OK, while you're sleeping, come up with an example for me where, in the last couple of decades, a Democrat elected member of the House or Senate has been forced to resign by their party for any kind of inappropriate action, either official or personal. I honestly don't know of any, but I don't keep score on this stuff. I can tell you many Republicans (like Foley) that when their conduct was faound out I wanted out of, and was glad they were out of, office. Can you do the same?
That doesn't change my belief that a conservative, smaller government isn't a better solution than the liberal, we're you're mommy and daddy approach. It just tells me that any system can be corrupted.
John Stricker
quote
Originally posted by Euterpe:
replace the word "liberals" with "conservatives" and you have, again, a place where we find agreement.
anyway. someone just threw a stuffed animal at me. bedtime!
OK, while you're sleeping, come up with an example for me where, in the last couple of decades, a Democrat elected member of the House or Senate has been forced to resign by their party for any kind of inappropriate action, either official or personal. I honestly don't know of any, but I don't keep score on this stuff. I can tell you many Republicans (like Foley) that when their conduct was faound out I wanted out of, and was glad they were out of, office. Can you do the same?
That doesn't change my belief that a conservative, smaller government isn't a better solution than the liberal, we're you're mommy and daddy approach. It just tells me that any system can be corrupted.
John Stricker
like you, i can come up with no examples. which i even have to admit is odd, though i might reach different conclusions about it. right now, i would think the main democratic congresscritter who is overdue for self-retirement is jefferson... and for some completely bizarre reason, he was re-elected. but that's congress for you. localities put some truly screwed-up people forward as their representatives, sometimes.
at the same time, though, i know of no current democratic equivalents of, say, randy cunningham.
as for the conservative principles of limited government and so on, well, i've said before that i actually miss the active presence of real conservatism in our larger public debate, and even in our government.* it's one side of a two-party system that i think works pretty well. but such principles are thin on the ground these days, it seems to me.
*edit: which, i might add, is a much more generous position than i have ever seen most modern conservatives take with respect to any oppostion.
[This message has been edited by Euterpe (edited 12-27-2006).]
I'm sure we can all come up with more on both sides of the isle, but lets make sure the rosy tint isn't on too thick when looking at our preferred "team"
trust me, they're not. partisanship does not mean "all my people are saints and all yours are trolls".... though many here seem to take that position with respect to left-thinkers, and then get supremely knicker-twisted when anyone takes anything like an opposite position.
lott: you mean the left's response actually had a strong influence on a republican leadership position? hmmm...
byrd: i used to like byrd, just because he's so incredibly well-spoken. now, i think he's way past his shelf date. he's certainly not the only congresscritter with a racist past. but let's hope he's one of the very last, as that generation passes. but i don't think he will be, given the new kinds of prejudice that have risen to take on the mantle (re: goode.
hastings: that was an insane choice. most left-thinkers i know were aghast.
in many ways, the democratic party does not adequately represent my own values. but it's one of only two parties that have any real meaning in this system, and the republican party is pretty consistently opposed to just about everything that's important to me. and i'm not one of those "social liberal" hypocrites who will hold my nose and vote for them anyway just because they promise to put a few more bucks back in my pocket, or because i've ever bought into the cliche that they somehow "own" all issues of national security.
[This message has been edited by Euterpe (edited 12-27-2006).]
IP: Logged
07:19 AM
jstricker Member
Posts: 12956 From: Russell, KS USA Registered: Apr 2002
Do you think for one second that if a REPUBLICAN member had a gay boyfriend running a prostitution ring out of his apartment he'd still be in office? Do you think for one second that if a REPUBLICAN member had an intern giving them blowjobs in their office (regardless of his/her age) they would still be in office? Do you think for one second that if a REPUBLICAN member had been caught DWI, run their car into a barricade, and then lied about drinking they would still be in office? Do you think for one second that if a REPUBLICAN member had been abusive towards the capitol police and struck them they would have been allowed to stay in office at all? Do you think for one second that if a REPUBLICAN member had been under investigation and thousands of dollars in cash found in their freezer they'd still be in office? Do you think for one second that if a REPUBLICAN member admitted or was shown to be recruiter for the KKK and fillibustered the 1964 Civil Rights Bill would still be in office?
Take off the blinders and look at the double standards.
John Stricker
edited, damn typos
quote
Originally posted by Euterpe: like you, i can come up with no examples. which i even have to admit is odd, though i might reach different conclusions about it. right now, i would think the main democratic congresscritter who is overdue for self-retirement is jefferson... and for some completely bizarre reason, he was re-elected. but that's congress for you. localities put some truly screwed-up people forward as their representatives, sometimes.
at the same time, though, i know of no current democratic equivalents of, say, randy cunningham.
as for the conservative principles of limited government and so on, well, i've said before that i actually miss the active presence of real conservatism in our larger public debate, and even in our government.* it's one side of a two-party system that i think works pretty well. but such principles are thin on the ground these days, it seems to me.
*edit: which, i might add, is a much more generous position than i have ever seen most modern conservatives take with respect to any oppostion.
[This message has been edited by jstricker (edited 12-27-2006).]
IP: Logged
09:27 AM
jstricker Member
Posts: 12956 From: Russell, KS USA Registered: Apr 2002
But would you vote for a Republican, someone like Arlen Specter who is a social Liberal? Somehow I doubt it, but I don't know. I guess you can say this is get to know each other time.
John Stricker
quote
Originally posted by Euterpe:
trust me, they're not. partisanship does not mean "all my people are saints and all yours are trolls".... though many here seem to take that position with respect to left-thinkers, and then get supremely knicker-twisted when anyone takes anything like an opposite position.
lott: you mean the left's response actually had a strong influence on a republican leadership position? hmmm...
byrd: i used to like byrd, just because he's so incredibly well-spoken. now, i think he's way past his shelf date. he's certainly not the only congresscritter with a racist past. but let's hope he's one of the very last, as that generation passes. but i don't think he will be, given the new kinds of prejudice that have risen to take on the mantle (re: goode.
hastings: that was an insane choice. most left-thinkers i know were aghast.
in many ways, the democratic party does not adequately represent my own values. but it's one of only two parties that have any real meaning in this system, and the republican party is pretty consistently opposed to just about everything that's important to me. and i'm not one of those "social liberal" hypocrites who will hold my nose and vote for them anyway just because they promise to put a few more bucks back in my pocket, or because i've ever bought into the cliche that they somehow "own" all issues of national security.
Take off the blinders and look at the double standards.
i'm not really sure what you're trying to persuade me of here. to begin with, the items you list are those that you recall because they offend you. it just so happens that your own presentation is something of a talking point these days. i don't keep a similar list, but i have no doubt that i could dig through my links, and we could do a back and forth for days along just these lines. i could cherry-pick my own personal outrages, and present them to you with exactly the same kind of emphatic refrain, and insist on contrary "double standards."
anyway, rather than give a point-by-point to each item - each response to which could easily trigger yet another 3-page tussle - i'll generally say that my reactions range from "certainly" to "perhaps not" to "the point is moot!" (to quote JJ). in no case am i moved to shout "'s'truth! the scales have fallen from my eyes!"
as for arlen: no, probably not. though of course it would depend on the actual choices. i have at least once voted for a republican candidate, when the alternative was just too unpalatable.
IP: Logged
07:25 PM
PFF
System Bot
jstricker Member
Posts: 12956 From: Russell, KS USA Registered: Apr 2002
None of the items I listed required any digging through any archives, they are highly public knowledge and they're not ancient history. I wish you would try to find something comparable on the Republican side because it's much more common for the "R"'s to deal quite harshly with indiscretion while the "D"'s tend, at least in the last couple of decades, to turn a blind eye to things like this. If you can provide contrary evidence, then by all means do so. Unlike you, I could be presuaded to change my opinion on this subject given the evidence to persuade me.
I won't hold my breath, though.
John Stricker
quote
Originally posted by Euterpe:
i'm not really sure what you're trying to persuade me of here. to begin with, the items you list are those that you recall because they offend you. it just so happens that your own presentation is something of a talking point these days. i don't keep a similar list, but i have no doubt that i could dig through my links, and we could do a back and forth for days along just these lines. i could cherry-pick my own personal outrages, and present them to you with exactly the same kind of emphatic refrain, and insist on contrary "double standards."
anyway, rather than give a point-by-point to each item - each response to which could easily trigger yet another 3-page tussle - i'll generally say that my reactions range from "certainly" to "perhaps not" to "the point is moot!" (to quote JJ). in no case am i moved to shout "'s'truth! the scales have fallen from my eyes!"
as for arlen: no, probably not. though of course it would depend on the actual choices. i have at least once voted for a republican candidate, when the alternative was just too unpalatable.
None of the items I listed required any digging through any archives, they are highly public knowledge and they're not ancient history. I wish you would try to find something comparable on the Republican side because it's much more common for the "R"'s to deal quite harshly with indiscretion while the "D"'s tend, at least in the last couple of decades, to turn a blind eye to things like this. If you can provide contrary evidence, then by all means do so. Unlike you, I could be presuaded to change my opinion on this subject given the evidence to persuade me.
I won't hold my breath, though.
John Stricker
well, i wouldn't want you to turn blue. so i'll see if i can find anything useful. but you've provided as examples, those instances where you feel that democrats have gotten away with something, that republicans wouldn't have. do you have similar examples for your actual assertion, that republicans are particularly or reliably "harsh" in dealing with indiscretions on their own side? it seems to me that it's much more common for any criticisms of republican impropriety or malfeasance to be rejected out of hand as leftist propaganda.
IP: Logged
09:50 PM
NEPTUNE Member
Posts: 10199 From: Ticlaw FL, and some other places. Registered: Aug 2001
Originally posted by jstricker: I was responding to ONE post from Neptune where he implied by posting a link to the video that ALL of the Republicans voted out of office were corrupt and/or under investigation. That's not true, unfair, and insulting.
John Stricker
Heres a link to the worst (IMO) that I was able to find in about 10 seconds. I KNOW you know how to use GOOGLE. Former House Majority Leader Tom DeLay (R, TX) was deeply involved in killing legislation that would have curtailed the sweatshops in the USA that produce "Made in USA" goods under horrible working conditions. I have pointed this out before, but some of you may not be aware of this fine example of republican "ethics". SOME of you claim Mr. DeLay was forced out of office by a partisan D.A. from Texas with an axe to grind. Delay is a slimeball, through and through. And was, until recently, the leader of the house of representatives. And a close personal friend of the president. And Jack Abramoff. Oh yeah. He also masterminded the K Street project. Look it up. I dare you. Here's the sweatshop 411: http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/05/09/real.delay/
[This message has been edited by NEPTUNE (edited 12-27-2006).]
IP: Logged
10:34 PM
NEPTUNE Member
Posts: 10199 From: Ticlaw FL, and some other places. Registered: Aug 2001
[Tom Delay was ] a close personal friend of the president. And Jack Abramoff. Oh yeah. He also masterminded the K Street project. Look it up. I dare you.
Mark Foley. What he did was despicable and he shouldn't be in office. He was dealt with accordingly. No investigation or anything else required. I know you're going to say "But, but, the leadership KNEW and did nothing....." No, they didn't. They had *A* complaint and they told him it was inappropriate and to stop. He didn't. He's gone. Until this whole thing came to light, nobody knew this was a recurring thing.
Newt Gingrich. He was basically ousted as speaker, then out of the house, because he 1) took an advance on a book (which he later gave back) and 2) had an affair. If every Democrat that took an advance or had an affair was ousted from congress the Republicans would have a lock on the thing for generations.
Bob Livingston, a shoe in for the speakership after Gingrich resigned, was not only forced to refuse the speakership nomination but eventually resigned the congress when his marital infidelities came to light.
Tom DeLay, hasn't been convicted of anything. Probably won't be (guilty or not) and was forced to resign over allegations and an indictment by a political hack of a DA (regardless of whether DeLay is guilty or not, Ronnie Earl is a partisan hack of a DA. I'll buy you a box of donuts if DeLay is ever convicted of anything.
Ed Schrock, withdrew from candidacy for his third term in congress after ALLEGATIONS of a tape existing of him soliciting for gay sex. Note no tape was every produced or seen, but he withdrew anyway.
Bob Packwood, forced to resign after substantial accusations of sexual misconduct with aides and co-workers.
Joe Scarborough, forced to resign after allegations of sexual misconduct and extra-marital affairs.
I can go on, if you like, but these are a few examples. You don't need to worry about me turning blue, I said I wouldn't hold my breath.
John Stricker
quote
Originally posted by Euterpe: well, i wouldn't want you to turn blue. so i'll see if i can find anything useful. but you've provided as examples, those instances where you feel that democrats have gotten away with something, that republicans wouldn't have. do you have similar examples for your actual assertion, that republicans are particularly or reliably "harsh" in dealing with indiscretions on their own side? it seems to me that it's much more common for any criticisms of republican impropriety or malfeasance to be rejected out of hand as leftist propaganda.
IP: Logged
11:03 PM
jstricker Member
Posts: 12956 From: Russell, KS USA Registered: Apr 2002
DeLay was forced out of congress............by Republicans. Not to mention the fact he hasn't been CONVICTED of anything.
Is innocent until proven guilty only valid if you don't have an (R) behind your name?
John Stricker
quote
Originally posted by NEPTUNE:
Heres a link to the worst (IMO) that I was able to find in about 10 seconds. I KNOW you know how to use GOOGLE. Former House Majority Leader Tom DeLay (R, TX) was deeply involved in killing legislation that would have curtailed the sweatshops in the USA that produce "Made in USA" goods under horrible working conditions. I have pointed this out before, but some of you may not be aware of this fine example of republican "ethics". SOME of you claim Mr. DeLay was forced out of office by a partisan D.A. from Texas with an axe to grind. Delay is a slimeball, through and through. And was, until recently, the leader of the house of representatives. And a close personal friend of the president. And Jack Abramoff. Oh yeah. He also masterminded the K Street project. Look it up. I dare you. Here's the sweatshop 411: http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/05/09/real.delay/
IP: Logged
11:05 PM
texasfiero Member
Posts: 4674 From: Houston, TX USA Registered: Jun 2003
Well, imagine that. Ultra-liberal Mark Shields of CNN fame complaining about Tom Delay's association with Abramhoff. Just to be fair and balanced, I KNOW he is, where is his story about Harry Reid's association with Abramhoff.
Where is his railing about Wiliam Jefferson, Alcee Hastings, or Nancy. Nancy STILL thinks this is the most corrupt Congress in history, while she install HER band of thieves.
IP: Logged
11:07 PM
Dec 28th, 2006
Scott-Wa Member
Posts: 5392 From: Tacoma, WA, USA Registered: Mar 2002
Originally posted by Uaana: Pelosi endorsed Alcee Hastings to chair the Intelligence Committee!!!! "In 1988, the Democratic-controlled U.S. House of Representatives took up the case, and Hastings was impeached for bribery and perjury by a vote of 413-3. Voters to impeach included Reps. Nancy Pelosi, Steny Hoyer, John Conyers and Charles Rangel. He was then convicted in 1989 by the United States Senate, becoming only the sixth federal judge in the history of the United States to be removed from office by the Senate. The Senate had the option to forbid Hastings from ever seeking federal office again, but did not do so. Alleged co-conspirator William Borders went to jail again for refusing to testify in the impeachment proceedings, but was later given a full pardon by Bill Clinton on his last day in office"
I'm sure we can all come up with more on both sides of the isle, but lets make sure the rosy tint isn't on too thick when looking at our preferred "team"
Interesting story about Hastings... and Pelosi. One wouldn't think that someone who voted to impeach someone would then seriously endorse them for the position as suggested. Makes me wonder if it's true or if it was conveniently rumored just so it could be reported and then twisted into statements like the above "Pelosi endorsed Alcee Hastings to chair the Intelligence Committee!!!!" The link you provided didn't say she endorsed Hastings, it said
quote
"it was reported that incoming House Speaker Nancy Pelosi might appoint him as head of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence.... On November 28, 2006, Pelosi announced that Hastings would not be the next chairman of the House Select Committee on Intelligence"
Doesn't say who it was reported by, maybe Sean Hannity, Anne Coulter?
Just curious if it's part of a smear campaign, anyone have a link to Pelosi actually stating an endorsement? And who the heck elected this Hastings to office? Same sort of people that re-elected Marion_S._Barry?
I keep hearing all these horrible accusations about Pelosi (never heard of her before the Repubs started attacking her on a consistant basis). Only thing I've heard that sounded plausible and bad was the accusation about personal gain involving using government eminent domain for taking private property to give to other private companies for development. The eminent domain abuse going on lately is sickening and bugs me worse than most of the daily whining, not that it's possible that she was the lone person in that deal... gotta figure there were hundreds of muckity mucks involved with or without any real wrongdoings.
And can someone link me to something that isn't a slam editorial on the supposed Pelosi land deal? I haven't found anything yet linking her to any gain from whatever the FOX people are suggesting.
[This message has been edited by Scott-Wa (edited 12-28-2006).]
I can go on, if you like, but these are a few examples.
a veritable rogue's gallery, indeed.
the one that cracks me up is ed schrock. yah, i can't see any reason why a screeching homophobe might go crawl under a rock when the possibility arises that he's been doing Teh Ghey. i really hope that there are many more like him... the backlash of gay panic could decimate the republican ranks.
edit: as i understand it, you've provided those examples in support of the assertion that republicans are more conscientious in cleaning up their own house. what i see are people who were tripped up by their own, and their party's, sanctimony and hypocrisy... it's very hard to maintain the pretense that normal people engaged in normal behavior and playing normal politics is some kind of epic struggle between good and evil - which is only a slight exaggeration of the framing that the right tries to impose - when your own members are being... well, normal, or just plain icky. as far as i can tell, most of the pressure for these resignations came from outside the party, and in fact i'm pretty sure that i could find quite a lot of republican-sourced defensive commentary on most of them.
farther down, you discuss tom delay. right now, the fact that jefferson is still in office frankly blows my mind... but neither has he been convicted of anything either, so i suppose innocent until proven guilty isn't a republican privilege either.
though, on what seems to me a much more important topic than the endless political fish-slap dancing... given the story of jose padilla, it certainly seems to be a vanishing privilege in general.
[This message has been edited by Euterpe (edited 12-28-2006).]
Well, imagine that. Ultra-liberal Mark Shields of CNN fame complaining about Tom Delay's association with Abramhoff. Just to be fair and balanced, I KNOW he is, where is his story about Harry Reid's association with Abramhoff.
Where is his railing about Wiliam Jefferson, Alcee Hastings, or Nancy. Nancy STILL thinks this is the most corrupt Congress in history, while she install HER band of thieves.
do you actually read the links you supply, or do you just google something and scrape the results? the last link itself links to mediamatters' own discussion of the AP report on reid as "flawed".
nancy and alcee and bill, oh my! nancy and alcee and bill, oh my!
keep saying it. and keep clapping.
IP: Logged
07:51 AM
PFF
System Bot
jstricker Member
Posts: 12956 From: Russell, KS USA Registered: Apr 2002
You miss the point. I make no excuses or apologies, nor do I think they should, in most cases, have remained in office.
The point is, they are NOT in office, removed by pressure from their peers in the Republican party. Now show me a similar list on the Democratic side. It doesn't exist.
You're also missing ANOTHER point. You say " i really hope that there are many more like him". I, OTOH, hope nothing similar on the Democratic side. I wish nothing bad on anyone. Fascinating how YOU and most other die hard liberals seem to DELIGHT in other's misfortunes.
John Stricker
quote
Originally posted by Euterpe:
a veritable rogue's gallery, indeed.
the one that cracks me up is ed schrock. yah, i can't see any reason why a screeching homophobe might go crawl under a rock when the possibility arises that he's been doing Teh Ghey. i really hope that there are many more like him... the backlash of gay panic could decimate the republican ranks.
Fascinating how YOU and most other die hard liberals seem to DELIGHT in other's misfortunes.
what i delight in is the misfortune of those who call for, or act for, the misfortune of people like myself.
i thought we had agreed that defending yourself when attacked might be justifiable? in some instances, i feel directly attacked by the policies of the right. so i will not apologize for my delight, when they fall.
and that is why i have said, more than once, that i miss "real" conservatives. while i may have had plenty to disagree with, i never felt so personally threatened by them.
How are YOU personally threatened? While I feel that many liberal policies aren't good for my business and interfere on my rights to choose who, for instance, I can or cannot associate myself with, I don't believe I can say I've ever been PERSONALLY attacked. Even when I have felt that way, I still wished no harm or bad luck to befall anyone. The concept of "You're not what I like or doing what I like so I hope a piano falls on you" is an alien one to me.
John Stricker
quote
Originally posted by Euterpe:
what i delight in is the misfortune of those who call for, or act for, the misfortune of people like myself.
i thought we had agreed that defending yourself when attacked might be justifiable? in some instances, i feel directly attacked by the policies of the right. so i will not apologize for my delight, when they fall.
and that is why i have said, more than once, that i miss "real" conservatives. while i may have had plenty to disagree with, i never felt so personally threatened by them.
IP: Logged
08:45 AM
jstricker Member
Posts: 12956 From: Russell, KS USA Registered: Apr 2002
Originally posted by Euterpe: what i delight in is the misfortune of those who call for, or act for, the misfortune of people like myself.
It is the misfortune of people like yourself (me included) that Nancy is having a four day swearing in ceremony for the admitted purpose of consolidating power. That they can not do it on.......
quote
Originally posted by Euterpe: "representation."
....alone. It is the misfortune of people like yourself (me included) that Nancy wants to curtail free press in the House by controlling the House cameras. It is the misfortune of your own doing to people like yourself (me included) that you do not find this appalling. I am all for giving Nancy and the democratic majority a chance. I have not looked to the past. I am looking at now. Never did I attack Nancy. I made a political observation. That she was having a four day swearing in ceremony.
quote
Originally posted by Euterpe: oh, WAAAAAH!
here. have a hanky.
Perhaps my verbage offended you. Coronation, dumbocrats. Perhaps you consider me a repulsivecan. I can assure you that I am just a person that wants to believe in good government. Government by the people, for the people. Not for government by the Democrats for the Democrats or by the Republicans for the Republicans. Fact is, the "search" function will show that I abhor the two party system. As you allude to...the haves and the have nots.
IP: Logged
11:06 AM
cliffw Member
Posts: 36740 From: Bandera, Texas, USA Registered: Jun 2003
Cliff, Just in case you don't know, Nancy Polosi made no change to the existing rules for the cameras in the house. The democrates have good reason to celebrate the Nov. rat killing. I see the rebubs are already having their pity party. Serveing up a Gnashing of teeth and harmonic whine. Sounds like cats f**king in a garbage can.
IP: Logged
12:21 PM
PFF
System Bot
jstricker Member
Posts: 12956 From: Russell, KS USA Registered: Apr 2002
[sarcasm]It's nice to see that you're welcoming bi-partisanship. [/sarcasm]
Wolf, the elections were what they were. I don't like the results, but I'm also not complaining, or claiming the elections were stolen, or any number of "pity party" whining we've had to listen to from the dems for the last few general elections. Maybe things will be better. I truly hope so.
But with supporters with attitudes like yours, I don't see how things can be more inclusive or get better.
John Stricker
quote
Originally posted by Wolfhound:
Cliff, Just in case you don't know, Nancy Polosi made no change to the existing rules for the cameras in the house. The democrates have good reason to celebrate the Nov. rat killing. I see the rebubs are already having their pity party. Serveing up a Gnashing of teeth and harmonic whine. Sounds like cats f**king in a garbage can.
IP: Logged
12:31 PM
cliffw Member
Posts: 36740 From: Bandera, Texas, USA Registered: Jun 2003
Originally posted by Wolfhound: The democrates have good reason to celebrate the Nov. rat killing.
Democrats with a small "d" do have a very good reason to celebrate as well do I. The "D" click should skip celebrating. They should be concentrating on coming up with a plan. The blame game is over. They are now under the microscope. To me, it appears as if they are acting like Terrell Owens.
quote
Originally posted by Wolfhound: Cliff, Just in case you don't know, Nancy Polosi made no change to the existing rules for the cameras in the house.
Actually, at present she can not. Never do I try to baffle with . I did rely on a news brief. I did sin though. I did not mention the Republican House Majority leader also controlled the cameras. Grievous on my part but I am looking at now. I did not realize the Republican House Majority leader had done so.
quote
Originally posted by Wolfhound: .... the existing rules for the cameras in the house.
Where can we see these rules? Who makes them? I would like to think that "freedom of the press" prohibited rules on the cameras. I will look for my reference.
IP: Logged
12:45 PM
Uaana Member
Posts: 6570 From: Robbinsdale MN US Registered: Dec 1999
Amazing how all those allagations of Diebold being corrupt, and facist rightwingers blocking voting stations have evaporated with a D majority win.
I wonder how much of this vote was decided by conservative apathy? (Conservatives sick of RINO's spending like dems and earmarking the crap out of the federal budget.)
Oh well, should be fun either way.
IP: Logged
12:46 PM
Uaana Member
Posts: 6570 From: Robbinsdale MN US Registered: Dec 1999
In their letter to Pelosi is a general outline of what their restrictions have been. (Under both parties)
Sounds like it's a gentlemans agreement with the Speaker and the rest of the house so as not to embarrass reps who fall asleep, pick their nose etc during long debates/discussons etc.
IP: Logged
12:57 PM
Toddster Member
Posts: 20871 From: Roswell, Georgia Registered: May 2001
Originally posted by Uaana: Sounds like it's a gentlemans agreement with the Speaker and the rest of the house so as not to embarrass reps who fall asleep, pick their nose etc during long debates/discussons etc.
Thanks Uaana. I believe my disclosure was for the reason of editing visitor reaction. Reps who fall asleep should definitely be on camera. As well as empty desks. There was recently a local news channel "caught on tape" feature which filmed council members doing laptop work during a council session. Being government computers, it was found out many were surfing for vacations, answering e-mail, playing games, just surfing the web. When did "freedom of the press" need a gentlemans agreement ? When did open governmental proceedings need governmental approval? AArrrggghhhh !
[This message has been edited by cliffw (edited 12-28-2006).]
IP: Logged
01:25 PM
Raydar Member
Posts: 40912 From: Carrollton GA. Out in the... country. Registered: Oct 1999
From the following link, a Pelosi quote: "Alcee Hastings has always placed national security as his highest priority," Pelosi said in a written statement Tuesday afternoon. "He has served our country well, and I have full confidence that he will continue to do so."
It is curious that she by-passed Harman, who was first in line. Her final decision is even more curious. Her actual appointment is to a real dufus. You'd think that the House Intelligence Committee Chairman would be able to identify Al Queda, at least, whether he can do it in English OR Spanish.
Yes, I know many readers will instantly begin to spew venom about Fox news, but notice please that Alan Colmes takes the lead and asks some tough, "fair and balanced" questions.
I keep hearing all these horrible accusations about Pelosi (never heard of her before the Repubs started attacking her on a consistant basis). Only thing I've heard that sounded plausible and bad was the accusation about personal gain involving using government eminent domain for taking private property to give to other private companies for development. The eminent domain abuse going on lately is sickening and bugs me worse than most of the daily whining, not that it's possible that she was the lone person in that deal... gotta figure there were hundreds of muckity mucks involved with or without any real wrongdoings.
And can someone link me to something that isn't a slam editorial on the supposed Pelosi land deal? I haven't found anything yet linking her to any gain from whatever the FOX people are suggesting.
Don't know much about this blog, but the second link is from his writings
do you actually read the links you supply, or do you just google something and scrape the results? the last link itself links to mediamatters' own discussion of the AP report on reid as "flawed".
nancy and alcee and bill, oh my! nancy and alcee and bill, oh my!
keep saying it. and keep clapping.
Yes, I read it. I should have been clearer in stating my point. It was not about the corruption of the incoming leaders of Congress.
There are many on this forum who can't get past one single issue, that being Tom Delay. My post was in response to NEPTUNE. His hatred of Tom Delay continues, though Tom Delay has been out of office for months and his seat is now owned by a Democrat.
I only intended to point out that his link, quoting Mark Shields, a noted liberal, focuses on Tom Delay, yet he ignores current CONVICTED democrats. I just wanted to point out that the left is focusing on Republicans who've soiled their office while ignoring Democrats, most of them still in office, who are either charged or convicted of various crimes and misdemeanors.
I should have pointed to the Pelosi quote in the final link.
PELOSI: "Well, let me say this: Our party is standing for honest leadership and open government. We will turn the most corrupt Congress in history to the most honest and open Congress -- and maybe it'll take a woman to clean up the house".
While supporters of Republicans threw them out of office for failing to carry through with promised legislation, or they have proven themselves unworthy of office, Democratic voters keep returning criminals to office.
Nancy Pelosi is going to "turn the most corrupt Congress in history to the most honest and open Congress". She's going to do it with corrupt legislators? That's been promised once already.
The last time that Democrats took office in this fashion we were promised the "The most ethical administration in the history of the Republic." ... Bill Clinton.- http://www.zpub.com/un/billc-4.html
We will NEVER NEVER have good government until the people of this country tire of corruption, and we have corruption on ALL sides, even in the third party realm.
My question is, Why do those on the left continue to send corruption to office and then ignore the corruption, while harping on TOM DELAY, et al. Conservative voters clean their own house while liberal voters make the choice of living with rats.
. I did rely on a news brief. I did sin though. I did not mention the Republican House Majority leader also controlled the cameras. Grievous on my part but I am looking at now. I did not realize the Republican House Majority leader had done so.
