BS: Popular opinions of Democrats...

Subject: RE: BS: Popular opinions of Democrats...
From: Donuel
Date: 08 Jul 09 - 10:41 AM

When Republicans don't know what they don't know, they become a national joke. But even tools like Sarah Palin know they can work the system and their personality for a profit...if the timing is right.
Karl Rove saw potential in GWB and was also respondsible for discovering what he thought was a soft Republican woman to counter Hillary Clinton. I belive that even when Karl is right he is wrong.
Sometimes dead wrong.





Key of F


On a cold winter evenin, on a plane bound for nowhere,
I met up with the pit bull; we were both too tired to sleep.
So we took turns a starin out the window at the darkness
til boredom overtook us, and she began to speak.

She said, "Yah, Ive made a life out of readin peoples faces,
And knowin what they wanted by the way they held their eyes.
So if you dont mind my sayin, Ya gotta know who your base is.
For a taste of your Pepsi Ill give you some advice.

So I handed her my soda and she drank down my last swallow.
Then she looked out the window, at the bright midnight.
She saw her kids were sleepin, and her face lost all expression.
She said, some folks don't know nuthin, so its best to go far right.

You got to know when to hold em, know when to scold em,
Know when to walk away and know when to run.
You never count donations when youre sittin at the table.
Therell be time enough for countin when elections done.

Now evry govner knows, that the secret to survivin
Is knowin what to throw away and knowing what to keep.
cause big oil is a winner and tree huggers are losers,
And the best that you can hope for is to put the truth to sleep.

So when she finished speakin, she turned back towards the window,
She typed one last twitter and faded off to sleep.
Now somewhere in the darkness the pit bull, she broke even.
But in her final words there was advice that I could keep.

You got to know when to hold em, know when to scold em,
Know when to walk away and know when to run.
If you can't be a winner you can always be a quitter.
Therell be time enough for winnin when the talk show's done.

You got to know when to hold em, know when to scold em,
Know when to walk away and know when to run.
You never count your money when youre sittin at the table.
Therell be time enough for countin when the talk show's done.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular opinions of Democrats...
From: Amos
Date: 07 Jul 09 - 09:53 AM

Rig often weaves flights of fancy into his facts; it makes their assimilation more pleasant somehow.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular opinions of Democrats...
From: kendall
Date: 07 Jul 09 - 06:51 AM

On what do you base that charge? Are we not pulling out of Iraq?

Subject: RE: BS: Popular opinions of Democrats...
From: artbrooks
Date: 07 Jul 09 - 01:26 AM

Canada? That is the biggest source of US oil imports, after all. No...wait...we might have to keep it. How about Angola?

Subject: RE: BS: Popular opinions of Democrats...
From: Little Hawk
Date: 07 Jul 09 - 12:39 AM

Oh, yes, Rig....that is very possible. I will not be too surprised if it happens. Disappointed all right, but not too surprised.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular opinions of Democrats...
From: Riginslinger
Date: 07 Jul 09 - 12:19 AM

"...when a superpower wants excuses to launch an unprovoked, illegal, and completely unnecessary war against an impoverished and almost helpless country that has a lot of oil.....it will find them."


                   And now that the Democrats are in power, they are looking for just such a country.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular opinions of Democrats...
From: kendall
Date: 06 Jul 09 - 09:21 PM

I dont care how many resolutions congress passed; the whole thing was based on lies and Bush knew it. Period.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular opinions of Democrats...
From: Amos
Date: 06 Jul 09 - 07:54 PM

LEt me add tat while I was aiming my wrath at your argument, PDQ, it was not meant personally. I hope you find it understandable that I find the justification of war a passionate subject for rebuttal. I think it is a despicable recourse of the weak-minded or the profoundly corrupt of soul, in all but the most extenuating circumstances. I think anyone who would use it as a deliberate tool of political adventure is a coward and a poltroon. But I do NOT think these things of you.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular opinions of Democrats...
From: Amos
Date: 06 Jul 09 - 04:54 PM

Tenet should be "Tenent", below.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular opinions of Democrats...
From: Little Hawk
Date: 06 Jul 09 - 04:39 PM

All that proves, pdq, is that when a superpower wants excuses to launch an unprovoked, illegal, and completely unnecessary war against an impoverished and almost helpless country that has a lot of oil.....it will find them. The excuses, I mean.

Adolf Hitler always had excuses for doing stuff like that too. And so has every great power that was bent on committing aggression.

The people who support the aggression are the ones who believe the excuses, and such people are numerous....within the borders of the aggressor country....usually not very numerous elsewhere.

Do you know how many nations have far, far better excuses for making war on the USA? Many, many nations. The reason they don't do it is simple: the weak in this world are not generally so foolish as to start a fight they cannot win. They'll only do it if they reach the point of desperation.

It is the strong, the mighty who launch wars of choice. They do it because they know they can win (in terms of the conventional warfare at least...maybe not in the longer term that follows it). The USA fought a war of choice in Iraq in 2003, not a war that was in any way necessary, good, honest, or just. The USA is an aggressor nation and should be on trial in the World Court for invading Iraq, and should have to get out of that country at once, and pay them billions of dollars in reparations for the damage done and the lives lost.

That was what Dennis Kucinich had in mind, because he's an honest and truthful man. Such a truthful man as Dennis Kucinich has no chance of being elected president in the USA, and is lucky to even be able to stay alive. He's like Don Quixote in the USA...but the corporate windmills he tilts against are very, very real.

Obama's interesting. I think he's a pragmatic man with quite progressive intentions. Being pragmatic, he knows he can only go so far speaking out against past policy and still have any chance of being accepted by the ruling establishment in the USA. He's commanding an imperial nation that sees itself as fully entitled to dominate the world, and he must work within the imperial design. He cannot afford to voice certain truths about that publicly. What I wonder is...does he know them? I think he may. We'll have to wait and see what he does.

*****

The record, by the way, shows that Saddam was more frightened of Iran than of the USA. He wanted to give Iran the impression he had WMDs so that it would serve as a deterrent to an Iranian attack on Iraq.

That is why any smaller power wants WMDs. It wants them to deter larger powers from attacking it. That's quite understandable. If your neighbours were out to get you in the Old West and they were heavily armed, what would you do about it? You'd arm yourself in a similar fashion. If you didn't do so, then you had no hope of protecting yourself...your lack of weapons would be the key to your own destruction. That is why smaller powers want the Bomb. They want it as a deterrent, because the world in general is lawless, just like the Wild West was.

It is lawless because the most powerful (internationally or regionally speaking), such as the USA, Israel, and Russia, simply attack the weaker powers whenever they wish to, however they wish to, whether it's "legal" or not, upon whatever excuse suits them, and they do it because they know that no one can or will stop them from doing it.

That's how bandits behave. Aggressor nations are bandits.

Iraq was promoted by the West AS an aggressor nation when it attacked Iran back in the 80s, and the West helped supply the Iraqis, but Iran won that war anyway. Iraq was no longer useful to the West after that, so Saddam began to become officially "a bad guy" in the western media. His downfall was not far off...and the American ambassador helped hasten it by assuring him in 1991 that the USA would take no sides in a war between Iraq and Kuwait. Clever move! He took the bait, and from that moment on his fate was sealed.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular opinions of Democrats...
From: Amos
Date: 06 Jul 09 - 04:21 PM

Make no mistake, PDQ: no-one here argues that the ultimate removal of the Hussein clan was not a good thing.

That does not justify the wanton deployment of warfaring machinery.

Tenet notwithstanding, it is clear to the world now that Hussein, by his own confessions, was being evasive and duplicitous out of a fear of Iran, not because he was actually hiding WMDs, and a little more intelligent analysis would have made that clear. The poath to war may not be altered in retrospect as an inevitable one when in fact it was falsely painted, rushed, promoted and pushed in every way the demented minds of Rove and company could come up with.l; Tenet was bludgeoned.

Hussein's death toll was unforgiveable and monstrous and I am glad he is gone from power, and even from life. To use that retroactively as a justification for an insensate, inhumane, politically dull-witted and ethically inexcusaBLE war undertaken in profound ignorance of the real dynamics of th land, is inexcusably disingenuous.


A

A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular opinions of Democrats...
From: pdq
Date: 06 Jul 09 - 03:27 PM

{George Tenent was CIA director from JUL 1997 to Jul 2004. Therefore, the intelligence reports used by Congress before the Sept 11 atrocities occurred, as well as the ones which were used to plan the military events in Iraq and Afghanistan were approved by Mr. Tenent, a Democrat and a Clinton appointee.}

Iraq's Weapons of Mass Destruction:

Remarks from former Clinton Appointee George Tenent

Remarks as prepared for delivery by Director of Central Intelligence George J. Tenet at Georgetown University
5 February, 2004 Full Transcript From CIA.GOV web site here Part is shown below

First: Iraq's history. Everyone knew that Iraq had chemical and biological weapons in the 1980s and 1990s. Saddam Hussein used chemical weapons against Iran and his own people on at least 10 different occasions. He launched missiles against Iran, Saudi Arabia, and Israel. And we couldn't forget that in the early 1990s, we saw that Iraq was just a few years way from a nuclear weapon - this was no theoretical program. It turned out that we and the other intelligence services of the world had significantly underestimated his progress. And, finally, we could not forget that Iraq lied repeatedly about its unconventional weapons. So, to conclude before the war that Saddam had no interest in rebuilding his WMD programs, we would have had to ignore his long and brutal history of using them.

Our second stream of information was that the United Nations could not...and Saddam would not...account for all the weapons the Iraqis had: tons of chemical weapons precursors, hundreds of artillery shells and bombs filled with chemical or biological agents.

We did not take this data at face value. We did take it seriously. We worked with the inspectors, giving them leads, helping them fight Saddam's deception strategy of "cheat and retreat."

Over eight years of inspections, Saddam's deceptions and the increasingly restrictive rules of engagement UN inspectors were forced to negotiate with the regime....undermined efforts to disarm him.

To conclude before the war that Saddam had destroyed his existing weapons, we would have had to ignore what the United Nations and allied intelligence said they could not verify.

The third stream of information came after the UN inspectors left Iraq in 1998. We gathered intelligence through human agents, satellite photos, and communications intercepts.

Other foreign intelligence services were clearly focused on Iraq and assisted in the effort. In intercepts of conversations and other transactions, we heard Iraqis seeking to hide prohibited items, worrying about their cover stories, and trying to procure items Iraq was not permitted to have.

Satellite photos showed a pattern of activity designed to conceal movement of material from places where chemical weapons had been stored in the past.

We also saw reconstruction of dual purpose facilities previously used to make biological agents or chemical precursors.
And human sources told us of efforts to acquire and hide materials used in the production of such weapons.
And to come to conclusions before the war other than those we reached, we would have had to ignore all the intelligence gathered from multiple sources after 1998.


{Also, skeptics should have the courage to address the issue of "550 metric tonnes" of Yellow Cake Uranium the the US Depts of Energy and Defense airlifted to Ontario in late 2008. They should also be more indignant about the 1.4 million people listed as Saddam Hussein's lifetime death count.}

Subject: RE: BS: Popular opinions of Democrats...
From: artbrooks
Date: 06 Jul 09 - 01:57 PM

Any discussion of "fact" vs. "opinion" must consider that the facts of the various Congressional and UN votes and of the public opinion polls were seriously skewed by the information coming out of the Whitehouse and from the political appointees who were massaging the intelligence estimates being produced by the CIA, DIA and others to give the desired results. Any "opinion" that the data on the table in 2002-2003 was factual has been, I hope, long since been changed by new facts as they have emerged.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular opinions of Democrats...
From: Amos
Date: 06 Jul 09 - 01:44 PM

Necessary? THousands must die? Civilians must be tortured, children wounded, weddings bombed, babies killed, lives ruined, women maimed and deprived? Strong-bodies American youths sent into death's way or driven into insanity by the hundreds? You dare say all this was NECESSARY? Of all the two-bit horseapple rationalizations and cheap, tawdry misconceived justifications, this abuse of the very concept of necessity is surely the most drooling, cross-eyed blind-bastard piece of upside down irrationality to come down the disgraceful list of stupid human assertions.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular opinions of Democrats...
From: pdq
Date: 06 Jul 09 - 01:29 PM

Anybody who wants to learn the facts about the UN Resolutions concerning the Saddam Hussein period in Iraq can find the actual text for each one at the UN website.

Anyone who wants the learn about the three major military authorizations (Iraq, 1991; Afghanistan, 2001; Iraq, 2002) can find full text versions at the usgov.org/ website. Also shows the House and Senate vote counts with names.

History is always more accurate than news because the "opinion" gets weeded-out and "fact" remains.

In late 2008, even as we were getting ready to elect Obama, polls showed that 58% of the American people recognized the Iraq military actions were necesssary and that they were going as well as could be expected. Essentially, successful.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular opinions of Democrats...
From: Bill D
Date: 06 Jul 09 - 12:22 PM

"Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq "

Yes...to echo and summarize what Amos said: We DID assume the president had information of WMDs. We DO give the president the benefit of the doubt in such matters.

He was either lying or very gullible or had VERY bad information. Most analysts now believe it was a combination of all three, with emphasis on lying in order to have his war, no matter what.

Now....quote some more irrelevant history, and we'll explain it to you.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular opinions of Democrats...
From: Amos
Date: 06 Jul 09 - 12:10 PM

IT's clear, PDQ, that your powers of logical analysis are severely limited. The Administration behind that authorization intelntionally created the image of ongoing danger. The Administration further falsified the actual degree and kind of such danger. The Administration also falsified the status and potential effectiveness of further diplomatic or peaceful means to create the false impression it would not achieve the above purposes; the Administration further pretended that acting pursuant to this joint resolution would be consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, although Saddam was demonstrably uninterested insupporting Al Qeda and was only marginally associated with any terrorist activities.

The blundering, the ignorance of internal dynamics, the rash almost psychotic desire for war, were all earmarks of a really destructive organization under Bush's titular leadership.

As Mister Bush once said about the Constitution, compared to these offenses the resolution you cite ismerely a piece of paper.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular opinions of Democrats...
From: pdq
Date: 06 Jul 09 - 11:17 AM

{another summary of the bill...}

What was that famous Joint Resolution Hillary Voted for?

H.J.RES.114 - Title: To authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against Iraq.
Sponsor: Rep Hastert, J. Dennis [IL-14] (introduced 10/2/2002)
          10/10/2002: Received in the Senate, read twice.
          10/11/2002: Measure laid before Senate by unanimous consent.
          10/11/2002: Passed Senate without amendment and with a preamble by Yea-Nay Vote. 77 - 23.
          10/11/2002: Cleared for White House.
          10/11/2002: Message on Senate action sent to the House.
          10/15/2002: Presented to President.
          10/16/2002: Signed by President.
          10/16/2002: Became Public Law No: 107-243.

What is your definition of the word AUTHORIZE?

Can anyone guess what the meaning of: "To authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against Iraq" actually is?

Hillary Rodham Clinton:

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members, It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons." - October 10, 2002

Subject: RE: BS: Popular opinions of Democrats...
From: John P
Date: 06 Jul 09 - 11:06 AM

all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations,

PDQ, where does Iraq fit into all this? We were talking about whether or not GWB took us into an unnecessary war, not about whether or not Congress authorized him to chase down the terrorists who attacked us on 9/11.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular opinions of Democrats...
From: pdq
Date: 06 Jul 09 - 11:02 AM

{about the authorzation of military action against Saddam Hussein and his thugs}


H. J. Res. 114: 107th Congress
This is a joint resolutions (H.J.Res. or S.J.Res.) in the U.S. Congress. Joint resolutions serve two purposes.First, they are used exactly as bills to enact law, generally for limited matters.Used this way, they must be passed by both the House and Senate and must besigned by the President before becoming law.Joint resolutions...

Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002

H. J. Res. 114 [107th Congress}

To authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against Iraq.

The following summary was written by the Congressional Research Service, a well-respected nonpartisan arm of the Library of Congress. GovTrack did not write and has no control over these summaries.

10/11/2002--Passed Senate without amendment.

Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002 - Expresses support for the President's efforts to: (1) strictly enforce through the United Nations Security Council all relevant Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq; and (2) obtain prompt and decisive action by the Security Council to ensure that Iraq abandons its strategy of delay, evasion, and noncompliance and promptly and strictly complies with all relevant Security Council resolutions.

Authorizes the President to use the U.S. armed forces to: (1) defend U.S. national security against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and (2) enforce all relevant Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq. Directs the President, prior to or as soon as possible (but no later than 48 hours) after exercising such authority, to make available to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President pro tempore of the Senate his determination that: (1) reliance on further diplomatic or peaceful means alone will not achieve the above purposes; and (2) acting pursuant to this joint resolution is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001. Declares that this section is intended to constitute specific statutory authorization for use of the armed forces, consistent with requirements of the War Powers Resolution.

Requires the President to report to Congress at least every 60 days on matters relevant to this resolution.


{the time to talk was express disagreement was then...vote was overwhelming and bi-partisan}}

Subject: RE: BS: Popular opinions of Democrats...
From: Amos
Date: 06 Jul 09 - 10:37 AM

Well, if you and the Bushies use that to justify the invasion of Iraq, PDQ, it is in itself an act of egregious, blundering stupidity.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular opinions of Democrats...
From: pdq
Date: 06 Jul 09 - 10:34 AM

Perhaps somebody would like to read the Joint Resolution of the US House and Senate that was signed into law on 18 SEP 2001.

{excerpt}

This joint resolution may be cited as the `Authorization for Use of Military Force'.

SEC. 2. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.

(a) IN GENERAL- That the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons.


{note: vote in Senate was 98-0...unanimous and bi-partisan}

Subject: RE: BS: Popular opinions of Democrats...
From: John P
Date: 06 Jul 09 - 09:23 AM

DougR, you said: I never said Saddam had any connections to or with Osamato and his merry gang of terrorists.

Then why, exactly, when I accused GWB of starting an unnecessary war, did you say: GWB did not start the war on terrorism, Osama did. ???

Subject: RE: BS: Popular opinions of Democrats...
From: kendall
Date: 06 Jul 09 - 06:29 AM

OOOOOHHH Fight fight!!

Subject: RE: BS: Popular opinions of Democrats...
From: Amos
Date: 05 Jul 09 - 10:11 PM

Bruce:

If you can draw a line in the sand after which conditions are Obama's fault and no longer to be blamed on the Bush administration, then why can't you recover from your own obsession in blaming me for inspiring every brainless post you make?


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular opinions of Democrats...
From: kendall
Date: 05 Jul 09 - 08:40 PM

Teddy Roosevelt failed to get elected as a third party candidate, and it had nothing to do with the other two partys. People are scared to jump the fence. They place their vote like it was a bet instead of a statement of what they want.

Any third party will have to do better than Gus Hall or Ralph Nader to win.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular opinions of Democrats...
From: Riginslinger
Date: 05 Jul 09 - 07:43 AM

"My definition of Democrat is: Republican Lite... They're two sets of scoundrels, and the world would be better off without both of those parties."


                     You're absolutely right, Little Hawk. The US electorate is crying out for a strong third party, but the "big two" are in bed with each other and won't let it happen.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular opinions of Democrats...
From: kendall
Date: 05 Jul 09 - 06:07 AM

It's not all on the right.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular opinions of Democrats...
From: Greg F.
Date: 04 Jul 09 - 09:12 AM

Doug is a good guy, he's just steeped in the Republican party line.

Sorry, Bill - that's a contradiction in terms with what currently passes for "the Party Line", a.k.a. lies & outright bullshit.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular opinions of Democrats...
From: Little Hawk
Date: 03 Jul 09 - 09:56 PM

If you're referring to that famous Japanese yakuza mobster in Tokyo, Doug, his name is not "Osamato", it's "Osamoto". "Kenji Osamoto".

Subject: RE: BS: Popular opinions of Democrats...
From: kendall
Date: 03 Jul 09 - 08:43 PM

Sure, at outrageous cost to we taxpayers. I say the hell with Iraq. They have been killing each other for hundreds of years and no foreign power has ever succeeded in bringing them to heel.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular opinions of Democrats...
From: DougR
Date: 03 Jul 09 - 05:16 PM

Right, Bill D., just as you and Greg F. (an old friend incidentially)are steeped in the liberal POV.

John P.: you either did not read my message, or YOU failed the test and YOU will be forced to repeat first grade.

I never said Saddam had any connections to or with Osamato and his merry gang of terrorists.

It appears though, thanks to GWB, Iraq will, in the future, be a better influence in the Mid-East and it's citizens will enjoy more freedom than they have ever known.

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Popular opinions of Democrats...
From: Bill D
Date: 03 Jul 09 - 11:28 AM

Aw...c'mon, Greg. No need to stoop to insults to disagree with someone. Doug is a good guy, he's just steeped in the Republican partyline.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular opinions of Democrats...
From: Greg F.
Date: 03 Jul 09 - 10:12 AM

Doug has never had any use for facts or the truth. He inhabits some sort of parallel universe.

He's the sort of mindless partisan has made the Republican Party into the laughingstock it currently is- headed by idiotic blowhard media entertainers.

Lincoln and Teddy Roosevelt would be appalled.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular opinions of Democrats...
From: Bill D
Date: 02 Jul 09 - 07:50 PM

"GWB did not cause the current economic crisis....etc...(Barney Frank and Chris Dodd) did."

*grin*...and NOT the deregulation pushed through by your dear old Phil Gramm? Even serious Republican strategists are seeing it now.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular opinions of Democrats...
From: kendall
Date: 02 Jul 09 - 07:45 PM

911 happened on Bush's watch, remember?

This whole deregulation crap started with Ronald (The actor) Raygun.
I know you conservs would love to blame the democrats, but the facts dont support you. Allen Greenspan, among others, stated that this financial crisis is the fault of George W Bush.Arte you going to argue with him?
Bush is and will always be on the bottom with Harding, Grant and Nixon.(All republicans)

Subject: RE: BS: Popular opinions of Democrats...
From: Ebbie
Date: 02 Jul 09 - 07:12 PM

I think I'll copy that off to print it to paste it on my wall. I've been wondering how the Bushites explain to themselves the last eight years.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular opinions of Democrats...
From: John P
Date: 02 Jul 09 - 05:26 PM

Jeez, Doug, you are saying that the invasion of Iraq had something to do with Osama or with the "war" on terror. Sorry, you fail the test.

Are you saying that the Republicans haven't been deregulating everything they could find for years? Letting the greedy members of the financial community do what they want is what brought our economy down. You fail that part of the test as well.

Sorry, we're going to have to hold you back a grade.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular opinions of Democrats...
From: DougR
Date: 02 Jul 09 - 05:15 PM

John P.:
Yes, I think George W. Bush was a good president and I believe history will prove me correct.

GWB did not start the war on terrorism, Osama did. He damn well kept us safe for the eight years he was president, and yes, most of the eight years were prosperous.

GWB did not cause the current economic crisis. Greedy members of the financial community and Wall street, aided and abetted by two Democrats (Barney Frank and Chris Dodd) did.

Those are facts. Not ideas.

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Popular opinions of Democrats...
From: artbrooks
Date: 02 Jul 09 - 03:53 PM

Based on statements from Sen. Inouye's office and the FDIC, and ignoring speculation from the blogosphere, the entire "conversation" went something like this:

BEEP You have reached the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation. We are now closed. Please leave a message. "This is Van Luong from Senator Inouye's office. Have you received Central Pacific Bank's request for TARP assistance?"

...a few days pass... "Mr. Luong, this is Alice Goodman, head of the the FDIC's office of legislative affairs. The application from Central Pacific Bank is still under process."

Anything more would be even more speculative.

Yeah - Inouye and his wife have investments in that bank. They were reported to be in the $350,000-$700,000 in 2007, and that represented the majority of his financial holdings at that time. Since then, the value of the bank's stock has decreased by 79%. I'd guess that would put him comfortably in the topmost echelon of wealthy Senators.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular opinions of Democrats...
From: Ebbie
Date: 02 Jul 09 - 02:32 PM

"Popular opinion of Democrats?" (Orliberal, as the case might be.) Here's one:

The first 2009 Miss California had just been dumped and the runnerup installed, who then said that she also believed that marriage should be only between a man and a woman and Bill Maher, speaking of the flap, said, "Well, of course she is conservative - if she were liberal she'd be in college."

Subject: RE: BS: Popular opinions of Democrats...
From: Riginslinger
Date: 02 Jul 09 - 10:08 AM

One of the problems is, if you're a Republican, you really don't know who or what you are.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular opinions of Democrats...
From: kendall
Date: 02 Jul 09 - 09:01 AM

BB if O'Bama turns out to be a failure, like Bush, I will be among the most vocal to dump him

A recent survey by NBC says that only 20% of Americans now claim to be republicans.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular opinions of Democrats...
From: GUEST,beardedbruce
Date: 02 Jul 09 - 06:33 AM

Bobert,

"A classier way for bb to have started the thread would have been to just open it up for discussion and then slam a Dem..."

Well, as long as I am dedicated to following the lead established by Amos, I guess I have to settle for the less classy way. Otherwise, how can I be a true disciple and follow in his footsteps???


Kendall-

"Is anyone naive enough to believe that these people run for office for the good of the country?"

Some here have stated so. I agree with you.




"The only real choice we have is, which gang of thieves will do the least damage?"

And this is the point I would debate- IMHO, the pasrty that gets us into a nuclear war, whether intended or not, is the one that causes the most damage.





"BB yes. Just as everything that happens aboard a ship is the responsibility of the Captain, the president is responsible for everything that happens on his watch.Either he knows what is going on, or he doesn't. If he does he should deal with it. If he doesn't, he should."

I agree with you, but I don't believe that many here will do so- They have shown they cannot apply the samne standards to Obama that they applied to Bush. IF applied equally to BOTH parties, I agree with you on this.



Amos,

NEWSFLASH: Obama has feet of clay.


But now the Democrats have a lock in the Senate, so what happens is ONLY their responsibility.


"The Cheney<==>Halliburton connection involved funneling billions of dollars, and I am pretty sure Cheney made a pretty penny from his relationship with Halliburton to the detriment of the DoD's net efficiency. The Cheney<==>Halliburton connection involved funneling billions of dollars, and I am pretty sure Cheney made a pretty penny from his relationship with Halliburton to the detriment of the DoD's net efficiency. Arguably, lives were lost asd a result."

You mean the contracts that Halburton operated under, which were given by the CLINTON administration? I believe that there was as much in place with Cheney to remove control of Halburton as had been done in previous and subsequent cases- Care to show otherwise??

" Arguably, lives were lost asd a result.

Then blame the Clintons who gave Halburton that contract.



Art,

"Sen. Daniel K. Inouye's staff contacted federal regulators last fall to ask about the bailout application of an ailing Hawaii bank that he had helped to establish and where he has invested the bulk of his personal wealth.

The bank, Central Pacific Financial, was an unlikely candidate for a program designed by the Treasury Department to bolster healthy banks. The firm's losses were depleting its capital reserves. Its primary regulator, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp., already had decided that it didn't meet the criteria for receiving a favorable recommendation and had forwarded the application to a council that reviewed marginal cases, according to agency documents.

Two weeks after the inquiry from Inouye's office, Central Pacific announced that the Treasury would inject $135 million.

Many lawmakers have worked to help home-state banks get federal money since the Treasury announced in October that it would invest up to $250 billion in healthy financial firms. But the Inouye inquiry stands apart because of the senator's ties to Central Pacific. While at least 33 senators own shares in banks that got federal aid, a review of financial disclosures and records obtained from regulatory agencies shows no other instance of the office of a senator intervening on behalf of a bank in which he owned shares.

Inouye (D-Hawaii) declined a request for an interview but acknowledged in a statement that an aide had called the FDIC to ask about Central Pacific's application. Inouye said he was not attempting to influence the outcome. The statement did not address Inouye's personal role in the inquiry, including whether he directed the aide to make the call or knew at the time that it had been made. "

As Kendall said, the person in charge is responsible- right?

Perhaps the staffer thought he was being helpful- but then, all those Bush appointees that Amos screamed about were just being helpful.

I am asking for the SAME standards that were used on Bush supporters to be applied to Democrats- is that really too much to ask?

If Bush is to be held responsible for the actions of those below him, so should Obama and Inouye. Yet there seems a great resistance here to even LOOKING at the situation- hardly what was applied to Bush administration ethical slips.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular opinions of Democrats...
From: Amos
Date: 01 Jul 09 - 08:51 PM

Art:

If you continue to dissipate fog, uncertainty, and doubt with simple, rational statements like that, Bruce won't let you read his posts anymore!!

Subject: RE: BS: Popular opinions of Democrats...
From: artbrooks
Date: 01 Jul 09 - 08:39 PM

Well, I'm not entirely sure if the topic of this thread is Senator Inouye, Democrats in general, or BeardedBruce, but this is what Inouye had to say about the original subject:

In a statement, Inouye said his aide simply left a voicemail message with the FDIC and did not speak to anyone at the agency. "This single phone call was the entire extent of my staff's contact with regard to Central Pacific Bank, to any outside agency," Inouye's statement said.

Isn't making inquiries on the behalf of constituents what elected representatives are supposed to do?

Subject: RE: BS: Popular opinions of Democrats...
From: John P
Date: 01 Jul 09 - 08:11 PM

"I am not a member of any organized party. I'm a Democrat."
-Will Rogers

It's interesting how often liberals are accused of marching in lock step and following the "party agenda", while the conservative Republicans are demonstrably much more loyal to the party line.

DougR, speaking of good and bad decisions at the ballot box and in the Oval Office, do you really think George W. Bush was a good president? Did he preside over an era of peace and prosperity? Or did he start a an unnecessary war and encourage our business "leaders" to ruin our economy? Remember, you're being graded on facts, not on ideals.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular opinions of Democrats...
From: Bobert
Date: 01 Jul 09 - 07:51 PM

I believe that the thread title itself is one that very much warrents being a thread about Dems... My critique is that bb opened it up with a slam against a Dem... A classier way for bb to have started the thread would have been to just open it up for discussion and then slam a Dem...

But no matter...

The Dems are an odd bunch comprised mostly of anti-Repubs so it is no wonder that Obama is having trouble corraling them on health care... This crop of Dems has no real idealogical center...

The Repubs, one can't argue, do... The Repubs have no idea how to run the country but they sho nuff are disciplined... The Dems,. on the other hand, are all over the place...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Popular opinions of Democrats...
From: DougR
Date: 01 Jul 09 - 07:33 PM

My definition of a "Blue Dog" Democrat: Smart folks who make good decisions at least 50% of the time.

Regular Democrat: People who make good decisions 10% of the time.

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Popular opinions of Democrats...
From: Little Hawk
Date: 01 Jul 09 - 06:10 PM

No wonder! "Liberal" has been made into a dirty word in the USA. And that is why the Democrats have been marketing themselves as Republican Lite for so many years now.

They both try to outdo each other in patriotic posing at election time. It's an embarrassing and shameful spectacle.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular opinions of Democrats...
From: pdq
Date: 01 Jul 09 - 05:57 PM

Conservatives Are The Largest Ideological Group

Posted Jun 17, 2009 at 9:41 AM by Maurice Berger

How do Americans rate themselves on the ideological spectrum?

According to a new Gallup poll, those calling themselves "conservative" have a slight edge.

Gallup writes: "Thus far in 2009, 40% of Americans interviewed . . . describe their political views as conservative, 35% as moderate, and 21% as liberal. This represents a slight increase for conservatism in the U.S. since 2008, returning it to a level last seen in 2004. The 21% calling themselves liberal is in line with findings throughout this decade, but is up from the 1990s."

Subject: RE: BS: Popular opinions of Democrats...
From: kendall
Date: 01 Jul 09 - 04:39 PM

Is anyone naive enough to believe that these people run for office for the good of the country?
The only real choice we have is, which gang of thieves will do the least damage?

BB yes. Just as everything that happens aboard a ship is the responsibility of the Captain, the president is responsible for everything that happens on his watch.Either he knows what is going on, or he doesn't. If he does he should deal with it. If he doesn't, he should.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular opinions of Democrats...
From: pdq
Date: 01 Jul 09 - 04:29 PM

I'm Just Wild About Harry...Reid, that is...

Wednesday, Oct. 11, 2006 2:52 p.m. EDT

Sen. Harry Reid: $1 Million in Shady Land Deal

Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid collected a $1.1 million windfall on a Las Vegas land sale even though he hadn't personally owned the property for three years, property deeds show.

In the process, Reid did not disclose to Congress an earlier sale in which he transferred his land to a company created by a friend and took a financial stake in that company, according to records and interviews.

The Nevada Democrat's deal was engineered by Jay Brown, a longtime friend and former casino lawyer whose name surfaced in a major political bribery trial this summer and in other prior organized crime investigations. He's never been charged with wrongdoing - except for a 1981 federal securities complaint that was settled out of court.

[Huge post clipped]

{don't worry, Harry Reid has been doing shady land deals for a quarter century or more...he's good at it!}

[Copy & paste of this size is not allowed- give a link]

Subject: RE: BS: Popular opinions of Democrats...
From: Amos
Date: 01 Jul 09 - 04:13 PM

"In the wake of last week's landmark passage of the House climate bill, conservatives have focused their fury on the handful of Republicans who voted in favor of the sweeping legislation.

Conservative commentators are blasting the eight Republican "aye" votes as betrayers of GOP principles and, perhaps more important, holding them accountable for the bill's seven-vote margin of passage, 219-212.

The eight Republicans are Mark Kirk of Illinois; Mike Castle of Delaware; Mary Bono Mack of California; Dave Reichert of Washington; John McHugh of New York; and Frank LoBiondo, Leonard Lance and Chris Smith of New Jersey.

"I don't think one can minimize why this was a truly hideous vote for those eight folks," a commentator on the conservative blog the "Next Right" wrote. "Here we had a chance to derail the Obama socialism train and restore the Republican party to policy relevance, and these guys bailed out so they could get a nice mention in the NY Times."

Rush Limbaugh on his radio show yesterday accused the eight of voting for the bill sponsored by Democrats Henry Waxman of California and Edward Markey of Massachusetts because of Wall Street's influence and argued that they should be voted out in 2010 along with Democrats who supported the legislation.

"You've got these northeastern Republicans -- New Jersey, New York, Connecticut, it's all the same -- who are tied to Wall Street," Limbaugh said.

He added, "This is an outrage. This is something that everybody who voted for this thing needs to be sent packing because it wasn't even written."

For many conservatives, the vote on the comprehensive energy and climate bill vote was one of the two test votes of party loyalty in the Obama administration's early days. The other was the vote in February on the economic stimulus plan. On that vote, no House Republican broke with party leadership."

---

Partisanship is senior to good policy in some circles; and Rush is as incoherent and bitter as ever he was.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular opinions of Democrats...
From: Amos
Date: 01 Jul 09 - 04:05 PM

Seems to me, Bruce, that there is a world of difference, and I cannot believe you choose to ignore it. The Cheney<==>Halliburton connection involved funneling billions of dollars, and I am pretty sure Cheney made a pretty penny from his relationship with Halliburton to the detriment of the DoD's net efficiency. Arguably, lives were lost asd a result.

The legal defense of Guantanamo detainees was a matter of law, civil rights, Constitutional limits and basic humanity. Wherefore do you see them as comparable issues?

This is a mind-boggling conflation of dissimilarities on your part, old chum.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular opinions of Democrats...
From: Little Hawk
Date: 01 Jul 09 - 04:04 PM

You think? Well, I could send my Dachshund down there to represent me, Amos. Would that help?

I think BB just enjoys the underdog feelings he gets out of being in a political minority on this forum. It keeps him busy fighting for the causes he espouses, and that's why he keeps launching these kind of threads.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular opinions of Democrats...
From: Amos
Date: 01 Jul 09 - 03:55 PM

Little Hawk:

You have no dog in this fight, and are underinformed.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular opinions of Democrats...
From: John P
Date: 01 Jul 09 - 03:50 PM

What possible difference does it make if a crook is a Democrat or Republican? If either does something corrupt, call them on it. The problem, of course, is that hardcore partisans of both sides call things crooked that ain't, and ignore serious breaches, depending on which party the politician is in. My own observations is that Republican crooks outnumber the Democrat ones by about two to one, but really, a crook is a crook is a crook. I agree with Kendall -- any politician who reaches national office is more likely than not to be corrupt in some way, however small. As long as we have money mixed with our politics, many politicians will be on the take. If they aren't, they simply don't get elected because they don't have enough funds to mount a campaign.

Please stop it with the "Republicans do this!" and "Democrats do that!" As Bill says, stick to the specifics of each case. Beardedbruce, you say: If it had been a Republican, owning shares in a bank that did this, I can name a dozen here who would be shouting it to the heavens. News flash: by making this about Democrats, you are one of the fools hardcore partisans who shout to the heavens.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular opinions of Democrats...
From: Bill D
Date: 01 Jul 09 - 03:47 PM

(I'm tempted to say it shows that, among the hoards of above-average, intelligent folkies here, Liberalism is preferred to Conservatism....thus 'proving' the right path....but I suppose YOU could point out the flaw there.)

Subject: RE: BS: Popular opinions of Democrats...
From: Bill D
Date: 01 Jul 09 - 03:43 PM

"The fact that liberals are in the majoprity here just means that there are more hypocritical liberals HERE than there are hypocritical conservatives ( simple math)"

Mercy! You don't see the fallacy in THAT? It doesn't 'prove' there are any of either type. (simple logic)

Subject: RE: BS: Popular opinions of Democrats...
From: Little Hawk
Date: 01 Jul 09 - 03:37 PM

My definition of Democrat is: Republican Lite

They're two sets of scoundrels, and the world would be better off without both of those parties.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular opinions of Democrats...
From: Wesley S
Date: 01 Jul 09 - 03:30 PM

Don't worry Bruce. I wouldn't ask for a pass for the senator. That's why I called it a "side story". But I had always been curious how he lost his arm. And it turns out the man does have cast iron balls. And so did John McCain.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular opinions of Democrats...
From: pdq
Date: 01 Jul 09 - 02:19 PM

Son of Teapot Dome ~ Al Gore style

"As the Center for Public Integrity writes in their book The Buying Of The President 2000, 'Personally and professionally the vice president has profited from Occidental largess. To this day he still draws $20,000 a year from a land deal in Tennessee brokered between his father and [former Occidental chairman Armand] Hammer. The total amount is more than $300,000.'

This relationship between Hammer, who was close with Al Gore Sr. as well, matured greatly during the late 1980s while Gore served in the Senate, including Kenneth Lay style trips on Hammer's private plane and monster campaign contributions.

Oil companies during the 20th Century, reports the Center for Public Integrity, 'have tried unsuccessfully to obtain control of two oil fields owned and operated by the federal government: the Teapot Dome field in Casper, Wyoming, and the Elk Hillsfield in Bakersfield, California.'

When Clinton and Gore took office in 1992, that was about to change. Perhaps only outdone by George W. Bush's connections to Big Oil, Al Gore pressed President Clinton to approve handing over these public lands to the oil companies. The land, managed by the Navy, had held emergency oil reserves since 1912.

It took five years of lobbying on behalf of Big Oil, but Gore and Occidental were victories. In the fall of 1997 the Energy Department sold 47,000 acres of the Elk Hill reserve to Occidental.

It was the largest privatization of federal property in U.S. history, one that tripled Occidental's U.S. oil reserves overnight. Although the Energy Department was required to assess the likely environmental consequences of the proposed sale, it didn't. Instead it hired a private company, ICF Kaiser International, Incorporated, to complete the assessment. The general chairman of Gore's presidential campaign, Tony Coelho, sat on the board of directors.

The very same day the Elk Hills sale was announced, Gore delivered a speech to the White House Conference on Climate Change on the 'terrifying prospect' of global warming, a problem he blamed on the unchecked use of fossil fuels such as oil."

Subject: RE: BS: Popular opinions of Democrats...
From: GUEST,Neil D
Date: 01 Jul 09 - 02:15 PM

Agnew          Never president



Thankfully!

Subject: RE: BS: Popular opinions of Democrats...
From: beardedbruce
Date: 01 Jul 09 - 01:46 PM

Teapot Dome:


"The Scandal: One of the politicains who opposed the conservation was Senator Albert B. Fall who became Warren Harding's Secretary of the Interior in 1921. Fall, upon becoming the Secretary of the Interior, convinced Secretary of the Navy Edwin Denby to turn the control of the oil fields over to him. Fall then moved to lease the Teapot Dome to Harry Sinclair's Mammoth Oil Company and the Elk Hills reserve to Edward Doheny's Pan American Petroleum Company. In return for leasing these oil fields to the respective oil magnates Fall received "gifts" from the oilmen totaling about $400,000. Fall attempted to keep actions secret but his sudden improvements in standard of living drew speculation. The scandal was first revealed to the public in 1924 after findings by a committee of the U. S. Senate. The individual within the Senate who took charge of investigating the alledged wrongdoing by Fall was Thomas J. Walsh, a democrat from Montana. Albert Fall had made legitamite leases of the oil fields to the private companies but the taking of money was his undoing. Background: Origins of the scandal date back to the popular conservation legislation of presidents Teddy Roosevelt, William Taft and Woodrow Wilson, specifically as to the creation of naval petroleum reserves in Wyoming and California. Three naval oil fields, Elk Hills and Buena Vista Hills in California and Teapot Dome in Wyoming, were tracts of public land that were reserved by previous presidents to be emergency underground supplies to be used by the navy only when the regular oil supplies diminished. The Teapot Dome oil field received its name because of a rock resembling a teapot that was located above the oil-bearing land. Many politicians and private oil interests had opposed the restrictions placed on the oil fields claiming that the reserves were unnecessary and that the American oil companies could provide for the U.S. Navy.   

Consequences on the Involved: Lasting throughout the 1920's were a series of civil and criminal suits related to the scandal. Finally in 1927 the Supreme Court ruled that the oil leases had been corruptly obtained and invalidated the Elk Hills lease in February of that year and the Teapot lease in October of the same year. The navy did regain control of the Teapot Dome and Elk Hills reserves in regards to the courts decision. Albert Fall was found guilty of bribery in 1929, fined $100,000 and sentenced to one year in prison. Harry Sinclair who refused to cooperate with the government investigators was charged with contempt and received a short sentence for tampering with the jury. Edward Doheny was aquitted in 1930 of attempted to bribe Fall."


So, if one of Obama's cabinet is caught with his hands out, we can blame Obama??

You said Harding, not Fall. Shouldn't we blame "Teddy Roosevelt, William Taft and Woodrow Wilson," for setting up the situation???

Subject: RE: BS: Popular opinions of Democrats...
From: kendall
Date: 01 Jul 09 - 01:41 PM

Ok folks. Let's face one cold hard fact. All politicians are alike. As soon as they get their own front feet into the public trough there is no difference between them.
Power corrupts. Absolute power corrupts absolutely.

Crooked Senators? None from Maine that I know of; we wouldn't stand for it.

Dont know about Harding, BB? look up Teapot Dome scandal.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular opinions of Democrats...
From: robomatic
Date: 01 Jul 09 - 01:32 PM

I was putting together a message of how it seems to me that the AM radio band seems to resonate with fear of our current President, but in truth there was plenty of talk t'other way for t'other guy.

I just try to make a point of keeping communications with folks who believe much different than meself.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular opinions of Democrats...
From: beardedbruce
Date: 01 Jul 09 - 01:25 PM

"but sometimes the charge is a thinly disguised effort at partisan slandering, by reason of taking partial similarities and ignoring significant differences in context, importances, sequences, and often intentionally omitting information"

All of which you have posted, on occasion.

So, talk about the new Attorney General, from the law firm representing the Gitmo detainees, deciding that they should be released. Why didn't he recuse himself, when you make a fuss about Cheney having been at Haliburton and then Haliburton doing work for the government ( under a Clinton Administration contract, as well!)

Or is it just that conservatives need to be fair, and liberals do not???

Subject: RE: BS: Popular opinions of Democrats...
From: Amos
Date: 01 Jul 09 - 01:09 PM

Bruce:

I am all for calling people on double standards, but sometimes the charge is a thinly disguised effort at partisan slandering, by reason of taking partial similarities and ignoring significant differences in context, importances, sequences, and often intentionally omitting information.

Any time I feel you are being honest and forthright in such a charge and have considered the case on all its merits, I am more than happy to support it.

Waving your arms about generalizations and innuendo is not persuasive.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular opinions of Democrats...
From: robomatic
Date: 01 Jul 09 - 01:07 PM

From an old, old Simpsons episode:

Lisa: Grandpa, weren't you curious why you were being paid for doing nothing?

Grandpa Simpson: I just thought it was because the Democrats are back in power again!

Subject: RE: BS: Popular opinions of Democrats...
From: beardedbruce
Date: 01 Jul 09 - 01:05 PM

Is your complaint that you are outnumbered?"

Straw man arguement, Bill.

MY complaint is that there are too many hypocrites who apply one set of standards to those they support, and a different set to those they oppose- AND TELL ME I AM SUPPOSED TO ACCEPT THAT!

The fact that liberals are in the majoprity here just means that there are more hypocritical liberals HERE than there are hypocritical conservatives ( simple math)

Subject: RE: BS: Popular opinions of Democrats...
From: beardedbruce
Date: 01 Jul 09 - 01:02 PM

1. kendall,


Grant          Many of the alledged problems were of people in his administration, not him. His biggest crime was a proposal ( never acted on) to send the slaves from the South to Haiti or the DR, - he looked into buying the island for that.

Harding         Not up on this horrible person.

Nixon          We can argue his accomplishments vs his flaws.

Agnew          Never president

Now, shall we look at corrupt senators?


Wesley,

I will give a hero his due- but that does not mean that he gets to be given a pass on unethical behaviour that others would not get.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular opinions of Democrats...
From: Wesley S
Date: 01 Jul 09 - 12:33 PM

Interesting side story about Sen. Daniel K. Inouye. He lost his arm charging a machine gun nest in Italy during WW2. His arm was blown off just as he was about to throw a grenade. He had already pulled the pin. So he looked down at his severed arm - pried the grenade out of his hand and threw it - killing the members of the machine gun nest. He picked up his weapon and continued to fire at the enemy until other members of his squad convinced him to sit down and get medical attention.

I just thought someone may find that story of interest. It was realted in the recent Ken Burns documentry.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular opinions of Democrats...
From: Amos
Date: 01 Jul 09 - 12:30 PM

Maureen Dowd, writing on the dual personalities of Mark Sanfordand Marco, his hedonistic alter-ego who ran off to an Argentinian amorata while pretending to be hiking the Appalachian Trail or writing or something :

"... Jenny Sanford told The Associated Press on Friday that Mark had told her he needed time to be alone and write, so she was stunned to learn he was in Argentina on a "Roman Holiday." Before he left to "write," she warned him not to skip off to the other woman.

Mark, who disdains rascals, agreed that he wouldn't. Marco, who is a rascal, skipped off.

Mark went back to work on Friday, giving his cabinet a lecture on personal responsibility and comparing himself to King David, who "fell mightily ... in very, very significant ways but then picked up the pieces and built from there."

Actually, the one thing David didn't do after his adulterous fall was build, because he was forbidden by God to construct his dream temple in Jerusalem.

Sanford should give his piety a rest. He told his cabinet that the Psalms taught him humility. (There's a chance that a younger Argentine boyfriend of Maria's also taught him humility, by jealously hacking into her e-mail account and leaking the governor's missives.)

Sanford can be truly humble only if he stops dictating to others, who also have desires and weaknesses, how to behave in their private lives.

The Republican Party will never revive itself until its sanctimonious pantheon — Sanford, Gingrich, Limbaugh, Palin, Ensign, Vitter and hypocrites yet to be exposed — stop being two-faced. "

Subject: RE: BS: Popular opinions of Democrats...
From: Bill D
Date: 01 Jul 09 - 12:27 PM

(I think, for the most part, Amos has commented on 'views of basic Republican attitudes and platforms', rather than stating guesses about what 'someone else would do IF'.)


"...accepted practice here, as long as the one being attacked is more conservative than the attacker."

Is your complaint that you are outnumbered? ☺ Don't conservatives 'attack' articles they find more *gasp* liberal?

Subject: RE: BS: Popular opinions of Democrats...
From: Bill D
Date: 01 Jul 09 - 12:17 PM

"So, you are claiming that Republicans have NOT been accused, here on Mudcat, of working to their own benefit?"

*sigh*...no, did you hear me claiming anything?....I am asking for **similar** cases, if someone sees one, to be compared on their own merits, not "Inoueendo" ..*grin*... about unspecified similarities YOU suggest exist.

If there is criticism to be made of anyone, make it about the specific circumstances, based on what facts are available, not about 'suspicions' of what *I* 'might' do if......

Why is that so hard?

Subject: RE: BS: Popular opinions of Democrats...
From: kendall
Date: 01 Jul 09 - 11:33 AM

Most democrats are babes in the woods compared to republicans in the corruption dept. Check your list of the worst presidents; the whole bottom tier is made up of republicans.
Grant
Harding
Nixon
Agnew

Subject: RE: BS: Popular opinions of Democrats...
From: beardedbruce
Date: 01 Jul 09 - 11:22 AM

Amos,

You state:

"THis article is almost all suspicion and Inoueendo."

So my imitation of your anti-Bush Threads has become realistic???? I work so hard to get that edge of nastiness into it, but I feel I am still missing some of what you have mastered.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular opinions of Democrats...
From: beardedbruce
Date: 01 Jul 09 - 11:20 AM

BillD,,

"Wait until someone DOES, in fact, accuse a Republican of something."

So, you are claiming that Republicans have NOT been accused, here on Mudcat, of working to their own benefit?



I guess we read different threads.

MY arguement ( not your strawman) is that there are two standards applied here- If a Democrat does something it is ok, while if a Republican does the SAME thing it is wrong.

I am basing this on the PAST complaints about Republicans, and the verified actions of the Democrats that YOU keep telling me I am complaining about- YET I do not see you telling the ones complaining about Repbulicans to "argue directly about the facts:" In fact, the use of attacks on the writer of articles, or even the one posting that article is accepted practice here, as long as the one being attacked is more conservative than the attacker.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular opinions of Democrats...
From: Amos
Date: 01 Jul 09 - 11:16 AM

In this case, imitation is the sincerest form of compromised quality. THis article is almost all suspicion and Inoueendo.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular opinions of Democrats...
From: Bill D
Date: 01 Jul 09 - 10:31 AM

Same argument form you use almost every time you wish to complain about any Democrat.

"IF it were a Republican, you WOULD be saying 'X', 'Y', and 'Z'."

Sorry, Bruce...it just doesn't track. Wait until someone DOES, in fact, accuse a Republican of something. IF you wish to complain about Inouye, argue directly about the facts:
-------------------------------------------------------------------
"The statement did not address Inouye's personal role in the inquiry, including whether he directed the aide to make the call or knew at the time that it had been made.

Even if Inouye were directly involved, it would not violate the rules the Senate sets for itself, experts said."

---------------------------------------------------------------

And you have never heard of any Republican politician seeking special treatment for his 'interests'? Let's see how this plays out. Seems to me like the answer would be "change the rules", and not shouting "See? He's a Democrat?"

(And haven't we gone thru the issue of NOT C&P the entire article before? Summarize it and give a link.)

Subject: RE: BS: Popular opinions of Democrats...
From: Ebbie
Date: 01 Jul 09 - 09:45 AM

Gee.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular opinions of Democrats...
From: beardedbruce
Date: 01 Jul 09 - 09:44 AM

Trying to follow in Amos' footsteps.

"Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery."

And are YOU striking out to divert attention from certain Democrats' lapses of charater? I thought that there was supposed to be one set of rules, for BOTH parties...


If it had been a Republican, owning shares in a bank that did this, I can name a dozen here who would be shouting it to the heavens. Sort of like the new Attorney General, with larger conflicts of interest that Cheney had with Haliburton, being given a free pass. But I note no apologies to Cheney for all the criticism.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular opinions of Democrats...
From: Ebbie
Date: 01 Jul 09 - 09:35 AM

Bruce, the title - Why is it applicable? Or are you striking out to divert attention from certain Republicans' lapses of character? I don't understand.

Subject: BS: Popular opinions of Democrats...
From: GUEST,beardedbruce
Date: 01 Jul 09 - 09:15 AM

After Call From Senator's Office, Small Hawaii Bank Got U.S. Aid

About This Story

This article was reported jointly with Paul Kiel of ProPublica, an independent, non-profit newsroom that produces investigative journalism in the public interest. ProPublica is supported entirely by philanthropy and provides the articles it produces, free of charge, both through its own Web site and to leading news organizations.

By Paul Kiel and Binyamin Appelbaum
ProPublica and Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, July 1, 2009

Sen. Daniel K. Inouye's staff contacted federal regulators last fall to ask about the bailout application of an ailing Hawaii bank that he had helped to establish and where he has invested the bulk of his personal wealth.

The bank, Central Pacific Financial, was an unlikely candidate for a program designed by the Treasury Department to bolster healthy banks. The firm's losses were depleting its capital reserves. Its primary regulator, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp., already had decided that it didn't meet the criteria for receiving a favorable recommendation and had forwarded the application to a council that reviewed marginal cases, according to agency documents.

Two weeks after the inquiry from Inouye's office, Central Pacific announced that the Treasury would inject $135 million.

Many lawmakers have worked to help home-state banks get federal money since the Treasury announced in October that it would invest up to $250 billion in healthy financial firms. But the Inouye inquiry stands apart because of the senator's ties to Central Pacific. While at least 33 senators own shares in banks that got federal aid, a review of financial disclosures and records obtained from regulatory agencies shows no other instance of the office of a senator intervening on behalf of a bank in which he owned shares.

Inouye (D-Hawaii) declined a request for an interview but acknowledged in a statement that an aide had called the FDIC to ask about Central Pacific's application. Inouye said he was not attempting to influence the outcome. The statement did not address Inouye's personal role in the inquiry, including whether he directed the aide to make the call or knew at the time that it had been made.

Even if Inouye were directly involved, it would not violate the rules the Senate sets for itself, experts said.

Both the FDIC and the Treasury said the decision was not affected by the involvement of Inouye's office.

Inouye reported ownership of Central Pacific shares worth $350,000 to $700,000, some held by his wife, at the end of 2007. The shares represented at least two-thirds of Inouye's total reported assets. Inouye has requested a delay in filing his annual financial disclosure for 2008, which was due this spring, and he declined to provide the current value of his investment. Since the end of 2007, the bank's stock has lost 79 percent of its value.


Central Pacific was founded in 1954 by a group of World War II veterans including Inouye who were emerging leaders in Hawaii's Japanese American community.

"The time had come to fund a bank that could provide equitable service not only to the Japanese, but to all communities," Inouye is quoted as saying in an exhibit in the lobby of one of the company's Honolulu branches. Inouye, who became the bank's first secretary, said that he initially invested $3,000, the minimum amount possible.

Central Pacific is Hawaii's fourth-largest bank, holding about 15 percent of the state's deposits. In recent years, it increasingly used the money to make loans in California, funding several large residential developments. By last year, the bank was facing the consequences of California's collapsing housing market. In July , Central Pacific reported a quarterly loss of $146 million, matching its total profit in the previous three years.

In October, shortly after the government announced that it would invest billions of dollars in banks to spur new lending, Central Pacific submitted an application under the initiative, called the Troubled Assets Relief Program, or TARP.

The bank faced long odds. More than 1,600 banks submitted applications to the FDIC in the three months after the program was announced, according to a report by the FDIC's inspector general's office. The agency forwarded 408 applications to Treasury, which approved only 267, or roughly 16 percent of the total.

Central Pacific's situation was even bleaker because it was in trouble with the FDIC. Regulators had raised concerns about the bank earlier in the year. The bank would soon sign an agreement with its state regulator and the FDIC requiring it to raise an additional $40 million in capital and to improve its management practices.

After the bank applied for bailout funds, weeks passed. Andrew Rosen, a spokesman for Central Pacific, said that regulators had told the bank that the process would take "some time" because of the glut of applications.

In late November, still waiting for an answer, the bank's government-affairs officer called Inouye's office to ask that it check on the status of the application, according to Rosen. (Rosen said in an initial interview that the bank had not contacted Inouye's office about the application. After Inouye was contacted for this story, Rosen said that he'd been mistaken, that the bank had called Inouye's office.)

One day after the bank's request, an Inouye aide called the FDIC's regional office in San Francisco, which regulates Central Pacific. Inouye said in a statement that the staffer, Van Luong, "simply left a voicemail message seeking to clarify whether Central Pacific Bank's application for TARP funds had actually been received by the FDIC." The statement said that the bank was soon notified that the application had been received, "and that closed the matter."

"This single phone call was the entire extent of my staff's contact with regard to Central Pacific Bank, to any outside agency," Inouye said.

Internal FDIC e-mails obtained through the Freedom of Information Act show that Luong's question was referred from San Francisco to FDIC headquarters in Washington. A few days later, Alice Goodman, who heads the FDIC's office of legislative affairs -- and whose office is typically the point of contact for congressional inquiries -- called Luong to say that the application "was still under process."

The internal e-mails show that the application had been forwarded to an inter-agency council headed by the Treasury Department that reviews cases in which a bank did not meet the criteria for a federal investment. Those criteria require banks to demonstrate their viability without the benefit of federal funding.


Shortly after the Inouye staffer's phone call, the council approved Central Pacific's application.

So far, more than 600 banks have received federal investments. While some recipients have started to repay aid, the Obama administration announced this spring that it would continue to accept applications from community banks until November. The crush of calls from Capitol Hill on behalf of specific applicants led the Treasury to announce earlier year that it would start releasing a weekly list of congressional inquiries. It has yet to do so.

The question of what role members of Congress have played in influencing the Treasury's decisions is under review by the special inspector general appointed to oversee the financial rescue program. A spokesman for the special inspector general said a report is expected later this summer.

Such contacts by members and their staff do not violate the rules Congress has established to govern itself. "Congress has never been willing to adopt strong conflict-of-interest rules for its members, but for the most part, has left it up to each member to decide for themselves whether they have a potential conflict of interest," said Fred Wertheimer, president of Democracy 21, a watchdog group.

The most similar known case comes from the House. Rep. Maxine Waters (D-Calif.) arranged a meeting between regulators and OneUnited of Massachusetts, a bank in which her husband held shares. Rep. Barney Frank (D-Mass.), who did not own shares in the company, subsequently inserted language into the bailout bill that effectively directed the Treasury to give special consideration to that bank.

The report by the FDIC inspector general found that 26 of the 408 companies whose applications were sent to the Treasury faced enforcement actions as severe as those against Central Pacific. Because the FDIC inspector general did not name these 26 banks, it is unclear how many ultimately won the Treasury's approval. Nor is it clear whether any other bank used the Treasury money -- as Central Pacific did -- to address a capital shortfall identified by regulators.

Several financial analysts said they know of no other instances in which Treasury money was used this way. But they said it was impossible to be sure because banks are not required to disclose such regulatory actions, for instance those requiring that firms raise additional capital. Central Pacific had made this disclosure voluntarily.

Andrew Gray, an FDIC spokesman, said the Central Pacific decision was not unique, but he declined to name other banks, citing a policy against commenting on specific institutions.