Murtha, Pelosi, Barney Frank, Al Franken!, ughh!.

The messages you are viewing are archived/old.
To view latest messages and participate in discussions, select the boards given in left menu

however, it is the HOMEOWNERS responsibility to READ YOUR CONTRACT. Geesh people, the lenders did loan to those they knew couldn't pay, but the people who bought a $300,000 home making $50,000 cannot be excused, they too bear responsibility. Anyone facing foreclosure now who gets bailed out should never be allowed to own another home without 20% or more CASH downpayment. We make our mortgage payment on time every month, add extra to the principal, have never been late, have never taken out a HELOC or a second mortgage and yet we are expected to help those out who probably shouldn't have bought a home in the first place.

Barney Frank (D) is the one who several years ago pushed the mortgage lenders to lend to EVERYONE so all could have homes. Read the Boston Globe Op-Ed piece by Jeff Jacoby for a good explanation.

Barney Frank wants less govt and state rights when it comes to drugs.... but he wants "regulation" and "more enforcement" when it comes to everything else that takes away MY rights...... what a joke!

He also says banks should be encouraged to write down mortgages. As for the $700B package, they got a terrible job loss number the same day and that it should soon start working. This fund would start buying into the banks soon. He was very upset that the first $250B was given away and $125B went into buying large banks and $125B went into buying into small banks.

Keynesianism??? What's that? Sounds like a new language to me. It's one of the words he uses.

I certainly don't think there should be another stimulus package. The first one didn't work. How can the second one be any better?

I've heard Al Franken say this on a television interview. He repeated it in an interview with Geov Parrish at WorkingforChange.com (05/02/05) to which we can conveniently link:

AF: I'm glad you asked me that. I use this example a lot. A few months ago, Rush was talking about the minimum wage. Conservatives like to portray it that no one has to raise a family on the minimum wage, the only people who get the minimum wage are teenagers who want to buy an i-Pod. So Rush says, "75 percent of all Americans on the minimum wage, my friends, are teenagers on their first job." And one of the researchers brings this to me, with a smile, and I say, "Well, can you look it up?" And they look it up, the researcher goes to something called the Bureau of Labor Statistics. 60.1 percent of Americans on minimum wage are twenty and above. 39.9 percent, then, are either teenagers or below twelve (laughs). I had several jobs as a teenager, so you figure, what, 13 percent might be teenagers in their first job. Not 75 percent. So where did Rush get his statistic? Well, he got it directly from his butt. It went out his butt, into his mouth, out the microphone, into the air, into the brains of dittoheads. And they believe this stuff.

So we get our labor statistics from the Bureau of Labor Statistics. He gets his from the Bureau of Rush's Butt. And that's the difference. We don't do that. That's one of the main differences.

Not even in the same league. Moore and Franken care deeply for our country and presents opinions and facts to make people aware and think about issues. Coulter churns out books with juvenile insults as titles.

GOP campaign chief John Cornyn (R-Texas) vowed Friday that Republicans would block any attempt by Democrats to seat AL Franken when the Senate gavels into order next week.

Franken is leading Republican incumbent Norm Coleman by a slim 49-vote margin, but more than 1,000 votes have yet to be counted and legal challenges remain.

In a conference call with reporters today, Cornyn, the newly selected head of the National Republican Senatorial Committee said: �I think it�s very clear that the people of Minnesota and the courts of Minnesota� should choose between Franken and Coleman, �and not politicians in Washington, D.C.�

�It is the height of arrogance for any leader in Washington, D.C. to tell Minnesota voters whose votes should count and whose votes shouldn�t count,� Cornyn added.

The Texas senator was responding to comments made by Minnesota�s Democratic junior senator, Amy Klobuchar, suggesting Franken should be seated in the upper chamber if he is certified as the winner by the State Canvassing Board. The Board is scheduled to meet Saturday to count at least 1,350 absentee ballots.

"If the Canvassing Board declares a winner, that should be our senator," Klobuchar said last week. Even if a court challenge were to follow, Klobuchar said, "[The Senate] could seat a senator pending the litigation."

But Cornyn said Republicans were prepared to filibuster any attempt to seat Franken.

�There will be no scenario in which Republicans agree� to seat Franken without the complete resolution of legal cases surrounding the election and a certification from the state�s Democratic secretary of state and Republican governor, Cornyn said.

As the recount drags on, legal obstacles await. On Wednesday, Coleman filed a lawsuit alleging that election officials had not adopted uniform vote counting standards across the state. And Cornyn was quick to note that any Minnesota citizens have the right to file legal challenges of their own in the days ahead.

�I really think we need to be patient and allow the process to work its way through,� Cornyn said.

I agree with your statement on the others. I think Pelosi is too pushy and I wonder why she is in such a hurry to pass all O's stuff so quick. I often wonder what kind of background she has.

I watched a program the other night (don't ask who, I'm always flipping channels) and they had a perfect answer for where Gitmo prisoners should go....to Alcatraz, right in Pelosi's backyard and she can then look through those viewers that look out over the bay and watch the prisoners herself. I thought it was hillarious.

It's apparently acceptable to advocate assassination as long as you're a darling of the Republican party.

http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1002689569

Latest Ann Coulter Outrage: On Fragging John Murtha

By E&P Staff

Published: June 15, 2006 11:55 PM ET

NEW YORK With the brief debate over Iraq in Congress producing such acrimony this week that one congressman suggested opponents of the war support al-Qaeda, it should come as no surprise that columnist and author Ann Coulter would top them all.

In an email interview with John Hawkins at the Right Wing News web site, Coulter was asked, among other things, to offer short comments on several individuals. After harmlessly dismissing former Ambassador Joseph Wilson as the World's most intensely private exhibitionist, she said of Rep. John Murtha, the hawkish ex-Marine and now antiwar congressman: The reason soldiers invented 'fragging.'

Fragging, which became a well-known expression --and occurence -- during the Vietnam war, means soldiers attempting to kill their own officers for one reason or another.

This was so over the top that conservative Mike Krempasky at RedState.org posted, I've said before that's its kind of ironic that just about every phrase Stewie from Family Guy uses to describe Lois could easily be applied to Ann Coulter. Well - once again, Ann proves us right. He went on to call her fragging remark absolutely disgusting....there's no excuse - NONE - for the allusion to soldiers who kill other soldiers. It's despicable - and frankly, so is Coulter.

Coulter's column is syndicated by Universal Press Syndicate. On its home page, Universal hails her witty, no-holds-barred commentaries on the Washington scene. She tackles the hot issues with fervor and stands up for the things that she believes in.

I'm past convinced but time will tell just how politically motivated *Iraqi freedom* is to this administration. How much you want to bet nobody gets it?

I agree with Murtha, now that we have relieved Iraq of the Saddam regime the mission sould be getting our soldiers home safely. But its not that easy with the new wave of terrorism that replaced Saddam's regime as a result of the war.

I still say though we have our own battles to fight at home and need to accelerate training what Iraqi men are willing to fight for democracy and do what we can to restore their infrastructure and get out. With the right enthusiasm (or upcoming congress elections) it can be done. ~Democrat

CBS) Rep. John Murtha, D-Pa., believes the vast majority of U.S. troops in Iraq will be out by the end of the year and maybe even sooner. In his boldest words yet on the subject, the outspoken critic of the war predicts the withdrawal and tells 60 Minutes correspondent Mike Wallace why he thinks the Bush administration will do it

�I think the vast majority will be out by the end of the year and I�m hopeful it will be sooner than that,� Murtha tells Wallace, this Sunday, Jan. 15, at 7 p.m. ET/PT.

�You�re going to see a plan for withdrawal,� says Murtha. He believes Congress will pass it because of mounting pressure from constituents tired of the war that could affect the upcoming midterm elections.

The political situation will force President Bush to accede to Congress, he says. �I think the political people who give [the president] advice will say to him, �You don�t want a democratic Congress. You want to keep a Republican majority, and the only way you�re going to keep it is by reducing substantially the troops in Iraq,�� Murtha says.

The president has said publicly that any decision regarding Iraq would be based on the situation there and not on Washington politics.

Murtha rejects the president�s argument that the war on terror is being fought in Iraq. �The insurgents are Iraqis � 93 percent of the insurgents are Iraqis. A very small percentage are foreign fighters�.Once we�re out of there, [Iraqis] will eliminate [foreign fighters],� says Murtha.

�[President Bush] is trying to fight this war with rhetoric. Iraq is not where the center of terrorism is,� he says. �We�re inciting terrorism there....We�re destabilizing the area by being over there because we�re the targets,� Murtha says.

When Wallace challenges him by saying, �General Peter Pace, chairman of the Joint Chiefs, says your comments are damaging recruiting and hurting the troops,� Murtha responds by saying it�s the military�s own fault. �[Troops] are rotated [into Iraq] four and five times. They have no clear mission,� says Murtha. �One of the problems they have with recruitment is [that] they continually say how well things are going and the troops on the ground know better.�

President Bush has said there are only two choices in Iraq: victory and defeat. And he has implied that Murtha is a defeatist. Murtha, of course, disputes that.

There have been 13 servicemen from his Congressional district killed in Iraq. Could the families of those dead be offended? Wallace asks.

�Well, I hope [those families] understand,� says the Vietnam combat veteran. �It�s my job, my responsibility, to speak out when I disagree with the policy of the president of the United States,� says Murtha. �All of us want this president to succeed�I feel a mission here, with my experience, that I have to help the president find a way out of this thing.�

On January 5, 2006, Congressman Murtha held a town hall meeting with Cong. Jim Moran (D-VA 08).

The soldier who asked the first question served in Afghanistan and said that morale among troops is high and that he would gladly serve in Iraq today. His comment was the only one replayed by Fox News the next day.

But the majority of soldiers in attendance spoke out against the current policy. Fox News did not broadcast their remarks.

Garin Reppenhagen, served as a sniper in Iraq for a year in the First Infantry Division:

Imagine that. I'm shocked.

Murtha Attacked by the Right For Quote Falsely Attributed to Him

UPDATE: Multiple ThinkProgress readers report that Gail Bulfin of the Sun-Sentinel admits the paper�s report was inaccurate and says a correction will be printed tomorrow.

The South Florida Sun-Sentinel reported on Sunday that Rep. John Murtha (D-PA) had claimed that the United States is the greatest threat to peace in the world:

American presence in Iraq is more dangerous to world peace than nuclear threats from North Korea or Iran, U.S. Rep. John Murtha, D-Pa., said to a crowd of more than 200 in North Miami Saturday afternoon.

Though the Sun-Sentinel never provided a direct quote of Murtha, the story was featured on the Drudge Report and Murtha immediately came under attack from conservative pundits:

Bill O�Reilly, Fox News, 6/26:

Murtha has lost all perspective and did months ago, but his message is firmly entrenched in America�s far-left precincts. � [T]hat kind of extreme thinking, based on little evidence, by the way, is putting all Americans in danger.

Tucker Carlson, MSNBC, 6/26:

What is really going on here, and you know it as well as I, is that Jack Murtha has been intoxicated by the amount of publicity that he has gotten from his anti-war crusade, and he has become progressively more unreasonable, progressively more left-wing as the days go on, and he is in the thrall of people who, I think, have hostility towards the United States.

Newt Gingrich, Fox News, 6/26:

For an American congressman to say that is beyond any acceptable behavior, and I would hope the Congress would move to censure him.

One problem: Murtha apparently never said anything of the sort. What he did was cite a Pew poll released two weeks ago showing that people around the world, including in closely-allied countries like Great Britain, believe the U.S. is the greatest threat to peace.

A statement released by Murtha�s office today quotes an email from Melissa Sanchez of the Miami Herald, who also attended the speech, saying of the purported Murtha �quote�: �That was in reference to international polls. It was not so much his own conjecture, but a conclusion drawn from polls in various countries.� ThinkProgress confirmed with Murtha�s office that the email accurately reflects the views of reporters at the Miami Herald.

~~Email the Sun-Sentinel�s reader liason Gail Bulfin � gbulfin@sun-sentinel.com � and ask that the paper print a retraction.~~ See update above.

It is from a right-wing pro-war blog called "Politico." If you read a more non-partisan source you'll find that Murtha added a very large caveat to his comment.

Observer's "facts" would be so much more credible if she would quit posting from right-wing partisan sources. If I were to repeatedly or constantly post on the Conservative board what I thought was the "truth" and all backed up by far left-wing blogs/publications I don't think I'd get very far and after I while I'd probably try to provide more non-partisan sources for my statements if I wanted to be viewed as the least bit credible.

I was cheering that Bill is BACK! I've been fit to be tied over his lingering lethargy for the last period of months, and have written to complain, too.

There's a lot more on the web about Barney Frank and how filthy he is (in more ways than 1) this whole thing. He should've been put in jail along with Chris Dodd and Palsen, etc. Barney Frank's former lover worked for this outfit before they split many years ago. I've read so much on it that I don't recall which place I read it, but obviously you won't find any of this investigative stuff on the driveby channels. Even FNC doesn't put some stuff out there, which ticks me off. But I find it, anyway between the conservative blogs, sites, talk radio, etc. And these sources can be easily checked, so the libs can throw all the hissy fits they want. If they honestly think it's okay to give literally ANY party a free pass just b/c it has your letter or preference behind it, that's just nuts! I'm dying to clean out the RINOs in "my" party. They don't belong there.

This is from an article before the elections. This sure would be a good start in the right direction.

The act is a tough document, authored by Nancy Pelosi, the San Francisco-area congresswomen who has been the Democratic House leader since 2002. She will likely be the House Speaker if the Democrats win next Tuesday.

No House member may accept any gift of any value from lobbyists, or any firm or association that hires lobbyists.

No free travel, which means an end to the corporate jet line every Friday at Reagan National Airport.

No free tickets to Redskins games; or no meals of any value, even at a McDonalds; no front-row seats at entertainment venues. No, no and no.

Temptations resisted

To reduce temptations to cheat, Pelosi's bill attacks the usefulness of members to richly endowed lobbyists.

House members will no longer be able to slip in special-interest projects on unrelated legislation. Such measures will no longer be allowed on a bill once negotiations between the Senate and House are complete.

Further, all bills will be made available to the public a full 24 hours before a final vote; presumably this gives watchdog groups a chance to flag any skullduggery.

Under the Pelosi rules, lobbyists will no longer be able to use the House gym (you'd be surprised how much gets negotiated in a sauna). Lobbyists will no longer be allowed onto the House floor or to use the cloakrooms just off the floor, preventing last-minute arm-twisting.

What's more, no member or staffer will be able to negotiate for employment in the public sector without disclosing such contacts to the House Ethics Committee, and within three days of such contact being made.

Finally, all of this will be audited and investigated by a new Office of Public Integrity, and that office reports, directly and only, to the U.S. Attorneys Office.

At this point, you'd be entitled to ask, heard this before, what makes you think it will be accepted by Congress?

Can it work?

No doubt there will be attempts to water down some of these new regulations. In fact, many of these proposals have been in other bills that have been defeated in the recent past.

But several key congressional experts tell CBC News that Pelosi means business and might just be able to push this through. They put it this way.

Pelosi and the congressional Democratic leadership are not likely to get much credit simply for gaining control of the House.

Conventional wisdom already sees such a victory, should it happen, first and foremost as a repudiation of the Bush administration and the Republicans.

This Honest Leadership and Open Government Act is a way of hitting the bricks running. Plus, it could be enormously popular with voters of all persuasions.

They point out Pelosi herself has little national profile and wants quickly to paint some bold strokes. She promises the act will be the first legislation tackled if she leads a new Congress.

Also, Pelosi can and will extract promises of support from those getting leadership positions and plush committee chairmanships and the like.

These new rules will apply in the House as soon as they are passed by simple majority.

The Senate has different rules, but for Republicans and Democrats there, the pressure to comply with the Pelosi standards will be huge.