If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(The New York Times)   And from the balls-bigger-than-his-brain file: NY state senator wants his bribery trial moved until after his re-election   (nytimes.com) divider line 55
    More: Obvious  
•       •       •

1519 clicks; posted to Politics » on 15 Feb 2014 at 7:16 PM (30 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



55 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2014-02-15 07:19:46 PM
Well, if the trial is before the election he's double damned. Damned if he gets convicted, because he'll be off the ballot and it'll probably be after a cutoff date, so his party automatically loses. If he gets acquitted he's not corrupt enough to represent Queens.
 
2014-02-15 07:24:41 PM
"The electorate would be inundated with news of Senator Smith's trial during the crucial months leading up to the election, rather than being free to consider, without distraction, Senator Smith's qualifications for office."

[ohwaityoureserious.jpg]
 
2014-02-15 07:25:48 PM
Still tough to top delaying your signature legislation until you're out of office.
 
2014-02-15 07:28:09 PM

quatchi: "The electorate would be inundated with news of Senator Smith's trial during the crucial months leading up to the election, rather than being free to consider, without distraction, Senator Smith's qualifications for office."

[ohwaityoureserious.jpg]


"Just because I'm being tried for treason, murder and forcible sodomy of an 8-year old girl doesn't mean I'm unqualified for your vote!"
 
2014-02-15 07:32:12 PM

cchris_39: SQUIRREL!


FTFY

/TFA is about a Democrat, you know - shouldn't that be good enough for you?
 
2014-02-15 07:41:02 PM
Hahahahahaha, no...
 
2014-02-15 07:44:59 PM
Well, this guy has a future as a comedian if politics doesn't work out.
 
2014-02-15 07:45:48 PM
Isn't anybody going to help that poor man?
 
2014-02-15 07:46:34 PM
It's one of the laws of power.

You act with audacity and even if you cause some problems, you can usually solve them with even more audacity.

I be he has a copy of How to Win Friends and Influence People, too.
 
2014-02-15 07:53:38 PM
It's not bribery, its free speech and protected by the first amendment,  Thanks Citizens United!
 
2014-02-15 07:59:52 PM

Warlordtrooper: It's not bribery if it's a campaign contribution, its free speech and protected by the first amendment,  Thanks Citizens United!


FTFY
 
2014-02-15 08:08:30 PM
Actually, if I were representing a defendant who was currently running for elective office, I would definitely try to continue the trial until after the election to avoid the possibility of jurors voting to convict for purely political reasons.
 
2014-02-15 08:09:46 PM
Assuming, of course, that I couldn't convince the client to make the smarter choice, and drop out of the election.
 
2014-02-15 08:27:55 PM
Hmm.. Which political party is he affiliated with?
 
2014-02-15 08:33:23 PM

BMulligan: Actually, if I were representing a defendant who was currently running for elective office, I would definitely try to continue the trial until after the election to avoid the possibility of jurors voting to convict for purely political reasons.


If I were representing him, I would tell him to get an actual lawyer.
 
2014-02-15 08:37:07 PM

Nemo's Brother: Hmm.. Which political party is he affiliated with?


Democrat, although the allegations are that he agreed to give bribes in order to be allowed into the Republican primary for NYC mayor.
 
2014-02-15 08:45:53 PM

mrshowrules: BMulligan: Actually, if I were representing a defendant who was currently running for elective office, I would definitely try to continue the trial until after the election to avoid the possibility of jurors voting to convict for purely political reasons.

If I were representing him, I would tell him to get an actual lawyer.


i.imgur.com
 
2014-02-15 09:24:17 PM

Nemo's Brother: Hmm.. Which political party is he affiliated with?


Since you're posting I'll guess he's a Democrat.
 
2014-02-15 09:25:52 PM
p.s. just to show Nemo and cchris how it's done...

I don't care if he's a member of my party or not. Hold the trial as soon as possible and throw the book at him if he's convicted.
 
2014-02-15 10:10:37 PM
Any elected official who commits a felony to further their political standing or to benefit from it should be exterminated - including anything 25% genetically connected to them, just to make sure.  Regardless of their party, they are our servants not our leaders.

Just to be fair, if they take their own life, I would be OK sparing their family.  After they are delivered into a lifetime of cleaning public bathrooms and complete poverty.  I can be merciful.
 
2014-02-15 10:15:44 PM
I'm surprised the NYT actually mentioned the party affiliation of this outstanding individual.
 
2014-02-15 10:17:25 PM
... oh, I'm sorry... I thought this was a Photoshop contest thread.
 
2014-02-15 10:21:16 PM

shlabotnik: I'm surprised the NYT actually mentioned the party affiliation of this outstanding individual.


that reveals more about you than about the NYT.
 
2014-02-15 10:38:01 PM

The Why Not Guy: shlabotnik: I'm surprised the NYT actually mentioned the party affiliation of this outstanding individual.

that reveals more about you than about the NYT.


OK, I'll bite...what does it reveal, sunshine?
 
2014-02-15 10:42:40 PM

shlabotnik: The Why Not Guy: shlabotnik: I'm surprised the NYT actually mentioned the party affiliation of this outstanding individual.

that reveals more about you than about the NYT.

OK, I'll bite...what does it reveal, sunshine?


I think he means that your bias against/cynicism towards the NYT reveals more about your political leanings than the actual reporting style of the newspaper.
 
2014-02-15 11:19:15 PM
Less than 30 comments? Bribery charges against a Republi--oh wait, he's a Democrat. That explains it.
 
2014-02-15 11:29:25 PM

shlabotnik: OK, I'll bite...what does it reveal, sunshine?


That you have only a passing familiarity with how the NYT reports news, if that.
 
2014-02-15 11:36:52 PM
BTW, is it just me, or does ol' Preet look like he's going to be a candidate for a major political office soon?
 
2014-02-15 11:36:58 PM
Tell you what, schlabotnik...

Your implication is that the NYT is so biased, they routinely leave out party affiliation of Democrats who have done something wrong. So much so, in fact, that you're surprised they reported it here.

How about backing up your claim with, say, 2 examples of the NYT leaving party affiliation out to protect a Democrat?
 
2014-02-16 12:03:33 AM

TerminalEchoes: Less than 30 comments? Bribery charges against a Republi--oh wait, he's a Democrat. That explains it.


There are few comments because nobody is defending him. Threads about corrupt GOP members get more posts because of conservatives desperately trying to spin, distract and deflect and everyone else mocking their attempts.
 
2014-02-16 12:09:09 AM

shlabotnik: I'm surprised the NYT actually mentioned the party affiliation of this outstanding individual.



NYT is not the LAT.
 
2014-02-16 12:39:27 AM
On the fence here. On one hand... by law he's innocent until proven guilty. The accusation isn't the evidence. On the other hand, that's pretty farking ballsy if he wants the court to work around his re-election.

I'd say let him have it his way, but if he loses his trial he not only has to resign from office, he has to pay the court costs and lawyer fees for the entire length of time it was delayed.
 
2014-02-16 03:25:25 AM
static01.nyt.com

i1136.photobucket.com
 
2014-02-16 03:32:16 AM

Thrag: TerminalEchoes: Less than 30 comments? Bribery charges against a Republi--oh wait, he's a Democrat. That explains it.

There are few comments because nobody is defending him. Threads about corrupt GOP members get more posts because of conservatives desperately trying to spin, distract and deflect and everyone else mocking their attempts.


Well, I think we're done here. I'll get the lights.
 
2014-02-16 03:44:32 AM
25.media.tumblr.com
 
2014-02-16 06:57:54 AM
He has a point. He's presumed innocent. He has the right to run for public office---as of now, the man is guilty of no crimes. Such a delay might not interfere with the course of justice. In third world countries, they typically discourage competitors in elections with all kinds of sham charges which interfere with their ability to stand for elections. Now I doubt this is the case here, but nonetheless, I think the ability of a state to postpone such proceedings until after an election is a sign of a <i> lack of </i>, rather than presence of, corruption.
 
2014-02-16 09:07:24 AM

The Why Not Guy: p.s. just to show Nemo and cchris how it's done...

I don't care if he's a member of my party or not. Hold the trial as soon as possible and throw the book at him if he's convicted.


Yes. Then do the same thing the next time it's a Democratic, Republican, Libertarian, Green, or Whig politician.
 
2014-02-16 09:24:58 AM
If it does not involve traffic cones, it is not scandal

Democrat taking money, that is not new, that is the job description here
 
2014-02-16 09:28:47 AM

dantheman195: If it does not involve traffic cones, it is not scandal

Democrat taking money, that is not new, that is the job description here


If that were true, he wouldn't be on trial right now.
 
2014-02-16 09:40:50 AM

cameroncrazy1984: dantheman195: If it does not involve traffic cones, it is not scandal

Democrat taking money, that is not new, that is the job description here

If that were true, he wouldn't be on trial right now.


I love living in the political world right now.  Farkers can't even figure out what to hate democrats for anymore, but they can go on for hours about republicans who aren't conservative enough, and are still convinced that they hate democrats.  It's like watching That Douche You Know trip and fall.  In slow motion.  For several years.
 
2014-02-16 09:50:21 AM

Thrag: Threads about corrupt GOP members get more posts because of conservatives desperately trying to spin, distract and deflect and everyone else mocking their attempts.


I'm sure you can link a few of examples.
 
2014-02-16 10:01:54 AM

GoldSpider: Thrag: Threads about corrupt GOP members get more posts because of conservatives desperately trying to spin, distract and deflect and everyone else mocking their attempts.

I'm sure you can link a few of examples.


Are you farking kidding me? Are you trying to make people get cramps from laughing too hard?

For recent examples look at any thread about the Ft. Lee traffic scandal. We even had one the other day where as part of the desperate deflection attempts someone rehashed their butthurt over Sarah Palin being mocked for her idiotic remarks about her foreign policy experience from being close to Russia.
 
2014-02-16 10:09:07 AM

Thrag: For recent examples look at any thread about the Ft. Lee traffic scandal.


I've read a few of those.  Most of the post you describe as "desperate deflection" were suggestions that we wait for the investigation.

Thrag: We even had one the other day where as part of the desperate deflection attempts someone rehashed their butthurt over Sarah Palin being mocked for her idiotic remarks about her foreign policy experience from being close to Russia.


I don't believe anyone here has genuinely tried to defend Sara Palin since 2009.
 
2014-02-16 10:43:09 AM

GoldSpider: Thrag: For recent examples look at any thread about the Ft. Lee traffic scandal.

I've read a few of those.  Most of the post you describe as "desperate deflection" were suggestions that we wait for the investigation.

Thrag: We even had one the other day where as part of the desperate deflection attempts someone rehashed their butthurt over Sarah Palin being mocked for her idiotic remarks about her foreign policy experience from being close to Russia.

I don't believe anyone here has genuinely tried to defend Sara Palin since 2009.


You seem to believe a lot of things that just aren't true.

Here is a thread where we have a guy deflecting so desperately that they are still clinging to last month's "traffic study" talking point along with someone bleating about Sarah Palin being the victim of yellow journalism because more people remembered Tina Fey's joke than the real quote (which was far far worst than Tina Fey's joke).
 
2014-02-16 10:47:28 AM
Since you asked for links, plural, here's another.

In this thread some idiot called "GoldSpider" tries to deflect from the topic with this incredibly weak attempt:

"A shady Democrat supporter would never fabricate/exaggerate a story to implicate Republicans in wrongdoing, No sirree! "
 
2014-02-16 11:57:57 AM

cameroncrazy1984: dantheman195: If it does not involve traffic cones, it is not scandal

Democrat taking money, that is not new, that is the job description here

If that were true, he wouldn't be on trial right now.


He just forgot to grease someone's palms

You can't run a racket without your boss getting some cheddar
 
2014-02-16 11:58:15 AM

Thrag: Here is a thread where we have a guy deflecting so desperately that they are still clinging to last month's "traffic study" talking point along


I didn't see any reference to the "traffic study" other than those pointing out that was still the "official" story.

Thrag: someone bleating about Sarah Palin being the victim of yellow journalism because more people remembered Tina Fey's joke than the real quote (which was far far worst than Tina Fey's joke).


Pointing out how frequently the media fails to vet their facts is hardly a defense of a proven idiot.

Thrag: In this thread some idiot called "GoldSpider" tries to deflect from the topic with this incredibly weak attempt:


2008-04-24

Aa 5-year old post with zero context?  Just a bit of a reach there, don't you think?
 
2014-02-16 11:58:56 AM

Thrag: Since you asked for links, plural, here's another.

In this thread some idiot called "GoldSpider" tries to deflect from the topic with this incredibly weak attempt:

"A shady Democrat supporter would never fabricate/exaggerate a story to implicate Republicans in wrongdoing, No sirree! "


lol
 
2014-02-16 12:10:36 PM

Thrag: Since you asked for links, plural, here's another.

In this thread some idiot called "GoldSpider" tries to deflect from the topic with this incredibly weak attempt:

"A shady Democrat supporter would never fabricate/exaggerate a story to implicate Republicans in wrongdoing, No sirree! "


This is beautiful.
 
2014-02-16 12:19:56 PM

Thrag: In this thread some idiot called "GoldSpider" tries to deflect from the topic with this incredibly weak attempt:

"A shady Democrat supporter would never fabricate/exaggerate a story to implicate Republicans in wrongdoing, No sirree! "


I stand corrected, 5 years later.  Nobody would suggest, for example, that a republican caused the death of a 91-year-old woman.
 
Displayed 50 of 55 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report