Does anyone here ever wish Jim Traficant was still in Congress?

[Anarchist420]

I do as he was more conservative than most Republicans. . He seemed a little bit off though, since he thought the Fed was private and people who think the Fed was private tend to be a little bit anti-semitic.


Anyone remember this classic?:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tQ5Os1400uc

 

[CrackRabbit]

Considering he was one of the most corrupt POS to EVER serve in congress, I would say no.
Not to mention he makes Donald Trump's hair look good.

 

[Gonad the Barbarian]

Seriously dude, what prompts this shit?

 

[zephyrprime]

Seriously dude, what prompts this shit?

Attention whoring.

 

[GuitarDaddy]

The OP is a great example of why we need to limit new thread creation. Otherwize we wind up with these low post count trolls that constantly bombard the forums with useless troll threads. If >30% of your posts are creating new threads you are most likely a troll.

 

[Anarchist420]

Considering he was one of the most corrupt POS to EVER serve in congress, I would say no.
Not to mention he makes Donald Trump's hair look good.

I agree with your latter point, but I just found out that he was framed (http://truthilizer.livejournal.com/). I don't know who runs that website, but I sure do trust that it's not lying about that.

I had suspected he was, because he said the people testifying against him were lying and that he was going to kick them in the crotch if they continued. People don't get that sincerely angry if they had actually done something. I don't see how someone could be guilty when they were that angry.

Ron Paul gave a speech to Dennis Hastert, then speaker of the house,saying that he suspected Traficant wasn't getting a fair trial and so he was one of only 9 to vote Present on removing him.

The authorities also went after him on bogus charges in the 80s but he wasn't found guilty.

Also, seeing that there was only one no vote on his expulsion, and that it was from a guy who was already in trouble, it's pretty evident that he was framed.

Finally, one of the bogus charges against him was forcing people to work on his farm. That sound like something that was just made up.

 

[werepossum]

I agree with your latter point, but I just found out that he was framed (http://truthilizer.livejournal.com/). I don't know who runs that website, but I sure do trust that it's not lying about that.

I had suspected he was, because he said the people testifying against him were lying and that he was going to kick them in the crotch if they continued. People don't get that sincerely angry if they had actually done something. I don't see how someone could be guilty when they were that angry.

Ron Paul gave a speech to Dennis Hastert, then speaker of the house,saying that he suspected Traficant wasn't getting a fair trial and so he was one of only 9 to vote Present on removing him.

The authorities also went after him on bogus charges in the 80s but he wasn't found guilty.

Also, seeing that there was only one no vote on his expulsion, and that it was from a guy who was already in trouble, it's pretty evident that he was framed.

Finally, one of the bogus charges against him was forcing people to work on his farm. That sound like something that was just made up.

Dude, I liked Traficant too, but only one "No" vote to remove is NOT evidence he was framed, it's arguably evidence that he was NOT framed. On how many subjects does the House speak with one voice? Therefore the evidence must have been very persuasive to get everyone except one guy who also potentially faced impeachment to vote "Yes" or at least "Present".

I know nothing of this "Truthilizer" web site, but one anonymous chunk of a website quoting one Nigerian dude who swore he was telling the truth at the time, but now swears he's telling the truth now about not telling the truth then, is not what I call persuasive. The only thing I know about this Nigerian is literally that he is a liar - and I know that without any question, beyond a shadow of a doubt, because he has made two statements that directly contradict each other.

 

[Siddhartha]

The OP is a great example of why we need to limit new thread creation. Otherwize we wind up with these low post count trolls that constantly bombard the forums with useless troll threads. If >30% of your posts are creating new threads you are most likely a troll.

Wouldn't it be easier to not click and or comment on a thread posted by someone you consider to be a troll.

 

[Infohawk]

It is way easier to not click and or comment on a thread posted by someone you consider to be a troll.

Nah it's still a nuissance because people fall into the trap and keep the threads at the top. And even if you don't click on them you just can't ignore the sheer magnitude of inane posts Anarchist craps out. I have to admit it though, he's a skilled troll. He's probably doing it for the lulz. (Notice the skillful way he tries to make the thread seem legit while sneaking a generalization about a certain group being anti-semitic as bait.)