fossten
Dedicated LVC Member
Alcohol-influenced post...
Gee, I wonder why this is...
- Thread starter fossten
- Start date
Well, at least in a Boodle induced haze, I did get the Dem speakers right...
Shag, you asked about Dem leadership vs Rep leadership in the house - those men I listed were darn good.
And I even gave you a tease of the Newt... Other than the Newt, the Reps have been pretty weak at the top of the house...
Nope you didn't talk about Nancy's speech - it was her lack of persuasion, and that she brought it to vote before she had them locked up - sorry, my error...
And yes, if the Republicans wanted to take action about the things that McCain was blowing the whistle on, they could have easily looked into it, and yes, they could have overrode the Dems on this - they did neither - they didn't even bother to look into it, let alone take it to the floor in some manner.
And why not? The Reps love to drag the Dems through the muck (and the other way around). I think it was because there was plenty of underhanded stuff, on both sides of the aisle.
W. got judicial nominations through - just think we will be stuck with Roberts for another 30 years...
Sorry about the hazy post
Shag, you asked about Dem leadership vs Rep leadership in the house - those men I listed were darn good.
And I even gave you a tease of the Newt... Other than the Newt, the Reps have been pretty weak at the top of the house...
Nope you didn't talk about Nancy's speech - it was her lack of persuasion, and that she brought it to vote before she had them locked up - sorry, my error...
And yes, if the Republicans wanted to take action about the things that McCain was blowing the whistle on, they could have easily looked into it, and yes, they could have overrode the Dems on this - they did neither - they didn't even bother to look into it, let alone take it to the floor in some manner.
And why not? The Reps love to drag the Dems through the muck (and the other way around). I think it was because there was plenty of underhanded stuff, on both sides of the aisle.
W. got judicial nominations through - just think we will be stuck with Roberts for another 30 years...
Sorry about the hazy post
Last edited by a moderator:
fossten
Dedicated LVC Member
Again, the same old bullsh## line...
Utter crap.
Again, rather than blame the Dems for being responsible for this, you include the Republicans for failing to override the Dems blockage of their attempt to investigate?
I must be living in Bizarro World.
1. Democrats create scandal.
2. Republicans try to investigate, fix scandal.
3. Democrats block fix attempt, bury and suppress investigation.
4. Republicans blamed for not succeeding.
5. Democrats get away scot free again due to red herring perpetrated by Obama shill foxpaws.
Unbelievable.
This scandal has Dem fingerprints all over it, and you know it.
You're in abject denial.
There are plenty of scandals that have Dem written all over them...
This one doesn't - this one has POLITICS written all over it...
Equal opportunity, everyone gets a cut of the action, lets go for it across the board, money grabbing politicans.
Heck, I think the FBI is now investigating Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, Lehman Brothers, and American International Group. Good - let's see who is at fault - if it JUST Dems Foss - I will eat my words.
From the Senate Lobbying Database ( cool place - http://soprweb.senate.gov/index.cfm?event=choosefields ), Charlie Black, one of McCain's top aides, his firm made over $820,000 from Mac from 1999 to 2004. McCain's campaign's vice-chair Berman pocketed $1.14 million working for Mae at the lobbying firm Ogilvy Government Relations. Arther B. Culvahouse Jr., who helped John McCain chose Sarah Palin, earned $80,000 from Mae while working with O'Melveny & Myers LLP.
Rick Davis (McCain's campaign MANAGER and he was his campaign manager in 2000) headed the Homeownership Alliance, a lobbying association that included Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, homebuilders and real estate agents. The Alliance opposed the McCain proposal for reform in 2003 and sent their lobbyists in to battle it. Davis went on record in 2003 and insisted that no further reform of the lenders was necessary. I can't find out how much he made from Mae and Mac - but I bet it wasn't pocket change...
All of these men are Republicans...
Just Dems - in your words Foss "Utter Crap"
This one doesn't - this one has POLITICS written all over it...
Equal opportunity, everyone gets a cut of the action, lets go for it across the board, money grabbing politicans.
Heck, I think the FBI is now investigating Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, Lehman Brothers, and American International Group. Good - let's see who is at fault - if it JUST Dems Foss - I will eat my words.
From the Senate Lobbying Database ( cool place - http://soprweb.senate.gov/index.cfm?event=choosefields ), Charlie Black, one of McCain's top aides, his firm made over $820,000 from Mac from 1999 to 2004. McCain's campaign's vice-chair Berman pocketed $1.14 million working for Mae at the lobbying firm Ogilvy Government Relations. Arther B. Culvahouse Jr., who helped John McCain chose Sarah Palin, earned $80,000 from Mae while working with O'Melveny & Myers LLP.
Rick Davis (McCain's campaign MANAGER and he was his campaign manager in 2000) headed the Homeownership Alliance, a lobbying association that included Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, homebuilders and real estate agents. The Alliance opposed the McCain proposal for reform in 2003 and sent their lobbyists in to battle it. Davis went on record in 2003 and insisted that no further reform of the lenders was necessary. I can't find out how much he made from Mae and Mac - but I bet it wasn't pocket change...
All of these men are Republicans...
Just Dems - in your words Foss "Utter Crap"
fossten
Dedicated LVC Member
More red herrings...I wasn't referring to people "earning" money by "working" for Fannie/Freddie. I was referring to the Democrat POLICIES that caused this mess. But since you mention it, where is Frank Raines and Jamie Gorelick today?
History shows otherwise. The Dems from 2000 tp 2006 were notoriously obstructionist. Bush couldn't get any judicial nomination through unless the Dems agreed to allow a vote on it.
Again, the Dems had to agree to allow a vote on this...
fossten
Dedicated LVC Member
Yes, what a tragedy...
Darn him and his view that the Constitution should be interpreted instead of rewritten!
Frank Raines and Jamie Gorelick are up to their necks in this mess too... And working for the Obama campaign.
I never said that Dems weren't a part of this - they are, and I bet, when the fur stops flying, there probably will be as many Dems involved as Reps.
And, suddenly it is not about 'people' but 'policy'? Heck, if it weren't for 'people' misusing the system we wouldn't need 'policy'. Is it because now you see that there are Republicans just as deep in this bunch of crap as their counterparts that you have changed it to 'policy' Foss?
Why are we talking justices - oh well... maybe I should have screamed out some point of debate... what is it? Non sequitor, red herring, run away, run away (abduco, abduco)?
Supreme Court nominations that go through a 'friendly' congress usually have to be 'agreed' to by the minority party... Look at Clinton's 2 picks - both went through the same process.
I never said that Dems weren't a part of this - they are, and I bet, when the fur stops flying, there probably will be as many Dems involved as Reps.
And, suddenly it is not about 'people' but 'policy'? Heck, if it weren't for 'people' misusing the system we wouldn't need 'policy'. Is it because now you see that there are Republicans just as deep in this bunch of crap as their counterparts that you have changed it to 'policy' Foss?
Why are we talking justices - oh well... maybe I should have screamed out some point of debate... what is it? Non sequitor, red herring, run away, run away (abduco, abduco)?
Supreme Court nominations that go through a 'friendly' congress usually have to be 'agreed' to by the minority party... Look at Clinton's 2 picks - both went through the same process.
fossten
Dedicated LVC Member
Are you kidding? Go back and look at the vote count and the transcripts of the hearings, and then compare Clinton's to those of Bork, Thomas, Roberts, and Alito. And then STFU.
I doubt there will be anywhere near as many (if any) republicans involved as democrats.
If it wasn't an accurate "scream" of some "point of debate" you would come across as a fool. Considering the fact that it is a very accurate example to my point and the argument I am making is valid, I would be suprised if you tried that tactic...
Did I say "Supreme Court nominations"? I thought I was only talking about judicial nominations. News to me.
Ever hear of Miguel Estrada?
fossten
Dedicated LVC Member
Sorry for drowning out your arguments with facts.
I am not allowed to talk...per foss... Sorry shag...
fossten
Dedicated LVC Member
Don't be silly. Didn't you see the smilie by my STFU?Does this mean I get to play again
)