|
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 186 responses total. |
happyboy
|
|
response 150 of 186:
| 
Jan 27 22:00 UTC 2006 |
"GM-- We're NUMBER TWO!"
|
tod
|
|
response 151 of 186:
|
Jan 28 01:10 UTC 2006 |
"My EMPIRE is CRUMBLING!!"
|
johnnie
|
|
response 152 of 186:
|
Jan 28 04:30 UTC 2006 |
Going back about 20 years (at which point I got tired of Googling), I'm
seeing about 30 investigations of Dems and about 25 of Republicans. A
more telling point, however, is that after Newt got nailed several
times, the committee banned complaints by outside groups, and since that
point leaders of both parties have "strongly discouraged" their members
from filing complaints against each other. The committee has been
completely dead since last spring, with Democrats refusing to
participate in protest of what they see as Republican attempts to neuter
what's left of the committee.
|
fitz
|
|
response 153 of 186:
|
Jan 28 11:00 UTC 2006 |
I forgot to mentioni one additional limitation to the online report from the
House Committee on Standards and Conduct: It is only updated after the end
of each Session. Hence there might be a few cases that were disposed of and
not in the cummulative report yet.
Johnny's numbers in #152 were what I would have expected, but I found quite
a different number. Did you exclude repeat offenders?
|
johnnie
|
|
response 154 of 186:
|
Jan 30 21:30 UTC 2006 |
No. There were multiples of Gingrich, a few of DeLay, a couple/few of a
Dem from Ohio, maybe one or two others. I wonder, too, if the list
would include members who resigned in disgrace or lost an election
before an investigation got under way (and I have no idea how many that
would be).
|
fitz
|
|
response 155 of 186:
|
Jan 31 12:40 UTC 2006 |
OK. Then our totals would be different because of different criteria. It
should be noted that swelling the Republican naughtiness by counting
Gingrich's separate investigations would sometimes increase the total of
democrats who had a single investigation of multiple allegations.
|
johnnie
|
|
response 156 of 186:
|
Jan 31 13:48 UTC 2006 |
Certainly. We could break the numbers down a hundred different ways.
The only firm-ish conclusion we can probably all agree on is that
Congress doesn't do a very good job of policing itself.
|
crimson
|
|
response 157 of 186:
|
Jan 31 15:37 UTC 2006 |
Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
|
twenex
|
|
response 158 of 186:
|
Jan 31 15:45 UTC 2006 |
Indeed.
|
albaugh
|
|
response 159 of 186:
|
Jan 31 17:53 UTC 2006 |
Date: Tue, 31 Jan 2006 11:10:24 -0500
From: CNN Breaking News <BreakingNews@MAIL.CNN.COM>
-- U.S. Senate votes to confirm Judge Samuel Alito
as the 110th Supreme Court justice
|
nharmon
|
|
response 160 of 186:
|
Jan 31 18:54 UTC 2006 |
Break out the cheeseballs to go with all of the congressional whining
we're about to endure.
|
happyboy
|
|
response 161 of 186:
|
Jan 31 19:51 UTC 2006 |
bye bye checks and balances...
hello unitary executive.
tic toc tic toc
|
gull
|
|
response 162 of 186:
|
Feb 1 08:44 UTC 2006 |
Lawmakers in five states have proposed abortion bans, presumably hoping
the new Supreme Court will uphold them.
|
klg
|
|
response 163 of 186:
|
Feb 1 12:00 UTC 2006 |
You are surprised at that?? It is likely that at least one "lawmaker"
in all 50 states has proposed an abortion ban. They can propose
whatever they want. The problem is getting the legislatures to pass
them. Proposing is a long way from enacting, let alone having them
upheld by the Supreme Court.
Another problem is that if an "abortion ban" goes through, the
Republicans will probably suffer large scale defeat.
|
twenex
|
|
response 164 of 186:
|
Feb 1 12:43 UTC 2006 |
Diddums.
|
nharmon
|
|
response 165 of 186:
|
Feb 1 12:48 UTC 2006 |
Never underestimate the power of the religious right. That being said, I
expect to see abortion become more restricted, but not banned outright.
|
tod
|
|
response 166 of 186:
|
Feb 1 17:03 UTC 2006 |
I thought it was cool that GW mentioned cloning, abortion, and faith based
initiatives in the SOTUA yesterday. I don't want to see any of you
non-Christians causing any of us trouble, ya hear?!
|
nharmon
|
|
response 167 of 186:
|
Feb 1 17:11 UTC 2006 |
Is it okay for us Christians to cause you trouble?
|
tod
|
|
response 168 of 186:
|
Feb 1 17:54 UTC 2006 |
Like Christians are organized when you get past the Jew idol worship and
capitalist holidays? There are so many different denominations that the only
thing Christian about this country is the use of the monicker when it wants
to justify itself for pissing on the Constitution.
|
twenex
|
|
response 169 of 186:
|
Feb 1 17:57 UTC 2006 |
Smirk.
|
nharmon
|
|
response 170 of 186:
|
Feb 1 18:34 UTC 2006 |
Is that a yes? :)
|
bru
|
|
response 171 of 186:
|
Feb 2 06:37 UTC 2006 |
You got it wrong, its the liberals who piss on the constitution.
|
jadecat
|
|
response 172 of 186:
|
Feb 2 14:15 UTC 2006 |
What?!
|
twenex
|
|
response 173 of 186:
|
Feb 2 14:26 UTC 2006 |
<twenex is rolling on the floor laughing> Good one, bruce!
|
nharmon
|
|
response 174 of 186:
|
Feb 2 16:04 UTC 2006 |
Its true.
|