i slammed jefferson before he was indicted...and others in the same article...i also gave credit where due,,,,from the article...

Last year, after allegations and 90,000 of marked bills in his freezer came to light, Jefferson was rightfully kicked off the Ways and Means committee. Unfortunately, the people of New Orleans sent this soon to be felon back to Washington. Most of the nation cited corruption as a major reason for change in Washington. Obviously, the voters who sent MR Jefferson back to D.C. weren't amongst them.

In his case, Speaker Pelosi had a grand opportunity to stand up for the Americans who are sick of the blatant corruption in Washington. Instead, she decided to play "business as usual" as Congressman Jefferson got comfortorble in his committee chair.

On one hand, I applaud the Speaker for her management and success of their "1st 100 hours" in getting thru all the legislation they promised. They certainly have been more effective and victorious than over in Harry Reid's Senate, who seems stalled at the starting line.

On the other hand there's gross cronyism and old school politics in moves like this. There's also her inability to actually make good on the promise of a 5 day house workweek. So far, they've only had one, and this week is another 3 day week.

here's your link...


WWW Link

thank you san. appreciate that. and coming from someone who doesn't always agree with me, from what i see, it means even more.

but i've come to accept that double standard. as frustrating as it can be sometimes.

i am sorry but Sean threatened to have me kicked off of here once because i refused to agree with him on one of his threads. he was attacking bush for something and when i accused the other side of doing the something he told me it wasn't important because he wasn't talking about the other side and if i didn't agree with him he would have be blackballed from the forum all together

so yes Sean is a democrat no matter what he says he is and he is into censorship when someone disagrees with him

the whole point is that he wanted to shut someone up who didn't agree with him

and he wonders why i included him in that illigel thread of mine(not that i knew i was doing anything wrong at the time)

no dan,,,i simply requested that you stick to a subject and not repeat moronic crap over and over. and you were never threatended in any way. you made that up when i asked you to try to not be an idiot in much more diplomatic language than i'm using here. the fact is it is more annoying to put up with your lack of grasp of the english language than anything you have to say. the fact is you haven't made hardly any decent points since arriving. the fact is that all you do is spew the parroted talking points of the neoconservatives without any real understanding of what you are saying...and it's obvious.



the obsession continues...  

do i have to go through all of these feeds just to get the quote where you threatened to have me blacklisted

and i was on subject i was just including the other side of the show

Heh, well, if you live in such a mythological world to believe that, there's not much hope in reasoning with you. It goes to show that all the Dems have to do is propose legislation or pass "preliminary versions" of legislation that was never intended to survive, and their drones will forgive most anything. No one ever checks back to see if their lauded "effort" was finalized.

They blew the first 100 hours before it even started, by ignoring the 9/11 commission's recommendation on the intelligence committee. They blew the first 100 hours when they took legislators that were already CAUGHT being corrupt, and placed them in key ethics positions to "drain the swamp". The first 100 hours was a joke promise before they ever sat down and started drafting meaningless legislation.

And before you start posting all the house bills that I have seen over and over as proof of this 100 hours crap, save us some time and check to see which ones ever became law, and which that became law actually accomplished what it was set out to do.

Then you really don't pay attention to what I do write. Because I have slammed the republicans too. "Especially" over the dumb-assed immigration bill. And yes that includes Bush with the rest of the dumb-asses.

this has become the neocon battle-cry...a way to appear "independent" after 6+ years of walking in lock step and being a rubber stamp. it's not like this is some new stance by the president. before the 2000 election, then candidate bush said this....

From a Speech in Washington, D.C. Jun 26, 2000...

Latinos come to the US to seek the same dreams that have inspired millions of others: they want a better life for their children. Family values do not stop at the Rio Grande. Latinos enrich our country with faith in God, a strong ethic of work, community & responsibility. We can all learn from the strength, solidarity, & values of Latinos. Immigration is not a problem to be solved, it is the sign of a successful nation. New Americans are to be welcomed as neighbors and not to be feared as strangers.

and on dec 9th of 99, the candidate said this...

I believe it is far more compassionate to turn away people at the border than to attempt to find and arrest them once they are living in our country illegally.

and before the people re-elected him again in 2004, his stance had not changed...from january 2004...

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- President Bush will outline an immigration reform proposal Wednesday that would allow workers in the United States illegally to join a new temporary worker program and not lose their jobs, administration officials said.

and ya'll re-elected him. it's not like bush sprung this on everyone after the 2004 election. he's had the same stance since he was a candidate. people seem to forget that this is a family thing for him, and the party was onboard when it was sold as a way to get votes from those pesky ol' democrats....from Time Magazine in 2000...

Monday, Jun. 19, 2000 By JAMES CARNEY AND JOHN F. DICKERSON/WASHINGTON

George Bush--all three generations of him--wants to woo Hispanic voters. Scarcely a week goes by when the Texas Governor--George W.--isn't hola-ing and comos estas-ing his way through a Hispanic community center or a classroom filled with Hispanic children. And late last week in New York City, his campaign released its first television ads of the general election--ads starring GEORGE P. BUSH, the candidate's charismatic 23-year-old Mexican-American nephew, in a direct pitch to New York's Puerto Rican voting bloc. The star turn will not be his last. "You're going to be seeing a lot more of him," beams a campaign adviser.

Even George H.W. Bush--the patriarch of the namesakes--is getting into the swing of things. Sources tell TIME that the former President, who once famously referred to his Mexican-American grandchildren, including George P., as "the little brown ones," recently urged his son's campaign to hold a national Hispanic event aimed at luring Hispanics away from the Democrats.

oh, and btw,,,miler and the rest of the neocon pundits didn't say a word about immigration until after the 2004 election. i believe miler's first entry into the battle was "conveniently" at the same time the other pundits started showing their feigned "independence" in january of 2005.

i guess you haven't seen my posts on the fact that i am against homeland security because it takes away to many rights of course taking away one right is too many.


and this is the reason i am so against the democrats they want to remove all rights except for themselves.

lets take that crap at the beginning of the year with rosy and Donald

she called him a pimp, which means she called the girls ----------

where was your uproar over that

she said that he was using the girls for monetary gain that is true but the girls are using him for monetary gain too.

personally i never watch that show. but he has the right to air that show and the girls have the right to be on that show. Rasia has the right to dislike the show


but i am not to sure that Rasia has the right to stump all over someone Else's rights.

Muslims in this country have the right to worship their god. and they have the right not to sell pork. but they do not have the right to go to work for a store that they know sells pork and then start demanding that the store stop selling said pork

as for the broken republican party yes it is broken but it has been broken for 20 or more years and so have the democrats in fact the whole political system in this country is broken.

no one in Washington is there for the people they are there to get reelected and they all need to be replaced

this is exactly what i am talking about dan....it is obvious you can't even get a handle on the don v rosie feud, lol. she called him a pimp meaning that he makes all his money off the backs of other people...exactly which girls did she call _______ ? (i'm guessin you mean "whores") the ones on the view?

don got on rosie's case when she kept spewing 9/11 conspiracy theories. he called her a bunch of names, in the trump tradition, including just plain calling her a loser. she responded by calling him names back, including calling him a pimp. the rest is history, but has little or nothing to do with what you describe.

don was not using the girls on the view for monetary gain...he's a billionaire. when don wants to make more money, he builds new buildings or exec produces his own shows.

and the only people he mentioned was rosie and barbara walters when she defended rosie on air. he claimed that she backed his side behind the scenes.

maybe you meant something else,,,but your writing is so juvenile that it is tough for anyone to decipher.



and where exactly is this happening?



20 years ago would be 1987. in 1987 the republican party was in it's modern "hey-day." Reagan was President. you know, the guy all the candidates are tripping over themselves to emmulate.

so if you are right, the GOP has sucked since before Reagan. let's see...reagan was President since he was elected in 80 and sworn in jan 1981. a day i remember cause every republican pointed to the iranian hostages being released as "proof" of the GOP's superiority. but that's a whole nother can o worms....

anyway, since they sucked since the 80's according to your position..., before that we have nixon (and 2 years of "moscow has no influence in poland" ford)...was that when all was right with the republicans? before that we have Ike in the 50's. is that what you are saying? that the republicans haven't been right since the 50's?

or are you just someone who talks out his butt? 1/2 out of fear developed thru the narrow channels you parrot and 1/2 from just pure ignorance and the delusions that have obviously developed in your head.

our system isn't broken dan. it may be bruised and a little tattered. and the constitution has some urine stains on it. but that is nothing that some informed, willing and vigilant American citizens can't fix by bringing those problems out into the fresh air.

just saying "everybody sucks" might make you feel good, but it's hardly the way things are. yes, there may be problems, and people of good concience might disagree on what exactly is wrong and what exactly the solution is...but that is a FAR cry from just recklessly damning everyone and everything cause you want life to return to the 1950's.

and the democrats are trying to destroy that constitution and the republicans are trying to destroy parts of that constitution




i didn't say that don was using the girls for monetary gain Rasia did



how would i know what life was in the 50's. i am not that old.

why do you think i keep saying in the last 30 years because i am 40 years old and i have no idea what things were like for the first 10 years



Rasia was not talking about the girls on the view. she was talking about miss USA you know the one that don gave a second chance to and Rasia didn't agree with him doing that. that is when she called him a pimp which means she was call the contestants for miss USA whores.


in my opinion Reagan was the last great president of the USA before that i don't know the first one i remember is Nixon. and the law that he broke wasn't a law when he broke it. one of the people who got that law passed and made it a law yesterday was Hillary random now know as Hillary random Clinton.

Bush is the same guy that he was in 2004 when Republicans still claimed him vociferously. He still has a high approval rating amongst Republicans. What they didn't understand was that the same things he was doing during the first term would continue. Only the Republicans and some optimistic independents thought it otherwise. The same problems that plagued his administration in 2004 are still there and he has taken the same role. So why do some Republicans choose to back away from him now when they backed the same guy 2 and a half years ago? Its because now they realize he is going to lose for them in 2008 as he lost for them in 2006, only this time its the presidency. Guess the most Republicans are not as loyal as Dubyah is.

Because conservatives expect Republicans to be better than Democrats.  This kind of behavior is normal for Democrats but Republicans should know better.

I expect Democrats to naively think bigger government will solve the world's ills and expect modern Democrats to favor endless nation building (look at the clamoring for Darfor even as they demand troops be withdrawn from Iraq).  I expect Democrats to waste tax payer money since most of them have no experience in building anything (nearly all Democratic law makers were lawyers as their sole occupation other than politics). 

In short, the Democrats have traditionally (since the 70s anyway) been the party of adult-aged children.  The Republicans were supposed to be the party of responsible adults.

But since the nomination of Harriet Meyers for the Supreme Court, it's been clear that Bush really has no idea what he's doing on any isssue. He's just "some guy".  For the first 4 years, the fact he was surrounded by adults masked things better.