Dobbs lets 'er rip against the Dems..

by **Et in Arcadia ego** » Wed Aug 02, 2006 5:49 pm

And I totally approve. It's about time someone in the MSM called these pandering weasels out for the absolute shit they really are. ________________________ <a href="http://www.cnn.com/2006/US/08/01/dobbs.August2/index.html">www.cnn.com/2006/US/08/01...index.html</a> NEW YORK (CNN) -- This Republican-led, do-nothing Congress is on its way home for a five-week vacation. I'm sure while there, they'll be glad to explain to their constituents why they need so much rest in a year in which they will work fewer than 80 days. The Republicans in Congress have little to brag about when they return home. And the Democrats have a lot of explaining to do, as well. Once the party of the New Deal, Fair Deal and Great Society, the party of working men and women, the Democrats are now buried as deeply in the pockets of their corporate masters as are the Republicans. The Democratic Party has played a major role in helping to pass legislation that is grossly injurious to middle-class Americans and their families. This Congress, Republican-led with complicit Democrats, has cut $13 billion in college-student aid, passed numerous free-trade agreements that threaten good-paying jobs and approved an unconscionable bankruptcy law written by credit-card companies that is nothing less than a federal government heel in the neck of American families bankrupted by catastrophic illness and crushing medical bills. In fact, 18 of the 44 Democrats in the Senate and 73 of the 201 Democrats in the House voted in favor of the creditor-friendly bankruptcy bill. They apparently either didn't bother to learn or didn't care that half of all bankruptcies are caused by the soaring medical bills that stem from unforeseen illnesses and injuries. The Democrats are also casting deciding votes on the so-called free-trade agreements that have allowed corporate supremacists to export American jobs to the cheapest sources of labor. Twenty-two House Democrats approved the recent Oman free-trade agreement, including 10 that had previously voted for the Central American Free Trade Agreement. CAFTA, which passed the House by only two votes at the midnight hour, opened up to American businesses a market about the size of New Haven, Connecticut. And Democrats in the Senate have embraced the wrongheaded policies of the Bush administration on border security and illegal immigration. Thirty-eight Democrats joined with the Senate Republican leadership to crush the Republican majority and pass the illegal-alien amnesty bill. Forty-two Democrats voted against legislation that would have built a border fence to stop the flow of illegal aliens and drugs across our borders. In fact, it was Democrat Christopher Dodd of Connecticut whose amendment was attached to the legislation that would require the U.S. government to consult with the Mexican government before building a fence along our southern border. Congressional Democrats are even more dismissive of the need for border security than the Senate Republicans. House Republicans have taken to calling the McCain-Kennedy amnesty bill the "Reid-Kennedy bill" because Minority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada and Sen. Ted Kennedy of Massachusetts shaped most of the legislation. The Democrats incredibly talk about illegal aliens as victims as they press for amnesty, yet not one has raised concerns for the true victims of corporate America's lust for cheap labor: American working men and women, taxpayers all. It was, after all, Sen. Reid who argued in 1993 that illegal aliens place "tremendous burdens" on this country's justice system, schools and social programs, stretching our federal wallet to the limit as a result of "illegal aliens getting welfare, food stamps, medical care and other benefits." What could possibly explain Sen. Reid's complete conversion on the issue? He's said it was from talking to his wife and immigrants, but could his state's wholesale importation of illegal aliens and the importance of all that corporate lobbying and campaign contribution money be a factor? Surely not. And how about that firebrand advocate for the Democratic Party's traditions and values, Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean? Once considered a presidential candidate with a refreshing vision for America, Dean now spends no time pursuing ideas and proposals that would help working men and women. Instead, he's devoting his time and energy begging for money at the same contribution slop trough as his opponents while hurling insults at Republicans and indulging in petty name-calling. Instead of articulating a vision and plan to help the United States win the war in Iraq, he said simply late last year, "The idea that the United States is going to win the war in Iraq is just plain wrong." And when Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki was to address a joint session of Congress, Dean called him an anti-Semite for criticizing Israel. The petulant DNC chairman outdid himself by comparing an inconsequential Republican congresswoman, Katherine Harris of Florida, to the rather consequential Joseph Stalin. The incomparable Howard Dean managed to do that while calling for an end to political divisiveness. The Democrats want to wrest control of Congress from Republicans, and they have a better than average opportunity to accomplish the feat. The next five weeks just might be a good time for frustrated, disgusted constituents to ask what it will take to elect a Congress willing to represent working men and women and their families. And let me know what you hear. ____________________ Some are born to sweet delight, some are born to endless night.

by **johnny nemo** » Wed Aug 02, 2006 6:43 pm

Nice sweeping generalization. Too bad it's B.S. <a href="http://www.politicalaffairs.net/article/view/2967/1/156">www.politicalaffairs.net/...2967/1/156</a> Comparison of Dems and GOP in Congress By Political Affairs The following is a comparison of the voting records of some of the top members of Congress from the major parties. The percentages given represent the number of times a representative sided with working people on the issues. The first number indicates how often over their career that representative supported working people on the right to organize unions, minimum wage increases, health and safety protections on the job, affirmative action, ending job discrimination and Social Security privatization. The second number reflects how the representative has voted in this session of Congress on issues related to protecting civil rights, such as provision of education funding, sound immigration policy, confirmation of ultra right judges, anti-poverty programs, and Social Security privatization.  For example, you might read Rep. Dennis Hastert’s record as siding with working people on labor issues 7 percent of the time and on civil rights issues 0 percent of the time. Legislator US House of Representatives Speaker of the House Dennis Hastert (R-IL) 7% 0% House Majority Leader John Boehner (R-OH) 4% 0% Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) 95% 100% Indicted member of the House Rep. Tom DeLay (R-TX) 3% 0% Convicted member of the House Rep. Randy "Duke" Cunningham (R-CA) 8% 0% Judiciary Committee James Sensenbrenner (R-WI) 10% 0% John Conyers (D-MI) 94% 100% Armed Services Committee Duncan Hunter (R-CA) 19% 0% Ike Skelton (D-MO) 71% 78% Energy and Commerce Committee Joe Barton (R-TX) 7% 0% John Dingell (D-MI) 93% 100% Appropriations Committee Jerry Lewis (R-CA) 13% 0% David Obey (D-WI) 90% 100% Budget Jim Nussle (R-IA) 13% 0% John Spratt (D-SC) 77% 100% Ways and Means Bill Thomas (R-CA) 11% 22% Charles Rangel (D-NY) 95% 100% Education and Workforce Howard McKeon (R-CA) 6% 0% George Miller (D-CA) 93% 100% Legislator US Senate Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-TN) 7% 0% Minority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) 91% 88% Appropriations Committee Thad Cochran (R-MS) 14% 0% Robert Byrd (D-WV) 78% 76% Veterans’ Affairs Larry Craig (R-ID) 10% 6% Daniel Akaka (D-HI) 94% 100% Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs Richard Shelby (R-AL) 42% 0% Paul Sarbanes (D-MD) 96% 100% Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Mike Enzi (R-WY) 8% 0% Edward Kennedy (D-MA) 93% 100% Judiciary Arlen Specter (R-PA) 62% 24% Patrick Leahy (D-VT) 87% 88% Budget Judd Gregg (R-NH) 3% 0% Kent Conrad (D-ND) 84% 65% Foreign Relations Richard Lugar (R-IN) 9% 12% Joseph R. Biden, Jr. (D-DE) 84% 82% Obviously, Democratic control of Congress would bring about a dramatic shift in the legislative agenda. Republicans are clearly opposed to the interests of working people and dislike civil rights protections. If the real interests of the majority, working people, are to be advanced, we are going to have go to the polls on November 7 and reject Republican domination of Congress and our lives. Sources: AFL-CIO and Leadership Conference on Civil Rights. Edited by: <A HREF=http://p216.ezboard.com/brigorousintuition.showUserPublicProfile?gid=johnnynemo>johnny nemo</A> at: 8/2/06 4:45 pm

by **johnny nemo** » Wed Aug 02, 2006 7:12 pm

<blockquote>Quote:<hr>The petulant DNC chairman outdid himself by comparing an inconsequential Republican congresswoman, Katherine Harris of Florida, to the rather consequential Joseph Stalin. The incomparable Howard Dean managed to do that while calling for an end to political divisiveness.<hr></blockquote> WHAT?!? INCONSEQUENTIAL?!? She stacked the deck, so that W. could steal the election, when she was Secretary of State for the state of Florida. She had been Bush's Florida campaign co-chair the year before, which is clearly a conflict of interest. She purged from 55,000 poor people from the voter rolls, claiming they were "felons". Many had no criminal convictions, but had the same names and birthdays as the felons; others were convicted only of misdemeanors, which does not deprive them of the right to vote. Some, such as Thomas Cooper, even lost the right to vote because of alleged crimes committed in the future (Thomas Cooper's conviction date was January 30, 2007.) It was an illegal purge, which was Stalin's calling card, so the comparison is valid. You really gotta read and do some REAL investigations, before you post crap like this.

by **Et in Arcadia ego** » Wed Aug 02, 2006 9:14 pm

The point is, the Democrats in office pretty much occupy empty chairs and provide little to no reistance to the republican hegemony. If there was anything out there that WASN'T crap, I'd be busy having a good day for once instead of cursing every piece of shit news or article published daily.. When was the last time you read good news? ____________________ Some are born to sweet delight, some are born to endless night.

by **BannedfromDU** » Wed Aug 02, 2006 9:19 pm

Dems are pathetic, incompetent, or complicit. Take your pick. I've been through all three phases of thinking, arriving at complicity,

by **BannedfromDU** » Wed Aug 02, 2006 10:02 pm

Published on Wednesday, August 2, 2006 by the Boulder Daily Camera (Colorado) Bush is After Our Rights by Marie Cocco To turn our eyes momentarily from the terrifying war in the Middle East is to discover an ever-more ominous turn in the Bush administration's war on terror. Having been barred by the Supreme Court from treating foreign terrorism suspects as if they had few — or no — legal rights, the president's initial response is not to comply with the high court's finding that detainees must be treated under accepted standards of international law. In fact, the White House pushes to extend the ill treatment to American citizens. That is, effectively, what the administration's draft of new rules for the military detention and trial of terrorism suspects would do. News and human rights organizations that have obtained the document, marked "deliberative draft — close hold," have criticized the way in which it would obliterate the Supreme Court's ruling. It seeks to have Congress write into law essentially the same procedures for military trials that the high court just said were illegal. That is, terrorism suspects still could be excluded from the courtroom, evidence could be withheld from the defense, and the Geneva Conventions — which the Supreme Court explicitly said must apply, would be circumvented. More chilling is that the draft makes clear that the president wishes to impose these conditions upon any American citizen he calls an "enemy combatant." A copy of the draft made public by The Washington Post shows that, while an initial version anticipated military trials only for "alien" enemy combatants, the word "alien" is subsequently crossed out. Instead, the document refers time and again to "persons" who are detainees. A "person," under this draft, could be an American seized at a shopping mall, or in a suburban backyard. Here, then, is how the government could treat American citizens if this draft were to become law: A citizen could be designated an "enemy combatant" (a term the administration has never clearly defined) and held in a military prison. There, the citizen would have no right to a speedy trial. Any trials, the draft says, could occur "at any time without limitations." Once the citizen is tried under rules that mock the constitutional protections he would receive in a federal court, or in a U.S. military court-martial, the outcome would mean little. An acquittal would not necessarily free the detainee. Neither would a sentence imposed, say, for two or three years and served in full. "An acquittal or conviction under this act does not preclude the United States, in accordance with the law of war, to detain enemy combatants until the cessation of hostilities as a means to prevent their return to the fight." Of course, "the fight" as defined in the draft is not necessarily an armed battle. People may be designated "enemy combatants" and subject to these rules if the president and the Pentagon believe they are now or were once "part of, or supporting" the Taliban, al-Qaeda or "associated forces." Support isn't defined. It could mean shouting "long live Osama!" while walking down Pennsylvania Avenue. All these powers are rightly the president's because he is commander in chief of the armed forces, according to the draft. This is the precise argument the White House has tried, again and again, to get the Supreme Court to accept. It has failed. In two cases in which President Bush indeed did detain American citizens indefinitely and without charge, the courts derailed the effort. After the Supreme Court ruled against the administration two years ago in the case of Yaser Hamdi, the military released him and returned him to his family in Saudi Arabia. In a second case involving Jose Padilla, a citizen who was picked up at Chicago's O'Hare Airport, the government finally issued an indictment four years into his detainment — just as the Supreme Court was considering Padilla's case. The Bush administration now seeks from Congress an authorization for the blank check it once sought to give itself. If lawmakers hand him this, they will be handing over rights that Americans may never regain. <a href="http://www.commondreams.org/views06/0802-28.htm">---LINK---</a>

by **johnny nemo** » Thu Aug 03, 2006 1:30 pm

First of all, The DNC changed heads to Howard Dean, who called Bush on his B.S. many times. So we may have bootlickers like Joke Lieberman, but we're trying to replace him with Ned Lamont. Also, we have Cynthia McKinney. Only the Dems speak truth to power like this. <a href="http://www.fromthewilderness.com/free/ww3/031505_mckinney_transcript.shtml">www.fromthewilderness.com...ript.shtml</a> Transcript of Representative Cynthia McKinney's Exchange with Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Richard Myers, and Under Secretary of Defense (Comptroller) Tina Jonas, March 11th, 2005 Sec. of Defense Rumsfeld in House Hearing on FY06 Dept. of Defense Budget Chairman Representative Duncan Hunter (R-CA) and witnesses Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld and JCS Chairman General Richard Myers hold a House Hearing on the FY 2006 Budget for the Department of Defense and Military Services. 3/11/2005: WASHINGTON, DC: 2 hr. 5 min. CMK: Congresswoman Cynthia McKinney (D-GA) DR: Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld RM: Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Richard Myers TJ: Under Secretary of Defense (Comptroller) Tina Jonas DH: Chairman Representative Duncan Hunter (R-CA) 25:20 CMK: Thank you Mr. Chairman. Mr. Secretary, I watched President Bush deliver a moving speech at the United Nations in September 2003, in which he mentioned the crisis of the sex trade. The President called for the punishment of those involved in this horrible business. But at the very moment of that speech, DynCorp was exposed for having been involved in the buying and selling of young women and children. While all of this was going on, DynCorp kept the Pentagon contract to administer the smallpox and anthrax vaccines, and is now working on a plague vaccine through the Joint Vaccine Acquisition Program. Mr. Secretary, is it [the] policy of the U.S. Government to reward companies that traffic in women and little girls? That's my first question. My second question, Mr. Secretary: according to the Comptroller General of the United States, there are serious financial management problems at the Pentagon, to which Mr. Cooper alluded. Fiscal Year 1999: $2.3 trillion missing. Fiscal Year 2000, $1.1 trillion missing.  And DoD is the number one reason why the government can't balance its checkbook. The Pentagon has claimed year after year that the reason it can't account for the money is because its computers don't communicate with each other. My second question, Mr. Secretary, is who has the contracts today, to make those systems communicate with each other? How long have they had those contracts, and how much have the taxpayers paid for them? Finally Mr. Secretary, after the last Hearing, I thought that my office was promised a written response to my question regarding the four wargames on September 11th. I have not yet received that response, but would like for you to respond to the questions that I've put to you today. And then I do expect the written response to my previous question - hopefully by the end of the week. 27:26 DR: Thank you, Representative. First, the answer to your first question is, is, no, absolutely not, the policy of the United States Government is clear, unambiguous, and opposed to the activities that you described. The second question - CMK: Well how do you explain the fact that DynCorp and its successor companies have received and continue to receive government contracts? DR: I would have to go and find the facts, but there are laws and rules and regulations with respect to government contracts, and there are times that corporations do things they should not do, in which case they tend to be suspended for some period; there are times then that the - under the laws and the rules and regulations for the - passed by the Congress and implemented by the Executive branch - that corporations can get off of - out of the penalty box if you will, and be permitted to engage in contracts with the government. They're generally not barred in perpetuity - CMK: This contract - this company - was never in the penalty box. If you could proceed to my second question, please. DR: The second question - I've forgotten what the second question was. CMK: I think Ms. Jonas knows it. DR: Okay. 29:00 TJ: Thank you Ms. McKinney. I appreciate the question and I appreciate your interest in our Department's financial condition. We are working very hard on that program. I've just come back, recently - CMK: I understand that you're working hard on it, but my question was who has the contract? How long have they had that contract, and how much money have we spent on it? TJ: There are - In general we spend about $20 billion dollars in the Department on information technology systems. The accounting systems are part of that. I can get you the exact number for the record, of what we spend on our current, what we call "legacy systems," and those that we're moving toward. CMK: And who has the contract? TJ: That would be a multitude of individuals that have - CMK: Could you name some, please? TJ: Well, I think of the top of the, off the top of my head, well, I would rather not; I'd rather provide that for the record. CMK: That's not privileged information, is it? TJ: I'm sure it's not. CMK: Well, please. We still have time, so, please. TJ: I would be glad to provide for the record; I don't want to talk from the top of my head and be incorrect. DR: On your first question, I'm advised by DR. Chu that it was not the corporation that was engaged in the activities you characterized but I'm told it was an employee of the corporation, and it was some years ago in the Balkans that that took place. CMK: It's my understanding that it continues to take place, and that - DR: Is that right? CMK: Yes. DR: Well if you can give me information to that effect, we will - CMK: I'm sure you are interested in all of the information that I have and I'll be more than happy to provide it to you. DR: Good. Thank you. CMK: But I would also like to get information from you, for example, the information that I just requested about who has those contracts. DH: Let me assure the gentlelady that we'll make sure that this exchange of information takes place and that, Mr. Secretary if you can get back with us on the DynCorp - DR: We will - DH: - story, we'll get that to the gentlelady. CMK: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. DR: We'll get back on both of the first two questions but the Congresswoman has raised the other question twice now, and I'd like to have general Myers respond, because you mentioned it in the last Hearing and I think it'd be helpful to get the answer even though we're on red, if you don't mind, Mr. Chairman? DH: General Myers, go right ahead. CMK: But I would like to have the answer in writing as well, as I thought my office was promised. RM: Okay I don't know about the promise, Congresswoman, but could you repeat the question to make sure I'm answering the right question; this is a 9/11 question. 31:25 CMK: The question was, we had four wargames going on on September 11th, and the question that I tried to pose before the Secretary had to go to lunch was whether or not the activities of the four wargames going on on September 11th actually impaired our ability to respond to the attacks. RM: The answer to the question is no, it did not impair our response, in fact General Eberhart who was in the command of the North American Aerospace Defense Command as he testified in front of the 9/11 Commission I believe - I believe he told them that it enhanced our ability to respond, given that NORAD didn't have the overall responsibility for responding to the attacks that day. That was an FAA responsibility. But they were two CPXs; there was one Department of Justice exercise that didn't have anything to do with the other three; and there was an actual operation ongoing because there was some Russian bomber activity up near Alaska. So we - CMK: Let me ask you this, then: who was in charge of managing those wargames? DH: General, why don't you give the best answer that you can here in a short a period of time and we'll - the gentlelady wants to get a written answer anyway, and then we can move on to other folks. RM: The important thing to realize is that North American Aerospace Defense Command was responsible. These are command post exercises; what that means is that all the battle positions that are normally not filled are indeed filled; so it was an easy transition from an exercise into a real world situation. It actually enhanced the response; otherwise, it would take somewhere between 30 minutes and a couple of hours to fill those positions, those battle stations, with the right staff officers. CMK: Mr. Chairman, begging your indulgence, was September Eleventh declared a National Security Special Event day? RM: I have to look back; I do not know. Do you mean after the fact, or CMK: No. Because of the activities going on that had been scheduled at the United Nations that day. RM: I'd have to go back and check. I don't know.

by **professorpan** » Thu Aug 03, 2006 1:48 pm

Yeah, I don't buy the "all Democrats are complicit" line. There are some in the party who take their opposition status seriously. And because we're currently stuck with a two-party system, I'll work with the Dems to fight the Bush cultists instead of shrugging my shoulders and giving up entirely. And as Johnny Nemo has pointed out, the Dems are the last line of defense against total annihlation of government for the people. If we didn't have them to block some of the more egregious attempts at right-wing takeover, we'd be much further along the path to total fascist rule.

by **dugoboy** » Thu Aug 03, 2006 2:26 pm

hey sure some people are good, of innocent intent, but theres a good section who do not fight at all. by the way howard dean is a joke, a useful idiot i believe is a good term to use. we would not be where we are if it weren't for the complicity of the dems. i won't say to discount them, but there is very little need to think they'll save us. only we can save ourselves. joe lieberman is obviously an agenda operative, why the fuck would he run as an independent? lol. you figure most politicians would give up by now and let ned lamont continue on for the benefit of the party. cynthia mckinney? she is probably one of the only true people who cares. but guess what? she'll probably be kicked out because she hit a cop, completely bogus story but its what they do to true truth seekers. people are ignorant and i don't see her coming back. Edited by: <A HREF=http://p216.ezboard.com/brigorousintuition.showUserPublicProfile?gid=dugoboy@rigorousintuition>dugoboy</A> at: 8/3/06 12:31 pm

by **thrulookingglass** » Thu Aug 03, 2006 5:50 pm

Stop! It's this simple: "do you want the puppet on your right hand or the left?"-linklater Any difference between the republicrats and democans is an illusion in your head. It's an illusion of choice, an illusion that has you thinking "there is a democracy, look two different views". Rarely, there is a leftist democrat that challenges the lack of distinction between parties (Wellstone). It is a horrible illusion that we labor under here in USA, that the elected officials listen to the voices of their constituents. Business has such a greater influence than the common man. Edited by: <A HREF=http://p216.ezboard.com/brigorousintuition.showUserPublicProfile?gid=thrulookingglass@rigorousintuition>thrulookingglass</A> at: 8/3/06 3:58 pm

by **professorpan** » Thu Aug 03, 2006 5:59 pm

<blockquote>Quote:<hr>Any difference between the republicrats and democans is an illusion in your head.<hr></blockquote> No, it's not. Anyone who has actually followed politics in the U.S. -- i.e. watched the sausage-making process, from bill to law -- can see a distinct difference between the Democratic and Republican agendas. I'm as critical of suck-up, corporate-owned Democrats as anyone. But there is a difference -- in many cases, a very big difference. I happen to live in a very Blue state, by choice, and my Congresscritters rarely vote in opposition to my views and beliefs. They are diametrically opposed to the Republican agenda on almost every issue.

by **BannedfromDU** » Thu Aug 03, 2006 6:20 pm

Allow me to revise. I am an independant. Make no mistake, I am voting straight Dem, and do know there are still some honest (semi) politicians in the D party. I see the breakdown as R's 95% corrupt, the D's 30% corrupt. The parasitic multinational/crime syndicate enablers need to be held to account.

Dobbs lets 'er rip against the Dems..

Dobbs lets 'er rip against the Dems..

Hogwash

Seriously stupid hogwash

Re: Seriously stupid hogwash

Re: Seriously stupid hogwash

Re: Dobbs lets 'er rip against the Dems..

Not all the Dems

Re: Not all the Dems

complicity

Re: complicity

Re: complicity

Re: complicity

Who is online