T1B

“Mississippi gets more than their fair share back in federal money, but who the hell wants to live in Mississippi?”

Charlie Rangel--soon to be Chairman (or is it Chairperson) of the House Ways and
Means Committee which writes up tax legislation.
Nice new direction.

You got problems with a politician who speaks the truth?

If someone like say George Allen had said that--
the lefitist media would have been bombarding
us with "news" of how insensitive it is--especially
in the light of Katrina---etc---etc. !!


and you know it !!

House Speaker: Nancy Pelosi - ~snicker~

Ways and Means: Charles Rangel – foot-in-the-mouth tard of epic proportions. Take folks money, play class warfare, and see how it plays out

Financial Services: Barney Frank – definitely keep him in the press as much as possible. It is just a matter of time.

Government Reform: Henry Waxman – pinhead who will launch unlimited partisan investigations. We will enjoy the probes into big oil, the drug companies, and Haliburton. I am sure they will be productive.

Judiciary: John Conyers – please pursue impeachment proceedings! Maybe this racist will also get the reparations he has been persuing.


Come on Dems. These are the best yall have to offer? Where are some of your moderates to make the pledges for bipartisanship more realistic? With this display of leadership, one would think that 2006 was enough and the Reps can have 2008.

The Dems have a short window of time to prove they can do something, anything, better than the repubs have . I have little faith they can, but a good house cleaning now and again is good for the system.

They haven't even taken over yet, but already the whining bitchy cunts are acting like whining bitchy cunts.

Should I be surprised?

No matter how bad they turn out to be it won't be worse than the scum they're replacing.

Hard to say yet. Depends really on how hard they push their own agenda, and whether or not the boat they're rowing has a rudder.

They are essentially a party with goals but no real directions, ie get out of the war, but no plan on how to do so.

stuckinia wrote:House Speaker: Nancy Pelosi - ~snicker~

Ways and Means: Charles Rangel – foot-in-the-mouth tard of epic proportions. Take folks money, play class warfare, and see how it plays out

I'd rather have Rangel play class warfare than to have Republicans instituting more of their class warfare (tax cuts for the wealthy, eliminating IRS investigators who investigate the wealthy, refusing to raise the minimum wage on it's own merits). The hypocrisy of the right would be hilarious if it wasn't so sad.

Government Reform: Henry Waxman – pinhead who will launch unlimited partisan investigations. We will enjoy the probes into big oil, the drug companies, and Haliburton. I am sure they will be productive.

And which party was it who kept the oil industry executives from testifying under oath???

Mister Bushice wrote:Hard to say yet. Depends really on how hard they push their own agenda, and whether or not the boat they're rowing has a rudder.

They are essentially a party with goals but no real directions, ie get out of the war, but no plan on how to do so.

Didn't the Dems announce a plan for phased withdrawal?

http://www.rawstory.com/news/2006/House ... _0731.html

Time to stop listening to the GOP echo chamber.

With Pelosi as speaker, how can anyone take the dems seriously?

The wheels have come off of our wagon, folks. Just when I thought the house/senate leaders couldn't be any bigger fucking clowns, along comes Nancy.

What a freaking train wreck we've allowed our government to become...and no one gives two fucking shits about fixing it.

What, exactly, do you actually know about Pelosi besides the shit that the Republicans have been slinging?

Just the stupidity that comes out of her mouth.

A pandering-to-whoever politician is a scumbag in my book...doesn't matter which letter appears after their name.

ie, nothing really

BSmack wrote:

Mister Bushice wrote:Hard to say yet. Depends really on how hard they push their own agenda, and whether or not the boat they're rowing has a rudder.

They are essentially a party with goals but no real directions, ie get out of the war, but no plan on how to do so.

Didn't the Dems announce a plan for phased withdrawal?

http://www.rawstory.com/news/2006/House ... _0731.html

Time to stop listening to the GOP echo chamber.

That's not a plan, that is a concept of a plan.

every effort should be made to urge the Iraqis to take the steps necessary to achieve a broad-based and sustainable political settlement, including amending the constitution to achieve a fair sharing of power and resources. It is also essential to disarm the militias and ensure forces loyal to the national government. Finally, an international conference should be convened to persuade other governments to be more involved, and to secure the resources necessary to finance Iraq's reconstruction and rebuild its economy.

No how-tos in that letter, just a bunch of what to dos.

Just like Kerry saying " I have a plan to reduce the national debt" ( or whatever), without ever specifying the steps needed to make the plan happen.

Mister Bushice wrote:

BSmack wrote:

Mister Bushice wrote:Hard to say yet. Depends really on how hard they push their own agenda, and whether or not the boat they're rowing has a rudder.

They are essentially a party with goals but no real directions, ie get out of the war, but no plan on how to do so.

Didn't the Dems announce a plan for phased withdrawal?

http://www.rawstory.com/news/2006/House ... _0731.html

Time to stop listening to the GOP echo chamber.

That's not a plan, that is a concept of a plan.

every effort should be made to urge the Iraqis to take the steps necessary to achieve a broad-based and sustainable political settlement, including amending the constitution to achieve a fair sharing of power and resources. It is also essential to disarm the militias and ensure forces loyal to the national government. Finally, an international conference should be convened to persuade other governments to be more involved, and to secure the resources necessary to finance Iraq's reconstruction and rebuild its economy.

No how-tos in that letter, just a bunch of what to dos.

So they should publish a detailed description of proposed troop movements? Would that make you happy?

mvscal wrote:

Mikey wrote:What, exactly, do you actually know about Pelosi besides the shit that the Republicans have been slinging?

We know she pledged to fight corruption with the most ethical Congress in history and then immediately started jocking an unindicted co-conspirator in the ABSCAM bribery scandal for House majority leader and is rumored to be jocking a former Federal judge who was successfully impeached for bribery for the Intelligence Committee Chair.

Now there are several possible conclusions that can be reached from this.

A. She is a blithering idiot.

B. She thinks you are a blithering idiot.

C. Both of the above.

Murtha turned down a bribe. How is that unethical?

Dinsdale wrote:With Pelosi as speaker, how can anyone take the dems seriously?

The wheels have come off of our wagon, folks. Just when I thought the house/senate leaders couldn't be any bigger fucking clowns, along comes Nancy.

What a freaking train wreck we've allowed our government to become...and no one gives two fucking shits about fixing it.

All the more reason to impeach Chimp & Chenron and make Pelosi president!

BSmack wrote:

Mister Bushice wrote:

BSmack wrote: Didn't the Dems announce a plan for phased withdrawal?

http://www.rawstory.com/news/2006/House ... _0731.html

Time to stop listening to the GOP echo chamber.

That's not a plan, that is a concept of a plan.

every effort should be made to urge the Iraqis to take the steps necessary to achieve a broad-based and sustainable political settlement, including amending the constitution to achieve a fair sharing of power and resources. It is also essential to disarm the militias and ensure forces loyal to the national government. Finally, an international conference should be convened to persuade other governments to be more involved, and to secure the resources necessary to finance Iraq's reconstruction and rebuild its economy.

No how-tos in that letter, just a bunch of what to dos.

So they should publish a detailed description of proposed troop movements? Would that make you happy?

No, they should actually have one though, complete with a time line and how the logistics of the transfer should be managed. Just having a letter saying what we should do doesn't mean there is a plan.

I can write letters pointing out what should be done for every problem out there all day long, but unless I can back them up with a detailed workable plan, then I'm nothing more than a democrat.

I didn't notice anywhere in the letter indicating they had that detailed plan ready to go. IF that was the case, they'd have tried to push it through a committee to get it out on the floor for approval.

Nothing more than smoke and mirrors to see here. Move along.

mvscal wrote:Of course, that isn't the way it went down. He said he wasn't interested "...at this point." and then gave the agent a list of hometown businesses they could put that money into....oh yes and conveniently forgot to report the incident.

Not exactly the type of character you want to put forward when you are attempting to burnish your "tough on corruption" bona fides. Unless of course, you are an idiot.

Absolute bullshit. I'm listening to the FBI videotape right now. It is patently clear that Murtha wanted no part of any illegal activities.

mvscal wrote:"Not interested...at this point" is quote, shithead.

Your bullshit isn't going to fly here.

AMOROSO: [11:58:33] Well lemme, uh, uh, I'm gonna be blunt now. Lemme ask you. Are you telling me as far as you're concerned -- you don't want any money? On this thing? Or you just want it to be worked as far as...

MURTHA: That's right.

And some more...


MURTHA [12:14:13]: The thing is, what I'm trying to do is establish the very thing that you talked about. That tie to the district, that's all I need, from then on -- I'm gonna be there 20 years in that goddamn Congress. I don't want to screw it up by some little goddamn thing along the way that, if I wanted to make a lot of money I would have been outside making a lot of money. And you, I know what I can do and what I can't do...I won't bullshit you, that's for sure....you got two good people, and I just want to know -- well, I know the facts.


EOS

mvscal wrote:

mvscal wrote:"Not interested...at this point" is quote, shithead.

Nice try, dickhead.

It's pretty clear that he had the miniscule amount intelligence required not to take a bribe from somebody he did not know, but was keeping his options open for the future.

In any event, if you think his act makes him "ethical", you are a motherfucking idiot.

EOS

Yea, after 20 minutes of constant badgering on the question of money, he said "at this point". It's a classic case of attempted entrapment that Murtha was finally forced to parry with "at this point". If that's all you have on him after 32 years in the House, I'd say he's pretty damn clean.

mvscal wrote:If he's so squeaky clean, why didn't he report this immediately?

Ask him. My guess is that he didn't want to rat out 2 other Congressmen. Given what has happened to other whistleblowers, I don't fucking blame him.

mvscal wrote:I'll just call him a pigfucker over and over agin until someone has to deny it.

Got it.

^^^^

Keeps spewing the same crap even after it has been dismissed.

if their goal is to clean up congress then why isn't Mr. $90K cold hard ca$h in the freezer Jefferson the first to get the boot?

mvscal wrote:

Mister Bushice wrote:I didn't notice anywhere in the letter indicating they had that detailed plan ready to go. IF that was the case, they'd have tried to push it through a committee to get it out on the floor for approval.

You seem confused on how this works. Congress does not issue orders to the miltary. I don't give flying fuck how many committees they run it through or votes they take. They aren't in the chain of command.

If and when they come up with a plan, they can attempt to sell it to the Commander in Chief.

Not confused at all, and you made my point exactly. IF and When they come up with a plan, they can try to sell it. But let a committee do all the figuring, then put a resolution to a vote to get out of iraq, and force Bush to either accept their plan or make one of his own.


Until something like that occurs, all the Dems have is a letter that says "You should do this stuff"

titlover wrote:if their goal is to clean up congress then why isn't Mr. $90K cold hard ca$h in the freezer Jefferson the first to get the boot?

1. He hasn't been convicted

2. He hasn't even been reelected. There's a runoff in his district Dec 9th.

Hey, the guy who bribed Alcee Hastings is still in prison.

Alcee was smart enough to get hisself a OJ jury.

Mister Bushice wrote:

mvscal wrote:

Mister Bushice wrote:I didn't notice anywhere in the letter indicating they had that detailed plan ready to go. IF that was the case, they'd have tried to push it through a committee to get it out on the floor for approval.

You seem confused on how this works. Congress does not issue orders to the miltary. I don't give flying fuck how many committees they run it through or votes they take. They aren't in the chain of command.

If and when they come up with a plan, they can attempt to sell it to the Commander in Chief.

Not confused at all, and you made my point exactly. IF and When they come up with a plan, they can try to sell it. But let a committee do all the figuring, then put a resolution to a vote to get out of iraq, and force Bush to either accept their plan or make one of his own.


Until something like that occurs, all the Dems have is a letter that says "You should do this stuff"

When was Congress ever involved in military "planning"? They may work with (or against) the Administration to set policy. They also control the pursestrings, but planning? No way. Exactly what kind of "plan" are you looking for? Numbers of troops and where they move to? Uh uh. That's the Pentagon. Congress doesn't have the knowedge, experience or information (especially the Dems, who have been cut out of the loop for the past 12 years) to even attempt something like this. What, are they going to vote on troop movements and how many tanks to send to Ramallah? Give me a fucking break. If we ever had Congress dictating detailed military planning we would be in far worse doo doo than we now are. Your take on this is completely wrong.

mvscal wrote:

BSmack wrote:

titlover wrote:if their goal is to clean up congress then why isn't Mr. $90K cold hard ca$h in the freezer Jefferson the first to get the boot?

1. He hasn't been convicted

What the fuck does that have to do with anything?

Two people have already pled guilty to bribing him and he was caught red handed with $90K in his fucking freezer.

In that case, he'll be convicted and run out of town. If he's even re-elected. Now tell me, why didn't Speaker Hastert persue Jefferson's expulsion?

Mikey wrote:

Mister Bushice wrote:

mvscal wrote: You seem confused on how this works. Congress does not issue orders to the miltary. I don't give flying fuck how many committees they run it through or votes they take. They aren't in the chain of command.

If and when they come up with a plan, they can attempt to sell it to the Commander in Chief.

Not confused at all, and you made my point exactly. IF and When they come up with a plan, they can try to sell it. But let a committee do all the figuring, then put a resolution to a vote to get out of iraq, and force Bush to either accept their plan or make one of his own.


Until something like that occurs, all the Dems have is a letter that says "You should do this stuff"

When was Congress ever involved in military "planning"? They may work with (or against) the Administration to set policy. They also control the pursestrings, but planning? No way. Exactly what kind of "plan" are you looking for? Numbers of troops and where they move to? Uh uh. That's the Pentagon. Congress doesn't have the knowedge, experience or information (especially the Dems, who have been cut out of the loop for the past 12 years) to even attempt something like this. What, are they going to vote on troop movements and how many tanks to send to Ramallah? Give me a fucking break. If we ever had Congress dictating detailed military planning we would be in far worse doo doo than we now are. Your take on this is completely wrong.

Nothing gets accomplished with a letter that says " you should get out of iraq and turn over control to the iraqi army" with no timeline, no detail at all. So, they put together a plan, with approximate dates on what happens when, for example: assign command of various sections of iraq by these dates, troop drawn down by 20% as of January 1 2007, another 30% by June 1st, etc. Let the miltary figure out the logistics. Give the idiot in charge a blueprint, let him deal with the pentagon. Make a resolution in congress that Bush act on getting out of it, just like they did to support the war in the first place.

Bluster and hot air won't accomplish shit, but if you shove some framework out there, force bush to shit or get off the pot, then he'll have to either agree or disagree.

The military doesn't want to get out of iraq. War is what they do. Bush can't figure out what the fuck to do with Iraq. The dems have been yelling about their plan for years. Lets see it.

A non binding resolution nailing down a rough timeline with dates puts the dems cards on the table, and takes the " I have a plan" bullshit out of the equation and is an ideal way of saying "we hold the future purse strings for this quagmire, get this done".

EXACTLY

mvscal wrote:

BSmack wrote:after it has been dismissed.

Still completely delusional, I see.

Only a totally delusional dumbfuck could listen to the Murtha tape and conclude that he didn't want to be bribed. But then that's a perfect description of B-Monica

Murtha made it perfectly clear that the only reason he wasn't accepting the bribe then and there was that he needed to build up some trust in the guy offering the bribe, and just as soon as the required level of trust was attained, he would be all-in.

Cuda wrote:

mvscal wrote:

BSmack wrote:after it has been dismissed.

Still completely delusional, I see.

Only a totally delusional dumbfuck could listen to the Murtha tape and conclude that he didn't want to be bribed. But then that's a perfect description of B-Monica

Murtha made it perfectly clear that the only reason he wasn't accepting the bribe then and there was that he needed to build up some trust in the guy offering the bribe, and just as soon as the required level of trust was attained, he would be all-in.

You must have been one of those guys who thought Rodney King was resisting arrest 30 seconds into his beating.

BSmack wrote:

Cuda wrote:

mvscal wrote: Still completely delusional, I see.

Only a totally delusional dumbfuck could listen to the Murtha tape and conclude that he didn't want to be bribed. But then that's a perfect description of B-Monica

Murtha made it perfectly clear that the only reason he wasn't accepting the bribe then and there was that he needed to build up some trust in the guy offering the bribe, and just as soon as the required level of trust was attained, he would be all-in.

You must have been one of those guys who thought Rodney King was resisting arrest 30 seconds into his beating.

wasn't he still resisiting after like 5 min?

I understand that Jack Murtha is redeploying
his position in the party ??

have fun the next 2 years lefties
it will be over in '08 !!

I doubt it. The righties have truly fucked themsleves, unless they do an about-face on stem cell research.

Wrong.

Let's face facts -- Congress, and the federal government in general, is completely ruled by special interests and lobbyists. On this, I'm sure we can agree.

And with the possible exception of Big Oil, care to name a bigger lobby than pharmeceutical companies(defense contractors work at a higher level, and aren't a normal "lobby")?

Pharmy companies are major holders of the purse strings.

And with the explosion of stem cell biotechnology, medicine is going to change rapidly. Heck, it already is -- in the last few days, Oregon Health Sciences University(major medical research facility here in Portland, whose list of "first to do..." is absolutrely staggering...but don't get me started on OHSU, since they're extremely adept at getting the taxpayer to fund their projects, and give nothing back to the economy in return. Hell, these scammers even got the city to all-but build them a new facility, which will operate tax-free, and even build new high-end condos for the employees....but it gets better...they even got the city to bucky up $55 million(while schools close down) to build a freaking tram up the hill, so they don't have to drive or take the bus to work...if I hadn't witnessed this go down, I wouldn't believe it)...but anyway, in the last few days, they shot some stem cell shit into a kids brain to fix some previously-incurable disease.

As this technology progresses, the pharmy/medical industries will hold even more power over life and death than before.

"Give us all your money, or watch your kid die a horrible death."

And let's see -- one party opposes stem cell research altogether(or a large portion of it does). The other party not only supports it, but wants to fund it.

Now, with that in mind, who do you think that major lobby/campaign financier is going to support?


All of a sudden isn't such a "minor issue."

Government and elections were still all about the money, last time I checked.

BSmack wrote:

Cuda wrote:

mvscal wrote: Still completely delusional, I see.

Only a totally delusional dumbfuck could listen to the Murtha tape and conclude that he didn't want to be bribed. But then that's a perfect description of B-Monica

Murtha made it perfectly clear that the only reason he wasn't accepting the bribe then and there was that he needed to build up some trust in the guy offering the bribe, and just as soon as the required level of trust was attained, he would be all-in.

You must have been one of those guys who thought Rodney King was resisting arrest 30 seconds into his beating.

He was driving a white Hyundai Excel. He had it coming as far as I'm concerned.