Breitbart calls for Spencer Baucus to step down!

Jude,
I'm honestly unable to understand your OP. The link doesn't provide me with any tweet. There is a Rep. Spencer Bauchus, not a Baucus. And neither did I know who Breitbardt is, nor Googling him inform me as to what he said about Bauchus. Would you state what your point is more directly, and even add your own viewpoint? Who knows, I might even agree with you. Thanks!
 
Giordano said:
Jude,
I'm honestly unable to understand your OP. The link doesn't provide me with any tweet. There is a Rep. Spencer Bauchus, not a Baucus. And neither did I know who Breitbardt is, nor Googling him inform me as to what he said about Bauchus.
Click to expand...

Nobody with any sense cares what Breitbart thinks about anyone. He's a low life and a thug. It is only a matter of time before he crosses the line into such outright criminal conduct that he will wind up in court on perjury charges.

Good rule of thumb is that if you first hear it out of the sludge monster's mouth, it is probably a lie. He and reality are bitter enemies.

He's also not much of a man.
 
Here's the tweet in question:

http://twitter.com/#!/AndrewBreitbart/status/135880132270366721

It probably has to do with this.

Bachus, as ranking member of the Financial Services Committee, traded stock options for General Electric, Burlington Northern Santa Fe, and Sony, among others in the midst of the 2008 U.S. financial crisis. Bachus was getting briefed by top officials at the Treasury Department and Federal Reserve about the impending collapse of the American financial markets. His stock trades, which were first reported on by the Wall Street Journal in April 2010, netted the Alabama Republican about $28,000, according to his financial disclosure reports.
Click to expand...
 
JudeBrando said:
It's Bachus. I copypaste quoted Breitbart's misspelling straight from his Twitter.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spencer_Bachus


http://biggovernment.com/whall/2011...ng-millions-in-exclusive-visa-stock-offering/
Click to expand...

Now I'm even more confused. One article takes Pelosi to task for a stock investment. The other is just a Wikipedia article about Bachus. If I read between the lines, and make a lot of assumptions, Breitbart is angry about stock investments by Congress members... Is he right to be angry? Is that what you are angry about too? Could you break out of your usual approach and just tell us your point? Thanks!
 
Puppycow said:
Here's the tweet in question:

http://twitter.com/#!/AndrewBreitbart/status/135880132270366721

It probably has to do with this.
Click to expand...
Here's the story-it was on "60 Minutes" tonight.
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-18560_162-57323527/congress-trading-stock-on-inside-information/

I loved Pelosi's answer--'What is your point' (paraphrased) when asked about her and her husband investing in an IPO (Visa) when she was Speaker, with Major Credit Card Legislation in the House at the time...
 
I think it should be mandatory that public officials invest in index funds. It's smarter anyway, and removes such taint.
 
rwguinn said:
Here's the story-it was on "60 Minutes" tonight.
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-18560_162-57323527/congress-trading-stock-on-inside-information/

I loved Pelosi's answer--'What is your point' (paraphrased) when asked about her and her husband investing in an IPO (Visa) when she was Speaker, with Major Credit Card Legislation in the House at the time...
Click to expand...

Sounds like something OWS would be pissed about, and we know they are all hippies and free Mumumimumiatards, so we should ignore the issue.

Daredelvis
 
Giordano said:
And neither did I know who Breitbardt is,
Click to expand...

He's a political con-man who, if he can't find any dirt on his political enemies, will construct it out of whole cloth. Either personally or through one of his protégés. See the snow job he and his did on ACORN.

Any who places value in his words tells you everything you need to know about that person.
 
He will use almost any means, even blatant deception, to attack political enemies. However, that doesn't mean he's above using the truth, or whatever parts of it suits him. We can't just dismiss the claim because the claimant lies, although if all we had to go on was the word of the claimant, then that's different.
 
tyr_13 said:
He will use almost any means, even blatant deception, to attack political enemies. However, that doesn't mean he's above using the truth, or whatever parts of it suits him. We can't just dismiss the claim because the claimant lies, although if all we had to go on was the word of the claimant, then that's different.
Click to expand...

Agreed, but the OP merely presents the man's opinion, which is worth considerably less than the bandwidth needed to bring it to your computer.


(What is the modern equivalent to "worth less than the paper it's printed on"?)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom