quote:Originally posted by ladybird: Hey bdgee. I am a staunch believer in the Constitution. In fact, I teach it to 6th graders. I don't want anybody to change it. When I said everything has changed, I meant security, not the Constitution. Wow, you fly off the handle because I use the term "left-wing liberal." Then you assume you know all my beliefs and blast me with your rhetoric. Well, there are extremes to every spectrum and just as there are left-wing loons, there are right-wing wackos. Most people fall somewhere in the middle. Now, relax and take a deep breath. I think the country will somehow manage to get along without your emotional rants.
It isn't me asasuming knowledge of others beliefs, it is you. And talk about rhetoric .... "left-wing liberals" ..... "leftwing flaming liberals" .... "Everything changed after 9/11" ..... "the Constitution is moot" ......
NO, THE CONSTITUTION IS NOT MOOT.
You say, "I think the country will somehow manage to get along without your emotional rants." Well, does it fail to impact your being and what you see as "ballanced" OR "moderate" that you are very much the ranter or you wouldn't be laying on so many intentionaly pejorative terms?
Consider following your own advice before you toss about terminology you clearly intend to belittle and besmirch and have no other reason or basis for using. (You are not the only living human being that has practiced the profession of teaching.)
Please take note that neither conservative nor liberal serves as a synonym for patriot (include republican and democrat and independent to that list). Assigning labels may be exactly the opposite of patriotic, when discussing political positions in the United States. It defies, after all, the most fundamental precepts of the 1st Amendment to the Constitution.
Please, "...relax and take a deep breath. I think the country will somehow manage to get along without your emotional rants".
If my request and observations offend you, I apologize for that, but maybe you could consider not issuing things in quite so obviously demeaning language.
Posts: 11304 | From: Fort Worth, Texas | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
No, there are a couple of hundred miles between Sugarland (Delayland) and Crawford (nearest town to where dubya bought a ranch with the money he skimmed from the City of Arlington with the Texas Rangers). I say that as if it mattered after Delay (and not without assistance from dubya) "construed" the Texas congressional and legislative voting districts. I now am in a district that is hundreds of miles from end to end and finger wide and represented by a person that lives in an entirely different climatic zone! I cannot without consulting a map assure you that dubya and Delay live in different districts!
I too have been hoping for a split in party control of the two houses of Congress. It is Party rule and loyalty that is aimed at the destruction our Nation and culture.
[ April 04, 2006, 17:19: Message edited by: bdgee ]
Posts: 11304 | From: Fort Worth, Texas | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
yes, bdgee, i am aware of what Delay did, and i hope they undo the gerrymandering...
democracy/republic (whichever) only works when the people are truly represented...
otherwise you may as well call it a dictatorship or whatever they call Iran's ONE-PARTY democracy....
i also know why ladybird accuses you of ranting, and i am also aware of what you are ranting about... the problem as i see it is that too many people haven't really been paying attention cuz they think everything is OK...
911 was a wakeup call but i don't think alotof people "got it".... sadam and osambinalivetoolong are both OUR creations.... and nothing has really changed in the policies that created either one...
the same guys who were in Iraq and Iran in the late 80's selling arms to both sides are still in power....
in this article? it mentions Bush the first, not Dubya...
Cheney generally focused on external matters and delegated most internal Pentagon management details to Deputy Secretary of Defense Donald J. Atwood, Jr. He worked closely with Louis A. (Pete) Williams, assistant secretary of defense for public affairs, and Paul Wolfowitz, under secretary of defense for policy. For chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff he selected General Colin L. Powell, who assumed the post on 1 October 1989. Many of Cheney's major decisions resulted from the almost daily meetings he had in the Pentagon with Powell and Atwood.
Cheney met regularly with Bush and other top-level members of the administration, including Secretary of State James Baker, national security adviser Brent Scowcroft, White House Chief of Staff John Sununu, and General Powell. Occasionally Bush consulted with Cheney on matters unrelated to defense, such as White House organization and management. When not at the White House, Cheney was often on Capitol Hill. He understood how Congress, and more particularly the legislative process, operated, and he used this knowledge and experience to avoid the kind of difficulties Caspar Weinberger had encountered with Congress. In general Cheney got along well with Congress and with DoD's main oversight committees in the House and the Senate, though he suffered disappointments and frustrations. http://www.defenselink.mil/specials/secdef_histories/bios/cheney.htmPosts: 36378 | From: USA | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
We shouldn't forget that this Administration is organized about the same collection of crooks that had to be pardoned to keep them out of the federal prison for the Iran/Contra scandles. They have just continued to operate in the style we allowed them to get away with before. For that shameful neglect, in a sense, we are all responsible and guilty for what they have led us into, with or without the lies.
Patriotism has noting to do with Party loyalty, indeed, Party loyalty, by definition, is the placing of the Party before the Country. That's anti-patriotic. Germany, Russia, Italy, Cuba, and how many others have tried that and descended into dictatorship....if it isn't a strict rule, it at least can't be disproved.
Posts: 11304 | From: Fort Worth, Texas | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I never said the Constitution was moot, bdgee. I said your argument was moot. The Constitution says nothing about having to wear identification or not having to wear it.
You also misconstrue the Constitution when taking Team Sleep to task for his, in your words, bigoted b-ll sh-t.
"In case you didn't know, which you certainly should, before fostering this bigoted B-ll sh-t you are presenting as reasonable, Congress persons are, via the Constitution itself, immune from arrest......
"...a member of Congress "shall in all cases, except treason, felony and breach of the peace, be privileged from arrest" both while attending a session and traveling...."
And traveling? Here is the exact wording for Article 1, Section 6:
They shall in all cases, except treason, felony and breach of the peace, be privileged from arrest during their attendance at the session of their respective Houses, and in going to and returning from the same; and for any speech or debate in either House, they shall not be questioned in any other place.
Representatives are not immune from arrest. They simply cannot be arrested while they are in session - speaking or debating in chambers. Neither can they be arrested while going to or returning from session. This is called the Speech and Debate clause.
By the way, the above address to Team Sleep is what I consider an emotional rant. Calling me an enemy of the state is another.
Posts: 120 | From: New York | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Can we get back on topic here....Cynthia McKinney is a walking talking freakshow who is full of herself and who is self-serving. It is never OK to hit a cop, racial profiling or not. This incident and the immature way in which she is handling it will not help her party in this years elections, IMHO.
Posts: 1235 | From: Anacortes, WA | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Democractic leaders won't even stand behind McKinney. They see through her ridiculous actions, ridiculous claims, lies, bigotry, and insanity...
Check this out:
House Democratic leaders publicly rebuked Rep. Cynthia McKinney (D-Ga.) yesterday over an incident last week in which she hit a U.S. Capitol Police officer when he stopped her at a security checkpoint.
Speaking at a news conference, House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi (Calif.) said of McKinney’s explanation, “I don’t think any of it justifies hitting a police officer. I don’t know if that happened, but if it did happen, I don’t think it was justified. … I find it hard to see any set of facts that would justify striking a police officer.”
Pelosi, who is no longer on speaking terms with McKinney, went on, “Our Capitol Police have a very difficult job protecting this symbol of democracy and the buildings around it.”
House Democratic Whip Steny Hoyer (Md.) was even more emphatic.
“I think it is the responsibility of every member [of Congress], every visitor to the Capitol, every staff member, every member of the press and anyone else who comes in and out of the Capitol and the House or Senate office buildings to cooperate fully with the Capitol Police, who have been given an extraordinarily difficult and important responsibility of keeping the Capitol safe,” he said, adding, “It doesn’t appear that happened” in McKinney’s case.
Posts: 75 | From: Tennessee | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by ladybird: I never said the Constitution was moot, bdgee. I said your argument was moot. The Constitution says nothing about having to wear identification or not having to wear it.
You also misconstrue the Constitution when taking Team Sleep to task for his, in your words, bigoted b-ll sh-t.
"In case you didn't know, which you certainly should, before fostering this bigoted B-ll sh-t you are presenting as reasonable, Congress persons are, via the Constitution itself, immune from arrest......
"...a member of Congress "shall in all cases, except treason, felony and breach of the peace, be privileged from arrest" both while attending a session and traveling...."
And traveling? Here is the exact wording for Article 1, Section 6:
They shall in all cases, except treason, felony and breach of the peace, be privileged from arrest during their attendance at the session of their respective Houses, and in going to and returning from the same; and for any speech or debate in either House, they shall not be questioned in any other place.
Representatives are not immune from arrest. They simply cannot be arrested while they are in session - speaking or debating in chambers. Neither can they be arrested while going to or returning from session. This is called the Speech and Debate clause.
By the way, the above address to Team Sleep is what I consider an emotional rant. Calling me an enemy of the state is another.
Indeed the Constitution is not moot. Nor is any part of it, even after 9/11. And that is the sum and total of my argument. If my argument that the Constitution cannot be ignored is moot (because of 9/11 or any other thing), then, consequently, the Constitution can be ignored, i.e., the Constitution, via your claim, becomes moot.
And you claim that you didn't declare the Constitution to be not in effect is wrong, at best.
It's a simple logical inference. We have A implies B as "our rule". Person X states that "our rule" is "our rule". Then person Y insist that person X is using a moot argument, that is, an argument logically contrary to fact. Thus, accepting Person Y's claim, the statement that A implies B is not "our rule". That forces the result that "our rule" is moot and person Y has so stated that as a fact.
You said, "All this bickering about whether people (and yes, even the high and mighty icons of Congress) have to wear identification according to the Constitution is moot. Everything changed after 9/11." That is in fact false. There is no event or power, short of the destruction of this nation, that can un-declare things declared in the Constitution. That is a matter of definition. The subject in question that you wish to declare "bickering" is that there is the statement in the Constitution exempting members of Congress from arrest while Congress is in session and while members are in route to sessions of Congress (traveling). The constitution provides no exception to that rule and offers no permission to anyone for bypassing it, Yet, you want to declarre it not in effect. I wasn't bickering with anyone, I simply stated that we must abide by the Constitution. So, if you declare that "argument" moot, then, in effect, we don't have to abide by constitutional mandates and by the Constitution. Thus, by your declaration, the Constitution becomes moot.
Your interpretation of what I had to say about Team Sleep's viscious and slanted attack on the character of a member of Congress, based on hear-say politically generated propaganda, is a bit off base, as are several other of your characterizations of what I say and think. (Did you intentionally misquote me?)
You don't know what I think. You are not even close. You don't know me and, from your reaction to things clearly outside your appreciation, I dare say you've never known anyone like me or similar to me. How about not making the "usual" categorizing and labing insults. It would be appreciated.
Please, in the future, take care not to misrepresent what I say (including misquoting). So far I can't see that you have bothered to care about that. As I say, it would be appreciated.
Posts: 11304 | From: Fort Worth, Texas | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by HILANDER: Obviously "the man" isn't keeping her down. If what the article says is true, then I kind of figure the cop got what he had coming. I'm sure he knew exactly who she was.
Someone in charge of securing a premises has a RIGHT to ask. He didn't "get what he had coming." Remind me never put you in charge of anything important that requires a methodical and careful person. I'll put you in charge of the good old boys club where everyone strokes each other, oh yeah, we call that local goverment.
Posts: 718 | From: Bay Area, CA | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by LEO: It is never OK to hit a cop, racial profiling or not. This incident and the immature way in which she is handling it will not help her party in this years elections, IMHO.
I'm glad some of us made it past playground fighting and grew up.
Posts: 718 | From: Bay Area, CA | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well according to the news tonight, a grand jury is investigating the McKinney incident and the officer involved wants her to be charged with assault. I hope she is.
These security police aren't tour guides. Two were shot in 1998 trying to protect legislators. McKinney may have played the race card one too many times.
Posts: 120 | From: New York | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by LEO: It is never OK to hit a cop, racial profiling or not. This incident and the immature way in which she is handling it will not help her party in this years elections, IMHO.
I'm glad some of us made it past playground fighting and grew up.
get this first: have no idea what happened/why/about with this congress-chick, but if we here in my country just rolled over for cops? they'd be up our azz...
As home-team players, we have to bow up now and again, simply to remind them who pays the salaries, lol....
Posts: 21062 | From: Fort Worth | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
WASHINGTON — When Rep. Cynthia McKinney (D-Ga.) spent money from her congressional office budget to fly singer Isaac Hayes to DeKalb County last year, it wasn't just to have the superstar attend the opening of her new district office or talk about music education for children of the 4th Congressional District.
Hayes also was the headliner at a political fundraiser for McKinney at the Stone Mountain home of state Sen. Gloria Butler, a violation of House ethics and campaign rules.
McKinney's office on Monday said it made a mistake when it paid for Hayes' trip — $500 for airfare and $400 for accommodations — from her $1 million congressional office budget, which is funded by federal tax dollars. Her aides vowed to pay back the money.
But McKinney's problems grew more serious Tuesday because using House funds to pay for purely political activity is specifically prohibited by House rules. Further, McKinney's failure to list Hayes' expenses on her campaign disclosure forms violated Federal Election Commission rules.
"It's actually breaking the law," said Melanie Sloan, executive director of the watchdog group Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington.
"It's breaking House rules, which prevent a member from using travel funds for anything but their own travel," Sloan said. "And it breaks Federal Election Commission law, which requires that campaign funds be used for campaign expenses."
McKinney's spokesman, Coz Carson, said the misreporting had been an administrative mistake.
"This was not some sinister act to dupe the people out of a small amount of money," Carson said.
Butler, a Democrat from Stone Mountain, said the fundraiser with Hayes in March 2005 was the only event she hosted for McKinney. Butler said she couldn't recall how many people attended the event or how much money was raised, details she said were handled by McKinney's campaign.
Public records show McKinney did make a distinction between the event at her district office and the fundraiser held that evening when it came to catering.
She paid the caterer who did both events about $1,000 from her congressional office funds for one event and $800 from her campaign fund for the fundraiser.
McKinney featured Hayes in a full-color brochure she sent later to constituents. The singer also taped a radio campaign ad for McKinney.
Bob Kemper and Scott MacFarlane write for the Atlanta Journal-Constitution.
Posts: 75 | From: Tennessee | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
i just love it when a big fish gets hauled into the net:
all the dirty laundry starts coming out.....
Tom Delay then Mckinney, who's next??
i don't like her or share anything in common with her that i've read about, but there is something about this one that bothers me...
no video... actually? the quote i got was- "no CONCLUSIVE video" so there is video, but it doesn't show a darn thing... anybody really believe the video surveillance wouldn't pick up an actionable incident?
the only places i can think of where surveillance should/would be more "secure" is in casinoes....
this is just another diversion, interesting, but not really worth getting excited about...
Posts: 36378 | From: USA | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
there were eyewitnesses, we'll se what they have to say. They work for dems so they should be honest (lol)
As far as who's next? Possibly Hilary C. Word has it she is stealing lines from Bill's speeches and slipping them into her own. Fairly and balancedly reported by Fox News...For SHAME.
Posts: 1235 | From: Anacortes, WA | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
yeah what's 900 bucks for Isaac Hayes compared to traveling to Scotland?
they've all been "doing it" , it's just a matter of scale isn't it?
DeLay Airfare Was Charged To Lobbyist's Credit Card
By R. Jeffrey Smith Washington Post Staff Writer Sunday, April 24, 2005; Page A01
The airfare to London and Scotland in 2000 for then-House Majority Whip Tom DeLay (R-Tex.) was charged to an American Express card issued to Jack Abramoff, a Washington lobbyist at the center of a federal criminal and tax probe, according to two sources who know Abramoff's credit card account number and to a copy of a travel invoice displaying that number. DeLay's expenses during the same trip for food, phone calls and other items at a golf course hotel in Scotland were billed to a different credit card also used on the trip by a second registered Washington lobbyist, Edwin A. Buckham, according to receipts documenting that portion of the trip http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A12416-2005Apr23.htmlPosts: 36378 | From: USA | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
You know, I remember reading somewhere that 3/4 of McKinney's campaign donors were Arabs or Moslems living outside of her district. That seemed odd to me so I went to a website that lists campaign donors for each representative.
it also shows the state of origin of the donations... for instance Aaghar, Mohamad is listed as from Columbus Ohio.... Abdul, Javid is listed as from Teaneck New Jersey....
there's a few possible Moslem type names in Delays list as well, but not as many...
Dealy had this one on his list that caught my eye, "Vigilante for Congress" from Pawtucket Rhode Island, i wonder what that one is?
i wonder how much this is American type Nation of Islam people (Farrakhan) versus rich oil people?
i don't like seeing foreigners contributing at all, like when the Chinese donated so much to Clinton.... but i bet they donated just as much to Bush
Posts: 36378 | From: USA | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Kevin Vigilante is a GOP from Rhode Island...he donated to Delay's campaign? LOL sounds like more money laundering.... Posts: 36378 | From: USA | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
the bill I supported provided for the Secretary of HHS to negotiate for the price of prescription drugs for the entire nation. Not only would this plan save our seniors and others money, but it would save the nation money too http://www.cynthiaforcongress.com/issues/healthcare.html
she's a Socialist....
-------------------- Don't envy the happiness of those who live in a fool's paradise. Posts: 36378 | From: USA | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
