Still Hating America.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally posted by Sidd Finch
The war in Afghanistan.

Though it seems he fucked that up, too.

Well, that's really because of Iraq.

Two countries. One has a larger population, a more difficult terrain, and more entrenched terrorists, and was clearly complicit in 9/11. Where do you send 150,000 troops and where do you send 25,000?

[Spanky]

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

He voted for Tom McClintock for Governor here in California. No true liberal could ever do that. The man is pro-life, the NRA's darling, against the "entire homosexual agenda" including civil unions, against providing contraception at schools, opposed Wilson's K-6 class size reduction plan, etc. etc. There were about sixty people on that recall list I would have voted for before I would have voted for McClintock and I am a Republican.

[SlaveNoMore]

ltl/fb
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.

Committee on Agriculture
Committee on Appropriations
Committee on Armed Services
Committee on the Budget
Committee on Education and Labor
Committee on Energy and Commerce
Committee on Financial Services
Committee on Foreign Affairs
Committee on Homeland Security
Committee on House Administration
Committee on the Judiciary
Committee on Natural Resources
Committee on Oversight and Government Reform
Committee on Rules
Committee on Science and Technology
Committee on Small Business
Committee on Standards of Official Conduct
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure
Committee on Veterans' Affairs
Committee on Ways and Means

There's all of them.

Now - does "Homeland Security" really stand out to you as the one you would give to the guy that - according to FBI video - has $18K of dirty money in his freezer?

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
your plan for cleaning out the Pakistan border region is what again?

Don't know about Sidd, but my plan is to send everyone with one or more magnetic American flag ribbons on the back of their SUVs over there with a Swiss Army knife, a topographical map and instructions not to return without the severed heads of OBL and everyone we've ever seen on an Al Quaeda videotape. Don't forget to pack a lunch!

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by ironweed
Don't know about Sidd, but my plan is to send everyone with one or more magnetic American flag ribbons on the back of their SUVs over there with a Swiss Army knife, a topographical map and instructions not to return without the severed heads of OBL and everyone we've ever seen on an Al Quaeda videotape. Don't forget to pack a lunch!

you sound like Claire from 6 Feet Under, when she was insane from being clinically depressed.

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
you sound like Claire from 6 Feet Under, when she was insane from being clinically depressed.

I didn't watch much of that series. Can you compare me to a character from "Hookers On The Point" instead, so I can get what you're talking about?

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by ironweed
I didn't watch much of that series. Can you compare me to a character from "Hookers On The Point" instead, so I can get what you're talking about?

that's beside the point. People are laughing at you, not with you.

[Adder]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
Committee on Agriculture
Committee on Appropriations
Committee on Armed Services
Committee on the Budget
Committee on Education and Labor
Committee on Energy and Commerce
Committee on Financial Services
Committee on Foreign Affairs
Committee on Homeland Security
Committee on House Administration
Committee on the Judiciary
Committee on Natural Resources
Committee on Oversight and Government Reform
Committee on Rules
Committee on Science and Technology
Committee on Small Business
Committee on Standards of Official Conduct
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure
Committee on Veterans' Affairs
Committee on Ways and Means

There's all of them.

Now - does "Homeland Security" really stand out to you as the one you would give to the guy that - according to FBI video - has $18K of dirty money in his freezer?

Well, it isn't the last one. I would pick it over appropriations, armed services, budget, judiciary, oversight and government, standards of official conduct and ways and means.

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
that's beside the point. People are laughing at you, not with you.

Do you often hear laughter when you're composing and reading posts on here? Any strange smells, lights, that sort of thing? Could be narcolepsy.

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
Committee on Agriculture
Committee on Appropriations
Committee on Armed Services
Committee on the Budget
Committee on Education and Labor
Committee on Energy and Commerce
Committee on Financial Services (actually I might not have a huge problem with this one)
Committee on Foreign Affairs
Committee on Homeland Security
Committee on House Administration
Committee on the Judiciary
Committee on Natural Resources
Committee on Oversight and Government Reform
Committee on Rules
Committee on Science and Technology
Committee on Small Business
Committee on Standards of Official Conduct
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure
Committee on Veterans' Affairs
Committee on Ways and Means

There's all of them.

Now - does "Homeland Security" really stand out to you as the one you would give to the guy that - according to FBI video - has $18K of dirty money in his freezer?

That's a nice cut and paste job that, again, does not answer the question. I have helpfully highlighted in red for you the ones that I think he should absolutely not be on, given the issue of financial (and obviously ethical) impropriety. Homeland security is definitely not even #5 on the list of "inappropriate committees" -- it hovers at 10 or lower. And it's not like they made him chair.

And what SAM said, of course.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

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?

Either I'd waste a lot of time saying things that no one would bother respond to, or you'd complain that I haven't said enough, thereby proving that I'm anti-W. It's a sucker's game, so I'm not going to play.

Just a week or two ago, I praised Bush for a speech about economic inequality. You then argued with the Ty/Bush position, as I recall. More recently, I praised the deal with North Korea. So the suggestion that I'm reflexively against something if Bush is for it is a stupid one.

If someone is reflexively anti-anything here, it's you with Democrats. Which is fine, given your involvement with the GOP. But your trying to pin that sort of consistency on my is a case of the pot calling the kettle black.

[Secret_Agent_Man]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
Committee on Agriculture
Committee on Appropriations
Committee on Armed Services
Committee on the Budget
Committee on Education and Labor
Committee on Energy and Commerce
Committee on Financial Services
Committee on Foreign Affairs
Committee on Homeland Security
Committee on House Administration
Committee on the Judiciary
Committee on Natural Resources
Committee on Oversight and Government Reform
Committee on Rules
Committee on Science and Technology
Committee on Small Business
Committee on Standards of Official Conduct
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure
Committee on Veterans' Affairs
Committee on Ways and Means

There's all of them.

Now - does "Homeland Security" really stand out to you as the one you would give to the guy that - according to FBI video - has $18K of dirty money in his freezer?

Better than "Financial Services"?

[Wasn't it $90K? He may be a crook, but he ain't cheap.]

S_A_M

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Either I'd waste a lot of time saying things that no one would bother respond to, or you'd complain that I haven't said enough, thereby proving that I'm anti-W. It's a sucker's game, so I'm not going to play.

Just a week or two ago, I praised Bush for a speech about economic inequality. You then argued with the Ty/Bush position, as I recall. More recently, I praised the deal with North Korea. So the suggestion that I'm reflexively against something if Bush is for it is a stupid one.

If someone is reflexively anti-anything here, it's you with Democrats. Which is fine, given your involvement with the GOP. But your trying to pin that sort of consistency on my is a case of the pot calling the kettle black.

Something he said about inequality? And you praised Bush for continuing Clinton's policy. Not really a vote of confidence. I asked you this same question a while back during our CAFTA discussion and said you couldn't think of anything.

And I support the Democrats much more than you support the Republicans. I don't think anyone on this board would dispute that. I just recently stated I agreed with almost everthing in their first hundred hours. Some liberals even suggesteed I should switch partys. I don't think anyone on this board thinks of you as a moderate Democrat that sometimes sides with the Republicans. That would be Sidd's spot.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
that's beside the point. People are laughing at you, not with you.

Actually, he just cracked me up. Those bumper stickers are fucking annoying.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Either I'd waste a lot of time saying things that no one would bother respond to, or you'd complain that I haven't said enough, thereby proving that I'm anti-W. It's a sucker's game, so I'm not going to play.

Just a week or two ago, I praised Bush for a speech about economic inequality. You then argued with the Ty/Bush position, as I recall. More recently, I praised the deal with North Korea. So the suggestion that I'm reflexively against something if Bush is for it is a stupid one.

If someone is reflexively anti-anything here, it's you with Democrats. Which is fine, given your involvement with the GOP. But your trying to pin that sort of consistency on my is a case of the pot calling the kettle black.

I think he's right that you're not as liberal as you might even want to believe. You've got a pragmatic side that pushes you toward the center.

But I think you're wrong on Spanky. The guy's come out time and time again as a social liberal. If anything, he's a libertarian in denial. The charge that he's reflexively anti-Democrat is baseless. He's reflexively anti-liberal in most economic matters. That's not the same as being anti-Democratic.