You should kick that sister in law out of the family, or at the least, not invite her to family gatherings where she might disagree with you all.  Why would you even think about letting such an obviously moronic and intolerant bish into an elite discussion anyway? 
[right][snapback]32847[/snapback][/right]

LOL "no one agreed with her, sad"
This person obviously beelieves that others' need her approval.
[right][snapback]32868[/snapback][/right]

That may be how you deal with your family, but we do it differently.
[right][snapback]33023[/snapback][/right]

That may be how you deal with your family, but we do it differently.
[right][snapback]33023[/snapback][/right]

Not really, I simply acknowledge her discomfort. Most humans need the approval of their families, I'd say.

Cynthia can take care of herself fine, without YOUR approval, or mine, for sure.

   
[right][snapback]33024[/snapback][/right]

Sad.

Dumb ass brother.
[right][snapback]33025[/snapback][/right]

All we know about her is that you think she's a right wing nut moron.
[right][snapback]33033[/snapback][/right]

That's the problem with RWers, they think they know everything Even the thoughts of others and the will of God. I'd never presume that.

God gave women free will so it follows that God thinks it's ok to kill babies.  The logic is just sooo good!  Any more Bee logic running around out there tonight?
[right][snapback]33034[/snapback][/right]

So many RW jerks running around claiming to know what I think

That's the problem with RWers, they think they know everything Even the thoughts of others and the will of God. I'd never presume that.



I do pity those that do, tho.
[right][snapback]33046[/snapback][/right]

He gave women the option of terminating a pregnancy, absolutely. He gave men free will to kill "babies" as well as their mothers and they certainly do, don't they?



[right][snapback]33049[/snapback][/right]

Nuthin' worse than having a family member stray from the plantation and become a RWM.

Nuthin'.
[right][snapback]33059[/snapback][/right]

It must be terribly painful.  Do they have lke a Hillary rehab center for that?
[right][snapback]33060[/snapback][/right]

Oh, I see.  You didn't really think what you said about your poor sis in law, right.

You never ever really try to talk down from your blue state ivory tower to us poor, ignorant dumbass red staters, do you?

I'll just have to call bullshit on that one, and move on.,       
[right][snapback]33056[/snapback][/right]

You have balls calling me out on evasive answers, or talking down to others.

You're the king of condescending pomposity,don't worry, I don't even come close.


[right][snapback]33139[/snapback][/right]

I have balls and you don't.  Get over it. 
[right][snapback]33151[/snapback][/right]

Yeah, and I'm a ball buster, according to you, so... get over it.


[right][snapback]33155[/snapback][/right]

That's what girls with penile envy try to do.
[right][snapback]33157[/snapback][/right]

It does explain a lot.


[right][snapback]33163[/snapback][/right]

Please show the logical steps you used to arrive at this conclusion.
[right][snapback]33169[/snapback][/right]

Why ma'am, I used twisted Bart logic.

It sure is fun. Stupid, but fun.
[right][snapback]33231[/snapback][/right]

What logical steps did you take to use this Bart logic?

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzooooooooooooooommmmmmmmmmmmmmmm!!!!!!
[right][snapback]33261[/snapback][/right]

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzooooooooooooooommmmmmmmmmmmmmmm!!!!!!
[right][snapback]33261[/snapback][/right]

Yo barto, I don't have all the answers about the creation of life. Could be a supreme being that made everything. I don't know. I can't prove it by any means.

Blind faith, creationism and science are not compatible.
[right][snapback]33275[/snapback][/right]

Damn, it's great to be back...can't think of any more fitting way to bring in the new year than reading posts by Bee on "logic" and davis on "creationism".
[right][snapback]33307[/snapback][/right]

rednecks + religion = extreme stupidity and arrogance.
[right][snapback]33309[/snapback][/right]

Only in the blue NE states.
[right][snapback]33313[/snapback][/right]

Bzzzzzzzzzzzzt. Wrong answer. You forgot "northern" (Bay Area) California. The ugliest people I know live there. Treatise in progress.
[right][snapback]33317[/snapback][/right]

QUOTE(lil bart @ Dec 28 2004, 12:49 PM)
Bzzzzzzzzzzzzt. Wrong answer. You forgot "northern" (Bay Area) California. The ugliest people I know live there. Treatise in progress.

yeah thanks.
[right][snapback]33331[/snapback][/right]

yeah thanks.
[right][snapback]33331[/snapback][/right]

ditto on the sarcastic thanks

Lil, no hurry on that treatise.  Take your time.
[right][snapback]33332[/snapback][/right]

hmm. It's cool. I meant to tell you I ordered that A Working Stiff's Manifesto as you recommended.
My only complaint was that it was too short. Thanks.
[right][snapback]33336[/snapback][/right]

I die happy. 

DID YOU REALLY????!!!!! Woo Hoo!!!        Ain't that book a straight-shootin' hoot and ten halves?!
[right][snapback]33339[/snapback][/right]

So you gents are generously providing the exceptions to prove my rule? No prob.

I did not say, "Everyone who lives there is ugly & an idiot."

Now, did I? 
[right][snapback]33334[/snapback][/right]

Here's yet another in a long line of ethical lapses by the very authors of the Contract for America, the fine, upstanding men of god who said, no ...vowed to bring  honor and respectability to Congress. What happened to these guys? Values? Morals? WHERE??? Where's your god now boys? So DeLay is supposed to be a born again Christian, huh? "Values" just don't mean the same thing it used to. Some would even advocate cheating to make up for percieved wrongdoing. Is that moral? Wooooo!!!! How can you faith-based people defend this kind of behavior? Oh, right, it's the individual not the religion or the party.

G.O.P. to Make Ethics Inquiries Harder to Begin
By CARL HULSE and KATHARINE Q. SEELYE

Published: December 30, 2004

WASHINGTON, Dec. 29 - In the wake of back-to-back ethics slaps at the House majority leader, Tom DeLay, House Republicans are preparing to make it more difficult to initiate ethics investigations and could remove the Republican chairman who presided over the admonishments of Mr. DeLay last fall.

A House leadership aide said a package of rules changes to be presented to the House when Congress convenes on Tuesday could include a plan that would require a majority vote of the ethics panel to pursue a formal investigation. Now, a deadlock on the panel, which is evenly split between parties, keeps a case pending. The possible change, the aide said, would mean that a tie vote would effectively dismiss the case.

The aide said the change would instill more bipartisanship in ethics cases. But Democrats and outside groups said the proposal would dilute an already weak ethics process.

It remained uncertain whether Representative Joel Hefley of Colorado, the current chairman of the panel, would stay in that post. A spokesman for Speaker J. Dennis Hastert, who would play a chief role in determining the appointment, said no decision had been made.

Many Republicans expressed dissatisfaction with Mr. Hefley after the committee reports critical of Mr. DeLay were issued, saying he had allowed Democrats to score political points against Mr. DeLay for conduct that did not merit such scrutiny.

But the potential for change in the chairmanship has drawn fire from Democrats. "It is our responsibility to uphold a high ethical standard," Representative Nancy Pelosi of California, the House Democratic leader, said in a statement Wednesday. "Removing a chair of the ethics committee for upholding that standard would be a stain on the House of Representatives."

Democrats are planning to try next week to force a floor vote on a proposal requiring any member of either party's leadership to step aside if indicted on a criminal charge. The move would reverse last month's vote by Republicans, in a closed-door party meeting, to eliminate such a requirement for Republicans to protect Mr. DeLay should he be indicted in a campaign finance inquiry under way in Texas.

In Texas, state Republican legislative leaders and party officials are considering some maneuvers of their own in light of the investigation. One proposal would take authority for prosecuting the campaign finance case away from the Democratic district attorney in Austin and give it to the state attorney general, a Republican. Another possible move would legalize corporate campaign contributions like those that figure into the state case.

The October rulings by the House ethics panel regarding Mr. DeLay came after years of inaction by the panel, a stance attributed to an unofficial truce between the two parties over the filing of complaints after several bitter and partisan ethics fights in the 1990's.

Listen to this, they say he went to far. He bribed a fellow representative and then threatened his son's political career over his Medicare vote. DeLay should be awaiting charges.

In the first, Mr. DeLay was admonished for going too far in trying to persuade a lawmaker to support a Medicare prescription drug law. In the second, he was criticized for giving the appearance of granting undue access at a fund-raising event and for involving a federal agency in a political matter in Texas.

But the panel also later chastised Representative Chris Bell, the Texas Democrat who initiated a complaint against Mr. DeLay after losing his own seat, for exaggerating the accusations.

He did not exagerrate anything, It's worse than that.
Republicans said the tone of the complaint showed that lawmakers needed to be more accountable for ethics filings, and some called for new controls on complaints and a ban on outside groups working with lawmakers to prepare them.

Representative David Dreier, Republican of California and chairman of the Rules Committee, has indicated he will consider changes in the ethics process but his office could provide no details Wednesday night.

Members of outside groups that monitor the ethics process said they were not certain what would be proposed but they expected Republicans to try to deter new cases, particularly in light of the possibility of more growing out of an inquiry into lobbying on Indian gambling issues.

"They are trying to put the genie back in the bottle, and it is all seemingly to protect one man," said Tom Fitton, president of the conservative group Judicial Watch and part of a coalition pressing for stronger ethics rules.

Mr. Fitton and others said an effort to oust Mr. Hefley would smack of retaliation.

"The removal of Representative Hefley would constitute a declaration of war against ethics in the House," said Fred Wertheimer, president of Democracy 21.

The Washington Post reported Wednesday that a possible replacement for Mr. Hefley would be Representative Lamar Smith, Republican of Texas and a former member of the panel. Mr. Smith this year contributed $5,000 from his campaign account to Mr. DeLay's legal defense. Aides said Mr. Smith had not been approached about the post.

In Texas, no bills have been introduced regarding the jurisdictional issues or campaign contributions. But Andrew Taylor, a prominent Republican lawyer in Austin, recently told The Austin American-Statesman that he expected to be lobbying to legalize corporate donations when the Legislature returns in January.

And Texas Republicans have made it clear that they want to transfer the authority for prosecuting the case away from Ronnie Earle, the Travis County district attorney, and give it to Greg Abbott, the state attorney general.

Earlier this year, the executive committee of the Republican Party of Texas endorsed transferring state money for the public integrity unit from the Travis County district attorney to the state attorney general.

The unit was moved to the county office by the State Legislature, not the State Constitution, so the Legislature can return it, said Sherry Sylvester, a spokeswoman for the Texas Republican Party. Ms. Sylvester said that allowing the local district attorney's office to prosecute state cases because it covered the state capital is analogous to giving a District of Columbia district attorney the power to prosecute members of Congress.

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/12/30/politics...artner=homepage
[right][snapback]33820[/snapback][/right]

Allegations.
[right][snapback]33855[/snapback][/right]

Allegations which will now be all the harder to sort out.

CYA-in-action.
[right][snapback]33867[/snapback][/right]

Burying the Bribe
Investigating Rep. Smith's charge is not "appropriate"?
By Timothy Noah
Posted Thursday, Jan. 22, 2004, at 6:18 PM PT


It's been a busy week for political news—the Iowa caucuses, the State of the Union address—making it the ideal moment for the House ethics committee to announce quietly that an investigation into a bribery allegation by Rep. Nick Smith, R-Mich., against the House Republican leadership would have "little to go on." In a written statement, Chairman Joel Hefley, R-Colo., said his committee was stymied by the fact that "a complaint has not been filed before the committee." As Hefley well knows, the ethics committee doesn't need a House member to file a complaint before launching an investigation. But he's poised to use that as an excuse to bury the Medicare bribe story.

Last month, Hefley said it would be "appropriate ... for the ethics committee to look into" Smith's allegation, even though Smith had clumsily retracted it. Since then, an investigation has only grown more "appropriate." What little credibility Smith's retraction had back then was undone by the emergence of two pieces of evidence. The first was a tape-recording of a pre-recantation radio interview (to listen to it, Mr. Chairman, click here) in which Smith very clearly described a "$100,000-plus" contribution to his son's campaign for Congress in exchange for his "yea" vote on the Medicare prescription bill. (Smith declined.) That meets the statutory definition of a bribe under United States Code, Title 18, Section 201, "Bribery of public officials and witnesses."   The second piece of evidence was a story in the Washington Post that produced two witnesses—one of whom, Rep. Gil Gutknecht, R-Minn., went on the record—who said they distinctly heard Smith say the bribe was offered by someone in the House leadership. Smith, presumably in a panic that his recantation had been shot full of holes, made a touchingly inept effort to plug them with ludicrous assertions, the most absurd of which was that he only told the radio interviewer about an offered "100,000-plus" contribution because Robert Novak had reported it that way.

ALLEGATIONS??
Apparently you haven't heard this little jewel. Nick Smith retracted the statement the next day after he realized he'd accused the Republican leadership of making a bribe.

You want to hear the "allegations" of bribery from REPUBLICAN Nick Smith's own mouth? Or will you still cover for these maggots? How honest are you?
Follow the link to the radio interview with Nick Smith.

I am sick of this shit. They are crooks and now they've gutted the ethics commttee to get away with it. PERIOD. If you can't see that you're blind.
[right][snapback]33906[/snapback][/right]

Your posts are becoming colorful works of art, but you are still full of shit.