If they can truly pass reform then great; because they'll be signing their own indictments later on.

The way they can do it with a straight face is obvious enough... Brian Ross only investigates Republican "scandals." Katie Couric CAMPAIGNED for John Kerry in 2004. NBC News and MSNBC News seems to have those "Braintrusts" such as Olbermann (he's truly just reporting the news, -I just threw up in my mouth a little bit) as their standardbearers...

And CNN... well that's truly not even NEEDED to point out their blatant partisanship.

The New York Times? I thought as DNC Chairman, Howard Dean automatically became Editor-in-Chief of the NYT.

That's funny, I thought Murtha and Hastings were denied their leadership positions. In reality, that supports the notion that Dems are serious about ethical conduct and standards.

Back here in Bushbot land, though, this somehow proves that Democrats are more unethical than Republicans. Makes perfect sense, right?

Mark,

When a Democrat does the right thing, why do you say he or she "caves"? Since when is doing the right thing "caving in"? Does that also mean that doing the wrong thing is "standing firm"?

And what does that tell you about politicians who "stay the course"?

Hey Jim,

Doing the right thing shouldn't be forced on you. Remember the definition of ethics? It's what you do when no one is watching.
Piglosi would have paraded Alcee baby right into his newly re-modeled office if there wasn't an outpouring of discontent.

So, let's count. That's two losses for the Queen of NAMBLA.

I am wondering what is taking Mark so long to have his own "change of heart" and remove Tom Delay's endorsement from his book. HIS spin on this is hilarious. How soon after the election should Pelosi have told Hastings that he would not be the chairman? Hours? Gimme a break. If you held Republicans to anything close to the standard that you're already holding the Democrats to, your "Caucus of Corruption" book would be encyclopedic.

Gar Wood

Gar wooood

Tom Delay has never been impeached or convicted of anything. In fact, when he was indicted, he stepped aside as to not bring down his party, conversly a certain Rep. Jefferson, who was found with $90K in is fridge refuses to go even when asked by his leadership. Additionally, we've all seen the clip of Jackass Murtha pondering a $150K bribe and he never stepped aside either.
You see Gar, we could go on and on about who's right and who's wrong, but in the long run, our side will prevail because of one simple thing...we learn from our mistakes. Unlike Kerry and the other pendejos on the left. The fool thinks he can run again..LOL!

Hey all, have you noticed how soft-spoken the libs are now that they've won. I'm putting together a montage of before and after clips of idiots like Rahm Four Finger E-manual and the rest of his clan and you'll see how phony they really are. I'll try to run it on U-Tube.
Last nite on the Daily Show ( did you know this is where most people get their news...puke), Rahm Four Finger was sickening with Jon Pendejo Stewart. They were kissing each other's ass like they were gay...not that there's anything wrong with that.

Steve... I think you missed the point. Pelosi supported both Murtha and Hastings. Murtha was denied his position by a vote, and Hastings won't be on the committee on intelligence because of political pressure... that's obvious.. it's not some desire for good ethics on Pelosi's part...

That's funny, I thought Murtha and Hastings were denied their leadership positions.

That's funny, SteveGAY, I thought you were denied your lobotomy. Apparently not, and Olive Oyl Jim joined you--must've been BOGO.

It's puzzling how these kooks don't get it, that they have to come here and have every elementary fact explained to them. And then they still don't get it. Too much paraquat(sp?) in their pot in high school, I guess...

Keefer, brilliant ad hominem. By brilliant I mean terrible. Why don't you try addressing their arguments instead of using personal attacks? Murtha and Hastings were denied their leadership positions. That should be a good thing for the country, in your opinion, because they have ethical issues. What's the big deal?

Gar Wood

Gar,

That's all Keefer's got...no need to defend us from him. In fact, we should encourage him to speak up as much as possible. The other conservatives here love what he says and agree with him to an astonishing degree. Sad, really.

Hey Gar, Oliver, Stevegay and the rest of you guys, Tim explained our position perfectly. I will repeat it just in case you did not bother to read it:

Doing the right thing shouldn't be forced on you. Remember the definition of ethics? It's what you do when no one is watching.

Kapish yet? Or does it have to be explained to you 8 more times? Hastings should have never even been considered. Do any of you three think that Hastings was the right person for the job? No? Well then, you guys have more sense than the head jackass in Congress.

Gar Wood, have you ever seen a gar? It's a long, skinny fish, and it has no wood?

You may wanna change your name, son...

Olive Oyl, I choose to save my intellectual dialogue for intellectuals, not lobotomized robots such as yourself. You rate nothing from me, except maybe a lugie spat in your filthy face. Now bugger off, wanker!

Keefer plays ball like a girl.

Gar Wood

Oh Gar "Wood," you're so clever, and you're so right. My tennis game rivals Martina Navratilova's, and I play soccer like Mia Hamm.

And I don't have gar "wood..."

Thank you for the substantive answers, Tim and Pete. I am just confused as to how you think the Democratic Party should handle these corrupt liberal jerks that are trying to ruin our country.

The party rejected Murtha as majority leader. The party leadership has asked Jefferson to quit, repeatedly. Now Hastings is not going to be the chairman of the intelligence committee. Yes, these people were in consideration, but the party rejected them - end of story.

Gar Wood

Um, keef... Martina and Mia are girls, dude.

When will the Democrats adopt the Republican practise of stepping down from leadership positions if indicted? Seems adopting that simple rule would go some way towards quieting critics.

Um, Rico...I know they are, dude. And they're pretty good at what they do, dude. So when fish d*ck, I mean gar "wood," says I play ball like a girl, I'm flattered. I play golf like a girl, too. Julie Inkster is a pretty good golfer.

Hey gar "wood," let me school you. Hastings never should've been considered for the position, you worthless pile of camel dung. Why are you so dense? Too many head slaps from daddy?

Alcee is a disgrace. I am very happy that he will not be chairing the intelligence committee. If the best spin you can put on this is that it was a shame they were even "considered," I think you need a good slap across the face.

Consideration means nothing after you've been rejected. Katherine Harris was "considered" for election to the Senate. President Bush "considered" letting Rumsfeld stay on the rest of his term. Thankfully, Pelosi, the voters of Florida and President Bush came to their senses and made decisions in the best interests of the country.

Keefer, you should see the Sandlot because it's clear you have no idea what I'm talking about with my comment about your lack of ball playing skills. Not that kind of ball playing, you're good at that. BOO YA

Pelosi is very colorful. She is a maroon.

Gar,

That's all Keefer's got...no need to defend us from him. In fact, we should encourage him to speak up as much as possible. The other conservatives here love what he says and agree with him to an astonishing degree. Sad, really.

Posted by: Jim Oliver at November 28, 2006 06:14 PM

The other conservatives love what he says and agree with him to an astonishing degree?

Are you serious Olly? You must be out of your damn mind! No offense Keefer, but Jim must be jealous of you bud! Are you Jim? Sounds like it.

Personally I can't recall a single time I have said "I'm in agreement with Keefer"! Of course I bust my gut at some of the fun things he does to grate you libs! LOL! But, like he said, he wastes less intellect on you self-appointed intellectuals. Don't you wonder why he posts such vulgar useless stuff? Because that's all you warrant. I don't blame him, I don't post hardly at all cause of the likes of you! You know Jim, now that the elections are over, maybe your boss could give you a new assignment. You know, maybe something other than the pollution of B4B!

We wish!!!

Pelosi was forced to deny Hastings the position, not because it was the right thing, but that the GOP would've had ammo regarding the Dems' lack of seriousness regarding national security. The newly elected 'blue dog' Dems were also PO'ed because their chances of being re-elected in 2008, would've gone down the tubes.

Nancy still got her bitter enemy from getting the Chair, and although the CBC is even more angry at her, they will still support 90% of her agenda.

(Of course Nancy...I'd watch my back regarding that other 10%)

Tim,

Pelosi wasn't "forced" to do anything. She has absolute power to do anything she wants.

Committee appointments are political appointments, for both parties. Each speaker appoints people who help the party stay in power. The Repubs do this, as well as the Dems. I'm not sure why you think Peolosi's rejecting a bad apple is somehow a good thing for you. It just shows that the Dems want to keep their power, and they are figuring out how to do that.

If you think that Bob Ney was a better representavie that Peolsi is, just say so. You like to throw stones but the vast majority of recently arrested, tried and convicted politicians are Repubs. Not sure why you'd bring up this argument when it makes you look so bad.

Keefer & Bear, Posting crap on blogs is fun, but it's also good rhetorically if you try to counter the other side when you do it. Just writing "you suck" but letting the argument stand looks pretty weak.

J.O.

Am I missing something here? Do I read clearly? All we heard before the election was how Piglosi was going to drain the swamp. It's proof in the pudding that she clearly had no intentions to do so when she backed Murtha and Alcee baby...now did she. How bout those pics of Piglosi with the head of NAMBLA in the SF parade? Please try to disprove this Jimbo.

You are right about our side having pukes like Ney and Duke (my idle before he was caught), and we admit it, unlike your pethic party of Democrats...not the Democratic party.

But let's not forget the likes of the Clintons, Jeffersons, Murthas, Hastings,Whitewater - Travelgate Gennifer Flowersgate - Filegate - Vince Fostergate - Whitewater Billing Recordsgate - Paula Jonesgate- Lincoln Bedroomgate - Donations from Convicted Drug and Weapons Dealersgate - Lippogate - Chinagate - The Lewinsky Affair - Perjury and Jobs for Lewinskygate - Kathleen Willeygate - Web Hubbell Prison Phone Callgate - Selling Military Technology to the Chinesegate - Jaunita Broaddrick Gate - Lootergate - Pardongate

How bout deez.
Democrat Teddy da Murderer - U. S. Senator from Massachusetts. Pleaded guilty to leaving the scene of an accident, after his car plunged off a bridge on Chappaquiddick Island killing passenger Mary Jo Kopechne. Barney Frank - Democrat - U.S. Representative from Massachusetts from 1981 to present. Admitted to having paid Stephen L. Gobie, a male prostitute, for sex and subsequently hiring Gobie as his personal assistant. Gobie used the congressman's Washington apartment for prostitution. A move to expel Frank from the House of Representatives failed and a motion to censure him failed.

Yep, got allll this off da web and there's a lot more.

BTW, notice how many of your buddies are still in office....eh Jimbo. Including ole skin head Byrd himself....puke.

Just shows to go ya that talk is cheap during an election and soon enough, you'll see that your party has no plan and that they simply did a better job of "bait-n-switch" with the American voter. In fact all we hear now is that it's the Presidents job to create the war plan. But all we heard was that the Dems had a better plan...blah...blah...blah...puke.

Remember that definition of ethics Jimbo:)

Keefer & Bear, Posting crap on blogs is fun, but it's also good rhetorically if you try to counter the other side when you do it.

Jim, have you ever considered that most of your arguments just aren't worth countering? Just go back and read your comments in this thread. What have you said of any substance?

This is the first comment I've left here in a while, although I generally stop by here almost every day. When I read comments by Wade, JAT, Gar Wood, SteveGA, and yes, you, I normally just shake my head and move on. Most of your opinions just aren't worth the powder it would take to blow them to hell. Let me be clear, though; you have every right to state your opinions. You do not, however, have a right to have anyone listen or respond in a civil manner.

We used to have some really good discussions here. And if you think, in order to have good dialogue, you have to be on oppositive sides of the fence, just go back and look at the archives from this site from 2004 and 2005.

Spook,

I pretty much agree with you. My whole argument in this thread is that Pelosi made a judgement call to keep her job and Mark and Tim are desperate to spin this as something negative. I think they were hoping Pelosi self destructs before she even begins. But she's learning from her mistakes, and I think this fact is pretty distressing to those on the right.

Not much of a point, I'll admit, but the response from Keefer was unexpected--he seems like he's blowing a gasket (a completely enjoyable scene, btw). Anything I can do to twist the knife in his sorry-ass emotional state is just good clean fun in my book.

Spook,

"Most of your opinions just aren't worth the powder it would take to blow them to hell."

Hilarious. The problem is that people like you take more time complaining about how worthless our opinions are or making ad hominem attacks than it would take to actually blow our arguments to hell.

"It is the function of speech to free men from the bondage of irrational fears." -Louis Brandeis

You are entitled not to respond, but don't expect any respect from the other side if you don't. Sorry if it's naive to think it's not too late to for both sides can get through the emotional bullshit and come to an understanding on important issues. My two cents.

I didn't proofread that last sentence. My apologies.

You are entitled not to respond, but don't expect any respect from the other side if you choose not to. Sorry if it's naive to think it's not too late for both sides to get through the emotional bullshit and come to an understanding on important issues. My two cents.

Gar Wood

My two cents.

You seriously overvalue your opinion, Gar.

This is the first comment I've left here in a while, although I generally stop by here almost every day. When I read comments by Wade, JAT, Gar Wood, SteveGA, and yes, you, I normally just shake my head and move on. Most of your opinions just aren't worth the powder it would take to blow them to hell. Let me be clear, though; you have every right to state your opinions. You do not, however, have a right to have anyone listen or respond in a civil manner.

We used to have some really good discussions here. And if you think, in order to have good dialogue, you have to be on oppositive sides of the fence, just go back and look at the archives from this site from 2004 and 2005.

Posted by: Retired Spook at November 29, 2006 12:29 PM

That's it, in a nutshell spook! It's slim pickens for B4B these days, when it comes to interesting dialogue or dissent. Instead we find ourselves defending against the same old peacenik commi bastards that would have us lose any & every war neccessary. Nope........not gonna waste my time!

This is the first comment I've left here in a while, although I generally stop by here almost every day. When I read comments by Wade, JAT, Gar Wood, SteveGA, and yes, you, I normally just shake my head and move on. Most of your opinions just aren't worth the powder it would take to blow them to hell. Let me be clear, though; you have every right to state your opinions. You do not, however, have a right to have anyone listen or respond in a civil manner.

We used to have some really good discussions here. And if you think, in order to have good dialogue, you have to be on oppositive sides of the fence, just go back and look at the archives from this site from 2004 and 2005.

Posted by: Retired Spook at November 29, 2006 12:29 PM

That's it in a nutshell Spook! Used to be B4B had no lack for interesting dialogue & dissent. Not any more however! Well I'm not wasting my time on the same old peacenik commi bastards that would have us lose our lives & our country to P.C. b..lsh..!

oops, I guess the first one did go through!