Boehner affair?

[fieldgeneral 10]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/09/24/john-boehner-affair-lisbeth-lyons_n_738007.html

[Guest StoneyCalhoun]

Mud. Raking.

[Hacker 82]

Mud. Raking.

 

The correct phrase is "Muckraking." It dates back to the days "Yellow" journalists starting in the 1890s who who investigate and publish truthful reports involving a host of social issues, broadly including crime and corruption and often involving elected officials, political leaders and influential members of business and industry.

 

These are the guys who led to bust the Standard Oil Trust, took on the Garment Industry after the Triangle Shirtwaist Factory fire, they brought down Tammany Hall in NYC, and pursued changes in the meat packing industry. To be called a Muckraker was a badge of honor.

 

The better phrase for this is probably scandal monger. I will believe this one when I read it in a real paper like the National Enquirer vs. the NY Post.

[fieldgeneral 10]

Mud. Raking.

 

just posting a link...curious if it's true.....we shall see.

[Guest StoneyCalhoun]

Screwed the pooch on that one lol.

 

Been awhile since I came across the term muckracker, and honestly don't know why I took it negatively, but maybe from an annoying blog called "all the muck that is fit to rake."

 

Read the information on there, and you will see the connection, blind claim are common or were at the time I read it. Not to mention useless garbage.

 

Which is what the above article is. I struggled to find a link between the two, or a fact in the entire article.

[Guest The Variable]

Women dont like guys who cry after...so I doubt hes getting any from any woman.

[vthokies4life 10]

Women dont like guys who cry after...so I doubt hes getting any from any woman.

 

...Even though with a last name like "Boehner" it couldn't be too hard to pick up women.

[Guest The Variable]

...Even though with a last name like "Boehner" it couldn't be too hard to pick up women.

 

Shaaaaa-wing!

[bluefieldRocks 14]

How exactly do you prenounce Boehner? Is it like I think it is? That's a simply amazing last name.

[BigBlueAlum 12]

How exactly do you prenounce Boehner? Is it like I think it is? That's a simply amazing last name.

 

Almost as nice as this guy's name.

 

[fieldgeneral 10]

How exactly do you prenounce Boehner? Is it like I think it is? That's a simply amazing last name.

 

LOL....I'm pretty sure it's announced like Bay- ner

[vthokies4life 10]

How exactly do you prenounce Boehner? Is it like I think it is? That's a simply amazing last name.

 

Hahaha, no no. It's pronounced "Bay-ner". Even though I always forget that every time I see it and pronounce it phonetically to myself...

[fieldgeneral 10]

Hahaha, no no. It's pronounced "Bay-ner". Even though I always forget that every time I see it and pronounce it phonetically to myself...

 

It provides for a good chuckle.

[Deleted Account 5,203]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/09/24/john-boehner-affair-lisbeth-lyons_n_738007.html

 

Nope, nothing at all partisan and biased about that site. No siree bob.

[blueinbama 259]

Nope, nothing at all partisan and biased about that site. No siree bob.

 

Nope...straight as an arrow that Huffington Post...right down the middle.

[bucfan64 309]

Typical HUFFPO hogwash! Quite possibly the most biased progressive "news" source in the country. Not saying it isn't true, however. Just very skeptical because of the source.

 

 

 

Been awhile since I came across the term muckracker, and honestly don't know why I took it negatively, but maybe from an annoying blog called "all the muck that is fit to rake."

 

.

 

as far as Muckrakers go....

 

 

It may not be a bad thing to think negatively of Muckrakers. I admit that they did a lot to expose social injustices during the early 1900's, but they also were operating with an agenda, a progressive agenda.

 

Many of the Muckrakers wanted to see an increase in the size and power of the Federal Government and the only way to get this idea across to the American public was to often exaggerate and over emphasize things in their stories, (Yellow Journalism).

 

Don't get me wrong, a lot of bad things were brought to the forefront, but the motivation behind reporting these negative things, was a move toward a more PROGRESSIVE government.

 

The same folks that gave us the food and drug administration and child safety laws also gave us a ton of government regulations in other areas of our lives. I guess it is up to the individual to decide if the expansion of the Federal government was a good thing or not.

 

Keep in mind, these new PROGRESSIVE MOVEMENT programs, require financial support which eventually led to higher taxation, even the INCOME TAX.

 

later,

Edited February 23, 2011 by bucfan64

[Hacker 82]

I love the way the word "progressive" is now taking on a negative connotation from certain folks who spout a "regressive" agenda. By regressive I mean those who want to throw out all the improvements in our country in the last 200 years to go back to a Jeffersonian ideal. Many of these are the same folks who promoted expansionist, intrusive government in the name of Conservatism.

 

I dare say that most of live longer healthier lives due to many of the "progressive" changes made in the last 120 years. How many of us want to do away with the FDA and the safe food we have now and go to an unprotected food supply. How many would want our waters to return to the conditions of the 1960s when rivers were so polluted that many could not support life, I remember the Cayahoga River burning in the 1960s.

 

I will not make this a treatise, nor will I say all "progressive" ideas were for the good of society (eugenics, birth control.) I will also agree that in some cases "progressive/regressive" changes defy reason and common sense and should be looked at in a cautious manner.

 

Change just for the sake of change is rarely good. As are extremist opinions no matter their stripe.

[bucfan64 309]

Don't forget the 17th and 18th Amendments, those were really great "progressive" ideas. (SARCASM INTENDED!)

 

Like I implied earlier, some good ideas and several bad from the progressive agenda, then and now!

[Hacker 82]

I agree on 18 - Prohibition, legislating morality does not work. 17, you are opposed to the popular election of Senators?

[Guest The Variable]

I love the way the word "progressive" is now taking on a negative connotation from certain folks who spout a "regressive" agenda. By regressive I mean those who want to throw out all the improvements in our country in the last 200 years to go back to a Jeffersonian ideal. Many of these are the same folks who promoted expansionist, intrusive government in the name of Conservatism.

 

Progressive is just a political name. It does not actually have anything to do with the word "Progress" the opposing view to progressive ideology is not regressive. Its a spin word used to sell the ideology. Kind of like how we now have GREEN or ECO in front of products to make you think they are environmentally friendly when they are just the same old chemicals.

 

Most of what I would like to get rid of only goes back to the new deal, which seemed to only exasterbate the great depression. I would like to see state sovereignty go as far back as pre-civil war limits. But thats just me. I see big government as regressive in nature since that is what caused our divorce from the UK.

[Hacker 82]

I chose the word regressive as it is the antonym of progressive. I don't play spin, I guess 25 years working for politicians and having to parse words for them, have made me speak plain. In life we either move forward, move backward or stay the same. As I stated earlier, not all change is something that moves the society forward.

[Guest The Variable]

I chose the word regressive as it is the antonym of progressive. I don't play spin, I guess 25 years working for politicians and having to parse words for them, have made me speak plain. In life we either move forward, move backward or stay the same. As I stated earlier, not all change is something that moves the society forward.

 

Ah, I mistook your direction then. When you said progressive, I thought you were referring to ideology.

[bucfan64 309]

I agree on 18 - Prohibition, legislating morality does not work. 17, you are opposed to the popular election of Senators?

 

Very much opposed to the direct election of U.S. Senators.

 

This amendment was pushed for by the progressives of the era, as an attempt to "end backroom politics." Before this the senators were chosen by their colleagues within the state legislature. The progressives argued that bribery often led to these persons being selected, in other words the system was corrupted and these positions needed to be elected by popular vote.

 

The progressives believe that a popular election would eliminate some of the back room deals and corruption that had led to many being chosen to the position of Senator.

 

Here is my problem.

 

The office of a U.S. Senator was never intended to be an elected position. The Founders believed that by appointing this position the states would be guaranteed a fair representation. These men actually lived and shopped in the state, they knew what their constituents wanted, they knew who they were and what they were more in line with they knew the strengths, weaknesses and desires of the people. The Founders believed that if the position of Senator was based on popular election that "OUTSIDE INFLUENCE," could and often would dictate who was elected to this position......and if a Senator was answering to interests outside of his state, then he wouldn't be serving the people of his state in a proper manner.

 

For example, today you see all types of special interest groups financing the campaigns of Senators. These groups can be from other states, and their interest may not have anything to do with the interest of the people in the state to which the man is campaigning to be elected. The only reason some groups support Senators now is because they can buy as many as they wish through campaign contributions. The 17th Amendment, opened the door up to end state sovereignty and increase the power, scope and size of the Federal Govt.

 

It essentially destroyed any leverage that the state might have had within the Federal government. The Founding Fathers believed that the STATE GOVERNMENTS, were better equipped to handle the needs of citizens than the Federal government. When these persons were assembled together they would hold the INTEREST OF THE STATE at hand instead of the interest of "outside forces." Today our Senators hold the interest of several special interest groups over the interest of the constituents of the state in which they serve.

 

This is my major beef with the 17th Amendment.

 

"The fundamental problem with the 17th is that Senators no longer work for or represent their state governments, and therefore the state governments no longer have a voice or meaningful political power in the national government. The state governments were the most important check on the influence and scope of Washington, and without this check, the national government is unresponsive to the needs of the citizenry."

[Hacker 82]

Very much opposed to the direct election of U.S. Senators.

 

This amendment was pushed for by the progressives of the era, as an attempt to "end backroom politics." Before this the senators were chosen by their colleagues within the state legislature. The progressives argued that bribery often led to these persons being selected, in other words the system was corrupted and these positions needed to be elected by popular vote.

 

The progressives believe that a popular election would eliminate some of the back room deals and corruption that had led to many being chosen to the position of Senator.

 

Here is my problem.

 

The office of a U.S. Senator was never intended to be an elected position. The Founders believed that by appointing this position the states would be guaranteed a fair representation. These men actually lived and shopped in the state, they knew what their constituents wanted, they knew who they were and what they were more in line with they knew the strengths, weaknesses and desires of the people. The Founders believed that if the position of Senator was based on popular election that "OUTSIDE INFLUENCE," could and often would dictate who was elected to this position......and if a Senator was answering to interests outside of his state, then he wouldn't be serving the people of his state in a proper manner.

 

For example, today you see all types of special interest groups financing the campaigns of Senators. These groups can be from other states, and their interest may not have anything to do with the interest of the people in the state to which the man is campaigning to be elected. The only reason some groups support Senators now is because they can buy as many as they wish through campaign contributions. The 17th Amendment, opened the door up to end state sovereignty and increase the power, scope and size of the Federal Govt.

 

It essentially destroyed any leverage that the state might have had within the Federal government. The Founding Fathers believed that the STATE GOVERNMENTS, were better equipped to handle the needs of citizens than the Federal government. When these persons were assembled together they would hold the INTEREST OF THE STATE at hand instead of the interest of "outside forces." Today our Senators hold the interest of several special interest groups over the interest of the constituents of the state in which they serve.

 

This is my major beef with the 17th Amendment.

 

"The fundamental problem with the 17th is that Senators no longer work for or represent their state governments, and therefore the state governments no longer have a voice or meaningful political power in the national government. The state governments were the most important check on the influence and scope of Washington, and without this check, the national government is unresponsive to the needs of the citizenry."

 

Surprisingly, I understand your argument, and can see its validity. Part of the argument also holds true for having a full-time sitting legislature. The Founders did not foresee a day when our elected representatives are in session 12 months a year and do not spend the majority of their time living in their home communities.

[Deleted Account 5,203]

Very much opposed to the direct election of U.S. Senators.

 

This amendment was pushed for by the progressives of the era, as an attempt to "end backroom politics." Before this the senators were chosen by their colleagues within the state legislature. The progressives argued that bribery often led to these persons being selected, in other words the system was corrupted and these positions needed to be elected by popular vote.

 

The progressives believe that a popular election would eliminate some of the back room deals and corruption that had led to many being chosen to the position of Senator.

 

Here is my problem.

 

The office of a U.S. Senator was never intended to be an elected position. The Founders believed that by appointing this position the states would be guaranteed a fair representation. These men actually lived and shopped in the state, they knew what their constituents wanted, they knew who they were and what they were more in line with they knew the strengths, weaknesses and desires of the people. The Founders believed that if the position of Senator was based on popular election that "OUTSIDE INFLUENCE," could and often would dictate who was elected to this position......and if a Senator was answering to interests outside of his state, then he wouldn't be serving the people of his state in a proper manner.

 

For example, today you see all types of special interest groups financing the campaigns of Senators. These groups can be from other states, and their interest may not have anything to do with the interest of the people in the state to which the man is campaigning to be elected. The only reason some groups support Senators now is because they can buy as many as they wish through campaign contributions. The 17th Amendment, opened the door up to end state sovereignty and increase the power, scope and size of the Federal Govt.

 

It essentially destroyed any leverage that the state might have had within the Federal government. The Founding Fathers believed that the STATE GOVERNMENTS, were better equipped to handle the needs of citizens than the Federal government. When these persons were assembled together they would hold the INTEREST OF THE STATE at hand instead of the interest of "outside forces." Today our Senators hold the interest of several special interest groups over the interest of the constituents of the state in which they serve.

 

This is my major beef with the 17th Amendment.

 

"The fundamental problem with the 17th is that Senators no longer work for or represent their state governments, and therefore the state governments no longer have a voice or meaningful political power in the national government. The state governments were the most important check on the influence and scope of Washington, and without this check, the national government is unresponsive to the needs of the citizenry."

 

I think your reasoning goes to the heart of why we shouldn't elect members of the Judiciary. However, I disagree with your reasoning insofar as the legislative branch should be responsible to the people.