Very hypocritical post here as you embody many of the characteristics you are chiding Councilman Ornelas for. Shame on you for trying to make others follow standards that you yourself refuse to abide by.
It is further hypocritical as you have in the past suggested that there as nothing wrong with making facebook comments and people should not loose their jobs over it. Take for example the Turlock woman you defended when she posted messages threatening the President of the United States. You seem to be flip-flopping as much - if not more than - what you attack Councilman Ornelas for.
Finally, very hypocritical of you to bash someone for "hating police" yet you admittedly use the same negative borad strokes for all lawyers and politicians.
Really this major hypocrisy here further shows that you favor the "judge, jury, and executioner" method of law enforcement. This is supported by your attacking lawyers, blindly supporting Officer Moody, attacking anyone with differing opinions than you, insisting your "expertise" trumps any and all others and therefore your opinion is more valid than even established facts, etc. etc. etc.
Please stop with the hypocrisy Bull153.
If you are asking about Councilman Ornelas, I'd say disingenuous. Politicians aren't naive, if they were they wouldn't get elected. They are calculating, devious, and selfish. So who is naive? Just the people who keep electing them...
“Politicians are masters of the art of deception.” - Martin L. Gross
"Don't take my word for it... Read the two Manteca Bulletin articles yourself." - Boy, there is some advice! Take the Bulletin's word on it, like they are a reputable source. LMAO!!!!!
Which is ironic given that the author of the comment you quote has rejected the Manteca Bulletin as a source of information in the past. Oh well , hypocrisy and double standards seem to be all that particular poster knows.
People here seem to use whatever source best supports their argument or position. In addition to citing the Bulletin, I said "Do some research". You failed to mention that. If you don't like the source, find one you do. I'm not the only one who has referenced Manteca Bulletin articles in the past. I'm not the only one that has rejected them, either. Just like any comment, you are free to assign it as much or as little credibility as you wish.
I find this particularly funny since I'm often criticized for expressing an opinion with apparent sources. Sometimes one feels like he can't win. By all means, though, research it yourself if you don't accept my source, I really don't mind.
“We need a variety of input and in_fluence and voices. You cannot get all the answers to life and business from one person or from one source.” - Jim Rohn
Seen as this poster has in the past just made-up quotes and attributed them to famous people, disingenuously posted things like the definition of ENTRAPMENT only to then say the source he posted was wrong, as well as double talking almost everything he posts; I would tend to agree with you.
Campaign promises should legally be defined as a verbal contract, with grounds for impeachment for breach of contract. Imagine the problems we could avoid.
Hello redeyedrider ,
"Impeachment" is not the same as being asked to leave office. "Impeachment" is to bring a person who is above the law so to speak - such as the President, Senator, judge, or diplomat - to trial for crimes. It has absolutely nothing to do with revoking an elected position.
Sorry to seem like nitpicking, but, word confusion is a pet peeve of mine.
If they are impeached for an actual crime (breach of contract). That would be just fine. The key is that their campaign promises would be recorded as a verbal contract for later evidence in the impeachment trial.
Impeachment is defined as 'A process that is used to charge, try, and remove public officials for misconduct while in office.'
So, you are fundamentally correct that if campaign promises were a legal contract, a public official could be impeached.
However, according to The Free Dictionary.com's legal dictionary:
"Impeachment is a fundamental constitutional power belonging to Congress. This safeguard against corruption can be initiated against federal officeholders from the lowest cabinet member, all the way up to the president and the chief justice of the U.S. Supreme Court. Besides providing the authority for impeachment, the U.S. Constitution details the methods to be used. The two-stage process begins in the House of Representatives with a public inquiry into allegations. It culminates, if necessary, with a trial in the Senate. State constitutions model impeachment processes for state officials on this approach. At both the federal and state levels, impeachment is rare: From the passage of the Constitution to the mid-1990s, only 50 impeachment proceedings were initiated, and only a third of these went as far as a trial in the Senate. The reluctance of lawmakers to use this power is a measure of its gravity; it is generally only invoked by evidence of criminality or substantial abuse of power."
So, while it would be possible, it would also be highly unlikely given that impeachment is such a grave process. Impeachment for lying is hardly ever done - and even when it is, as in Bill Clinton's case, the process seems to be quite forgiving of that particular transgression.
David Letterman once joked "Hillary Clinton, our junior senator from New York, announced that she has no intentions of ever, ever running for office of the President of the United States. Her husband, Bill Clinton, is bitterly disappointed. He is crushed. There go his dreams of becoming a two-impeachment family.”
Well, David, even if Hillary chooses not to run again, Bill could get his wish. As Secretary of State, Hillary could be impeached, particularly if it is proven she lied about the events in Benghazi. We'll have to wait and see.
“The genius of impeachment lay in the fact that it could punish the man without punishing the office.” - Arthur Schlesinger, Jr.
In an update to this story... A Roseville man was arrested for making terrorist threats on the same Facebook page that Councilman Ornelas removed his post from.
Words matter. When you post threatening words to an officer who was cleared of any wrongdoing... well, you're going to get arrested and held to answer.
There is a big difference in expressing an opinion and making a threat. That is what happened here. It is one thing to say in a Facebook post that you hope something bad happens to someone, quite another when you infer it. It is especially egregious since Officer Moody has been cleared of any wrongdoing.
This particular individual has a past violent history. He resisted arrest when the officers came to serve the arrest warrant. It's not a first amendment issue. It is a rampant stupidity issue.
I hope he is held to answer. Maybe others who go too far in expressing their dissatisfaction will take heed.
The story was covered by the Manteca Bulletin, but since some people have issues with the Bulletin, I found this source as well. Or like I said, go on the internet and search for yourself.
"A lot of people are living their lives online in much more public ways with Facebook and Twitter." - Dan Savage
I just read about this first on the Bulletin then on the internet.
I don't understand when people post things on Facebook do they not think that those post will be read.Even if that particular site wasn't being checked in on I'm just amazed at what people will post on Facebook...
I like Hillary I really do.I think she has "true grit"
I hope in my lifetime we get to see a woman President I would like that.
I'm incredulous at what some people post on social media. There is one simple rule to follow - if you don't want to be responsible for it, don't post it.
Free speech is one thing. It's OK to have an opinion and share it. Once you cross the line into illegal activity - making threats is certainly unlawful - then expect the consequences.
It is one of the reasons I limit my internet exposure. I don't have a Facebook page or a MySpace account. I have a tough enough time with just blogging, thank you! (LOL)
"There's a danger in the internet and social media. The notion that information is enough, that more and more information is enough, that you don't have to think, you just have to get more information - gets very dangerous." - Edward de Bono
There are just as many qualified women that could be president as there are men. One's sex should never be a disqualifier for any public office.
I have my issues with Hillary Clinton, but I wish she had defeated Barack Obama in the 2008 campaign. I would have voted for her over John McCain without reservation.
If not Hillary, I expect that we will see some serious women vying for the presidential nomination in 2016. We certainly could do worse, and often have...
“Being a woman is a terribly difficult task, since it consists principally in dealing with men.” - Joseph Conrad
“Women are wiser than men because they know less and understand more.” - James Thurber
Your comment about " if you don't want to be responsible for it, don't post it" seems incredibly disingenuous as you wrote a whole bog about how a Turlock woman should NOT be fired from her job for posting treats to the President of the United States!
So which is it Bull153? You double talk so much, I really don't think you even know anymore.
Hello Bull153, Do you consider everyone who holds public office to be a "politician", or do your characterize some as "public servants"? Sincerely, Karen
"Impeachment for lying is hardly ever done"
I never said that it would be for lying. I stated that campaign promises should be classified as a verbal contract with the American people. The impeachment would be for breach of contract with the public and a law should be instated for that very purpose. I think we would be a much better off nation. talk about real change you can BELIEVE in. That is the type of solution this country needs.
I appreciate your question. It really is a bit difficult to answer, because there is no clear answer. When you talk about holding public office. it could run the gamut from the President of the United States all the way to your local dog catcher.
To be truthful, I suppose I'd say all politicians are public servants, but not all public servants are politicians. For example, every county sheriff is elected, they run for office, but I consider them public servants more than I do a politician. On the other hand, members of a board of supervisors or city council also are elected, run for office, but I consider them more of a politician than a public servant.
It all depends on your perspective, I suppose. I hope this answers the question for you.
“Public servants say, always with the best of intentions, "What greater service we could render if only we had a little more money and a little more power." But the truth is that outside of its legitimate function, government does nothing as well or as economically as the private sector.” - Ronald Reagan
“If there is anything that a public servant hates to do it's something for the public” - Kin Hubbard
I apologize, you did not specify lying. I was simply using that as an example. In any case, even for breach of contract or fraud, I doubt those responsible for impeachment would choose to use that avenue.
It is sad that there are ways to make our elected officials accountable, yet there seems to be a lack of wherewithal to actually do it.
“Accountability breeds response-ability.” - Stephen R. Covey
“American liberty is premised on the accountability of free men and women for what they have done, not for what they may do.” - Jon Newman
So let me get this straight: Sheriff is NOT a politician but a DA IS ONE???
Seems you base your qualifications on your own personal bias more than anything else.
I still don't think you fully understand the definition or process of impeachment. Also you suggestion is a it off as many actions of politicians are subjective rather than objective. It muddies the waters and makes your wish unobtainable.
Are you really as dense as you appear? Do you make absolutely unfounded statements simply to antagonize other posters? How you can claim based on Ron's post that he feels a Sheriff is not a politician but a DA is can only be described as absurd.
I guess you choose to ignore statements such as "For example" or when he said "I suppose I'd say all politicians are public servants, but not all public servants are politicians" when it suits your purpose.
Your hatred for an individual outweighs your common sense and reason. That is what is so pitiful.
I Was using your own words "[a] sheriff is elected, they run for office, but I consider them public servants more than I do a politician."
It is not "absurd" to ask you to clarify you statements. So is a DA - a lawyer - a public servant or a politician?
What is absurd is to ask someone to identify every single elected position and identify if it a political position or a public service position. You cannot be so dense that you didn't understand the term 'For example'. I can understand why people get so frustrated with you.
You seem to ignore the key statements Ron made. He clearly said "It really is a bit difficult to answer, because there is no clear answer." and he said "It all depends on your perspective, I suppose."
English comprehension is not one of your strong suits, I suppose.
There you go again with attempted personal insults. Why do you feel the need to try and insult when I'm just asking a simple question?
The title of this blog is "No such thing as a good politician..." right? It should not be unreasonable to have you distinguish who exactly ARE politicians.
So far, it seems they answer you give is "whoever you feel like in the moment." That is not a very good criteria.
Hello Bull153, Rather than picking and choosing which elected official is defined as a politician (city councilman) and who isn't (county sheriff) based only on a purely subjective perspective, I think that a better criteria would simply take a cue from your original blog submission where you state, "Unlike most public servants, politicians do not care about those they serve, only themselves. They will say or do anything that is in their best interests rather than what is best for their constituents". ANY elected official could be either a politician or a public servant, depending on how he or she fulfills his job description and duties. So a county sheriff, more concerned with amassing personal power, inf*luence, and control rather than protecting and serving the public should be considered a politician in the worse sense of the word, while a school board trustee (I know several who are totally dedicated to the welfare of M.U.S.D. students) or a city council member who looks out for the well-being of those he has pledged to serve would exemplify a public servant in the truest or highest sense. In other words, it is not the particular elected position itself that can be categorized as either "public servant" or "politician", but the intentions, actions and behavior of those who fill these positions that determine which definition most aptly applies. Sometimes elected officials do have to compromise, though still maintaining their integrity, to get a bill passed or something that would benefit their constituents. Compromises and deals are not bad if done in the best interest of those who are being represented. However, self-interest and back room deals made with lobbyists to enhance one's own wealth or power only illustrate how easy it it for some to fall to the temptations of pure selfishness and corruption. I think that even the most idealist elected official can become disillusioned or co-opted into the "political game", if he is not careful. Sincerely, Karen
I agree with you completely. You have clarified what I was trying to point out. I based my examples on my perceptions, and I generalized.
The fact is, as you say, any holder of any public office could be either a public servant interested in their constituency, or a politician interested only in themselves. It becomes another case of painting people with a broad brush - for example, all politicians are crooked - when in fact many do believe and try to uphold their oath of office. I was simply trying to give a couple of examples, but you've done a much better job.
It is very true that there are Sheriffs that are out for their own interests, and Sheriffs that want to protect the citizens. There are bad apples in all professions, and so too in elected officials. It is the person in the position and not the position itself that determines whether it is public service or political.
You were much better at answering your own question than I was!
“The trouble with this country is that there are too many politicians who believe, with a conviction based on experience, that you can fool all of the people all of the time” - Franklin Pierce Adams
“Integrity is telling myself the truth. And honesty is telling the truth to other people.” - Spencer Johnson
I agree that what Ornelas did was just spineless, especially considering the fact that he said he wouldn't take it down until he left office or something like that. If you're going to take a stand don't back down the second someone challenges it. What I find pretty messed up though is our city government would halt talks completely unrelated to police(sewage) because Ornelas put out a message of solidarity with the Duenez family.
Is our city government embarrassed that support for the Duenez family has only grown with time instead of fizzling out and dying so they got to pull crap like this to try and put people in line?
It shows how PETTY Manteca really is.
It is all part of propaganda. Anyone who watched the video knows that the case does not look good for Officer Moody and the MPD/DA look like they are engaging in the worst of bias and cronyism. They seem to want everyone in the town to pretend this travesty never happend.
I can't wait for the Federal Case. Let's see the crooked Manteca City council try and bully the Federal Government!
This has nothing to do with embarrassment, it has everything to do with bias in negotiations.
When one party in a negotiation has already made up his mind that despite a factual investigation and legal ruling, the police department is corrupt and it's officers dangerous, there is NO WAY you are going to have an impartial negotiation on combining police services or anything else for that matter.
Mr. Ornelas has obvious bias against the City of Manteca, in order to be able to negotiate in good faith he needed to distance himself from the false assertions and wrongful lawsuit filed against Manteca.
He is a typical politician - untrustworthy and doing what is in his best interest. Damage control often fails to control anything, and does more damage than it is supposed to resolve.
“Fortunately for serious minds, a bias recognized is a bias sterilized” - Benjamin Haydon
Hello Bull153, According to Ornelas's quote in the Bulletin, he mentioned NOTHING about "the police department is corrupt and its officers dangerous". That Is YOUR interpretation of Ornelas's support for the Duenez family. His support could be as simple as "stand up for what you believe in" or "fight against perceived injustice". Or do you have other, more explicit information that the paper did not include? Even if Ornelas was very specific in his comments and singled out the Manteca Police Department for criticism, he is ONE council member out of what, five? As these joint city meetings are often 2 by 2 collaborations, Manteca city officials could have easily requested that Ornelas not represent Lathrop's side in the negotiations if they felt he was bias in any way. But, as Capitalists_Nightmare pointed out Manteca seems to be over-reacting when it comes to sewer capacity negotiations. I believe that Ornelas should have stood by his comments (right or wrong) if he is truly a Duenez family friend. Back-tracking makes him appear lacking in integrity and overly concerned with political expediency. However, I agree with Capitalist_Nightmare that applied pressure and veiled threats by Manteca officials make the city look like it is worried about an "excessive force" civil suit. Sincerely,Karen
Sewer capacity was only the first item under negotiation. There was some talk of possibly combining law enforcement services for both Manteca and Lathrop with Lathrop opting out of contracting with the Sheriff's Department. The bias was concern over Mr. Ornelas' post and how that would affect the negotiations concerning police services.
"Everybody is sitting around saying, 'Well, jeez, we need somebody to solve this problem of bias.' That somebody is us. We all have to try to figure out a better way to get along." - Wilma Mankiller
You seem to be ignoring actual facts here and instead supplanting your imagination as more important.
You seem to be ignoring Councilman Ornelas' ACTUAL words. You sem to be ignoring the standard 2-by-2 collaborations typical of these cities in the past. Really you seem to be ignoring almost ALL the facts.
Again, this seems like just yet-another-example of your unwavering bias toward police.
Also, has every DA ruling ever put down been "factual?" Has there ever been a DA that has been bias toward police? Has a DA ever been wrong?
You seem to be so confident that a simple decision not to pursue charges is somehow the same as exoneration. It is not. Officer Moody could still be charged for this again at a later time or even be charged for the crime at a Federal Level if a US Attorney cares to.
It is my interpretation and it is based on Mr., Ornelas' actions. If he didn't think that Officer Moody was wrong, why put a post of support on a website calling for his firing and arrest? His comments in the Bulletin article are ridiculous, and he is backpedaling so hard he's leaving skid marks.
The city officials in Manteca obviously felt similarly, or else why would the Manteca City manager to say "that she could not speak for what Ornelas’ intentions were but noted some could view it as questioning the integrity of the Manteca Police Department. If that were the case, she noted it would be awkward for city leaders working together to explore cooperative public safety undertakings."
In the same article it mentions that Manteca officials felt the Facebook posting by Mr. Ornelas "questioned the integrity of the Manteca Police Department."
So, while those words were not specifically used, there is adequate substantiation in my opinion for them. As far as the negotiations, the make-up, and who should participate, that is between the two cities. I don't really care who negotiates for what. But Mr. Ornelas' action spoke volumes.
Any city would be concerned about litigation to the tune of $25 million. I'd be concerned if my city leadership wasn't. Being concerned doesn't equate with being afraid. The case against Officer Moody in federal court is not as strong as some would have you believe. If the Duenez' case rests on the video alone, they will have a very tough time proving wrongdoing. The thorough and in depth investigation by the DA's office and the findings of outside experts carry a lot more weight than what a bunch of people comment on You_Tube. I am confident that Officer Moody and the City of Manteca will prevail.
“No one will question your integrity if your integrity is not questionable.” - Nathaniel Bronner Jr.
What if Councilman Ornelas just said it was "sarcasm" and insist that everyone just forget it and move on? You know, like you ALWAYS do ...
Anyway, seems hypocritical of you to have no problem for you to put words in other people's mouths when you object so completely when anyone examines your actions and determines they are much different from the words you posted?
When will the hypocrisy stop?
As far as I am concerned, Mr. Ornelas lost any credibility with me. I question his integrity and his ability to honestly serve his constituents.
What I'm questioning is the sewer capacity negotiations and why that was necessary at all considering it had nothing to do with the statement made by Ornelas.
If I was a supporter of the movement against John Moody in the city council of Lathrop I would use such a platform to say whatever the plan was for the two PD's I would be against until John Moody was no longer on the force.
If you did I could respect that. But what Mr. Ornelas did was wimp out, typical for a politician and not a public servant.
One of the main reasons I hate politicians is that they are two faced... and they lie. One of the largest natural disasters to hit the northeast occurred almost three months ago. There were plenty of photo opportunities for the candidates and promises made, but twelve weeks later little if anything has been done to help those devastated by the storm.
Mitt Romney was ridiculed for his efforts to aid the victims by buying a truckload of emergency supplies. No one has ridiculed the President for his promise to have answers from FEMA in fifteen minutes, or to cut the red tape to help the victims. Mr. Obama got his publicity and turned it into a re-election victory. The same people he promised help to are still waiting. Fifteen minutes he ordered his FEMA Director. Hell, they can't get answers or help in 15 hours, or fifteen days. Soon it will be 15 weeks.
While many Americans were freezing in homes with no electricity, huddling in tents or in cramped motel rooms, President Obama was flying to sunny Hawaii with his family on Air Force One on the taxpayers dime... the same taxpayers that had the homes destroyed and lives shattered.
Now, our leader has forgotten those victims. Victory won, his only concern now is pushing forward is agenda and dramatically change America. He hasn't bothered to return to Manhattan to see if his orders were carried out. In the military, when you are given an order to do your best and get it done. If you don't you get fired and/or courts-marshaled. The fact is, the President got what he wanted from those victims, a chance to show what a leader he could be. Unfortunately, they were taken in by our snake-oil salesman who was only concerned with looking good, rather than doing good.
So, Mr. President. It's not too late. How about a trip to the Senate to kick Harry Reid in the fanny for not pushing the vote. Then how about a trip back to the northeast to visit those people he promised help to. I want to see him look in their eyes and tell them he's their leader and he cares. I suspect they might not believe him!
D25 - ICRD
“Better to be known as a sinner than a hypocrite.” - Proverb
“The most difficult choice a politician must ever make is whether to be a hypocrite or a liar.” - Unknown