The Congressional Black Caucus is mad at Ms. Pelosi, for wanting to remove a black congressman. Seems said congressman had a freezer full of cash, found by the FBI, in his house. She’s obviously a racist!
Now, they’re pressuring her to appoint a guy (Hastings) whom she formerly voted to remove from his federal judgeship.
See what the Dems voted for. Enjoy, libs!!!
[quote]Headhunter wrote:
The Congressional Black Caucus is mad at Ms. Pelosi, for wanting to remove a black congressman. Seems said congressman had a freezer full of cash, found by the FBI, in his house. She’s obviously a racist!
Now, they’re pressuring her to appoint a guy (Hastings) whom she formerly voted to remove from his federal judgeship.
See what the Dems voted for. Enjoy, libs!!![/quote]
I will have you know I voted for a republican and a Independent on Tuesday.
[quote]Headhunter wrote:
The Congressional Black Caucus is mad at Ms. Pelosi, for wanting to remove a black congressman. Seems said congressman had a freezer full of cash, found by the FBI, in his house. She’s obviously a racist!
Now, they’re pressuring her to appoint a guy (Hastings) whom she formerly voted to remove from his federal judgeship.
[/quote]
At least Pelosi is doing one thing right. Im pretty sure it will all be downhill from here.
Ok, let’s put the whole article on here instead of HH’s normal “New York Post” style of fear-mongering, sensationalistic idiocy.
[i]Choice for Intelligence Panel Poses Early Test for Pelosi
By MARK MAZZETTI
Published: November 10, 2006
WASHINGTON, Nov. 9 - Her boss may want her gone, but Representative Jane Harman happens to think she is good at her job. And she has no intention of leaving it without a fight.
Ms. Harman argues that her role as the ranking Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee makes her the logical candidate to become chairman when the new Congress begins in January.
Representative Nancy Pelosi, the party’s leader and presumptive House speaker in the next Congress, has indicated she has other plans.
The two women, both from California, have long had a frosty relationship, and Ms. Pelosi has been angry with Ms. Harman for not using her position on the Intelligence Committee to attack the Bush administration aggressively.
But Ms. Harman said that making her chairman would be good politics, citing Tuesday’s victories as proof that Democrats will thrive by taking a centrist stance on issues of war and terrorism - as she has done for the past four years.
“The new crowd coming into the House are mostly moderates and conservatives who were in substantial part elected on a security message,” Ms. Harman said in an interview on Thursday. “To keep our majority, we need to keep a tough and smart message on security.”
Ms. Pelosi has told colleagues she plans to replace Ms. Harman on the Intelligence Committee, possibly with Representative Alcee Hastings of Florida, although she has given no public indication of her choice for the post since the election.
Many Democrats are closely watching the decision for signs of two things: how the speaker-in-waiting will chart her party’s course on national security issues and how she will handle her first postelection test in dealing with the often fractious Democratic caucus.
“This is the battle that nobody wanted,” one senior Democratic strategist said. “For Nancy to start off her speakership with a fight is a great shame.”
In addition to pointing to her record over the past four years, Ms Harman said she was once made a promise by senior Democrats that she would assume control of the Intelligence Committee if her party regained power in the House.
“My view of this has to do with what is fair in terms of the commitments that were made to me,” she said.
The promise came in the form of a letter in 1999, when Representative Richard A. Gephardt of Missouri, who was then the House Democratic leader, recruited her to try to regain her Congressional seat in 2000 after she relinquished it in 1998 to run for governor of California.
But allies of Ms. Pelosi said that when she appointed Ms. Harman as ranking member of the Intelligence Committee in 2003, her intention was always to have Ms. Harman serve only two terms.
The selection of Mr. Hastings, a black member of the committee, would win Ms. Pelosi support from the powerful Congressional Black Caucus. But his past could provide ammunition for Republicans: Mr. Hastings was impeached and removed by the Senate from a federal judgeship in 1989 on a bribery charge. (He was acquitted in the related criminal case.)
Some leading Democrats said that choosing Mr. Hastings over Ms. Harman would send exactly the wrong message at a time when Democrats were struggling to prove their bona fides on national security.
“A lot of people would be astonished,” said Leslie H. Gelb, a former president of the Council on Foreign Relations and a State Department official in the Carter administration. “I think it would send a signal that Democrats are not going to be as serious about national security as they need to be.”
Representative Silvestre Reyes. Democrat of Texas and also a committee member, has emerged as a possible compromise candidate. But Ms. Pelosi has also told colleagues that she could select someone who is not currently on the committee.
Appearing Wednesday on CNN, Ms. Pelosi said that it was her prerogative to select an entirely new Intelligence Committee at the beginning of each Congress, and that it is the one committee on which seniority rules are not recognized.[/i]
Nowhere in this article does it state that the CBC is angry with Pelosi nor does it state that the CBC is pressuring her. That is more of HH’s typical bullshit. In addition, HH forgets to mention that Hastings was acquitted of the charges in a criminal court. It means that he was found NOT GUILTY! If he was not guilty, then why should it be held against him? Because HH believes that when democrats are accused of something, that’s it, they are automatically guilty. Whether it can be proven in a court of law (not in a senate hearing that didn’t include ALL of the senate - another point HH left out) has nothing to do with it. However, if they are a republican, then there is no need for a trial because they are not guilty and too morally upright to do anything wrong. In other words, the sky in his world is rose-colored with republican red.
Headhunter, stop posting this sensationalistic crap. You are just making yourself look even more insane than we already know you are.
[quote]ALDurr wrote:
Ok, let’s put the whole article on here instead of HH’s normal “New York Post” style of fear-mongering, sensationalistic idiocy.
[/quote]
How dare you question the New York Times!! Liberal treason!
http://www.hillnews.com/thehill/export/TheHill/News/Frontpage/052506/news1.html
CBC leaders are furious with Pelosi, for wanting to remove criminals from the Ways and Means! She is SUCH a rascist!!!
May 25, 2006
"Pelosi move triggers revolt
By Josephine Hearn
Furious black lawmakers, rallying behind Rep. William Jefferson (D-La.), were pulled back from the brink of open revolt against House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) in an emergency meeting with her Wednesday evening.
The meeting with a handful of CBC members was called after Pelosi wrote the embattled lawmaker, who is at the center of a massive bribery scandal, a curt note requesting his immediate resignation from the powerful Ways and Means Committee."
And you libs chose these cretins and criminals for Congress! ROFLMAO!!!
[quote]Headhunter wrote:
http://www.hillnews.com/thehill/export/TheHill/News/Frontpage/052506/news1.html
CBC leaders are furious with Pelosi, for wanting to remove criminals from the Ways and Means! She is SUCH a rascist!!!
May 25, 2006
Pelosi move triggers revolt
By Josephine Hearn
Furious black lawmakers, rallying behind Rep. William Jefferson (D-La.), were pulled back from the brink of open revolt against House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) in an emergency meeting with her Wednesday evening.
The meeting with a handful of CBC members was called after Pelosi wrote the embattled lawmaker, who is at the center of a massive bribery scandal, a curt note requesting his immediate resignation from the powerful Ways and Means Committee.
And you libs chose these cretins and criminals for Congress! ROFLMAO!!!
[/quote]
You mean just like the dozen others you conservatives voted in earlier? Or have you forgotten about the Republicans that have either been FOUND GUILTY or PLEADED GUILTY to corruption?
If Jefferson is guilty (and I believe it looks like he is), he should be removed. But he can wait till it goes to court before anything can really be done about it.
pot, meet kettle.
I’m confused. Is this in support of Pelosi, or in support of the idiots calling her a racist?
Can’t be both ya know. So either way, HH, you’re supporting a liberal.
Just because the party has a few dumbass’ doesn’t mean the partys bad numbnuts.
There were PLENTY of fucked up Republicans. Still are. And there is probably about an EQUAL number of fucked up Democrats. But the key is, the LEADING Democrats aren’t AS fucked up as the LEADING republicans.
Get it?
The NY Times article says Pelosi wants to dump Jane Harman. Pelosi hasn’t said who she’d replace Harman with.
The article about Jefferson is from last May. At this point Jefferson is toast, he’s about to be defeated. He hasn’t been charged with anything yet, though. But the party is moving to have him replaced. Contrast this to the way the GOP shielded Tom DeLay.
Much ado about nothing.
[quote]Brad61 wrote:
The NY Times article says Pelosi wants to dump Jane Harman. Pelosi hasn’t said who she’d replace Harman with.
The article about Jefferson is from last May. At this point Jefferson is toast, he’s about to be defeated. He hasn’t been charged with anything yet, though. But the party is moving to have him replaced. Contrast this to the way the GOP shielded Tom DeLay.
Much ado about nothing.[/quote]
Headhunter is very resistant to the truth and reality of a situation. It’s to the point that it almost looks like it’s on purpose…
Nobody can be as stupid as H2 pretends, right?
Either way, he represents the worst of politics in the US. What a clown.
[quote]vroom wrote:
Brad61 wrote:
The NY Times article says Pelosi wants to dump Jane Harman. Pelosi hasn’t said who she’d replace Harman with.
The article about Jefferson is from last May. At this point Jefferson is toast, he’s about to be defeated. He hasn’t been charged with anything yet, though. But the party is moving to have him replaced. Contrast this to the way the GOP shielded Tom DeLay.
Much ado about nothing.
Headhunter is very resistant to the truth and reality of a situation. It’s to the point that it almost looks like it’s on purpose…
Nobody can be as stupid as H2 pretends, right?
Either way, he represents the worst of politics in the US. What a clown.[/quote]
I’m the worst of politics — I’ve got a freezer full of cash!!
You guys still don’t get it? ITS IMPOSSIBLE FOR A LIB TO BE HONEST! If she puts Hastings in, she violates her principles (does she have any?). She voted to IMPEACH the guy in 1988. If she is honest and kicks him to the curb, the CBC ‘revolts’. Guess which one she’ll do?
And you guys voted so that an IMPEACHED JUDGE is in charge of the INTELLIGENCE committee!!! Still ROFLMAO!!!
“America, where is your soul?”
— Bob Dole
[quote]Headhunter wrote:
I’m the worst of politics — I’ve got a freezer full of cash!![/quote]
Why don’t you give the criminal system time to work through the process? It would be nice if they’d get around to pressing charges… it would make it easier for people to take action.
Or, perhaps, everybody who ever does anything suspicious should just be fired or locked up? Dude, everyone, on both sides of the aisle, is waiting for this to go forward and get rid of the clown.
You are a total nincompoop for trying to paint anyone with this.
Again, let’s wait and see. Thankfully, there are a lot of people out there who are a lot more willing to think about things than you, so perhaps they’ll come up with a way to deal with things outside of the little box you are trying to create.
An impeachment isn’t the same thing as being a criminal. Being charged is not the same thing as being convicted. Of course, all democrats are guilty as far as you are concerned.
It’s too bad Foley and other retards took the spotlight so much, but instead of trying to make stew out of water, why don’t you wait until something substantial comes along and then critique how it is handled.
So far, you are running around like a fucking lunatic crying about all kinds of possibilities. I have a news flash for you too skippy, the fucking election is over. Now it’s time to see how they actually do act… and you might want to let them actually do things before you try and convict them for doing them.
If, and more likely when, a democrat gets caught doing something, I’ll scream bloody murder as well if they are protected or it gets swept under the rug.
[quote]Headhunter wrote:
If she puts Hastings in, she violates her principles (does she have any?). She voted to IMPEACH the guy in 1988. If she is honest and kicks him to the curb, the CBC ‘revolts’. Guess which one she’ll do?
And you guys voted so that an IMPEACHED JUDGE is in charge of the INTELLIGENCE committee!!! Still ROFLMAO!!!
[/quote]
Guess I haven’t been keeping up with my douchebag logic translator skills. Who did all “you guys” vote for again? I don’t recall seeing either Hastings or Pelosi on my ballot, maybe I missed it.
Or are you referring to everyone who isn’t a member of the white-boy southern red-neck evangelical club you call a political party?
(Psst, hey dipshit. some of the people you’re talking to don’t vote in US elections.)
Pelosi in in bed with the republicans, those CFR fellows know how to take care of each other…
I wrote in Head Hunter. He wasn’t elected though.
Who cares. All this shows is that she wants to remove corrupt politicans. Despite [ill-advised] opposition from part of the party. Something the Republicans SHOULD have done. She’s handling it much better than any of the Republican scandals were handled. Hopefully she’ll persevere.
[quote]tme wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
If she puts Hastings in, she violates her principles (does she have any?). She voted to IMPEACH the guy in 1988. If she is honest and kicks him to the curb, the CBC ‘revolts’. Guess which one she’ll do?
And you guys voted so that an IMPEACHED JUDGE is in charge of the INTELLIGENCE committee!!! Still ROFLMAO!!!
Guess I haven’t been keeping up with my douchebag logic translator skills. Who did all “you guys” vote for again? I don’t recall seeing either Hastings or Pelosi on my ballot, maybe I missed it.
Or are you referring to everyone who isn’t a member of the white-boy southern red-neck evangelical club you call a political party?
(Psst, hey dipshit. some of the people you’re talking to don’t vote in US elections.)
[/quote]
Seriously. Gimme a break. No one voted for Nany Pelosi but voted for moderate. centrist Democrats. Vastly prefereable the the incumbent Republicans. The centrist elements of the party will act as a check on excessive liberalism. Though maybe not.
The intelligent, moderate Republicnas certainly weren’t able to act as a check on the extremest conservatives and stop their reckless spending and ill-considered policies and initiatives.
[quote]jsbrook wrote:
The intelligent, moderate Republicnas certainly weren’t able to act as a check on the extremest conservatives and stop their reckless spending and ill-considered policies and initiatives.
[/quote]
Woah, it’s the other way around. The "extremist’ conservatives weren’t able to stop the fiscally liberal republicans (compassionate conservative) from spending.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
jsbrook wrote:
The intelligent, moderate Republicnas certainly weren’t able to act as a check on the extremest conservatives and stop their reckless spending and ill-considered policies and initiatives.
Woah, it’s the other way around. The "extremist’ conservatives weren’t able to stop the fiscally liberal republicans (compassionate conservative) from spending.[/quote]
Whoa, slow down on the spin, you’re getting dizzy.