Bring It On!

Senator Ted Stevens (R-Alaska) GUILTY ON ALL COUNTS

October 27th, 2008 | by Steve O |

Just came over CNN.


The jury found Stevens guilty of “knowingly and willfully” scheming to conceal on Senate disclosure forms more than $250,000 in home renovations and other gifts from an Alaska-based oil industry contractor.

You know, McCain is right, change is coming! On a side note, each count comes with a maximum of 5 years in prison although it is doubtful that this elite Senator will serve any of it.

Share and Enjoy:
  • Digg
  • Sphinn
  • Facebook
  • Mixx
  • Google
  • e-mail
  • YahooMyWeb
Sphere: Related Content

  1. 11 Responses to “Senator Ted Stevens (R-Alaska) GUILTY ON ALL COUNTS”

  2. By Lisa on Oct 27, 2008 | Reply

    And Chris Dodd is still in office. Another elitist.

  3. By Steve O on Oct 27, 2008 | Reply

    Lisa, I’m not sure what you are comparing? Did I miss something, Was Chris Dodd found guilty in a court of law for something?

    Answer (just flip your screen upside down):


  4. By steve on Oct 27, 2008 | Reply

    Does it really matter? It’s Alaska, and no one lives up there and therefore Ted Stevens did not have the experience to really be a Senator like Obama… I mean that is what you say about Palin.

  5. By Steve O on Oct 27, 2008 | Reply

    You’re right Steve but it is a vote in the Senate. One seat closer to 60.

    World domination is within our sight. Oh look, I can see Russia from my house . . .

  6. By Lisa on Oct 27, 2008 | Reply

    Oh look I’m going to let community organizations dictate policies of the president.

  7. By Ken Grandlund on Oct 27, 2008 | Reply

    I bet Stevens now wishes he had some buddies who built federal prisons- he could have lobbied for a “Cell to Nowhere” with his own private hot tub…

  8. By Steve O on Oct 27, 2008 | Reply

    Lisa, Praise the Lawd!!! It’s about time you came around. Man, I thought you’d never see the light!!

    Psst. I’ll tell you a secret and if you promise not to tell anyone I’ll show you the secret socialist hand shake, promise? OK.

    Jesus was a community organizer, don’t tell anyone, I’d hate to see anyone crucify him for it.

    Now, seriously, what does your comment have to do with Ted Stevens being a Federal criminal?

    Does this mean that poor Ted will lose his right to vote?

  9. By Lisa on Oct 28, 2008 | Reply

    Is that the Jesus you always speak against?

    Hey I didn’t make up the socialist angle. Obama’s policies confirm that.

  10. By Steve O on Oct 28, 2008 | Reply

    Lisa, I don’t speak against Jesus, I speak against the fucking idiots that harm others in his name. There’s a difference.

    And please look up Socialism before you start throwing it around like you know what it means.

    Here, have a field day;

    Socialism refers to a broad set of economic theories of social organization advocating state or collective ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods, and the creation of an egalitarian society[1][2] Modern socialism originated in the late nineteenth-century working class political movement. Karl Marx posited that socialism would be achieved via class struggle and a proletarian revolution which represents the transitional stage between capitalism and communism.[3][4]

    Socialists mainly share the belief that capitalism unfairly concentrates power and wealth among a small segment of society that controls capital and creates an unequal society. All socialists advocate the creation of an egalitarian society, in which wealth and power are distributed more evenly, although there is considerable disagreement among socialists over how, and to what extent this could be achieved.[1]

    Socialism is not a discrete philosophy of fixed doctrine and program; its branches advocate a degree of social interventionism and economic rationalization, sometimes opposing each other. Another dividing feature of the socialist movement is the split on how a socialist economy should be established between the reformists and the revolutionaries. Some socialists advocate complete nationalization of the means of production, distribution, and exchange; while others advocate state control of capital within the framework of a market economy. Social democrats propose selective nationalization of key national industries in mixed economies combined with tax-funded welfare programs; Libertarian socialism (which includes Socialist Anarchism and Libertarian Marxism) rejects state control and ownership of the economy altogether and advocates direct collective ownership of the means of production via co-operative workers’ councils and workplace democracy.

    In the 1970s and the 1980s, Yugoslavian, Hungarian, Polish and Chinese Communists instituted various forms of market socialism combining co-operative and State ownership models with the free market exchange.[5] This is unlike the earlier theoretical market socialist proposal put forth by Oskar Lange in that it allows market forces, rather than central planners to guide production and exchange.[6] Anarcho-syndicalists, Luxemburgists (such as those in the Socialist Party USA) and some elements of the United States New Left favor decentralized collective ownership in the form of cooperatives or workers’ councils.

  11. By Dusty on Oct 28, 2008 | Reply

    Medicare, Veterans healthcare, police depts, fire departments and a whole lotta other agencies and services are socialist in nature. Jesus H. Christ, the neocon fucktards have no clue as to what socialism actually is…they just KNOW they don’t like it one damn bit because some jackass told them it was BAD.

    It didn’t work for Barry Goldwater and it won’t work for McDesperate and his little yapper dog Palin either. ;)

  12. By Dusty on Oct 28, 2008 | Reply

    Teddy can keep his Senate seat, he just won’t be able to vote for himself SteveO.. ;)

    Ironic that we can elect felons but we don’t allow them to vote.

Post a Comment