NY Times Reportedly Planning Story On Alleged John Boehner Affair

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 24, 2010 5:57 PM GMT
    " ... Mike Stark, an activist and blogger, intercepted Leader Boehner after his highly publicized "Pledge to America" unveiling to ask him about the accusation:

    "Speaker Boehner, have you been cheating with Lisbeth Lyons, the lobbyist for the American Printing Association?" Stark asks. Boehner did not respond.

    Stark later contacted Lyons, the Vice President of Government Affairs at Printing Industries of America, to get a comment on the allegations. She didn't provide any. ... "

    The Huffington Post, September 24, 2010 | 1:22:12 PM (EST)
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 24, 2010 6:06 PM GMT
    Eeeewwwwww! I imagine it would be akin to bedding a bag of beef jerky.

    If it's true, I hope he falls hard and fast.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 24, 2010 6:46 PM GMT
    Oh, please God let this be true. icon_twisted.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 24, 2010 6:53 PM GMT
    southbeach1500 said
    Christian73 saidOh, please God let this be true. icon_twisted.gif

    Yes... And then we would have Ryan (R-WI) hopefully elected as speaker come January. That would be good!

    Nah, the Repuglicans would be further labeled the party of hypocrites.
    Ah, yes, the sanctity of marriage. One after another proponent falls.

    No wonder he has been so nervous lately as he has been pushed more and more into the spotlight. He knew this was bound to come out.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 24, 2010 7:06 PM GMT
    I hate this shit. I fucking hate this shit.

    I do not care one bit what anyone does in their sex lives provided everyone consents and all that.

    But here is how John feels about us:

    Voted NO on prohibiting job discrimination based on sexual orientation. (Nov 2007)
    Voted YES on Constitutionally defining marriage as one-man-one-woman. (Jul 2006)
    Voted YES on Constitutional Amendment banning same-sex marriage. (Sep 2004)
    Voted YES on banning gay adoptions in DC. (Jul 1999)

    He has been legislating our sex lives, making sure that who we have sex with and fall in love with makes us second class citizens. So, in this case, fuck him.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 24, 2010 7:15 PM GMT
    Hmmmmm...did John have anything to say about Bill Clinton and Monica?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 24, 2010 9:37 PM GMT
    southbeach1500 said
    Christian73 saidOh, please God let this be true. icon_twisted.gif

    Yes... And then we would have Ryan (R-WI) hopefully elected as speaker come January. That would be good!


    Yes. Because his economic plan that not only increases the deficit but destroys Social Security and Medicare will be so much better than Obama's. icon_rolleyes.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 24, 2010 11:47 PM GMT
    southbeach1500 said
    Christian73 said
    Yes. Because his economic plan that not only increases the deficit but destroys Social Security and Medicare will be so much better than Obama's. icon_rolleyes.gif


    Social Security and Medicare have already been destroyed. You and most of the rest of America just don't realize it. icon_wink.gif

    Just look at the difference one year has made. 2008 projection is below:
    1728.png

    And here is the 2009 projection:
    Revenue-Chart.jpg


    How can your Social Security fund lose money? It is a huge investment capital fund that should be generating nmore money as a massive whole than any number of small individual funds could.

    The Canadian one is a real investment fund - my Canada Pension Plan deductions all my life went into that fund whose REVENUES now pay my pensions, from the income generated, not the endiwment capital. the workers provided through our payroll deductions.


    Our government is not legally allowed to touch it for anything else. If they did the Auditor General would report it to Parliament. Why doesn't not work like that in the US? I do not understand how the bastion of freemarket investment cannot succesfully manage a fund even the size of the Teacher's Federation of Ontario's' pension fund (that owns all kinds of stocks. The Ontario Teachers Federation owns huge stakes in a widely duversified potfolio of profitable multinational corporations globally.

    I find it stunning the Americans cannot seem to find the matching formula if our teachers' unions' fund managers can.

    Huge pots of money are used to make MORE money.

    So the whole "social security is going bankrupt" is an a crock. Manage it like a REAL pension fund and it wont go bankrupt unless the entire global economy collapses.

    (For Ontarios teachers not to get their pensions every singlecorporation the fund has a stake in would have to have been wiped off the face of the earth.

    You have to be totally incompetent to SHRINK a multi-billion dollar investment fund unless you were looting it.
    (Our Auditor General is there to prevent that. Any Party that tried to seriously make the argument that the fund might be going bankrupt would be a demonstrating right there they lacked the financial acumen to be given the responsibility of governing. the economists would laugh themselves silly. The voters and taxpayers understand investment funds well enough and it HAS been working very well that we would bevery skeptical of such an alarmist claim.

    (the fund is reassessed regularly too and the report made public.)

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 25, 2010 12:00 AM GMT
    UpperCanadian saidI find it stunning the Americans cannot seem to find the matching formula if our teachers' unions' fund managers can.

    Don't you have a baby seal you should be clubbing? ... icon_evil.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 25, 2010 12:04 AM GMT
    did that awreddy.

    Now i'm picking my teeth with my haakapik.

    Come closer.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 25, 2010 12:26 AM GMT
    southbeach1500 said
    Christian73 said
    Yes. Because his economic plan that not only increases the deficit but destroys Social Security and Medicare will be so much better than Obama's. icon_rolleyes.gif


    Social Security and Medicare have already been destroyed. You and most of the rest of America just don't realize it. icon_wink.gif

    Just look at the difference one year has made. 2008 projection is below:
    1728.png

    And here is the 2009 projection:
    Revenue-Chart.jpg


    Blah, blah, blah... That's what "deficit hawks" would like us to believe, but it's not really true.

    Joshua HollandAllow me to take a moment to fix that whole “Social Security crisis” that has everyone in Washington gnashing their teeth. When you see how easily it’s done, you may begin to realize that whenever our elites start chattering about “tax-gaps," they’re almost certainly trying to rip you off -- making a slick grab for something to which you are, ultimately, “entitled.”

    According to the 2010 Social Security Trustees’ report, the 75-year gap is estimated to be $5.4 trillion -- still a big number. But there’s another way to express it: it equals just 0.7 percent of our projected economic output over that same period. That’s less than one penny on the dollar.

    So if we, as members of a nominal democracy, want to live in a society where older people aren’t mired in poverty -- it’s estimated that four in 10 would be without Social Security benefits -- then all we have to do to close the gap is increase overall taxes by less than a single percentage point of GDP. Problem solved! And we didn’t even require an august commission.

    But, we are told, that’s not the case. Fixing it isn’t that simple -- and increasing benefits or dropping the age of eligibility are just crazy ideas -- because we can’t afford any of it. Raising taxes, no matter how modestly, supposedly kills jobs and destroys economies. But ask yourself: where would those jobs go? To Somalia or Papua New Guinea? Our firms compete with companies from other advanced economies, and the United States has one of the lowest tax burdens in the developed world. In 2007, our overall tax burden ranked 26th out of the 30 countries in the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, dubbed the “rich countries club.”

    As I write in my forthcoming book, The 15 Biggest Lies About the Economy, budgeting comes down to a simple question of priorities. Do we want to live in an America where the elderly are forced to eat cat food? If not, we can pay a bit more in taxes, or bring defense spending in line with other advanced countries or eliminate the cap on payroll taxes so higher earners kick in the same share of their paychecks as everyone else.

    According to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, the 75-year “Social Security gap” represents the same dollar figure as those Bush tax cuts that were targeted at the top 2 percent of American earners projected over the same period of time. For much of Washington’s cognoscenti, one is an imminent crisis, and the other is something we simply must keep in place in order to retain our economic edge. That should tell you all you need to know about the nature of our Social Security “crisis.”


    Full article: [url]http://www.alternet.org/economy/148082/we%27re_being_conned_on_social_security_--_how_we_could_easily_raise_benefits_or_allow_people_to_retire_earlier/[/url]
  • rioriz

    Posts: 1056

    Sep 25, 2010 12:31 AM GMT
    southbeach1500 said
    Christian73 saidOh, please God let this be true. icon_twisted.gif

    Yes... And then we would have Ryan (R-WI) hopefully elected as speaker come January. That would be good!


    I love Ryan!!! I wish he were a little more experienced to run in 2012 although well we know what little experience means when you take over the role of president...
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 25, 2010 12:43 AM GMT
    rioriz said
    southbeach1500 said
    Christian73 saidOh, please God let this be true. icon_twisted.gif

    Yes... And then we would have Ryan (R-WI) hopefully elected as speaker come January. That would be good!


    I love Ryan!!! I wish he were a little more experienced to run in 2012 although well we know what little experience means when you take over the role of president...

    Well said. Ryan is excellent and we sure know what happens with insufficient experience. As an aside, it is interesting how some are hoping that stories of Boehner's personal problems are true. Shows how bankrupt intellectually they are when they cannot make intelligent arguments, so they hope for personal problems in their adversaries.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 25, 2010 12:45 AM GMT
    Yes, GOP budget wiz Paul Ryan who developed a plan to balance the budget, cut spending, and cut taxes... all the while assuming tax revenue would remain constant.

    It is the new Republican math where 2.7 trillion - 700 billion = 2.7 trillion.

    source House GOP's top budget guy Paul Ryan (R-WI) claims that his tax-cutting, Medicare and Social Security slashing fiscal roadmap would restore the federal budget to balance over a number of decades...and the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office has his back. But on close inspection, it turns out that CBO took much of its analytical lead from Ryan himself, dramatically skewing the numbers.

    For their analysis Ryan provided CBO with a remarkable assumption: he asked CBO actuaries to assume that the major tax cuts he calls for won't create any change in federal revenue over the next two decades--at all.

    Here's how they put it, in budget-ese: "As specified by your staff, for this analysis total federal tax revenues are assumed to equal those under [current fiscal policy]," the analysis reads.


  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 25, 2010 12:57 AM GMT
    MunchingZombie saidYes, GOP budget wiz Paul Ryan who developed a plan to balance the budget, cut spending, and cut taxes... all the while assuming tax revenue would remain constant.

    It is the new Republican math where 2.7 trillion - 700 billion = 2.7 trillion.

    source House GOP's top budget guy Paul Ryan (R-WI) claims that his tax-cutting, Medicare and Social Security slashing fiscal roadmap would restore the federal budget to balance over a number of decades...and the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office has his back. But on close inspection, it turns out that CBO took much of its analytical lead from Ryan himself, dramatically skewing the numbers.

    For their analysis Ryan provided CBO with a remarkable assumption: he asked CBO actuaries to assume that the major tax cuts he calls for won't create any change in federal revenue over the next two decades--at all.

    Here's how they put it, in budget-ese: "As specified by your staff, for this analysis total federal tax revenues are assumed to equal those under [current fiscal policy]," the analysis reads.



    You will see a different take than your left wing site from a right wing site which indicates the 700 billion are proposed cuts:

    http://www.tnr.com/blog/jonathan-chait/77466/paul-ryans-budgetary-vagueries

    but if you want to see still another view, look at the Washington Post article

    http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2010/02/rep_paul_ryans_daring_budget_p.html

    The lesson here is your sources can be hand picked. Why not avoid partisan sites which do their own context arranging, and stick with generally accepted at least somewhat neutral sites. BTW not suggesting the plan is perfect or does not merit additional scrutiny. But if you want an honest discussion, cite impartial sources without taking quotes out of context and applying subjective interpretation.

  • GQjock

    Posts: 11649

    Sep 25, 2010 1:00 AM GMT
    Protecting the institution of marriage safeguards, I believe, the American family.
    John Boehner

    While 45 of the 50 States have either a State constitutional amendment or a statute that preserves the current definition of marriage, left-wing activist judges and officials at the local levels have struck down State laws protecting marriage.
    John Boehner

    And that is why marriage and family law has emphasized the importance of marriage as the foundation of family, addressing the needs of children in the most positive way.
    John Boehner

    Hey John! Need some Rope There? Oh, ..... I see you already got some icon_cool.gif

    Ah ...... smell the smell of Shadenfruede in the air ?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 25, 2010 1:02 AM GMT
    MunchingZombie said... So, in this case, fuck him.


    And HARD.

    ass-rape-man.jpg
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 25, 2010 1:16 AM GMT
    socalfitness saidThe lesson here is your sources can be hand picked. Why not avoid partisan sites which do their own context arranging, and stick with generally accepted at least somewhat neutral sites. BTW not suggesting the plan is perfect or does not merit additional scrutiny. But if you want an honest discussion, cite impartial sources without taking quotes out of context and applying subjective interpretation.


    Neither article addresses the concerns raised in my article, though Ezra Klein does link the the CBO report which reads
    CBOThe proposal would make significant changes to the tax system.2 However, as specified by your staff, for this analysis total federal tax revenues are assumed to equal those under CBO’s alternative fiscal scenario (which is one inter- pretation of what it would mean to continue current fiscal policy) until they reach 19 percent of gross domestic product (GDP) in 2030, and to remain at that share of GDP thereafter.


    If you have analysis of how you can both cut taxes and assume tax revenue remains constant I would love to see it.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 25, 2010 1:19 AM GMT
    Wow, socalfitness, Ezra Klein doesn't have a kind view about Ryan's budget:
    http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2010/02/rep_paul_ryans_daring_budget_p.htmlRyan's budget proposes reforms that are nothing short of violent. Medicare is privatized. Seniors get a voucher to buy private insurance, and the voucher's growth is far slower than the expected growth of health-care costs. Medicaid is also privatized. The employer tax exclusion is fully eliminated, replaced by a tax credit that grows more slowly than medical costs...
    The proposal would shift risk from the federal government to seniors themselves. The money seniors would get to buy their own policies would grow more slowly than their health-care costs, and more slowly than their expected Medicare benefits, which means that they'd need to either cut back on how comprehensive their insurance is or how much health-care they purchase. Exacerbating the situation -- and this is important -- Medicare currently pays providers less and works more efficiently than private insurers, so seniors trying to purchase a plan equivalent to Medicare would pay more for it on the private market.

    It's hard, given the constraints of our current debate, to call something "rationing" without being accused of slurring it. But this is rationing, and that's not a slur.


    Good luck getting elected if older (or to be older when it hits) folks understand this.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 25, 2010 1:40 AM GMT
    q1w2e3 saidWow, socalfitness, Ezra Klein doesn't have a kind view about Ryan's budget:
    http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2010/02/rep_paul_ryans_daring_budget_p.htmlRyan's budget proposes reforms that are nothing short of violent. Medicare is privatized. Seniors get a voucher to buy private insurance, and the voucher's growth is far slower than the expected growth of health-care costs. Medicaid is also privatized. The employer tax exclusion is fully eliminated, replaced by a tax credit that grows more slowly than medical costs...
    The proposal would shift risk from the federal government to seniors themselves. The money seniors would get to buy their own policies would grow more slowly than their health-care costs, and more slowly than their expected Medicare benefits, which means that they'd need to either cut back on how comprehensive their insurance is or how much health-care they purchase. Exacerbating the situation -- and this is important -- Medicare currently pays providers less and works more efficiently than private insurers, so seniors trying to purchase a plan equivalent to Medicare would pay more for it on the private market.

    It's hard, given the constraints of our current debate, to call something "rationing" without being accused of slurring it. But this is rationing, and that's not a slur.


    Good luck getting elected if older (or to be older when it hits) folks understand this.

    I realized it was not glowing, but the point I was trying to make dealt with choosing reasonably impartial sources. Even though I have had significant issues with the Washington Post, I would have more respect for using that as a source rather than the other, or sources such as Huffington Post or Daily Kos.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 25, 2010 1:59 AM GMT
    socalfitness saidI realized it was not glowing, but the point I was trying to make dealt with choosing reasonably impartial sources. Even though I have had significant issues with the Washington Post, I would have more respect for using that as a source rather than the other, or sources such as Huffington Post or Daily Kos.


    TPM != Huff Po.

    You will note that TPM has actual reporters rather than editorials from guys who acted in the show Wings. And while it is a liberal site, it is far from salacious. The linked article, like my post that followed, contained the actual quote from the CBO site. The site is very fair and reports on dicks who are dicks. When Obama pushed to get rid of the public option, they reported on it. When Rangel was brought up on corruption charges, they reported it. And oh my lord, you should have see the stuff they did on William Jefferson.

    I try not to post to rubbish because I am not interested in the petty Republicans versus Dems game.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 25, 2010 2:21 AM GMT
    socalfitness said
    rioriz said
    southbeach1500 said
    Christian73 saidOh, please God let this be true. icon_twisted.gif

    Yes... And then we would have Ryan (R-WI) hopefully elected as speaker come January. That would be good!


    I love Ryan!!! I wish he were a little more experienced to run in 2012 although well we know what little experience means when you take over the role of president...

    Well said. Ryan is excellent and we sure know what happens with insufficient experience. As an aside, it is interesting how some are hoping that stories of Boehner's personal problems are true. Shows how bankrupt intellectually they are when they cannot make intelligent arguments, so they hope for personal problems in their adversaries.


    Not at all. Bohner presents himself as a "family values" politician. If he is having an affair (as they nearly all do), then he is a stunning hypocrite.

    Just like Christine - I pay my phone bill with campaign money - O'Donnell is a hypocrite for running as a fiscal conservative when she can't even pay her own bills.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 25, 2010 2:43 AM GMT
    jprichva said
    socalfitness said Shows how bankrupt intellectually they are when they cannot make intelligent arguments, so they hope for personal problems in their adversaries.

    Said by someone who no doubt approved of wrecking two years of a presidency over a blowjob.

    O the hypocrisy.

    As a public service, I fixed this for you:

    Said by someone who no doubt approved of wrecking two years of a presidency over perjury.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 25, 2010 3:35 AM GMT
    jprichva said
    socalfitness said
    jprichva said
    socalfitness said Shows how bankrupt intellectually they are when they cannot make intelligent arguments, so they hope for personal problems in their adversaries.

    Said by someone who no doubt approved of wrecking two years of a presidency over a blowjob.

    O the hypocrisy.

    As a public service, I fixed this for you:

    Said by someone who no doubt approved of wrecking two years of a presidency over perjury.

    Perjury induced by 1) an insane overzealous prosecutor who took six years and $40 million to come up with NO wrongdoing, and 2) a president trying to spare his wife's feelings.

    Why don't you grow some actual human emotions instead of being a robot?

    The law is the law. Can be an inconvenient bitch though.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 25, 2010 3:43 AM GMT
    jprichva said
    socalfitness said...


    J, I blocked and ignored it a while back after the last troll wave. Don't feed it, and it might die.