|
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 186 responses total. |
bru
|
|
response 126 of 186:
| 
Jan 26 05:10 UTC 2006 |
Ginsberg had 96 yes votes. so not unanimous, but a pretty hefty
bipartisan vote.
|
johnnie
|
|
response 127 of 186:
|
Jan 26 11:54 UTC 2006 |
But, of course, while Alito is waaaaaaayyyyy over to the right, Ginsberg
was just a shade left of center. Heck, she was recommended to Clinton
by Senator Hatch.
|
tod
|
|
response 128 of 186:
|
Jan 26 12:56 UTC 2006 |
re #125
No doubt
|
bhelliom
|
|
response 129 of 186:
|
Jan 26 14:59 UTC 2006 |
I'm envisioning a suited male or woman appearing at my door following
confirmation, prepared to take my uterus into custody.
|
tod
|
|
response 130 of 186:
|
Jan 26 17:22 UTC 2006 |
"Where was your uterus on the night of the 7th, Ma'am?"
|
klg
|
|
response 131 of 186:
|
Jan 26 17:24 UTC 2006 |
ture of Corruption Alert -- Culture of Corruption Alert -- Culture of C
For my bud, RW, according to the LA Times in 2003
" . . . At least 17 senators and 11 members of the House have children,
spouses or other close relatives who lobby or work as consultants, most
in Washington, according to lobbyist reports, financial-disclosure
forms and other state and federal records. Many are paid by clients who
count on the related lawmaker for support.
"But Harry Reid is in a class by himself. One of his sons and his son-
in-law lobby in Washington for companies, trade groups and
municipalities seeking Reid's help in the Senate. A second son has
lobbied in Nevada for some of those same interests, and a third has
represented a couple of them as a litigator.
"In the last four years alone, their firms have collected more than $2
million in lobbying fees from special interests that were represented
by the kids and helped by the senator in Washington. . . ."
ption -- Culture of Corruption Alert -- Culture of Corruption Alert -
|
tod
|
|
response 132 of 186:
|
Jan 26 17:30 UTC 2006 |
Congress today announced that the office of President of the United
States of America will be out-sourced to India as of January 13, 2006.
The move is being made to save the President's $400,000 yearly salary,
and also a record $521 billion in deficit expenditures and related overhead
the office has incurred during the last 5 years.
"We believe this is a wise move financially. The cost savings should be
significant," stated Congressman Thomas Reynolds (R-WA). Reynolds, with
the aid of the Government Accounting Office, has studied out-Sourcing of
American jobs extensively. "We cannot expect to remain competitive on
the world stage with the current level of cash outlay," Reynolds noted.
Mr. Bush was informed by email this morning of his termination.
Preparations for the job move have been underway for sometime.
Gurvinder Singh of Indus Teleservices, Mumbai, India, will be assuming the
office of President as of January 13, 2006.
Mr. Singh was born in the United States while his Indian parents were
vacationing at Niagara Falls, thus making him eligible for the
position. He will receive a salary of $320 (USD) a month but with no health
coverage or other benefits.
It is believed that Mr. Singh will be able to handle his job
responsibilities without a support staff. Due to the time difference
between the US and India, he will be working primarily at night, when few
offices of the US Government will be open. "Working nights will allow me to
keep my day job at the American Express call center," stated Mr. Singh in an
exclusive interview. "I am excited about this position.
I always hoped I would be President someday."
A Congressional spokesperson noted that while Mr. Singh may not be
fully aware of all the issues involved in the office of President, this
should not be a problem because Bush was not familiar with the issues either.
Mr. Singh will rely upon a script tree that will enable him to respond
effectively to most topics of concern. Using these canned responses, he can
address common concerns without having to understand the underlying issues
at all.
"We know these scripting tools work," stated the spokesperson.
"President Bush has used them successfully for years." Mr. Singh may have
problems with the Texas
drawl, but lately Bush has abandoned the "down home" persona in his effort
to appear intelligent and on top of the Katrina situation.
Bush will receive health coverage, expenses, and salary until his final
day of employment. Following a two week waiting period, he will be eligible
for $240 a week unemployment for 13 weeks. Unfortunately he will not be
eligible for Medicaid, as his unemployment benefits will exceed the allowed
limit.
Mr. Bush has been provided the out-placement services of Manpower, Inc.
to help him write a resume and prepare for his upcoming job transition.
According to Manpower, Mr. Bush may have difficulties in securing a new
position due to limited practical work experience. A greeter position
at Wal-Mart was suggested due to Bush's extensive experience shaking hands
with a phony smile.
Another possibility is Bush's re-enlistment in the Texas Air National
Guard. His prior records are conspicuously vague but should he choose this
option, he would likely be stationed in Waco, TX for a month, before being
sent to Iraq, a country he has visited. "I've been there, I know all about
Iraq," stated Mr. Bush, who gained invaluable knowledge of the country in a
visit to the Baghdad Airport's terminal and gift shop.
Sources in Baghdad and Falluja say Mr. Bush would receive a warm
reception from local Iraqis. They have asked to be provided with details of
his arrival so that they might arrange an appropriate welcome.
|
mcnally
|
|
response 133 of 186:
|
Jan 26 18:21 UTC 2006 |
re #131:
> "But Harry Reid is in a class by himself. One of his sons and
> his son- in-law lobby in Washington for companies, trade groups
> and municipalities seeking Reid's help in the Senate.
Except for the fact that he has more sons, that doesn't put Reid
in "a class by himself." It puts him in a class with Ted Stevens
and Tom DeLay (and probably, if I knew more about their affairs,
many more politicians from both parties..)
That their corrupt practices may be commonplace doesn't excuse any
one of them, of course.. I'm not sure if that was what klg meant
to imply with his "See! the Democrats do it, too.." interjection.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 134 of 186:
|
Jan 26 18:56 UTC 2006 |
I think that KLG is trying to demonstrate that Republican corruption is OK
because Democrats do it too. That's similar to the Republican excuse for
being so enthusiastic about torturing "enemy combatants": the "enemy" does
it too.
|
marcvh
|
|
response 135 of 186:
|
Jan 26 19:03 UTC 2006 |
Corruption is an inevitable result of one-party rule, no matter whether
the one party is Republican, Democrat, Communist, or whatever. If the
senator from Nevada has done things which are illegal, I'd favor
prosecuting him the same as any other senator of any party who breaks
the law.
|
klg
|
|
response 136 of 186:
|
Jan 26 20:27 UTC 2006 |
No. It was just a rejoinder to my bud RW, who way back in 76(?) gave
us his insightful analysis as to how the Democrats are poised later
this year to reap the benefits of the anti-corruption congressional
vote.
Now, do I have to rebut VH's very strange statement implying that
corruption only results from "one-party rule," whatever in the world
that's supposed to mean in the U.S.?
|
rcurl
|
|
response 137 of 186:
|
Jan 26 20:36 UTC 2006 |
The current most widespread corruption in our government lies with the "one
party" in power, the Republicans.
|
marcvh
|
|
response 138 of 186:
|
Jan 26 20:48 UTC 2006 |
There are some regions of the US where there is, or has been in the
past, what effectively amounts to one-party rule because there is only
one viable party. The old Democratic establishment in Chicago would be
one historical example.
|
mcnally
|
|
response 139 of 186:
|
Jan 26 21:48 UTC 2006 |
re #136:
> Now, do I have to rebut VH's very strange statement implying that
> corruption only results from "one-party rule,"
In my opinion the best way to start would be by getting rid of the
word "only", which was your own addition to his statement and which
changes the meaning of what he said substantially.
|
happyboy
|
|
response 140 of 186:
|
Jan 26 22:36 UTC 2006 |
lol!
|
marcvh
|
|
response 141 of 186:
|
Jan 26 23:15 UTC 2006 |
Re #139: it's OK, I'm willing to let kludge have his strawmen to knock down.
I figure it keeps him out of trouble.
|
klg
|
|
response 142 of 186:
|
Jan 27 02:29 UTC 2006 |
So, MM would say that corruption results only from one party rule and
more than one party rule??? Hard to argue with that one!
ery Interesting -- Very Interesting -- Very Interesting -- Very
Interestin
Heard reported yesterday:
Over the past 30 years, the House Ethics Committee has conducted 70
investigations - 55 on Democrats and 15 on Republicans.
resting -- Very Interesting -- Very Interesting -- Very Interesting --
Ver
|
fitz
|
|
response 143 of 186:
|
Jan 27 13:25 UTC 2006 |
I was suspicious of the numbers in #142 so I spent about 30 minutes
gathering my own statistics and I would say that klg's source and I
substantially agree.
From the _Biographical Directory of the United States Congress_ and the House
Committe on Standards and Conduct, I find
democrats 54
Republicans 14
This number is from 1976 to the present. The number reflects allegations of
individuals only: a few matters brought before the committe were broad
investigations which might or might not have involved members. Duplicate
names were stricken: Gingrich almost made the Democrats as good as angels
all by himself.
I knew that the rhetorical blather about the Republican culture of sleaze
was not a claim that would look good under scrutiny. [That was Sen.
Clinton on MLK Day, wasn't it?]
|
marcvh
|
|
response 144 of 186:
|
Jan 27 15:40 UTC 2006 |
It would be pretty easy to come up with bazillions of possible expalantions
for these numbers other than the obvious conclusion that kludge wants us to
jump to, yup.
|
klg
|
|
response 145 of 186:
|
Jan 27 17:19 UTC 2006 |
Good job. Thank you. I caught the report in passing while in the car,
so didn't catch the details. I did spend some time trying to verify
it, but didn't find anything.
As for VH, the obvious explanation is frequently the correct one
(except if you're a liberal, I suppose).
|
marcvh
|
|
response 146 of 186:
|
Jan 27 17:52 UTC 2006 |
Yup, the obvious explanation of a randomly chosen fact is indeed
frequently the correct one. Conversely, the obvious explanation of
a half-truthful talking point spewed by a partisan hack is rarely
the correct one.
|
klg
|
|
response 147 of 186:
|
Jan 27 19:59 UTC 2006 |
VH: "The gift that keeps on giving."
|
happyboy
|
|
response 148 of 186:
|
Jan 27 20:03 UTC 2006 |
you're gonna get outsourced.
|
tod
|
|
response 149 of 186:
|
Jan 27 20:11 UTC 2006 |
Welcome to MoTown
|
happyboy
|
|
response 150 of 186:
|
Jan 27 22:00 UTC 2006 |
"GM-- We're NUMBER TWO!"
|