Jump to content

For Dems only.


Texsox
 Share

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 2.3k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

QUOTE(kapkomet @ Jan 26, 2006 -> 09:08 PM)
What a f***ing tool.  If this was going to happen, it needed to happen way before this.

 

John Kerry= total tool.

How the Hell can you filibuster something when it's not even out of committee? Hell, how can you filibuster a vote in a committee that you're not even on?

 

Actually...you know, I can picture Kerry walking into the Judiciary committee hearings...dangling something shiny in front of Biden, and then spending the next 76 hours doing a 1-man filibuster. Hell, Biden went almost 9 minutes at one point without a question...I'm sure Kerry could destroy that number.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE(Texsox @ Jan 27, 2006 -> 08:07 AM)

Kap, the face of the new Democratic Party

 

BTW, I think they should confirm him, but I really want to see and hear a good old filibuster  :cheers that's entertainment.

Sadly...we don't seem to get the real talk-a-bill-to-death filibusters any more...hey just fail to get 60 votes for cloture and move on to something else. The only time we do get anything like that is when it fits perfectly into Brit Hume's TV schedule.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Jan 27, 2006 -> 01:51 PM)
One of the science writers @ Fox News seems to have been being secretly paid as a "consultant" by Altria, the company formerly known as Philip Morris.  He's used his column to heap scorn on the reports of health effects due to secondhand smoke while under contract with Fox.

How sad that this is considered "democrat" news.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

One of the main guys at the DOJ working on the prosecution in the Abramoff matter is getting a very conveniently timed promotion. This after a few years ago Mr. Bush conveniently removed a prosecutor looking into Mr. Abramoff's dealings on Guam.

 

A couple Democrats are requesting a special prosecutor to look into the Abramoff matter. Given how deeply Congress and the Executive branch wound up involved with that guy, it certainly seems like an ideal case for one.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE(kapkomet @ Jan 27, 2006 -> 04:42 PM)
People were complaining about "non-Dems" being in here, so (most) of those posts are graciously gone, and us "non-Dems" need to stay out of your playroom.

 

Is that better?  :)

My point was much more that most of us haven't gone and mucked up the GOP one, yet mud was still being slung here. I wasn't complaining, just making an observation.

 

I guess it's a good thing I left the Republican NSA joke out of my first post. . .

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE(kapkomet @ Jan 27, 2006 -> 03:42 PM)
People were complaining about "non-Dems" being in here, so (most) of those posts are graciously gone, and us "non-Dems" need to stay out of your playroom.

 

Is that better?  :)

OK.

 

I always figured the "Dems Only/GOP Only" monikers were mild warnings anyway, and only to be optionally followed. Since an initial joke post on the first day I've resisted the temptation to see what the brain trust in the other clubhouse has been talking about, but only because I have no interest.

 

There have been a couple of mini flame wars in the Dem Only thread, which did somewhat mitigate the purpose of having the threads. But everyone taking a deep breath (or a drink) may have worked as well as editing the thread timeline.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Once a thread is started, it is anyones, and I don't want to pout and say that's not what this thread is about, but I will :D

 

I was hoping for an area where each side could go to cool out and maybe offer a release point. I enjoy reading most of the GOP views on this forum, so it isn't like I prefer not to read these posts, but it is nice to share with intelligent, compassionate, courteous, cheerful, beautiful, like minded people instead of GOPerheads.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE(Texsox @ Jan 27, 2006 -> 08:59 PM)
Once a thread is started, it is anyones, and I don't want to pout and say that's not what this thread is about, but I will  :D

 

I was hoping for an area where each side could go to cool out and maybe offer a release point. I enjoy reading most of the GOP views on this forum, so it isn't like I prefer not to read these posts, but it is nice to share with intelligent, compassionate, courteous, cheerful, beautiful, like minded people instead of GOPerheads.

Seriously, I just decided to clean it up, and that way you can have some focus. It's not that I'm pissed and took my toys to go home, and I know there's been some good natured barbs in here, but you're right. The purpose was to go to a place where you could talk like-minded without the interference.

 

/back to you all being on the wrong side of things ( ;) )

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE(kapkomet @ Jan 27, 2006 -> 04:10 PM)
Seriously, I just decided to clean it up, and that way you can have some focus.  It's not that I'm pissed and took my toys to go home, and I know there's been some good natured barbs in here, but you're right.  The purpose was to go to a place where you could talk like-minded without the interference. 

 

/back to you all being on the wrong side of things ( ;) )

 

Is he gone?? If so, then I'll go throw another aborted fetus on the fire and light up a big fatty while somebody else reads aloud from the Collected Writings of Karl Marx.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE(FlaSoxxJim @ Jan 27, 2006 -> 03:34 PM)
Is he gone??  If so, then I'll go throw another aborted fetus on the fire and light up a big fatty while somebody else reads aloud from the Collected Writings of Karl Marx.

 

Whoaaaaaaaaa, wait a cotton picking second here. Kap, you mean you ain't a Democrat? Well hells bells, you fooled me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE(kapkomet @ Jan 27, 2006 -> 03:49 PM)
LMAO.  STOP IT!  You're killing me. :lolhitting

 

Actually let's look at this

 

GOP Gov. Perry: Kap? No Tex? Yes

GOP DeLay: Kap No Tex? Yes

 

Damn, I have to leave, Kap gets to stay. :crying

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE(Texsox @ Jan 27, 2006 -> 01:53 PM)
Actually let's look at this

 

GOP Gov. Perry: Kap? No Tex? Yes

GOP DeLay: Kap No Tex? Yes

 

Damn, I have to leave, Kap gets to stay.  :crying

It's ok Tex...soon Delay will be serving 20 years...and then everything will be ok...your Delay addiction (procrastination?) will be over...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The next time a Republican or a media person misled by RNC talking points tells us how Abramoff infected both parties equally with his slime...Here's where you need to send them.

 

A new and extensive analysis of campaign donations from all of Jack Abramoff’s tribal clients, done by a nonpartisan research firm, shows that a great majority of contributions made by those clients went to Republicans. The analysis undercuts the claim that Abramoff directed sums to Democrats at anywhere near the same rate.

 

The analysis, which was commissioned by The American Prospect and completed on Jan. 25, was done by Dwight L. Morris and Associates, a for-profit firm specializing in campaign finance that has done research for many media outlets.

 

In the weeks since Abramoff confessed to defrauding tribes and enticing public officials with bribes, the question of whether Abramoff directed donations just to Republicans, or to the GOP and Democrats, has been central to efforts by both parties to distance themselves from the unfolding scandal. President Bush recently addressed the question on Fox News, saying: “It seems to me that he [Abramoff] was an equal money dispenser, that he was giving money to people in both political parties.”

 

Although Abramoff hasn’t personally given to any Democrats, Republicans, including officials with the GOP campaign to hold on to the Senate, have seized on the donations of his tribal clients as proof that the saga is a bipartisan scandal. And the controversy recently spread to the media when the ombudsman for The Washington Post, Deborah Howell, ignited a firestorm by wrongly asserting that Abramoff had given to both. She eventually amended her assessment, writing that Abramoff “directed his client Indian tribes to make campaign contributions to members of Congress from both parties.”

 

But the Morris and Associates analysis, which was done exclusively for The Prospect, clearly shows that it’s highly misleading to suggest that the tribes's giving to Dems was in any way comparable to their giving to the GOP. The analysis shows that when Abramoff took on his tribal clients, the majority of them dramatically ratcheted up donations to Republicans. Meanwhile, donations to Democrats from the same clients either dropped, remained largely static or, in two cases, rose by a far smaller percentage than the ones to Republicans did. This pattern suggests that whatever money went to Democrats, rather than having been steered by Abramoff, may have largely been money the tribes would have given anyway.

 

The analysis includes a detailed look at seven of Abramoff’s tribal clients, and a comparison of their giving with that of approximately 170 other tribes. (Abramoff is often said to have had nine tribal clients. But Morris omitted two of the tribes – the Pueblo of Santa Clara, whose donations were virtually nonexistent, and the Tigua Indian Reservation, because it isn’t listed in Federal lobbying files as having a lobbyist and Abramoff worked on contingency. At any rate Santa Clara’s post-Abramoff donations to the GOP were overwhelmingly higher than to Dems, so including them would have added even more to the GOP side of the ledger.)

 

The analysis shows:

 

# in total, the donations of Abramoff’s tribal clients to Democrats dropped by nine percent after they hired him, while their donations to Republicans more than doubled, increasing by 135 percent after they signed him up;

 

# five out of seven of Abramoff’s tribal clients vastly favored Republican candidates over Democratic ones;

 

# four of the seven began giving substantially more to Republicans than Democrats after he took them on;

 

# Abramoff’s clients gave well over twice as much to Republicans than Democrats, while tribes not affiliated with Abramoff gave well over twice as much to Democrats than the GOP -- exactly the reverse pattern.

 

“It’s very hard to see the donations of Abramoff’s clients as a bipartisan greasing of the wheels,” Morris, the firm’s founder and a former investigations editor at the Los Angeles Times, told The Prospect.

 

Bloomberg News published a similar, more limited analysis last month, which relied on a small amount of data also from Morris’ firm.” But that analysis didn't look at all of Abramoff's tribal clients, and didn't provide a detailed year-by-year analysis of their donations or a detailed comparison to other tribal giving. Since then, some observers, such as blogger Kevin Drum, have argued that a comprehensive look at the donations of all of Abramoff’s tribal clients would help shed light on the scandal.

The Dems have plenty of Problems...but Jack Abramoff is theirs, not ours.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...