I was with him right up to the end. Why couldn't a rep have a member of his staff write material? How is that different from doing it himself, since he's also paid by the taxpayer? Isn't communicating with his constituency part of the rep's and his staff's job? I can appreciate a distinction made between official congressional communication and congressperson communication, and the distinction between paying for distribution through a general fund (franking) and through one's own budget. But, restricting use of staff doesn't make sense to me.
I'm not saying this to be rude, but glynch is completely predictable, and right in line with Marx. And that's consistent with plank #6 of the Communist Manifesto.
i would think with your slavery takes in another thread that you would agree that a staff can't be used by an evil federal government official for political purpose because the staff is paid for by us???????
OK, so no meat to the story... shocking that everyone overreacted. P.S. There is a difference in having someone post pro-senator x comments on a website and having them post on websites 8 hours a day, 5 days a week on my dime.. There is nothingwrong with regulating that. P.P.S. Crow... it is good for you. I can send some ketchup to help it go down.
I guess I should have not called Culbertson a right winger. So we should just allow all the Congress people to use unlimited government funds or employees to help with their reelecion? What does communism have to do with this? I would think that communists are all for using government money to help communist officials maintain their positions. Plank 6 of the Communist Manifesto?!! lol Sorry I did not want to join in the Nancy Pelosi bashing based on what seems to be an extremely misleading charges.
Some politicians just are not cut out to use the series of tubes. <object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/f99PcP0aFNE&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/f99PcP0aFNE&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>
you replied to a post that had a problem with prohibiting staff from writing for the congressmen they're working for, for said congressman's blog. you're always harping on abuse by federal government officials or federal gov't like the compulsory volunteer service for fed funds, making it akin to slavery one might think that the anti federal government guy would agree with evil federal gov't official not using tax payer funded staff for evil federal government guy blog. instead you called the person who posted that rule a communist, out of freakin way left field.
Congressmen have budgets that control how much they can spend on their staff. So long as they stay within that budget, if they want to use their staff to fan them and feed them grapes, I don't care. This is censorship. Nothing more, nothing less. Pelosi wants the reaffirm the CHA's role as information gatekeeper for the House.
i don't know about that, i don't mean to seem to have an issue. i actually respect you as a poster, you back up your positions with sound arguments and you're pretty well reasoned, i just feel some of your anti gov positions are over the top and I think you took a personal attack against glynch that directly goes against some of your positions. but that's just my humble opinion. edit: i actually have more problems with your rockets positions than political, because those are really important
I wouldn't take it quite that far, but this is my argument as well. Congressmen don't have unlimited funds to spend. A congressman should be able to spend the budget he's allotted in whatever responsible way he sees fit.
