Meet the new boss Same as the old boss [Archive]

View Full Version : Meet the new boss Same as the old boss

UnknownPD

11-19-2006, 03:36 PM

The more things change the more they stay the same<a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2006/11/19/washington/19ethics.html?ex=1164603600&en=14b72ff5290f6bcf&ei =5009&partner=MSN_NYTHOME">http://www.nytimes.com/2006/11/19/washington/19ethics.html?ex=1164603600&en=14b72ff5290f6bcf&ei =5009&partner=MSN_NYTHOME</a> 

This message was edited by UnknownPD on 11-19-06 @ 7:37 PM

FezPaul

11-19-2006, 03:43 PM

Is anyone suprised by this?

DarkHippie

11-19-2006, 03:44 PM

sigh

spoon

11-19-2006, 04:05 PM

The article simply states that the dems are split as to how they want to enact changes and how aggressive they will be.  For one, they are discussing this only a few days after the election with many of them not in the house or senate until 2007.  I for one love to read things like this:"Spurred by the election results, several Democrats in addition to Mr. Obama are pushing bigger changes. Senator Richard J. Durbin of Illinois, the No. 2 Democrat in the Senate, is preparing a proposal for some form of public financing or free broadcast time for Congressional candidates to reduce their dependence on campaign donors. Common Cause says that 21 newly elected Democrats, more than half the class, and 69 incumbents have signed a pledge endorsing the idea."  Try reading the whole article before you form an opinion on it.  There is no way to agree on everything, but something will definitely start to get done.  I can promise you more will get done than if the elections wen't the other way.  Having no hope in the future is so defeatist.  "If there is hope in the future, there is power in the present."  John MaxwellI believe those words and so should you.  

This message was edited by spoon on 11-19-06 @ 8:05 PM

spoon

11-19-2006, 04:09 PM

The article simply states that the dems are split as to how they want to enact changes and how aggressive they will be.  For one, they are discussing this only a few days after the election with many of them not in the house or senate until 2007.  I for one love to read things like this:"Spurred by the election results, several Democrats in addition to Mr. Obama are pushing bigger changes. Senator Richard J. Durbin of Illinois, the No. 2 Democrat in the Senate, is preparing a proposal for some form of public financing or free broadcast time for Congressional candidates to reduce their dependence on campaign donors. Common Cause says that 21 newly elected Democrats, more than half the class, and 69 incumbents have signed a pledge endorsing the idea."Try reading the whole article before you form an opinion on it.  There is no way to agree on everything, but something will definitely start to get done.  I can promise you more will get done than if the elections wen't the other way.  Having no hope in the future is so defeatist.  "If there is hope in the future, there is power in the present."  John MaxwellI believe those words and so should you.

UnknownPD

11-19-2006, 04:11 PM

spoon wrote: The article simply states that the dems are split as to how they want to enact changes and how aggressive they will be.  For one, they are discussing this only a few days after the election with many of them not in the house or senate until 2007.  I for one love to read things like this:"Spurred by the election results, several Democrats in addition to Mr. Obama are pushing bigger changes. Senator Richard J. Durbin of Illinois, the No. 2 Democrat in the Senate, is preparing a proposal for some form of public financing or free broadcast time for Congressional candidates to reduce their dependence on campaign donors. Common Cause says that 21 newly elected Democrats, more than half the class, and 69 incumbents have signed a pledge endorsing the idea."  Try reading the whole article before you form an opinion on it.  There is no way to agree on everything, but something will definitely start to get done.  I can promise you more will get done than if the elections wen't the other way.  Having no hope in the future is so defeatist.  "If there is hope in the future, there is power in the present."  John MaxwellI believe those words and so should you.  This message was edited by spoon on 11-19-06 @ 8:05 PM Wow...two weeks after the election and your already having to make the "I can promise you more will get done than if the elections wen't the other way." excuses. The reality is politicians are politicians no matter what party they're in.

HBox

11-19-2006, 04:19 PM

UnknownPD wrote: spoon wrote: The article simply states that the dems are split as to how they want to enact changes and how aggressive they will be. For one, they are discussing this only a few days after the election with many of them not in the house or senate until 2007. I for one love to read things like this:"Spurred by the election results, several Democrats in addition to Mr. Obama are pushing bigger changes. Senator Richard J. Durbin of Illinois, the No. 2 Democrat in the Senate, is preparing a proposal for some form of public financing or free broadcast time for Congressional candidates to reduce their dependence on campaign donors. Common Cause says that 21 newly elected Democrats, more than half the class, and 69 incumbents have signed a pledge endorsing the idea." Try reading the whole article before you form an opinion on it. There is no way to agree on everything, but something will definitely start to get done. I can promise you more will get done than if the elections wen't the other way. Having no hope in the future is so defeatist. "If there is hope in the future, there is power in the present." John MaxwellI believe those words and so should you. This message was edited by spoon on 11-19-06 @ 8:05 PM Wow...two weeks after the election and your already having to make the "I can promise you more will get done than if the elections wen't the other way." excuses. The reality is politicians are politicians no matter what party they're in.  Says the guy indicting the new party before they've done anything, before they've even entered office.

spoon

11-19-2006, 04:37 PM

HBox wrote: UnknownPD wrote: spoon wrote: The article simply states that the dems are split as to how they want to enact changes and how aggressive they will be. For one, they are discussing this only a few days after the election with many of them not in the house or senate until 2007. I for one love to read things like this:"Spurred by the election results, several Democrats in addition to Mr. Obama are pushing bigger changes. Senator Richard J. Durbin of Illinois, the No. 2 Democrat in the Senate, is preparing a proposal for some form of public financing or free broadcast time for Congressional candidates to reduce their dependence on campaign donors. Common Cause says that 21 newly elected Democrats, more than half the class, and 69 incumbents have signed a pledge endorsing the idea." Try reading the whole article before you form an opinion on it. There is no way to agree on everything, but something will definitely start to get done. I can promise you more will get done than if the elections wen't the other way. Having no hope in the future is so defeatist. "If there is hope in the future, there is power in the present." John MaxwellI believe those words and so should you. This message was edited by spoon on 11-19-06 @ 8:05 PM Wow...two weeks after the election and your already having to make the "I can promise you more will get done than if the elections wen't the other way." excuses. The reality is politicians are politicians no matter what party they're in.  Says the guy indicting the new party before they've done anything, before they've even entered office. And how on top of it are you!  Politicians are politicians, wow!  How prophetic!  They have over a month until they can do anything, so way to make a point holy shit.  If they fail to do things they've pledged I dump on them as much as the next guy if it's their fault.  But if Bush uses his veto pen for the second time ever then who's to blame??

HeyGuy

11-19-2006, 05:12 PM

spoon wrote: The article simply states that the dems are split as to how they want to enact changes and how aggressive they will be.  For one, they are discussing this only a few days after the election with many of them not in the house or senate until 2007.  I for one love to read things like this:"Spurred by the election results, several Democrats in addition to Mr. Obama are pushing bigger changes. Senator Richard J. Durbin of Illinois, the No. 2 Democrat in the Senate, is preparing a proposal for some form of public financing or free broadcast time for Congressional candidates to reduce their dependence on campaign donors. Common Cause says that 21 newly elected Democrats, more than half the class, and 69 incumbents have signed a pledge endorsing the idea."Try reading the whole article before you form an opinion on it.  There is no way to agree on everything, but something will definitely start to get done.  I can promise you more will get done than if the elections wen't the other way.  Having no hope in the future is so defeatist.  "If there is hope in the future, there is power in the present."  John MaxwellI believe those words and so should you.  Spoon no reason to even explain this. Remember what I told you after the poker party? The faux news crowd will never ever give the dems a chance because their ideas of what the dems stand for. Do I think there is corruption in both parties? Without a doubt but I do believe that dems care more about making everything level for most americans were the republicans are out for themselves and the top tier americans

johnniewalker

11-19-2006, 05:19 PM

There has been quite a lot of criticism of Pelosi openly picking Murtha, and a lot of these articles have been a skeptical byproduct of that.  Why she would pick such a divisive person as Murtha is a legitimate question, but I think like most its probably too soon for criticism.

whiskyriver

11-19-2006, 05:21 PM

both the dems and the republicans are the same realy.the far left and the far
right are light years apart,but the majority in both camps are in the middle and
their ideas and policy are pretty close.

don't get me wrong, i voted this year and i'd like to think the people i voted for
will make a differance,but truth be told they won't.

the congress will make their 6 figure incomes,plus alot of perks.we will get up 5
or more days a week,go to our jobs,pay the bills,go out and blow off some
steam,and if we are lucky save a little for old age.

remember all the assholes we couldn't stand in high school??

thats who we send to washington............

HeyGuy

11-19-2006, 05:24 PM

johnniewalker wrote: There has been quite a lot of criticism of Pelosi openly picking Murtha, and a lot of these articles have been a skeptical byproduct of that.  Why she would pick such a divisive person as Murtha is a legitimate question, but I think like most its probably too soon for criticism. I agree with you. The dems do want to clean up the senate, the house and the white house but Murtha hasnt met an earmark he doesnt like. That was a bad pick but I do like Pelosi and think over all she will do a good job. Just give her a chance she hasnt really started yet.

WRESTLINGFAN

11-21-2006, 04:52 AM

Campo wrote: johnniewalker wrote: There has been quite a lot of criticism of Pelosi openly picking Murtha, and a lot of these articles have been a skeptical byproduct of that.  Why she would pick such a divisive person as Murtha is a legitimate question, but I think like most its probably too soon for criticism. I agree with you. The dems do want to clean up the senate, the house and the white house but Murtha hasnt met an earmark he doesnt like. That was a bad pick but I do like Pelosi and think over all she will do a good job. Just give her a chance she hasnt really started yet.Oh yea Pelosi is really off to a great start. She said she was going to bring ethics back to the hill. Then why the hell is she selecting Alcee Hastings, an impeached Judge who took a $150,000 bribe to head the committee on intelligence? With his impeachment he probably would never pass a background check in the civilian world. Nice goin Pelosi you dumbass

ThePointer

11-21-2006, 05:17 AM

Campo wrote: spoon wrote: Do I think there is corruption in both parties? Without a doubt but I do believe that dems care more about making everything level for most americans were the republicans are out for themselves and the top tier americansCampo   to disuade your belief  I present to you the NY State Assembly  led by the  in thr pocket of Cablevision and ambulance chasers speaker  Sheldon Silver.  that is why I refuse to register with a party.  I want no aid going to either one from the state until they get the people's needs first

FUNKMAN

11-21-2006, 05:32 AM

like i said in the voting thread, it doesn't matter who is in power...   kind of getting my meaning now?your vote meant nothing NOTHING NOTHING NOTHING!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!<img src="http://www.highwaygirl.com/hwg/images/laughing_cow.jpg" border="0" width="410" height="347" />

boeman

11-21-2006, 09:16 AM

It doesn't matter what choices any politician makes, someone will always find a reason to call it a huge mistake, or go as far as calling it a scandal. At this point, the only priority politicians have in office is to align themselves as closely as possible with their core group of voters without completely disorienting the rest of their voter base.  Since the country has become comfortable with the system the way it is and is afraid that something worse could come out of a complete shake up, we just have to live with it. A change of majority part is probably the closest any of us will see to a shakeup in the federal government in any of our lifetimes.

ralphbxny

11-21-2006, 11:33 AM

They stink and I dont like them!

UnknownPD

11-30-2006, 12:33 PM

more of the same...<a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/11/29/AR2006112901317_pf.html">http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/11/29/AR2006112901317_pf.html</a>

Yerdaddy

11-30-2006, 01:20 PM

UnknownPD wrote: more of the same...<a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/11/29/AR2006112901317_pf.html">http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/11/29/AR2006112901317_pf.html</a> The 9-11 Commission Report was great at getting the facts and telling the story of what did and didn't happen in the carrying out of the attacks. The second part however, the reccommendations about what to do now, were not so good. They were oversimplifications of problems and they assumed that the work of the numerous intelligence was to stop another similar attack - ignoring all the other functions of the agencies. The press, the pundits, and the commission members themselves seem to have missed or forgotten these very important points. There's a shitload more work that needs to be done before you go reorganizing Congress and the rest of the intelligence community on the basis of one commission. <a href="http://rds.yahoo.com/_ylt=A0oGkjaaVW9FCUoAP2JXNyoA;_ylu=X3oDMTE3dXE0dHJ jBGNvbG8DdwRsA1dTMQRwb3MDMQRzZWMDc3IEdnRpZANGNjY1X zExNQ--/SIG=121l0ad8d/EXP=1165010714/**http://www.cfr.org/publication.html?id=7229" target="_blank">Cordesman explains this much better than me.</a>The dems can be blamed for campaigning on implimenting the reccommendations in their entirety and as published, but then, if that's the only way the public understands them, what else can a politician do? What we've seen from the republicans in Congress and the administration do to this point is much of the opposite of the Commission reccommendations - appointing a partisan hack, Porter Goss, against even republican opposition and shifting whole areas of intelligence responsibilities over to the Pentagon, concentrating it's power and limiting oversight, for example. If they say they're going to hold hearings before implimenting these things I'm extremely relieved.

HBox

12-01-2006, 04:20 PM

UnknownPD

12-01-2006, 05:09 PM

HBox wrote: UnknownPD wrote: more of the same...<a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/11/29/AR2006112901317_pf.html">http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/11/29/AR2006112901317_pf.html</a> Even though they aren't even in power yet, let still indict the new party for things they are thinking they might wait before doing or maybe not at all or maybe they will do it right away because things are not set in stone but maybe they won't but maybe they will. Let's kill them anyway. Because specualtion always turns out to be true.Oh yea Pelosi is really off to a great start. She said she was going to bring ethics back to the hill. Then why the hell is she selecting Alcee Hastings, an impeached Judge who took a $150,000 bribe to head the committee on intelligence? With his impeachment he probably would never pass a background check in the civilian world. Nice goin Pelosi you dumbass Like that.The story I posted clearly says Pelosi passed over Hastings. The highlighted words are not mine. Would appreciate that being clear.