Recent Activity
Search BL Rag
Powered by Squarespace
About This Site

The BL RAG is dedicated to the idea of free expression, thus we welcome and encourage reader  commentary on current events and issues, music, sports, or other topics of interest, no matter what one's political leanings or worldview.


Site Management:

Front Page Section Editors: Machiavelli, Skinnydipinacid, and Redbeard

Miscellanea Editor: Zoy Clem

Poetry Editor: Lenny

Music Editors: see schedule below


Site Editors: Skinnydipinacid and Zoy Clem

Maintenance Man: Master Admin Dude


Eric Olsen, Fornax, GrayRider, Winston, Jimmmco, and WesMorgan1


KRAG Music Section Schedule:

Sunday - Jgeagle5

Monday - Rhythm & Truth

Tuesday - Machiavelli

Wednesday - GrayRider

Thursday - Skinny

Friday - Fornax

Saturday - Zoy Clem

On-call - Schwabman

« Are You Smarter Than a Karl Rove Protestor? | Main | Dems Cancel Convention Kickoff at Charlotte Motor Speedway... Due to Budget Shortfall »

New York Dems Throw Ethics Out the Window

New York Democrats have decided they want to put corrupt politician Charlie Rangel back in the House of Representatives.  Apparently, this is a continuation of the old policy of:  "He may be a crook, but he's our crook."    

Rangel, in addition to being a rather unpleasant character (insulting the entire population of Mississippi, slandering the New York City Police Department, calling Palin retarded, etc.), he was found guilty by his peers of 11 ethics counts, and censured by the House.  He cheated on his income tax, lied about his income, failed to pay taxes on his palatial spread in the islands, misused his campaign funds, and more.    

But, in the eyes of most Dems in his district, none of that matters.  Ethics?  Bah!  We don't need no stinking ethics!  The voters have spoken. 

PrintView Printer Friendly Version

EmailEmail Article to Friend

Reader Comments (24)

You know, I’m sure they’re utterly unaware of it, and it’s totally unconscious on their part, but—setting aside the President and a woman broadcast journalist of undisclosed party affiliation —the last seven Democrats BL Rag Nooshans have gone out of their way to slam have been a black congressman, a white congresswoman, a Black Congresswoman, a white congresswoman, a black attorney general, a black former administration official and an Hispanic award winner. Their postings really raise the question: do Nooshans ever actually have issues with Democratic white guys? I mean, what are the odds?

It’s long past time to face the fact: wingnuts have serious f***ing issues. Do they really imagine no one notices?

June 27, 2012 at 10:33 | Registered CommenterWinston

Well Winston, I guess the nice thing about playing identity politics is you can always falsely accuse your critics of bigotry.

June 27, 2012 at 11:23 | Registered CommenterMachiavelli

Oh, dearie me! How could I have been so careless? Mea culpa. Ok, I'll post my "issues" with the white male congressmen who have been censured by the House. I'll even go back five or six years, so I don't miss anyone of semi-current relevance. So here goes. Ok. Listing them now. Er... wait just a darned minute here. Why can't I find any? This just is NOT fair. Dang. I hate when this happens.

Stop the presses! Democrat James Traficant, a white guy with a bad rug, 10 friggin' years ago, was censured and expelled. I am OUTRAGED! OUTRAGED, I TELL YOU! Dad-blasted white rug-wearing b*****d! I hate white rug-wearing b*****ds! Harumph! Harumph! Harumph!

Oh, wait! More damning information has just come to light. Seems that David Durenberger, a [gasp - clutch chest] Republican, was censured by the Senate only 22 years ago! To the rack with him! Typical behavior for a white German-American. I hate those people. They should all be sent back where they came from.

Geez, this is hard. I suppose I need to find out if any white male members of the Whig party were censured, so I can get my hate on for them.

June 27, 2012 at 11:24 | Registered CommenterRedBeard

Nice try, Redbeard, but the sample wasn’t “censured Congresspeople,” it was “people BL Rag Nooshans have waxed indignant about lately.” Think any significance attaches to most of them being female and nearly three-quarters minority? Just random?

Yeah, that’s it, Just random, I’m sure.

June 27, 2012 at 11:37 | Unregistered CommenterWinston

The grievance lobby can see "racial intent" in any random occurrence.

June 27, 2012 at 11:42 | Unregistered CommenterThomas Miller

The randomness of life has just led to this striking confluence of events which is coincidental and quite, uh random.

Just chance, really. Nothing here to see, so move along!

June 27, 2012 at 11:48 | Unregistered CommenterWinston

Tickets to a ball game, I dunno, $65? A round of golf $20 to $320? A new pair of socks $10? The entertainment value of reading windy's posts? Priceless :-)

See that look on "wranglers" face up yonder. That's me, only in white face and not quite so chubby.

June 27, 2012 at 12:00 | Registered CommenterTijuana

Y'know, I'm still unsure of something. Maybe you guys can help me out. Am I upset with Crooked Charlie because of his black half, or because of his Puerto Rican half? I mean, I need to know. It seems quite important. I know I can't possibly be prejudiced against the man because he's a proven crook. That would just be impossible. It just has to be because of his family tree.

Oh, and the voters who threw ethics out and supported Crooked Charlie; we need to know their ethnicity, so I can tell which ones I disrespect because of their race.

You can't tell the players without a racial scorecard, folks.

June 27, 2012 at 12:13 | Registered CommenterRedBeard

I'm still unsure of something . . . Am I upset with [Rangel] because of his black half, or because of his Puerto Rican half?

I’m sure that’s quite unknowable, which is why you even raise it.

I only point out this statistical oddity—one which I’m sure is quite random, coincidental, and rather mysterious, really—on the small, and vanishing, chance you some wingnut might wake up some morning wondering how relentless expressions of hostility toward certain types of folks might make them appear to others.

No worries, though. It’s much more likely to be just an ordinary fluke.(See what I did there?)

June 27, 2012 at 12:40 | Registered CommenterWinston

...relentless expressions of hostility toward certain types of folks...

Yep, types like liars, cheaters, crooks, Quislings, and those who vote for them.

Give it a rest, Winston. Every time you resort to your imbecilic racism canard, you look sillier and less mature than the time before.

You do realize, don't you, that I despise you without knowing your race or gender? I couldn't care any less whether you are a black race-mongering idiot, a guilt-ridden white idiot, or the female idiot counterpart to either one of those. Your words, as they appear on my monitor, are all I need to know.

June 27, 2012 at 13:07 | Registered CommenterRedBeard

Winston's just operating from the LibTruth that corruption and unethical behavior are solely Republican attributes, so clearly when there's a Dem involved in shady behavior, any criticism of said Dem must be a manifestation of bigotry.

June 27, 2012 at 13:36 | Registered CommenterMachiavelli

Yep,[I’m hostile to] types like liars, cheaters, crooks, Quislings, and those who vote for them.

I know!! Between your longstanding concern for the rectitude of public officials, and recognizing that crooks and jerks come in all parties, genders and races, it makes it all the more stunning, really. Why don’t you work out on the back of an envelope—go ahead, I’ll wait—the odds you all could post so long without coming up with a single white guy of those descriptions to excoriate? It’s quite striking.
You do realize, don't you, that I despise you without knowing your race or gender?

Well, you’ve said so many times. I hope you don’t think that might preclude you being a white supremacist or misogynist as well, it wouldn’t—haters hate, that’s just what they do. Moreover, you always say that as if I ought to think that’s a bad thing. I don’t.

June 27, 2012 at 14:52 | Registered CommenterWinston

Just for Winston, here's another story about a black politician.

Mia Love, Winston's worst nightmare, wins the Republican nomination, and could become a black woman Mormon conservative member of Congress.


Oh, dear. What will the lefties do with this one? They can't shout racist epithets at her Republican supporters. Let's wait and see what inane and childish tactics the lefties take with this story. I mean, besides running in circles, pulling their hair out, and wailing.

June 27, 2012 at 15:11 | Registered CommenterRedBeard

the last seven Democrats BL Rag Nooshans have gone out of their way to slam have been a black congressman, a white congresswoman, a Black Congresswoman, a white congresswoman, a black attorney general, a black former administration official and an Hispanic award winner.

LMAO... Really? Because in just the previous thread here on BL Rag I ripped on Dan Murrey... who appears to be whiter than my ass cheeks.

He also looks perfect for this hat... cover up that big bald head

June 27, 2012 at 15:38 | Registered Commenterskinnydipinacid

I'm sorry, my last comment was racist towards bald people...
... not to mention white dudes that wear silly hats.

My deepest apologies.

June 27, 2012 at 15:47 | Registered Commenterskinnydipinacid

Far as I can make out, Redbeard, you want a pat on the head because there’s an African-American woman willing to run for national office identified as a Republican. Far from being my worst nightmare, I think a few African-Americans in the GOP would be a very welcome development. It points up how isolated, backward and rancid the Party’s become since the Fifties that Moira Love’s candidacy is even noteworthy.

June 27, 2012 at 15:59 | Registered CommenterWinston

" It points up how isolated, backward and rancid the Party’s become since the Fifties that Moira Love’s candidacy is even noteworthy."

Kind of like a pro-life, fiscally sane, non-hating military type in the democratic party.

June 27, 2012 at 21:17 | Unregistered CommenterThomas Miller

"Highest unemployment rates May 2012"
Yuma, Ariz. 28.9
El Centro, Calif. 26.8
Yuba City, Calif. 17.9
Merced, Calif. 17.3
Modesto, Calif. 15.6
Fresno, Calif. 14.9
Hanford-Corcoran, Calif. 14.8
Visalia-Porterville, Calif. 14.7
Stockton, Calif. 14.5
Madera-Chowchilla, Calif. 14.3

California is Obama country!!!!!

June 27, 2012 at 23:19 | Unregistered CommenterThomas Miller

Interesting, that those eveeeel white racist Republicans in Utah would pick a [gasp] black woman to be their congressperson. What could they possibly have been thinking?

Also interesting that the virtually all white citizens of Love's town could have elected her [note: she's black, you know] as their mayor.

Daggoned white racist Utah Republicans.

June 28, 2012 at 06:39 | Unregistered CommenterRedBeard

Redbeard, when your usual smoldering pissiness devolves to thickly ladling on the unwarranted sarcasm and over-the-top eye-rolling, you remind me of nothing so much as a certain adolescent girl I raised.

Ever heard the term “token”? If at some point the GOP nominates a black candidate and the salient point or news value is not their blackness, get back to me for earning that cookie. If white Democrats ever felt the need to trumpet that finding leadership among minorities “proves” anything about them, it was decades ago, thankfully. Get over yourselves. Meanwhile you might hunt around for some white guy Democrats worth slamming. They do exist, you know.

June 28, 2012 at 08:43 | Registered CommenterWinston

[snort] Right on cue, Winston comes in with the "token" canard. This is just too funny.

Hey, Winston! How long before you start calling Love an Oreo? Come on, don't disappoint us now. Get your crazy on.

June 28, 2012 at 09:06 | Unregistered CommenterRedBeard

Shorter Tom Miller: “The Democratic Party boasts so few anti-choicers, tax cranks and people who don’t hate soldiers, it’s sort of like a party without any black people in it.”

In the real world, where there are loads of anti-choice Democrats (not that I approve, but probably far more than there are black Republicans), Democrats battle for fiscal responsibility in the face of lying crackpots who insist socialite heiresses are overtaxed and there are too many overpaid firefighters, cops, teachers, nurses and garbage collectors. The President got a healthy share of the military vote last time, and probably will again.

Voters are free to use positions and policies a Party stakes out as a basis to judge whether that Party shares their values. They can support or reject them as they like. A Party hostile to voters based on their skin color? Not really the same, Tom.

June 28, 2012 at 09:17 | Registered CommenterWinston

Sorry, I don’t see the tokenism of Love’s candidacy as even disputable. The elements of tokenism are all there: the inclusion is merely symbolic (mutual hostility of African Americans and the Republican Party), it’s largely intended to create a false appearance of inclusiveness (it doesn’t change that there are still virtually no African-Americans in the party, particularly as candidates) and to deflect charges of discrimination (the only reason, obviously, you even bring her up).

So again, Redbeard, why don’t you get back to us for that pat on the head when the GOP is finding so much leadership among its black constituents that nominating a black candidate is NOT cited as either newsworthy, or “proof” you’re not hostile to minorities, with all the dumbass sarcasm and eye-rolling you can muster. Meanwhile, find some Democratic white guys to beat on. Oh, and could you stop moving heaven and earth to keep legitimate minority voters from casting their ballots?

June 28, 2012 at 10:02 | Registered CommenterWinston

"There's no such thing as voter fraud; Wingnut conspiracy; blah blah blah" (lol)
Democrats can't even hold a primary without claims of corruption

June 30, 2012 at 13:30 | Registered Commenterskinnydipinacid

PostPost a New Comment

Enter your information below to add a new comment.

My response is on my own website »
Author Email (optional):
Author URL (optional):
Some HTML allowed: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <em> <i> <strike> <strong>