Speaker of the New York State Assembly, Sheldon Silver, arrested for corruption...

[beevul]

“For many years, New Yorkers have asked the question — how could Speaker Silver, one of the most powerful men in all of New York, earn millions of dollars in outside income without deeply compromising his ability to honestly serve his constituents?” Mr. Bharara said at a news conference. “Today, we provide the answer: He didn’t.”

Mr. Bharara said Mr. Silver had produced “a nice profit on being a public official.” He added, “Politicians are supposed to be on the people’s payroll, not on secret retainer to wealthy special interests they do favors for.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/23/nyregion/speaker-of-new-york-assembly-sheldon-silver-is-arrested-in-corruption-case.html?_r=0


“Politicians are supposed to be on the people’s payroll, not on secret retainer to wealthy special interests they do favors for”. I quite agree.


And before anyone plays the "attacking a Democrat" card, see this thread, and note the sentiments:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1014995010

Its funny to me but not "funny haha", how many elected officials connected to mayor stop and frisk end up being charged and convicted of crimes.

?itok=l9MnPbaL




It may not have been a mayor this time, but a corrupt gun control advocate it appears to be, none the less:

“What we are looking for is a complete ban on assault weapons,” Silver said.

Speaking of the "innocent children" slain at Sandy Hook Elementary School, Silver added: “If nothing else... hopefully the passage of reasonable gun control legislation nationally and in New York would at least be some kind of memorial.”

http://www.nydailynews.com/blogs/dailypolitics/sheldon-silver-newtown-doesn-spur-ny-senate-movement-gun-control-blog-entry-1.1693123

If convicted, what are the chances of him sharing a cell with Leeland Yee?

[branford]

1. New York politics is a cesspool of corruption.

It's truly embarrassing. The stench emanates from both parties with equal vomitous proportion.

The best I can say about my state's politics is, at least we have less convicted felons who were former elected officials than Illinois.

[Straw Man]

2. The irony deepens with every indictment.

Here in post-SAFE Act NY, it's hard not to be cynical when one realizes that one's constitutional rights were voted away by a bipartisan pack of felons.

[jimmy the one]

3. why how move name

beevul: It may not have been a mayor this time, but a corrupt gun control advocate it appears to be, none the less:

Why & how do you manage to turn silver's arrest on corruption, into a guncontrol issue? You equate silver with guncontrol, as if....
Does silver somehow erase the hundreds of thousands of actual gun owners who commit crimes using or having guns every year? As if every rightwing pro-gun republican who gets arrested on a non-gun issue, becomes a reflection on gun owners?

(CNN) Former Virginia Gov. Bob McDonnell won't be allowed to stay out of prison while he appeals 11 felony public corruption ...Virginia: Pro-Gun Legislation Receives Governor's ww.nraila.org/...-...Mar 27, 2013 - The following pro-gun bills were signed into law by Gov Bob McDonnell (R) and will go into effect on July 1, 2013 https://www.google.com/#q=gov+mccdonell+pro+gun+

Branford: The best I can say about my state's politics is, at least we have less convicted felons who were former elected officials than Illinois.

You know there are several pro-gun democrat states where you could move to. Or relatively liberal Austin texas, have the best of both worlds.

Straw Man Here in post-SAFE Act NY, it's hard not to be cynical when one realizes that one's constitutional rights were voted away by a bipartisan pack of felons.

Still living up to your 'straw man' definition:
straw man: mainly UK an argument, claim, or opponent that is invented in order to win or create an argument:
oxford: An intentionally misrepresented proposition that is set up because it is easier to defeat than an opponent’s real argument

Name these bipartisan felons who voted away some of your constitutional rights.
I would go along if you mean NRA supported repub legislators, regarding bg checks.

[Straw Man]

5. Jimmy, you still don't know what a "straw man" is.

Here's a hint: It has to do with misrepresenting your interlocutor's position. Whose position did I misrepresent in my post?

Name these bipartisan felons who voted away some of your constitutional rights.

Here's a list of who voted for the SAFE Act:
https://legiscan.com/NY/rollcall/S02230/id/217289
https://legiscan.com/NY/rollcall/S02230/id/217503

There have been numerous indictments on both sides of the aisle in the past few years: Libous, Grimm, Sampson, Espada, Smith, Huntley, Stevenson, and now Silver. I'm probably missing a few. Smith, Stevenson, and Silver are three that voted for the SAFE Act. Libous voted for it in committee and then against it on the floor, when the fix was already in. Governor Cuomo played political hardball to get the act passed, threatening to financially starve districts whose reps voted against it. The backlash cost several Democratic seats in the next election.

New York State politics are a cesspool. I don't know about you, but I don't feel too good about bribe-taking influence-peddlers having a voice in the degree to which I get to exercise my rights as a citizen. Held to a higher standard, doncha know.

[jimmy the one]

12. name the felons

straw man: Jimmy, you still don't know what a "straw man" is.

I know what a straw man is, I asked you several times recently which of the several definitions you fitted, then you ducked with the below answers, start with post 23:
1 Any "negative connotations" you may have with my screen name are absolutely irrelevant. You only bring it up to try to divert attention from the matter at hand. You fail. Again.
2 And screen names mean nothing, either positively or negatively. It's just another form of name-calling, one of your favorite rhetorical strategies.
3 In any case, my screen name is not and never was the issue here. No points for this clumsy attempt at wriggling away from the matter at hand.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1172104844#post28

So last jan 23, you finally got around to defining what your screen name means (his next sentence below), and you expect me to retroactively have known? I think it must be synonymous with 'con artist'.

straw man asks: Here's a hint: It has to do with misrepresenting your interlocutor's position. Whose position did I misrepresent in my post?

You misrepresented your post with this >> ".. that one's constitutional rights were voted away by a bipartisan pack of felons" ... then I asked this: Name these bipartisan felons who voted away some of your constitutional rights.

straw man replied: here's a list of who voted for the SAFE Act: https://legiscan.com/NY/rollcall/S02230/id/217289 https://legiscan.com/NY/rollcall/S02230/id/217503

No, name the felons - with an S - who in themselves voted away your constitutional rights, name more than the one jobbery. You need name a majority of FELONS who done that. Name actual felons.
Then explain why an assault rifle ban & hi capacity clip limit is voting away constitutional rights (obsolete at that), when you can still own a 3000 fps rifle, or even a handgun, in new York? This desire to own assault rifles are not constitutional rights which a NORMAL American would even want to possess, and we will not be held subject to your screwy insanity. You still can own 97% of available national gunstock to satiate your gun fetish, & your selfish concern is asinine.

According to Scalia, “We think that limitation is fairly supported by the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of ‘dangerous and unusual weapons.’ ”

[Straw Man]

14. You're quite confused, Jimmy, as usual.

So last jan 23, you finally got around to defining what your screen name means (his next sentence below), and you expect me to retroactively have known? I think it must be synonymous with 'con artist'.

straw man asks: Here's a hint: It has to do with misrepresenting your interlocutor's position. Whose position did I misrepresent in my post?

Wrong. I was not defining what my screen name means. I was defining the rhetorical fallacy known as a straw man. The fallacy has nothing to do with my screen name. My screen name is actually a pun on the above, and in any case is totally irrelevant to the matter at hand, as I have repeatedly told you.

You misrepresented your post with this >> ".. that one's constitutional rights were voted away by a bipartisan pack of felons"

Wrong again, Jimmy. Read what I said: "misrepresenting your interlocutor's position." That's what a "straw man argument" is. Do you know what interlocutor means? It is the person with whom one is having a discussion. I made no reference to any position of my interlocutors.

No, name the felons - with an S - who in themselves voted away your constitutional rights, name more than the one jobbery. You need name a majority of FELONS who done that. Name actual felons.

I named several accused felons from the legislature. That alone is disturbing enough. Apparently you are insisting that the margin of victory for the SAFE Act must consist entirely of felons in order for my characterization to be accurate. I must admit that my characterization does not pass that standard. However, I will hold to my distaste for being subject to the legislative whims of felons, any felons. I hold fast to the position that the legislature of my state is a cesspool of corruption, and does grave disservices to its constituents on a regular basis.

Then explain why an assault rifle ban & hi capacity clip limit is voting away constitutional rights (obsolete at that), when you can still own a 3000 fps rifle, or even a handgun, in new York? This desire to own assault rifles are not constitutional rights which a NORMAL American would even want to possess, and we will not be held subject to your screwy insanity. You still can own 97% of available national gunstock to satiate your gun fetish, & your selfish concern is asinine.

Nice rant, Jimmy, but devoid of sense or rationality. Although I'm far from a Second Amendment absolutist, perhaps I need to remind you what "infringed" means. Furthermore, you apparently aren't very familiar with the SAFE Act. Were you aware, for example, that it bans this rifle in New York State?



It has nothing to do with it being an "assault rifle" -- it isn't even semi-automatic. However, it is a "large capacity ammunition feeding device." The tubular magazine holds more than ten rounds: 13, in this case. Do you consider that to be reasonable regulation? I don't.

Screwy insanity? Gun fetish? Selfish concern? Blah blah hyperbole blah blah ad hominem blah blah ...

As long as we're calling for verification of claims, could you substantiate your "97% of gunstock" figure? I'm wondering, considering that AR-15-type rifles are the single largest-selling rifles in America today. It's hardly an "unusual weapon."

The SAFE Act allows me to possess ten round magazines, but forbids me to load more than seven rounds in them, even in my own home. Lose count while loading a magazine and I become an inadvertent lawbreaker. Oh so very reasonable ...

Once more, Jimmy, you offer nothing of substance: just a lot of misinterpretation, faulty information, and insults.

[jimmy the one]

15. intentionally misrepresented = a straw man argument

straw man: Wrong. I was not defining what my screen name means. I was defining the rhetorical fallacy known as a straw man. The fallacy has nothing to do with my screen name.

You only clarify what you meant, but it's not illogical to think you were referring to yourself when you wrote this: Jimmy, you still don't know what a "straw man" is. Here's a hint: It has to do with misrepresenting your interlocutor's position.
Thanks for the clarification, but no apology forthcoming.

straw man: Read what I said: "misrepresenting your interlocutor's position." That's what a "straw man argument" is. Do you know what interlocutor means? It is the person with whom one is having a discussion. I made no reference to any position of my interlocutors.

Who says I'm stuck here to your definition of straw man? I'm not bound by you. I'm not now trying to define what your screen name means, I'm using accepted definitions of 'straw man' in my own context.
I'm the one using 'straw man' in my own text and I clearly defined dictionary definitions of how I was using the term, in my post #3:
dictionaries: straw man: mainly UK - an argument, claim, or opponent that is invented in order to win or create an argument:
oxford: An intentionally misrepresented proposition that is set up because it is easier to defeat than an opponent’s real argument

Under my own criteria re straw man - which prevail since they are bona fide definitions - you indeed created a 'straw man' argument, substituting 'felons' for elected officials & contending you were subjected to their oppression.
You invented a claim of 'felons' in order to win your argument, when your invented claim was not true, even by your own admission. You intentionally misrepresented facts since it's easier to prove your propaganda.
Then you also stretch the meaning of 'constitutional rights' to your own rightwing pro-gun mindset, to make it appear you are being deprived of some basic fundamental right, when you're not. A straw man argument, from straw man, if I ever heard one.

straw man: Although I'm far from a Second Amendment absolutist, perhaps I need to remind you what "infringed" means.

Perhaps you need be reminded what 'well regulated militia', means.

[Straw Man]

16. You still don't get it, do you.

Who says I'm stuck here to your definition of straw man? I'm not bound by you. I'm not now trying to define what your screen name means, I'm using accepted definitions of 'straw man' in my own context.

No, but you are bound by the commonly accepted meanings of words. You don't get to invent meanings to suit your context. That's not how language works.

dictionaries: straw man: mainly UK - an argument, claim, or opponent that is invented in order to win or create an argument:
oxford: An intentionally misrepresented proposition that is set up because it is easier to defeat than an opponent’s real argument

Significant words in bold. A "straw man argument" is a misrepresentation of the position of someone against whom one is arguing. One falsely attributes a position to one's opposite number, an intentionally weak position, in order to easily "knock it down." Hence the term "straw man." It's a rhetorical strategy, Jimmy.

I did no such attribution. Your reading of the word is faulty and is at odds with every known interpretation, including the ones you cited.

[jimmy the one]

19. sneaky

bullcrap: I did no such attribution. Your reading of the word is faulty and is at odds with every known interpretation, including the ones you cited.

Bulk-wrap; you continue to misrepresent others & embellish yourself.
If the way I used 'straw man' is 'at odds' with every known interpretation, you are calling oxford's & Cambridge's definitions invalid?
cambridge: 'straw man': mainly UK an argument, claim, or opponent that is invented in order to win or create an argument: http://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/british/straw-man
oxford: An intentionally misrepresented proposition that is set up because it is easier to defeat than an opponent’s real argument http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/us/definition/american_english/straw-man

You qualify as creating a straw man argument, by tacitly contending that things are safer for your individual rights in a state which doesn't have 'felons' as legislators. Which is true in it's own right, but a sneaky lie when applied to the NY legislature which passed the SAFE act.

what poster named straw man wrote: Here in post-SAFE Act NY, it's hard not to be cynical when one realizes that one's constitutional rights were voted away by a bipartisan pack of felons.

[Straw Man]

20. Sorry, Jimmy.

You're still wrong. Every one of those definitions you cite refers to inventing or mispresenting the beliefs of an opponent -- an interlocutor. You know what an interlocutor is, don't you? It's a rhetorical device. Whose position was I inventing or misrepresenting? Answer: no one's. Therefore, it is not a straw man argument.

The fact that you cite those definitions again indicates to me very clearly that you don't understand them.

[Neon Gods]

4. The point here is...?

- Speaking of the "innocent children" slain at Sandy Hook Elementary School, Silver added: “If nothing else... hopefully the passage of reasonable gun control legislation nationally and in New York would at least be some kind of memorial.” -

Speaker Silver has been arrested for corruption (accused, but not convicted). In any case, it appears he's an ass. Shame on New Yorkers for keeping people like this in office. That said, does it follow in RKBA-land that every position a (allegedly) corrupt politician takes is at once illegitimate? I suspect a number of prominent Republicans convicted of sleazy crimes have been very supportive of liberal gun ownership in the past.

[beevul]

6. "supportive of liberal gun ownership"

"supportive of liberal gun ownership" is the default position in this nation, and the position that the clear majority of Americans hold.

Tell you what, lets see who has a higher crime conviction rate per capita - the leadership of any gun rights org of your choice, or bloombergs MAIG.

[Neon Gods]

7. So now we're playing "Our leaders are more moral than yours"?

-Tell you what, lets see who has a higher crime conviction rate per capita - the leadership of any gun rights org of your choice, or bloombergs MAIG -

Wow, I've always suspected that RKBA is not about the Constitution, but has become a religion, with the vast store of biased, partisan talking points as your Bible, and viewing your leaders as morally superior to the mere fallible mortals who oppose you, but you just confirmed it. Are you insinuating that one's position on guns affects one's morals?

[gejohnston]

8. MAIG has the higher conviction rate

They average about five a year.
There was even one who was convicted before becoming a member and convicted of something else afterwards. Most of them were run of the mill corruption. A couple for gun crimes, a couple for sexual harassment. There was even one for kiddie porn.
If there were any leadership of gun rights organizations convicted, or even accused of anything, I'm sure you would read about it.
This list hasn't been updated for two years, so it doesn't have the five or six that was sent up last year like Bob Filner.
http://www.stopillegalmayors.com/
Then there is Leland Yee
http://www.cnn.com/2014/04/08/us/california-senator-indicted/

You missed the point. The point is politicians care about their own personal power, and don't give a rat's ass about the greater good, even the ones who pretend to be.

[Neon Gods]

9. No, I didn't miss the point.

You are comparing apples to apricots. You are comparing conviction rates of gun rights group's leaders to the entire membership of MAIG. I seriously doubt Bloomberg vetted every mayor who joined MAIG so how can he (and by extension gun control groups) be held responsible for their behavior? Politicians are more likely to be caught when they commit crimes than normal citizens because of the press and their opponents keeping watch so I'm not too surprised that some mayors in MAIG have been convicted of criminal behavior.

[gejohnston]

10. since Bloomberg

Is the only leader while everyone else is a paid employee or contracted lobbyist, it is still tomatoes to grapefruit.

[friendly_iconoclast]

11. +1. Shannon Watts is the Pu Yi of gun control

[kcci]

13. "MAYORS against illegal guns" A mayor is a leader.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

17. "I seriously doubt Bloomberg vetted every mayor who joined MAIG"

Weird.

My gun purchases have more background checks than Bloomberg's gun grabber group.

Maybe we should start-up a counterweight group -- 'Mericans Against Illegal Mayors (MAIM).

[blueridge3210]

18. For some reason that that acronym makes me think

of the 80's movie "Dragnet" and the PAGAN (People Against Goodness and Normalcy) group.