Still Hating America.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Spanky
If Bush had ended terrorism, cured cancer, created a budget surplus, paid off the debt and created a ten percent growth rate you still wouldn't have voted for him.

My biggest problems with Bush are not with where he falls on that sort of test.

[Adder]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
Nothing says "ethics" like putting a crook on an unimportant House panel, like say, Homeland Security:



Any of you "upbeats" or "liberals" going to even try to defend this one?

I think it is a disgrace that the Democrats nominated him (I am assuming they did), that he was re-elected, and that Pelosi put him on anything more important than the Chickenfeed Committee.

Of course, I don't know how the system works or what other options she had.

[SlaveNoMore]

ltl/fb
The voters returned him to office, and I think everyone has to be put somewhere -- it's not like they put him in a position where he handles cash (or budgeting, or appropriations). What committees would you put him on, Slave?

"Homeland Security" does not immediately come to mind, no.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by ltl/fb
I think Ty or I or anyone else would vote for someone who did that, but there's no way in hell our current president (or, really, anyone) could do those things.

Goddamn bombast.

The point I was trying to make it that Ty isn't as Liberal as some on the board, he just has it in for W. If W. proposes it he's against it. If W. is against it he is for it. I could be wrong. Ty, why don't you let us know what things W has done that you support?

[SlaveNoMore]

Adder
I think it is a disgrace that the Democrats nominated him (I am assuming they did), that he was re-elected, and that Pelosi put him on anything more important than the Chickenfeed Committee.

:td:

Hooray for Adder!!!

[SlaveNoMore]

Spanky
Ty, why don't you let us know what things W has done that you support?

Trading Sosa to the National League?

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
"Homeland Security" does not immediately come to mind, no.

I think everyone (on the lefty side, at least -- spanky might be behind) got that from your original post, but it's completely non-responsive to the actual question. I think there are other committees? Go pick one or two or three, for fuck's sake.

[Secret_Agent_Man]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
Any of you "upbeats" or "liberals" going to even try to defend this one?

I won't defend it, but I'll explain it. Here is the key passage:

"Jefferson was removed from his seat on the Ways and Means Committee, one of the most important panels in Congress, by Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi (Calif.) last summer in an attempt to show how seriously Democrats viewed the allegations of corruption.

"But the move by Pelosi, who was still minority leader at the time, infuriated members of the Congressional Black Caucus, who said Jefferson shouldn't be punished unless he is indicted; federal prosecutors have yet to bring an indictment, despite an FBI raid 18 months ago on his home that yielded $90,000 in cash in his freezer."

When the new Congress began -- Pelosi put Jefferson on the Small Business Committee -- a shitty post, so he's sure not a favorite of hers.

I'd bet she had to do this to appease the CBC -- especially after she passed over Alcee Hastings (another Slave favorite) who otherwise would have been the Chair of the House Intelligence(?) Committee.

I'd also bet that as soon as Jefferson is indicted, he's off the Homeland Security Committee, which can't possibly happen too soon. So, its dirty, but I understand why she did it.

S_A_M

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by Spanky
The point I was trying to make it that Ty isn't as Liberal as some on the board, he just has it in for W. If W. proposes it he's against it. If W. is against it he is for it. I could be wrong. Ty, why don't you let us know what things W has done that you support?

I think Ty can support his personal condolences to the families of soldiers killed in Iraq/Afghanistan, and probably the actions taken during the photo ops of Bush actually serving food to people in need/our American troops/whatever. Unless, of course, the people didn't actually get to eat the food he served, or the people served were actors or political operatives or whatever.

Also I think we all appreciate that he generally keeps himself clean; he has not abandoned his children nor physically abused them or his spouse; that he has never, in fact, attacked anyone with the intent to kill; that he acknowledges that at least in some limited situations, such as antibiotics and sutures, science and medicine have something to offer to mankind. Ty probably approves of him abstaining from vomiting on foreign dignitaries. In a sense, he may approve of all the vacation time W has taken over the course of his presidency.

[Secret_Agent_Man]

Originally posted by Spanky
If Bush had ended terrorism, cured cancer, created a budget surplus, paid off the debt and created a ten percent growth rate you still wouldn't have voted for him.

If he had done all of _that_, I'd have voted for him. But I am on record here in 2003 that if he (just) cured cancer, I'd award him the Nobel Prize and send his ass back to Texas.

S_A_M

[Adder]

Originally posted by Spanky
The point I was trying to make it that Ty isn't as Liberal as some on the board, he just has it in for W. If W. proposes it he's against it. If W. is against it he is for it. I could be wrong. Ty, why don't you let us know what things W has done that you support?

I suspect that Ty is, in fact, just as liberal as anyone on this board.

[Sidd Finch]

Originally posted by Spanky
The point I was trying to make it that Ty isn't as Liberal as some on the board, he just has it in for W. If W. proposes it he's against it. If W. is against it he is for it. I could be wrong. Ty, why don't you let us know what things W has done that you support?

The war in Afghanistan.

Though it seems he fucked that up, too.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Sidd Finch
The war in Afghanistan.

Though it seems he fucked that up, too.

your plan for cleaning out the Pakistan border region is what again?

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally posted by Spanky
Something is amiss. Did you notice this about upbeats...

"these voters support George W. Bush’s leadership in economic matters more than on social or foreign policy issues."

"2004 Election
Bush 63%, Kerry 14%."

If Bush had ended terrorism, cured cancer, created a budget surplus, paid off the debt and created a ten percent growth rate you still wouldn't have voted for him.

BTW: I took it again and still got Upbeat

I took it twice, with identical answers each, except once I put down that I considered myself "liberal" and once I put down that I considered myself "conservative". The first time it told me I was a liberal, the second time a conservative Democrat. The lesson of the test: we are what we say we are.

[SlaveNoMore]

Secret_Agent_Man
I won't defend it, but I'll explain it. Here is the key passage:

"Jefferson was removed from his seat on the Ways and Means Committee, one of the most important panels in Congress, by Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi (Calif.) last summer in an attempt to show how seriously Democrats viewed the allegations of corruption.

"But the move by Pelosi, who was still minority leader at the time, infuriated members of the Congressional Black Caucus, who said Jefferson shouldn't be punished unless he is indicted; federal prosecutors have yet to bring an indictment, despite an FBI raid 18 months ago on his home that yielded $90,000 in cash in his freezer."

When the new Congress began -- Pelosi put Jefferson on the Small Business Committee -- a shitty post, so he's sure not a favorite of hers.

I'd bet she had to do this to appease the CBC -- especially after she passed over Alcee Hastings (another Slave favorite) who otherwise would have been the Chair of the House Intelligence(?) Committee.

Right, so the CBC has been - for lack of better word - blackmailing Pelosi into giving prominent posts to crooks.

And rather than merely stating for the record that her House will not be tainted with such ethically challenged individuals in positions of power, she capitulates.

Recall that she wasn't the one that squashed the Hastings nomination.

I'd also bet that as soon as Jefferson is indicted, he's off the Homeland Security Committee, which can't possibly happen too soon. So, its dirty, but I understand why she did it.

Hmmm.