and frank has been reelected many times over.

> my million earnings per year

Wow, so that's what you can make working out of Barney Frank's apartment. Impressive.

When he was "for" it, he was getting paid by Fanny and Freddy. Now that he's "against" it, he's getting paid by some entity that'll be disclosed by the next scandal.
That's what wrong with him, happyrenter.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/04/20/rubin-i-actually-supporte_n_545113.html

Clinton-era Treasury Secretary Robert Rubin, who will go down in history as one of the men who killed derivatives regulation, insisted today that he has long thought that derivatives should, in fact, be regulated.

"I thought we should regulate derivatives; I thought so when I was at Goldman Sachs and I thought so afterwards," he told HuffPost during a break at an event for the Hamilton Project, a think tank he founded to support Wall-Street-friendly Democrats. Rubin was chairman at Goldman Sachs before joining the Clinton administration in 1993; after he left, he went on to head Citigroup, which he nearly bankrupted with his excessive risk-taking.

civil rights used for the sake of garnishment.. there needs to be a victim in order for the reasoning to make $en$e; it's getting old and transparent.

im a third world homo who came to this country to earn my freedom to skip on 9th ave, not so i'd have to pay for your kids braces and soccer uniforms. it's not my fault you find black women unattractive.

Such is the price of freedom, hol4. Braces and uniforms, aye, braces and uniforms.

well, hol, since taxes have likely decreased since you came here to skip along 9th avenue, i can't see that you have any cause for complaint if they returned to their earlier levels. and i'd hope that you'd continue to enjoy the freedom even if it cost a bit more. the right to skip is priceless.

part of the package when you come to a country, indeed even live in it, is that you get dealt what that political system serves you (braces, whatever). it may suck, and you may hate it, and you can try to change it, but you have to live by it. so if the gov't tells you to pay for braces, you pay for braces and hope that the populace will elect a majority more sympathetic to your particular desires. it's a slow and painful process, for all involved, but that's the way this system chugs along.

so succinct, nada. funny.

If we voted every lying politicians out of office, we might be fresh out. This might be an unreasonable standard.

There are a LOT of COngressmen I would like voted out - all the southern crackers who openly question Obama's citizenship, who claim global warming is a hoax, and that evolution is a lie and that creationism should be taught in schools. Who want to outlaw all abortion, amend the constitution to ban gay marriages everywhere, who say that Timothy McViegh and other crazy anti-government types are justified in there anger (and terrorism), who say that Obama is the real racist and that white men are the real victims.

Often, all of these things come from one single (usually southern) CCongressman. Or woman, if you are MIchelle Bachmen.

But each district decides, not people in New York.

hol4,

are you deranged or out of your mind? where did you come up with the idea that i'm not attracted to black women? i have a fiancee--that's the woman i want to marry. she happens not to be black. she also happens not to be asian, native american indian, latina, jewish, catholic, brunette, left-handed, or to have earned a phd in sanskrit. this hardly means that i'm not attracted to anyone with those qualities, just that it turns out to be the case that i fell in love with a right-handed, non-religious, caucasian choreographer.

if you came to the united states thinking that you wouldn't have to contribute to a safety net then you didn't do your research. part of what makes the developed world developed is that it is....developed. braces and soccer uniforms are part of development. the 'right' to not pay taxes is not recognized in this country.

as for the claim that frank was 'paid' by fanny and freddy, can you please back that up? i presume you mean that he was supported by fanny and freddy with donations to his campaigns--very, very different from being paid. he is paid by the american taxpayers. if you have evidence that he was paid by fanny and freddy, please, bring it to the attention of the FBI: he should be in jail.

caucasian choreographer. oxymoron? and i don't normally respond to anti-semitic rants.

"she also happens not to be asian, native american indian, latina, jewish, catholic, brunette, left-handed, or to have earned a phd in sanskrit"
why are you such a bigot happyrenter, what do you have against all those people?

"the 'right' to not pay taxes is not recognized in this country."
yes it is a right, idiot, half the country ain't paying them

"There are a LOT of COngressmen I would like voted out - all the southern crackers who openly question Obama's citizenship, who claim global warming is a hoax, and that evolution is a lie and that creationism should be taught in schools. Who want to outlaw all abortion, amend the constitution to ban gay marriages everywhere, who say that Timothy McViegh and other crazy anti-government types are justified in there anger (and terrorism), who say that Obama is the real racist and that white men are the real victims"

The difference is you are COMPLETELY ignoring is he is chairman of the House Financial Services Committee...

the others you speak of are not. Not saying that makes it ok, but this is essentially a NATIONAL position.

"the others you speak of are not. Not saying that makes it ok, but this is essentially a NATIONAL position."

...but have been in the very recent past, and might very well be again in less than a year.

If I'm his constituent and he brings home the bacon, why would I care what he lies about? I want my liar to be better than the other liars.

> ...but have been in the very recent past, and might very well be again in less than a year

Then bug everyone then. Until that happens, the complaint is irrelevant.

"If I'm his constituent and he brings home the bacon, why would I care what he lies about? I want my liar to be better than the other liars."

Does Massachusetts have a completely independent economy? They managed to completely escape the financial crisis?

Foolish.
No, but he was one of 400 and change people responsible for setting laws, so you can not single him out. But you can single him out for bring home the bacon.

"Then bug everyone then. Until that happens, the complaint is irrelevant."

Uhhhhh...that would be true of TOP too, wouldn't it? Apparently, you do not understand the tried and true rhetorical method of using one opponent's own argument against them, do you? This is considered an excellent rhetorical tactic, and would be seen at many a college debate tournaments and in many court rooms.

Google "38 Ways To Win An Argument by Arthur Schopenhauer". This is LITERALLY as basis to rhetoric as addition is to math.

> Foolish.

You describing yourself?

> No, but he was one of 400 and change people responsible for setting laws

Ok, seriously, you need to learn a little about your government.

If you think he was just "one of 400", besides the fact that you have no idea how many representatives we have, he was the house LEADER ON FINANCIAL SERVICES REGULATION.

Jeez, are you that dense, or just slanted.

> so you can not single him out.

Given your premise was wrong, this conclusion is garbage.

> But you can single him out for bring home the bacon.

Are you retarded?

> Uhhhhh...that would be true of TOP too, wouldn't it?

Uh, no. Because his post is about THE GUY IN POWER.

"Apparently, you do not understand the tried and true rhetorical method of using one opponent's own argument against them, do you?"

Apparently, you do not know how to read. If you think the argument holds, you are illiterate.

"Apparently, you do not understand the tried and true rhetorical method of using one opponent's own argument against them, do you? This "

Perhaps you need to finish 4th grade reading comprehension before moving on to books on how to argue.

i actually agree on many levels with bgfrank. as long as a congressperson has a lot of power and doesn't hugely disappoint, it's stupid to vote them out. washington state made a huge mistake when it voted out one the the highest ranking senators because the people learned he had a drinking problem. he had been drinking for decades, but all of a sudden the right found it in themselves to excoriate him for it. man voted out, tremendous loss of power. stupid. never any allegations that he had been unable to work.

swe, more of those stupid bullet points. can't you just respond with a decent paragraph? i don't know about others but i take a look at your "work" and i just moan and ignore.

it might be gratifying to you that so few people now respond to your posts, but it's not because they are bowing down to your brilliance.

"Apparently, you do not know how to read. If you think the argument holds, you are illiterate."

Wow, brilliant counter argument. Another for my ignore list (and I have only had two others after three years on this board.

To recap - TOP argued that people in another district, who consistently and overwhelmingly re-elect Mr Frank, should NOT do so. I responded by pointing out that I too want Congressmen booted out of office in districts other than mine, but that this is not up to us.

You respond by saying that I am stupid.

And BTW - every single member of Congress is "in power" and all of their votes count equally. Or did you not notice that the health care bill barely passed?

jason, i have zero love for swe, but their power is not equal. those who hold positions on important committees have great power.

your point about health care is true however. in terms of votes they aren't even necessarily equal given the opposition's use of shitty tactics.

"it might be gratifying to you that so few people now respond to your posts, but it's not because they are bowing down to your brilliance."

Lest I be accused of "following" swe around, I feel too compelled to give ar credit for nailing it on the head.

Just to inject a bit of Massachusetts history into the vitriol here: Congressman Gerry Studds

Elected year after year by a constituency who valued his representation of them. His lifestyle? "'taint nobody's business if he did."

Did this thread really start with the bait "What's his living situation?"

What relevance is his living situation?

can we put to rest, once and for all, the right-wing myth that half the country doesn't pay taxes? this could not be further from the truth.

if you shop, you pay sales taxes. if you earn a salary, you pay payroll taxes. if you own a home, you pay real estate taxes. it is true that the unemployed and the working poor often do not pay federal income taxes. but that is just one form of taxation.

if you look at total taxation rather than focus on one tax that accounts for less than half of federal revenue, and less than a third of total government revenue, you will see that the united states has the least progressive tax system of any developed nation.

Gasoline taxes, tax on your phone bills, fees to the DMV, tolls, disproportionate fines,

ok 435 Representatives. Now what?

Frank at least looks out for his district. What is going on with Schumer (one of 100, happy?) http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/23/business/23schumer.html

"I actually agree on many levels with bgfrank. as long as a congressperson has a lot of power and doesn't hugely disappoint, it's stupid to vote them out. washington state made a huge mistake when it voted out one the the highest ranking senators because the people learned he had a drinking problem. he had been drinking for decades, but all of a sudden the right found it in themselves to excoriate him for it. man voted out, tremendous loss of power. stupid. never any allegations that he had been unable to work."

Exactly the case why folks who think that being able to vote someone out is as good as term limits are...

100% wrong.

"jason, i have zero love for swe, but their power is not equal. those who hold positions on important committees have great power."

of course.

happyrenter: "it is true that the unemployed and the working poor often do not pay federal income taxes. but that is just one form of taxation."

asshat. how convenient of you not to mention that NOT ONLY do they not pay federal taxes, but they partake in numerous credits, earned income credit, american opp credit for their spwan studying to be teachers to leech off gov't funds for their pensions, child tax credits, daycare credits, work pay credits, early pension/ss economic credit, health coverage tax credit,(should i continue?) all subsidized out of my plebeian middle income salary.

all these credits are unavailable for MIDDLE INCOME taxpayers, not the rich as you so want to believe in your narrow world where black women and jews are second class citizens.

Not to mention the rich subsidize social security for the lower earners.

Do you ever get tired?

Do you ever just walk away from an argument because it isn't worth winning?

Have you ever conceded defeat?

Is anyone else ever right?