Typical Democrat hypocricy

“Typical free for all with politicians playing games to gain an edge with the voters. The Democrats are full of hypocrites... they are prolly the second slimiest major political party in the US.

Andy Rooney annoys the heck of me, but I think he is right that about the US error in starting a war without broader international support and approval.”

“Dean's statement bugs me because it seems that he is pandering to a group that HE sees as divisive.

Andy Rooney is a jerk, but let's face it: If the Bush administration put more emphasis on statesmanship and less on bullying, we might be sharing the costs of Iraq more.”

“Senator Zell Miller was on Meet The Press this morning. They were talking about his book, A National Party No More: The Conscience of a Conservative Democrat.

Interesting stuff. Anyone see it?”

“"Liberal-left activist groups with pretty names like the People
for the American Way, the American Civil Liberties Union, and
the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People
all understand that much of what they want cannot be enacted
into law by legislators who have to face the voters at the next
election. It can only be enacted into law from the judicial
bench by judges with lifetime jobs, pretending to 'interpret'
the law when in fact they are creating law. Judges who oppose
having courts engaging in social engineering are likely to find
their own nominations opposed by liberal special interest groups,
whether their names are Robert Bork, Clarence Thomas or Janice
Rogers Brown. And, since the real reasons for opposition to
such judges cannot be admitted publicly, phony reasons have to
be concocted --and repeated endlessly through the media until
they become 'well-known facts.'....The character assassins have
perfected their art over the years --the dramatic demonstrations
staged for the media, the damning charges, the strident rhetoric,
the sly innuendo. The question is whether the administration
that nominates people for judicial appointments is similarly
skilled and similarly dedicated to defending them in the arena
of public opinion....Is there any game plan in the White House or
the Justice Department to get the truth out about Justice Janice
Rogers Brown or will the lies have a field day? If there is a plan,
there is still no sign of it at this eleventh hour. --Thomas Sowell”

“I used to think Rooney had ONE speck of sense. What a dumb#&%!$.”

“And you illiterates still can't figure out that the word you were trying to spell is 'Democratic'.

'Democrat' is a NOUN.

'Democratic' is an ADJECTIVE.

JESUS, get a clue.




(and 'hypocricy' is spelled with an S)”

“what do you think of thomas sowell, tilt?”

“White is the presence of all color-black is the lack of color.NAALCP???”

“"I said then as I say now: Bill Clinton's inability to understand
what was fueling the rise of bin Laden as a phenomenon --
not as an individual -- was the greatest U.S. foreign-policy
failure of the last half-century. It has affected hundreds of
millions worldwide. Even if we get him now, who will be the
next bin Laden? There are many willing candidates standing in
line. Islamic radicalism exists today because Clinton didn't
dismantle al-Qa'ida when he had the chance." -- Mansoor Ijaz,
former Clinton administration Middle East liaison”

“"This is a sad day for the women of America." --Sen. Barbara
Boxer on the upper chamber's overwhelming vote to ban her veloved
partial-birth abortions”

“"We can't win if people think we're too liberal. But we can't
get our own folks out if people think we have no convictions. So
the trick is to get them both." --Bill Clinton”

“I think all colors combined produces white if you're discussing light, but pigmentation is a subtraction process... so then all colors combined produce black.


What's 'L'?”

“Democrats Mull Politicizing Iraq War Intelligence
Wednesday, November 05, 2003

WASHINGTON — Fox News has obtained a document believed to have been written by the Democratic staff of the Senate Intelligence Committee (search) that outlines a strategy for exposing what it calls "the administration's dubious motives" in the lead-up to the war in Iraq.

The memo, provided late Tuesday by a source on the Committee and reported by Fox News' Sean Hannity, discusses the timing of a possible investigation into pre-war Iraq (search) intelligence in such a way that it could bring maximum embarrassment to President Bush in his re-election campaign.
Among other things, the memo recommends that Democrats "prepare to launch an investigation when it becomes clear we have exhausted the opportunity to usefully collaborate with the [Senate] majority. We can pull the trigger on an independent investigation of the administration's use of intelligence at any time — but we can only do so once ... the best time would probably be next year."
The last paragraph of the memo reads, "Intelligence issues are clearly secondary to the public's concern regarding the insurgency in Iraq."
Committee Chairman Pat Roberts (search), R-Kan., appeared clearly shocked by the memo, which Sen. Jay Rockefeller (search), D-W. Va., ranking member on the Intelligence Committee, acknowledged was written in draft form and not meant for distribution.
Roberts said Tuesday a leaked strategy memo from Rockefeller's staff "exposes politics in its most raw form."
The memo discusses strategy for "revealing the misleading, if not flagrantly dishonest, methods and motives of senior administration officials who made the case for unilateral pre-emptive war." It discussed how Democrats could press for an independent investigation that has already been
rejected by the Republican-led Congress or launch their own investigation.
In a statement, Roberts said that the memo "appears to be a road map for how the Democrats intend to politicize what should be a bipartisan, objective review of prewar intelligence."
Rockefeller did not say who wrote the memo.
"The draft memo was not approved nor was it shared with any member of the Senate Intelligence Committee or anyone else," he said. "It was likely taken from a waste basket or through unauthorized computer access."
Rockefeller added, "The memo clearly reflects staff frustration with the conduct of the Senate Intelligence Committee investigation and the difficulties of obtaining information from the administration."
Roberts said he believes the strategy outlined in the memo may constitute a violation of Senate ethics rules, an issue he may pursue with the ethics committee

"I have no idea how this became public. I am a little stunned. You can't politicize the Intelligence Committee. The memo is blatantly partisan. Members of the committee on the Republican side are frustrated, outraged and indignant. I hope we can get past this," Roberts said.
While the memo does not appear to be written as a straight political strategy piece, the memo does suggest using Roberts, who is described as helpful and willing to make concessions to Democrats. The memo advises continuing to seek favors from Roberts until and as long as it is useful.
Despite the memo's backhanded praise of Roberts, Rockefeller said Democrats are frustrated with the cooperation they are receiving from the chairman.
"Exploring or asserting the rights of the minority under the intelligence committee rules in no way amounts to politicizing intelligence. The American people deserve a full accounting of why we sent our sons and daughters into war," he said.
Members of the Senate Intelligence Committee have complained about the slowness of the Bush administration to provide requested materials and set last Friday as the response deadline. The senators said three federal agencies have complied with their request. But the White House, while saying it would work with the committee, has not agreed to comply.
On Sunday, Roberts announced during a televised interview that the White House had agreed to supply the requested documents and the interviews.
"I probably spoke too hastily," Roberts said Tuesday. "When you are dealing with the White House, they want to make sure they are not getting into a precedent in regard to various documents used by the executive."
He said a White House official, whom he declined to identify, left him with the impression last weekend the material would be provided. Asked if there was further communication after his remarks Sunday, he said, "Yeah -- in the Monday Washington Post."
He said White House comments in the newspaper distancing it from Roberts' statements "prompted meaningful dialogue between me and the White House."
But he said he was satisfied with the outcome of the conversations. "I think we'll have a positive relationship, and I think the documents will be provided. And the interviews," he said.
Rockefeller wasn't as confident.
"It's very hard for me to come to believe that the White House is going to cooperate on things which potentially could put them in a different light," he said, speaking separately to reporters.
Rockefeller said if the committee doesn't receive the material it seeks, the leaders will call the department heads, "and the next step after that one considers very, very carefully the subpoena option."
"This is not a game," he said. "This is a question of how did we get into this war."
Roberts said subpoenas would be a last resort. "I think we can work this out without any subpoenas," he said.
Fox News' Brian Wilson and The Associated Press contributed to this report.”

“Cool.

Draft the subpoenas. Start interviwing for a Special Prosecutor.”

“And I'm sure that didn't happen when the Repubs were going against Clinton.......



Can't have it both ways, fellas!”

“I thought the democrats supported diversity?

I thought Republicans were the one’s who bow down to the dollar?

I thought democrats were for the people and not for special interest groups?

http://washingtontimes.com/national/20031115-121140-2918r.htm

Typical…very typical.”

“I was surprised how I had to do some digging to find this story. Had it been a republican memo it would have been all over the news.”

“Blow it out yer ass >:^O

(cue the fog horn)”

“Come now Tom, at least be relavent to the issue at hand. Or are you dodging?”

“Plenty of hypocrisy going around. Both sides cynically playing the race game and pretending not to.

Republican's shocked and horrified that someone would discuss ethinicity in planning strategies! At least one Democrat doing it and pretending not to.”

“Show me an honest politician and I’ll show you a liar.”

“Nigal, I'm sorry to be flip!

I know you're hurt and stunned :^]”

“Ped, it doesn't surprise me in the least and I'd be an absolute boob to think it doesn't go on with both parties. It's the way liberals go absolutly apeshlt when someone even praises a questionable leader's accomplishment (Trent Lot complimented a good old boy so he must be a racist! Step down!!) but yte something like this barely makes a burp in the media.”

“Did Tom just flip me off?”

“Its a non-issue Nigal.

You read it in the Washington(Moonie) Times, dude!

What Trent Lott said is what I've been hearin' from honkies for forty years.......and its still wrong.

Wait a minute, I'll ask the 58 year old black woman working beside me about Trentboy.”

“Shouldn't Fox news be trumpeting this?

I agree that, on the surface, this appears to be hypocritical and reprehensible.

I'm wondering what the reason is for it not being more widely publicized.”

“Could a quotation with "..." mean it could possibly have been taken out of context?

Have a link to the full memo?


Opposing judicial extremists who also happen to be women or minorities is not racism. Shamelessly playing the race card is.


For the record:

Bush's nominees: 168 of 174 or 96.5%

Clinton's: 248 of 311 or 79.7%

Who are the obstructionists?”

“VioLiN, thank you!

What the Democrats are talking about is the Republicans using Latinos, women and blacks as window dressing to show their "tolerance".”

“Remember Richard Nixon? The guy who crafted the Affirmative Action programs?”

“What a freakin' liberal he was!”

“Tom's got a point. If you look at the current administration, there is a lot of diversity, however, a Republican is a Republican, I don't care what color, creed, or whatnever they are. People have to get past that and understand what these people stand for, not where they came from.

That being said ----

How come THIS hasn't made CNN?

Dear MoveOn member,
>
> This week, Congress will consider final passage of the Bush-Cheney
> energy bill. The bill was developed in secret -- first drafted by a
> Cheney task force whose very participant list was kept secret, even
> from Congress, and now finalized by Republican Senators and House
> members who literally locked Democrats out of the final negotiations.
>
> Democrats and the public have been given just 48 hours to review the
> 1,000-page bill, released Saturday, before voting begins later today.
>
> This is outrageous and simply unacceptable. The last time President
> Bush forced something unknown down our throats like this, we got the
> USA PATRIOT act.[1] Do we want to let him do to the environment and
> our energy supply what he's already done to our constitutional rights?
>
> In the context of recent blackouts and the war in Iraq, all of our
> Senators will be under huge pressure to approve an energy bill, even
> if it doesn't address the key problems, as this one doesn't - see
> below for details. We've got to urge our Senators to stop this bill.

The bill is littered with at least $20 billion in subsidies to the oil,
> gas, coal, and nuclear industries. Although the bill is still being
> analzyed as of this writing, one credible estimate puts the subsidy
> figure at well over $100 billion. [3]
>
> This bill won't solve America's urgent energy problems -- the need to
> reduce our dependence on oil by shifting to renewable energy sources,
> the need to make America's energy supply more reliable, and the need
> to protect all of us who pay utility bills from Enron-style fraud.
> Instead, it will make matters worse in most of these areas.
>
> In recent negotiations, it's also become a vehicle for massive attacks
> on clean air and clean water laws, which would risk our families'
> health and pollute the environment our children will inherit. As Anna
> Aurilio of U.S. PIRG put it, "The big winner is big oil. The big loser
> is anyone who breathes, pays a utility bill or drinks water." [4]
>
> Here are key excerpts from a recent story in the Washington Post [5]:
>
> No Home Runs in Energy Bill
> Little Impact Expected for Imported Oil, Pollution, Power Grid
>
> The energy bill before Congress is a bulky tome of more than 1,000
> pages, with thousands of provisions affecting every corner of the
> country.
>
> But for all its size, industry officials and environmental activists
> of widely divergent viewpoints generally agree that it will have only
> a modest impact on the nation's most pressing energy problems,
> including its reliance on foreign energy supplies, an overburdened
> electricity grid and fuels that pollute the air and may alter the
> atmosphere.
>
> For those who want to deal aggressively with the dangers of climate
> change and air polluted by auto exhausts, power plants and factories,
> the bill is a disappointment.
> ...
>
> ...conservation savings... amount to only about three months of U.S.
> energy consumption between now and 2020, according to a preliminary
> estimate by the American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy.
>
> The bill's GOP authors dropped a Senate-approved plan to require
> large utilities to steadily increase their use of energy from clean,
> renewable sources such as wind and solar power...
>
> The bill does not require improvements in the fuel efficiency of cars
> and trucks, the main guzzlers of gasoline made from imported oil. The
> current 27.5 miles per gallon average for cars could even decrease in
> the next decade because of several provisions in the bill, according
> to some analysts...
> ...
>
> The legislation's most far-reaching feature may be the repeal of the
> 1935 Public Utility Holding Company Act, which limits utility
> industry mergers. The act's repeal is a top priority for the electric
> power industry and the Bush administration, and if the bill passes, a
> wave of mergers and acquisitions could follow...
>
> [End of Washington Post excerpts]
>
> Repeal of the Public Utility Holding Company Act is a big problem.
> Trashing this vital regulation on utilities would worsen the conditions
> that enabled the recent Northeast power blackout. [6]
>
> The bill would also roll back the Clean Air Act, allowing the air we
> breathe to stay polluted, in virtually any area where air pollution is
> a problem. This change would lead to thousands of additional asthma
> attacks, hospitalizations, and emergency room visits nationwide. [7]
>
> And it would threaten our drinking water sources, by letting polluters
> off the hook for contaminating groundwater with pollutants like MTBE,
> and by lifting Safe Drinking Water Act curbs on injecting diesel fuel
> and other chemicals underground during oil and gas development. [8]
>
> These are just a few of the energy bill's worst features. For a
> comprehensive list of problems, based on the latest analysis, see:
>
> http://www.moveon.org/energy-woes.pdf
>
> We've got to urge our Senators to reject this bill. The only way to
> stop it is with a filibuster, the Senate's tactic of last resort to
> stop especially dangerous proposals from becoming law.”

“Is that Rod or Todd?”

““Have a link to the full memo?”

Jumpin’ JesusViola. You cut and paste from some of the most lopsided sites and you want ME to come up with a copy of the memo? Laughable!


“Opposing judicial extremists who also happen to be women or minorities is not racism. Shamelessly playing the race card is.”

They said he was dangerous because he’s a Latino…it wasn’t an afterthought.


“Who are the obstructionists?"

Three years and a frickin’ filibuster to get it to this point. You’re kidding yourself as usual.”

“Of course Q totally flies right over the issue and in stead of addressing the current issue decides to attack republicans. This is as bad as conservatives always saying, "Yeah, but what about CLINTON?".”

“"What the Democrats are talking about is the Republicans using Latinos, women and blacks as window dressing to show their "tolerance"."

So let me get this right...when liberals use diversity it is diversity. When conservatives use it, it's just plain old using minorities and a sham?

Duh, whatnever George.”

“I question the context of this article.

I also question the gist of it, since no other news media has picked it up that I have been able to find.”

“I'd really like to do away with all political parties. I wish that we could vote for the best man/woman based on their record & promises. I'd also like to see campaign promises put down in contract form.”

“Nigal's got a point. If you look at the current administration, there is a lot of diversity!

A Democrat is a Democrat, I don't care what color, creed, or whatnever they are. People have to get past that and understand where they came from, not what these people stand for.




hehehehehe!


Not trying to attack anyone, really. This is the game that is played and this is part of the reason I feel "played out"! My post was to show that cnn had ignored this story. That's interesting to me. It seems like a legit story, I have the links to there refereces.

Both sides need to cut the bullchit and get things done! This recent stalling has grown old.”

“So you don't want to read it in context but have already made up your mind what they meant?

Who's kidding who?”

“I never said that (again, with the trying to read my mind and put words in my mouth...weak). What I said is that it's hillariouse that YOU, the poster of ANYTHING in line with your views, would be so demanding of hard proof.”

“One of the reasons why not everyone is carrying the story may have to do with it being Washington Time's scoop.

"In one memo to Sen. Richard J. Durbin of Illinois obtained by The Washington Times,"”

“Are you at least interested in why the Mexican American Legal Defense and Education Fund, the Southwest Votor Registration and Education Project, the National Council of La Raza, Labor Council for Latin American Advancement, the National Association of Latino Elected and Appointed Officials, the Puerto Rican Legal Defense and Education Fund and the Congressional Hispanic Caucus opposed Estrada's nomination or have serious concerns about his record?


BTW - Although I'm not a registered Democrat, I am married to a Latina so I take particular exception to this crap.”

“"BTW - Although I'm not a registered Democrat, I am married to a Latina so I take particular exception to this crap."

So who's playin' the race card now?”

“Do Democrats hate Latinos?
-- Nigal
08:34:16 AM
11/18/03


Jerk off.”

“That's what we call a question in the English language. And no one answered me did they? Why? And please Violin, let’s not paint yourself to be so nice and innocent. It’s always funny ‘til it hits closer to home ain’t it? What about your thread George Bush Hates veterans? Typical Violin hypocrisy. Does your Latino wife know she’s married to a turd ball hypocrite?”

“I’m so offended that if matt doesn't delete this thread I'll skulk off and badmouth him on every other backpacking board on the internet.”

“The concept is simple.

Republicans like to use minority persons in their party to attract minority voters even though the Repub agenda is anti-minority and anti-working/middle class.

Julius Caesar Watts is an example.

The Governor of Maryland has a black lieutenant governor.
At campaign stops in Baltimore citizens threw Oreo cookies at him.”

“Awe, poor Violin! When I post something like, "Dirty Mexicans deserve to die!". Then you can throw a little hissy fit. 'Til then, quit your hypocrtical whinning.”

“"Republicans like to use minority persons in their party to attract minority voters even though the Repub agenda is anti-minority and anti-working/middle class."

Right Tom, and we know that Demos never do this. Former CA Democratic Governor Gray Davis didn't sign legislation to allow illegal aliens to get drivers licenses because he cared about they way they drive.”